In some parts of the world mass transportation such as trains dominate and in others bikes dominate. Sometimes we assume that what happens here can be extrapolated to cover the globe but that's often not the case.
Regardless, who uses what technology and when each technology was invested isn't relevant to what technology we should be using in a particular setting
now. Sometimes the most common thing is the best and should be continued and sometimes there's something else that's better it should be replaced with. The important things are the pros and cons of each technology including energy, space and other resource use, cost, provided utility, and and any externalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dartguard
Well that's conclusive " its probably the part of the city with the most cyclists"
yet know one really knows do they and I would argue no one really wants to know how FEW cyclists there really are.
Agricola and Gottingen are having an economic rebirth with new residents , business's and energy. Not to mention traffic . It can be tough getting any vehicle down both those streets so perhaps cyclists are not that important.
Cyclists should take the child choice of transportation and play somewhere else. The City is rapidly changing and the addition of a protected Victorian mode of transportation for the far less than 1 % is ridiculous.
|
Obviously the most rational response to the actual situation is that if the traffic is that bad then clearly cars aren't working out so well in that setting. Therefore, something that requires less space would be a better option. That is, if you're just responding to the situation at face value rather than trying to justify a pre-determined position.
Prev
this pic is so biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig arg
Linear Mode
