Socialist speed bumps?
Are we just randomly labelling things based on whatever political view we don't like.
Maybe he should Conservative shut the fuck up.
Conservatives never shut the fuck up. I wish they knew how to
Speed bumps are socialist because everyone is affected by them. Capitalist speed bumps would only hurt the poors.
Ironically, shouldn't be an issue for anti-socialists since they obviously would never use the public roads built and paid for by a society.
It’s the Torygraph. It was always trash.
It's hard to believe that the Telegraph used to be a serious newspaper.
Speed bumps are not a new invention
If you buy an impractical car for the situations it's expected to be used it (i.e. British roads, long featuring speed bumps), you're just a moron.
Complaining to the council about your stupid decision is just weaponised incompetence
vOlUmE uP kiss my shitter you corpo scumdogs
So that speed bump is sentient? How would it differentiate between an expensive car and a beater with shitty suspension.
When suspension on a car is fucked the car doesn’t get shorter. Springs set the ride height and are just coiled metal, but shocks are full of fluid which can leak leading to a sloppy ride and the inability to properly absorb bumps.
In this case, it’s the height of the front bumpers off the ground. As someone who has a BRZ which was even lowered for awhile these drivers need to get over themselves and stop bitching that they can’t have the entire world built to serve them and their fully voluntary choices. What’s next, complaining that nature is woke because it makes driving my low, RWD car slightly more difficuly?
because it makes driving my low, RWD car slightly more difficuly?
You have a weird way of saying 'more fun'. Biking in the snow is much more exciting than biking during summer. Yes, I'm Danish and have a death wish, why do you ask?
I think one of the reasons that SUV's and 'crossover' type cars have become so much more popular is that they make speed bumps less of a nuisance and allow the driver to cross them without slowing down as much
it's a mix of factors as for why heavier vehicles go over bumps better
1 - bigger/taller vehicles generally have more suspension travel which is also softer
2 - heavier vehicles have more inertia (which results in less body movement when going over bumps)
3 - bigger wheels mean a larger radius which means bumps feel softer when hitting them - think pushing a shopping cart versus riding a bike over a crack
4 - the bigger and heavier wheels actually act against the smoothness of the ride here, but the suspension is designed for that and the overall inertia of the sprung mass seems to mostly cancel it out
I will say that I generally hate speed bumps as a concept. I think that they are ineffective and annoying to everybody.
cons of speed bumps:
annoying to the driver
annoying to everybody else who has to hear cars and trailers squeak and smash over them
annoying to drivers behind drivers who crawl over them at a snail's pace
annoying to cyclists (if they don't have cutouts for bikes)
they interfere with snow plowing operations
they distract drivers from paying attention to their surroundings, and have them focused on speeding up and slowing down for each bump because they must get there faster faster faster always
drivers accelerate and brake between each bump, causing engine tire and brake noise for everybody nearby
the constant accelerating and decelerating of 4,000 lb vehicles is incredibly wasteful *not just because of fuel but because of tire and brake wear and pollution from that
some people just drive over them at 'full speed' which makes bouncy car and tire slap noises (this is usually what I do when I come across gentle speed humps in a 40 km an hour zone, I'm not slowing down and speeding up the whole time so I'll just hit it at 35, tap the gas to get back up to 40, and coast until the next one. obviously my speed is appropriate to the surroundings at the time and I don't always do 35 in these situations, I'm just talking about when it's clearly wide open and obviously nobody hiding behind parked cars)
it annoys me so much because like you can get the same result by just narrowing the lanes and designing your streets better instead of having a literal highway-speed-designed road with two lanes each direction and raised median and 6 ft painted paved shoulder until a curb with no sidewalk immediately adjacent to the pavement with a 50 km an hour speed limit slapped on it
The Telegraph are now basically a US republican newspaper that somehow found itself in the UK, calling everything that inconveniences the rich/their preferred people "socialist".
Socialism : social ownership of means of production
What are speed bumps producing? Street safety by speed reduction. Who owns the speed bumps? The council, i.e. the state, which is answerable to the people (in a democracy).
So, technically, with a lot of word pushing, there are socialist speed bumps.
So, technically, with a lot of word pushing, there are socialist speed bumps
And so is the road
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags: