2

This is a follow up to my other post on the referendum from a few days ago: https://lemmy.world/post/46542512
Again.. translated using (mostly) machine translation

Berlin not car-free for the foreseeable future, referendum doesn't get green light

In Berlin there will be no referendum on largely making the city car-free. The plan of lawyers, traffic experts and green activists didn't make it due to lack of support. The initiators announced that only 140,000 of the required 175,000 signatures had been collected.

They wanted to significantly limit car traffic in the German capital within the ring railway, an area where about 30 percent of the nearly 4 million Berliners live. With 88 square kilometers, the area is about the size of Eindhoven.

Residents would be allowed to drive a car in this area for twelve days a year. There would also be exceptions; for emergency services, taxis, people with disabilities, freight traffic and people with crucial professions. The rest would be dependent on the public transport, the bicycle or has to walk.

The plan had to deal with resistance from the start, right-wing parties have been actively campaigning against it recently. For example, opponents pointed to a higher traffic burden in surrounding neighborhoods and economic damage, because companies would leave and shops would become less accessible.

7
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Humanius@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

The article is in Dutch, so I've put a (mostly) machine translation below.

Berlin car free? Plan for referendum leads to fierce resistance

The Berlin state elections are not until September, but already the German capital is full of campaign posters. The topic is perhaps the most radical traffic plan in the world: a virtually car-free Berlin. Activists want to force a referendum on this, right-wing parties are actively campaigning against.

It is a bill that a group of lawyers, traffic experts and green activists have worked on for years. The idea is to significantly restrict car traffic within the ring railway line, an area where about 30 percent of the nearly four million Berliners live. With no less than 88 square kilometers, the area is about the size of Eindhoven.

People would only be allowed to drive a car in this area twelve days a year. There will be exceptions for emergency services, taxis, people with disabilities, freight traffic and people with crucial occupations. The rest will have to go on public transport, by bike or on foot.

It would lead to fewer traffic accidents, nuisance and emissions. The space that is opened up can be used for cycle paths, greenery and seating. "Or playgrounds... or urban libraries," Marie Wagner, one of the initiators, daydreams. "And finally, kids can cycle safely to school."

Opponents point to higher traffic burden on surrounding neighborhoods and economic damage, as businesses would leave and shops would become less accessible. Wagner dismisses those claims. "Only 9 percent of shop revenue within the ring comes from people who travel by car," she says.

"Moreover, research has shown that more attractive streets lead to more consumption, because people stay there longer." Whoever has to and should be allowed to use the car, such as handymen, can move through the city more easily, is the idea.

Colleague Gerald Stefani insists the activists are not against the car itself. “We don’t want to abolish car use, we want to regulate it. Also, with twelve car days a year, much remains possible, such as large grocery trips and moving house." He is not worried about the implementation. "For each ride you could request a QR code online."

Resistance in car city

Berlin is a car city. In the growth period around 1900, the Gründerzeit, the distinctive Berlin rental blocks were set up wide along wide streets. The car was later easy to fit in. Destruction by World War II, the construction of the Berlin Wall and demolition drive of post-war city planners paved the way for wide motorways.

The initiative encounters fierce resistance from local politics. Right-wing parties like CDU, FDP and AfD have filled the city with posters with 'Autofrei? Nein!' (Car free? No!) and 'Car verbieten verboten' (Car ban forbidden). CDU Mayor Wegner speaks of a "well-intentioned dream of an urban idyll, but which will lead to a nightmare."

His party is at a loss in the upcoming state election and is being polled as equally large as the Greens and Die Linke, as well as the AfD. The image of "the left" who wants to take your car is a campaign gift. Therefore, the left parties are likely to keep their distance on this theme; they have not put up posters for the traffic referendum.

The anti-campaign is helpful, Stefani says. It raises awareness: "There are people who come to sign because of the CDU posters." According to Wagner, almost all parties want to reduce car use, but they do not dare to take big steps.

"The car is deep in the German psyche," Stefani says. "It has been so important for German economic development that changes on the area of cars automatically provoke resistance. We also see that with the discussion about a maximum speed."

