I think you are totally off. Never lived in Paris but I lived in Barcelona for many years, during the transformation to be more car-hostile and bikes and pedestrians friendly. I spent there my 20s-30s and left when I had a family but due to (public) school scarcity in our neighborhood and rent prices. But mobility was not the issue at all. It was actually a pleasure bring my daughter to her kindergarten by bike and then go to the office.
And I think Paris and Barcelona share a lot in that respect (the mayors - Hidalgo and Colau - met a lot to discuss exactly those topics and share experiences).
Barcelona is in Spain, on the Mediterranean, where the weather is fair all year long. It's not the case in many parts of the world. Bicycles are a rather dangerous mode of transportation, and I wouldn't use it with kids, especially in a city.
I would never go with my kids on a bike on any road that's shared with cars. The risk, as small as it is, is still unacceptable to me.
Don't know about Germany, but in Netherlands it's solved with having proper cycling infrastructure. It's the right approach, but it is still more of an exception. Where I am at they just painted cycle paths on existing roads and then tried to make it safer by cutting speed limit in half and eliminating lots of street parking. And now it's a mess that doesn't work well for anyone. Next elections are in a year, will be interesting to see how that will go.
Dangerous because a city provides many ways for a cyclist to fall or hit something or someone. In France, data shows that 2/3 of cyclists' "serious accidents" don't involve another road user.
https://www.cerema.fr/system/files/documents/2024/05/3._2024...
In other words, you want them to invest more money into building safer cyclist infrastructure?
An obstacle isn't going to magically pop into existence the moment you mount a bicycle. Car-centric road design can indeed be dangerous to cyclists, but that says more about the road design than it does about the concept of cycling. Build better roads and cycling isn't dangerous!
Do you live in a world where money is infinite? I'd rather have very good public transport, which is accessible to everyone, safe and can give physical workers so rest and a quiet time after work, than bike lanes everywhere.
And the problem with removing cars from the city center is that many users still need cars, either because they have families, or because they work and need a motorized vehicle (e.g a plumber).
Because a plumber needs to carry heavy things, such as a water heater tank, and possibly more as he will intervene on multiple places during his day? And that he may need to get back to the shop/depot in the suburb during the day to get additional parts, if needed? Do you live in a magical word where things teleport by themselves?
I've never worked with a plumber that has anything they need in their van / truck. They always need to go buy something. This departure generally doubles the cost of whatever plumbing is happening.
> 35% des cyclistes tués, 63% des cyclistes blessés gravement le sont dans un accident sans autre véhicule impliqué.
35% of cyclist deaths, and 63% of cyclist seriously injured occur in an accident with no other party involved.
Another graph in that report shows that a vast majority of cyclist deaths occur while cycling for leisure. I would hazard that most cycling in cities is utilitarian.
Yes, this will be the road racer guys (it is mostly guys) screwing up while descending an Alp or Pyrenee. Split-second safety margins and if you get it wrong on a 60kph descent - or someone else gets it wrong, or you suffer a mechanical failure - you're likely dead.
A city is a much more dangerous environment. You have bollards, stupid pedestrians who keep on trying to circulate on YOUR sidewalk, potholes, dogs, and so on.
I don't disagree that commuting by bicycle can be hazardous, but the major risks to cyclist safety are cars, trucks and other cyclists (mainly e-bikes). Pedestrians, potholes, bollards, etc. are no worse than an inconvenience most of the time. You just don't build up enough speed to cause that much damage in a busy city due to a fall or colliding with a pedestrian. OTOH, even the mildest collision between a bike and a car is generally a Bad Time for the cyclist.
Source: me, who commutes by bike daily through a capital city.
It's really not, because speeds are so much lower - and injury is, by and large, related to kinetic energy which is the _square_ of speed.
OK, cycling at 50km/h in a city is dangerous and stupid (if you're even physically capable of doing so, which few are?). 30km/h in suburbs / 20km/h in the centre is mostly fine, and 10 for busy complicated spaces.
30km/h is slow enough to prevent the vast majority of crashes being fatal, and 20km/h will avoid most serious injuries.
Kinetic power is lower, that said you can still hurt yourself pretty bad depending on how you fall. A wrist doesn't need a lot of force to break, nor a skull needs to fall from high to cause trauma. A cyclist on a sidewalk going at 20km/h can cripple a child for life (not that the cyclist cares, but just for the example).
I broke my wrist by falling from my bike when I was younger, almost while stopped (my wheel got blocked in a tram rail).
And yet if you look at the public health statistics for the things _actually_ crippling children for life, "other people on bikes" are a very long way down the list - at least in most places; I don't know if Paris has a specific problem there. You can hurt yourself pretty bad in the home, after all - the major causes here seem to be cars and dogs.
(Before we even consider that - at population level and in developed Western countries - lack of physical activity, and an environment which actively suppresses it through sheer indifference if not outright hostility - is likely inflicting a far greater burden on childrens' health and wellbeing than trauma).
It really matters what kind of cycling is being done with no other party involved. I injured myself only when I was doing "leisure cycling". I did get almost ran over by a dumb college student once during a commute ride, though.
I'm a huge supporter of public transit, but cyclists are a common enemy for everyone: cars, pedestrians, public transit-takers, other cyclists.
I remember seeing another study here on HN a couple of years ago that showed that actually, the all cause mortality of cyclists comunter was actually lower, because the higher risk of road accident was largely compensated by the benefits of exercise. But I can't find the article anymore.
