Showroom7561

hockey game between seven and eight-year-olds

If you're the type of parent who gets into fights at a hockey game for young kids, just stay at home.

I can't even imagine the hell that those kids go through having to live with parents like that 24/7.

Keep in mind that this program is for people who likely have no other means to get around, so it would be their main form of transportation.

As a personal example, before my son could get a licence, he used an e-scooter to get to his school co-op placement on a daily basis. He would have used local rentals, but it was cheaper to own one.

But from what I hear about places that offer rental prpgrams on a monthly program, they do get used very often as a main form of transportation. And plenty of people, regardless of their income, use a bike as their main form of transportation, too.

Tell me again why 40lb e-bikes and e-scooters need to be capped at some absurdly slow speed, but we don't do the same to these multi-ton weapons?

For sure on the same page overall.

We can agree to disagree on what's easier to afford (higher monthly vs lower daily), but I would absolutely love to see better programs to make micromobility more accessible to low-income families and individuals.

It's not like giving someone a car (re: cost, both ongoing and up front), so I think governments should explore this.

And hell, while they are at it, expand on incentive programs for everyone who wants to replace their car with a bike, e-bike, e-scooter, or anything else. It'll save taxpayers a ton of money in the long-term.

it’s easy for us to say “why not just pay $70/month instead of paying $12/day”, but… what if they literally don’t have $70?

How are they paying for the rentals? Some would be easily spending more than $70, so it kind of begs the question: how are any of these people able to afford the rentals? Buying would be cheaper!

The saying "it's expensive to be poor" certainly rings true here. I'm not really suggesting that those folks finance an e-scooter, since that would imply they have the financial means and credit rating to.

But it would be more cost-effective and provide a greater benefit for that state or local government to cover the cost of owning e-mobility devices, since these are really only going to a small percent of their total population.

And in my example, $70 was for a brand name, high-end of the <$1000 e-scooters. You can get a different model for half that amount, which would be like three days of renting one of those bikes, and you'd still end up saving money in the end. It's like spend a dollar and save 10!

But I do get what you're saying. I'm hoping these people can afford whatever allows them the mobility they need in their lives (plus, riding an e-bike will improve other aspects of their mental/physical health, too).

Non-income-qualified users pay $1 to start and $0.15 per minute for a maximum cost of $12 per day.

Ouch. I'm not non-income, but $12 a day to get around sounds crazy expensive compared to owning an e-scooter or getting a used bike.

On this program, just two short, 20-minute trips, and you're already at $7! Do that a few times per week, and you're at $100+ a month... wait at a couple of red lights per trip and you're bleeding money away.

To compare, you can get a Ninebot Max from Amazon USA with a zero-interest, 12-month payment plan of under $70 / month. It requires no maintenance, can be ridden in all weather (except deep snow, obviously), is super portable, and gets excellent range. And you get to ride it for hours a day without paying by the minute!

I wonder if the people who put together these programs actually do the math, because I can't see this being of tremendous value to low/no-income families.

Believe me, Google does enough a/b testing, and has enough experience in psychological manipulation to know where "the line" is for most people.

Sure, some will never use their product(s) again when pushed too far, but they don't really need everyone to be using their products.

Only the users they can profit from the most are of value. If a terrible UI, awful UX, or even a paid subscription doesn't scare them away from using a Google Product, then each of those users becomes a cash cow.

“There is nothing to be gained by further custody,” Rose (Justice David Stewart Rose) said.

Can this judge possibly devalue the life that was taken, any more than he already has? Or does he just not care because the victim was homeless at the time he was stabbed to death?

A real human being, who did not want to die, was murdered by a group of girls. Probation is spitting on the victim's grave.

And these strip searches should be punishing the guards, not rewarding murderers!

Those are mostly operating costs, offset by revenue, but are they actually losing 1.5 billion dollars a year? I mean, I hope so, but are they really?

I don't understand. They work in large cities, but can't work on a tiny street in Richmond Hill?

The ones in question are placed only at turns, which prevent cars from right hooking cyclists or turning from the bike lane or parking in the bike lane.

This would, in no way, prevent cyclists from cycling. I don't even know why you'd need to "swerve into the lane and out" when the bike lane is actually quite clear because of them. If the bollards were replaced with a curb (like in an actually separated bike lane), would you still need to swerve in and out of the lane??

Keep in mind that we're talking Richmond Hill in Ontario... an area where cycling infrastructure isn't easy to get.

In this case, say you've got the following options, let me know what you'd choose:

a) No cycling infrastructure at all. No sharrows. No bike route sign. No bollards. No painted gutters. Cars will park where they like, turn into the way of cyclists causing "right hook" accidents on a regular basis.

b) A "bike lane" that gets filled with parked cars, forcing cyclists into the car lane (causing an increase in crashes and cycling injuries/fatalities). There's a bike route sign, but intersections are a free-for-all with frequent right-hook crashes.

c) A mess of painted bike gutters, signs, and sharrows. But turns are protected by plastic bollards, so drivers don't use the bike lane as a turning lane.

Unfortunately, you won't have the option for separated, dedicated bike lanes or multiuse paths (especially not on this small, residential street). Not only due to the lack of space, but because NIMBYs will not allow it.

There is no "best" solution when given crappy options. But if I had the option to put inexpensive, plastic bollards on right turns so that drivers fear getting their car scratched up (with a side-effect that they aren't running over cyclists during right turns), then I'd go with that until a better solution comes up.

Also, you guys are aware that bollards (both plastic, but also metal and concrete) are used in some pretty major bike and pedestrian-friendly cities. Amsterdam has them protecting nearly every corner. San Francisco has them on both sides of their bike lanes, so cars can't enter them. Even in the bike-hating UK, you'll see them protecting right turns for cyclists:

So are they all that's needed for cycling infrastructure? No, of course not. But having them is better than not. At the very least, they keep people from parking in bike lanes at intersections.

Source? Where is that money going?