The activists are in the final stage to force a referendum in September: the collection of 174,000 signatures. That was difficult in the winter months, but now there is a catch-up sprint. With one more day to go, it looks like a toss up whether they will make it, says Marie Wagner. "It's more exciting than a krimi."

At Alexanderplatz, the activists ask Berliners for their signature. One signs directly ("It's certainly not radical, the current pollution is radical!"), the other dismisses the proposal ("Fewer cars fine, but not mine").

A woman doubts. She lives inside the ring and has a car. "It's useful for groceries." Still, she finds the idea exciting. After some persuasion from the activists, she signs. "Maybe good, then I'll finally be forced to cycle."

17
[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 62 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm guessing they probably have rules against plagiarism, or passing off other people's work as your own.
So then I guess it would be down to whether using AI (without disclosure?) is plagiarism or not

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 101 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The headline is a bit misleading. Trump agreed to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to the Fox debate.
This is just a ploy for him to either get Harris to show up on Fox, or if she doesn't debate him on Fox, spin it in such a way that Harris is somehow not wanting to debate him (Even though she never agreed to a Fox debate)

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 68 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So they can bitch that people booed, but he won’t acknowledge the reason is he raped a literal child?

Mathew Immers is not the guy who raped the child. That is Steven van de Velde.
Immers is van de Velde's beach volleyball partner.

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 173 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Okay.. So he went to Russia in 2003. Considering that the consensus in 2003 was that Russia was still on its way to becoming a democracy I am not that offended by it personally.
"Putin's hometown" being St. Petersburg, which is the 2nd biggest city in Russia.

What is more worrying is all the things that happened since 2003.

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

To me the idea of "fuck cars" is not so much about cars as a concept, but rather the scurge of car dependency.
You don't want a society built around cars to the point that you cannot reasonably live your life without one.

That said, even in a perfect situation with ample public transit and walkable/cyclable cities everywhere, there will still be people in situations who need a car to get around. And for those people I'd prefer it if they would be driving around in compacts like this or smaller, rather than some of the cross-overs, SUVs and pickups you see today.

Some people will always need a car, and practical compacts like this would be perfect for that role.

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 60 points 2 years ago

Guess I'll be contacting my MEPs, and looking into which MEPs support and oppose this plan.
Though I am glad to see my country at least has stated it finds the proposal unacceptable.

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Trams do not have to share the road with cars. They can have (and often do have) their own dedicated right of way.
In those situations the tram only really interacts with cars on intersections, similar to level crossings for rail.

I think it's more helpful to see a tram as an upgrade on a bus, rather than a downgrade on rail.
The main advantages of trams over busses are the increased capacity, and increased efficiency (less fuel, fewer drivers per passenger needed)

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 99 points 2 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that retroactively applies to things that happened before the ToS got updated.

So 23andMe would still be open to lawsuits for the previous breach

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 423 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Just wait till Musk learns about banking regulations.
He's already complaining about the EU regulations on social media, but they nothing compared to what banks have to deal with.

11
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Humanius@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

Don't take this joke too seriously. It's just a little thing I thought of making after seeing the picture used by the NOS in this article about Tata Steel emissions:

https://nos.nl/artikel/2491434-hoe-de-zorgen-en-het-wantrouwen-rond-tata-steel-door-de-jaren-heen-groeiden

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 126 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

From what I understand this change will retroactively apply to games released in the past as well. I think that's a rather scummy move on Unity's part. "I've altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."

And it's not like game devs have been using a free product. They already pay for it through expensive licenses per developer.

If the justification on Unity's part is true, that for each install of a Unity game the runtime environment needs to be downloaded from their servers, then maybe they should look into fixing that rather than nickle and diming their customers for each individual install (customers in this case being the game developers)

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 155 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It really boils down to a few reasons:

  • I don't like ads, and I prefer not to see them
  • Running a platform like YouTube is not cheap, and I understand that Google needs money to keep things running.
  • The revenue of Premium is split between YouTube and the creators, much like ad revenue is. So it also supports the channels that I follow.
[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 180 points 2 years ago

I have a YouTube Premium subscription

view more: next ›

Humanius

joined 2 years ago