With uBlock Origin you can actually click on the first Google results for any search, scroll down a bit the initial yadda yadda and find the actual answer to your search even in those webSEOtes that are usually just ads over ads.
I'm in the market for a fitness smartwatch focused on running, I have a Garmin 500 something for my bike - it was a gift - and I totally hate its UI/UX. It's not touch, super slow to refresh, maps already don't get updates, the Garmin "generate a random track" sent me on gravel/rock terrain when I have a road bike, the app try to cross-sell you other shit etc.
Is at least the watches UI better?
> Either you believe in the society you live in, or you don't.
This makes GP even more correct. One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.
> One can believe (and like) part of the society one lives in but not like other parts, or plainly think they are wrong and should be changed at all costs.
Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".
> Sure but I mean in terms of the abstract. The idea that those most successful may have to pay more in taxation, the idea that justice should be blind and that everyone deserves a trial. I guess the tipping point is when your belief in the part of society that are wrong are so extreme that you think its ok to undermine society (e.g. steal public money, push infront of queues, etc) in order to combat that "wrong".
There are much more nuances and rules in (today's?) society. Just a quick examples of things that can be considered good but are actually controversial if you stir it a bit: there are concepts considered "rights" almost everywhere, yet you have to pay money to actually enjoy them, and if you don't have money, you lose the "right" (i.e. home). You can be in favor of the right but not of the implementation.
Yep this. The EU is one of the champions on regulatory self-owns/own-goals like these by pushing legislation that sounds good on the surface without too much though, but ends up having worse send and third order effects.
Examples like:
Giving preference to diesel vehicles because they produced less C02 than gasoline cars, while ignoring the much worse NOx and particulate for human respiratory heath that diesel engines produce(possible lobby from EU car brands involved).
Denuclearization, because nuclear is scary and dangerous, that pushed energy prices up and use of coal which killed more people via respiratory issues than Chernobyl and Fukushima (possible lobby from Russian oil and gas involved)
Banning ICE cars prematurely before the market, charging infrastructure and consumer demand can catch up on its own, will have similar negative effects.
I'm with you and I actually love these "special scrolling" websites. They are much closer to a truly work of art exactly because of the different design.
To the haters: why do we have churches or buildings with marble statues in the walls or column instead of a standard stone wall, which was designed to do the job in a standard way?
Niches (recesses in walls for statues) and columns in church buildings are actually central features that serve the primary purpose of the building.
Niches provide spaces for statues for remembering the dead, or prayers and veneration (for Catholics), enhancing the link between the spiritual and corporeal realms. Arguably they're also used to encourage payments from patrons for a church building's upkeep or construction.
Columns allow spaces within a building to be connected, ensuring the body of the church (the people) can worship and receive teaching together. They can also reduce material cost of construction.
Yes, for historic church buildings decoration was applied, ornate capitals in the pillars and such; bright, garish paint on the statues and everything -- and expression of the vitality of the building and of worship to God.
I think perhaps your analogy needs buttressing (heh!) to make it clear? All I got really was 'I like the scrolling'.
Maybe a revolving door is a good scrollbar analogue - it's central to access to a space (website), some people hate them, but used properly they enhance access (they're really good for limiting heat exchange with the outside when compared with regular doors!).
All these things you mention are corollary to the construction of the building per-se, but are central to the "spirit" of the building. The same applies with this kind of websites and scrolling. The website has a goal in itself, uses a more creative scrolling feature as both a way to better convey the information and a work of art to be more attractive to the eye.
My parallel was that the typical HNer just ignores this and think "don't touch my browser standard scrolling behavior", that would be akin to someone just wanting a plain wall to keep the roof up, ignoring everything else: "I pray there anyway, I don't need that statue to remember it".
"Linux.com is brought to you by The Linux Foundation, the organization of choice for the world’s top developers and companies to build ecosystems that accelerate open technology development and commercial adoption. Please see www.linuxfoundation.org for more information on The Linux Foundation, its mission and its members. "
ChatGPT has for sure the "first mover" strength for normies (you can hear it mentioned in TV, radio and in the street, but also lot of people just talk about "AI". So, IMO there is still space to be used as "the AI" rather then specifically ChatGPT.
It might also just be always referred to "ChatGPT" when talking about another provider, just like people saying "Kleenex" when referring to tissues.
> I also get "forcibly" (as in: I can't refuse) checked whether I'm legal or not based on how I look, which essentially boils down to spending a minute of my time taking my immigrant card (which shows that I'm legal) out of my wallet, showing it to the police officer (or whatever other government official is asking), and then going my way. This is totally not a problem.
Sounds like you have a mild case of Stockholm syndrome, if you happily accept that you get more attention from law enforcement due to your physical traits.
I disagree. I have a case of being respectful to the country I'm a guest in and not being a primadonna about it. I'm required by law to always carry my ID with me and to show it to government officials when asked, and they are entitled by law to be able to check my papers for whatever reason. I look like a foreigner therefore they check whether I'm a legal foreigner; the other alternatives are either 1) they don't check anyone at all (so the immigration laws aren't enforced), or 2) they check everyone regardless of how they look (so they annoy 99% of the population). I don't enjoy having my papers checked, but that's the law; I can either accept it, or leave, and being "but muh rights!" about it isn't helping anyone (especially since those people are just doing their job and aren't out to "get me" in any malicious way; don't know, maybe this is different in the US, but here it certainly isn't the case).
And I think Paris and Barcelona share a lot in that respect (the mayors - Hidalgo and Colau - met a lot to discuss exactly those topics and share experiences).
reply