See also !deltarune@sopuli.xyz !

What @EggInDisguise@lemmy.blahaj.zone said, goes. But as for the amount of lanes, I do think I overlooked that one, so I edited my comment just now. I do think it’s worth in general to reduce the amount of car lanes (given that induced demand’s a thing).

Still, for protected bike lanes that are fully separate from car lanes, by a strong barrier (not just an elevation), I think you could do with 4, maybe 6 lanes. More would be dangerous for all, though.

We also have ‘bicycle main pathes’ where car drivers are ‘guests’. That is, cars must drive behind bicyclists and not overtake them. They generally are in 30 km/hr zones, and the width of 2 car lanes (so about 7 m). Sidewalks are also present there, of course.

You can have slow-growing hedges at a slight distance (~0.5 m to 1 m) from the path, or the plants could be in boxes.

Something like this is also possible:

The hedges typically don’t really require weekly maintenance - once every few months suffices.

Alternatively, trees could be used, with grass and flowers inbetween.

I’m Dutch and those ““painted”” and “sharrow”" wouldn’t even count as bicycle lanes. You’re surrounded by cars on both sides, there’s no clear markings it’s for bicycles, nothing nada.

If I were an urban designer/mayor I’d fire whoever thought it’d be a good idea to build it that way.

In my view, these would be requirements:

Painted:

• Only bicyclists allowed.
• Only if the car lanes are ≤30 km/hr
• Two car lanes max on the road.
• Not at corners with bad visibility (there it should be protected)
• Lane must clearly be marked with a 🚲 symbol
• Lane must be painted differently than the car lane
• On at least one side of the lane, a mainwalk should be present. No car lane there.
• Preferably, if there is a car lane on one side, it should be for public transit only.

Protected:

• All of the above (more lanes is possible, but the more cars, the more protection is necessary).
• Both sides of the bikelane must be separate from the car lane, if any. Both sides must provide either a hedge, raised plant area, raised ‘border’, raised fence, and/or mainwalk. If only a raised ‘border’, then cars must not drive faster than 30 km/h.
• Bike area can be elevated as well.
• Bicyclists must be able to cross the street without encountering cars, eg. by a bridge under or above the car road. That, or there is a traffic light.

edit: added last point, and added to first point of ‘protected’.

I mention 30 km/hr. This is crucial, because above that speed, the mortality for anyone (regardless of whether they wear a helmet or not) increases rapidly. Especially if the car is tall, and has a flat end, rather than sloped. If you then get ran over, you don’t get crushed under, but ‘glide’ onto the car’s front. That is safer.

And for either kind of bike lane/path, I think it’d help that if a motorised vehicle crashes into a bicyclist or pedestrian, then the fault should be assumed 100% on the driver and the driver should pay all damages, unless if it’s shown that the bicyclist or pedestrian was at fault, in which case it’s 50/50. This is important, since motorised vehicles are much heavier and can cause deaths while the others don’t really do so. It helps to deter drivers from driving over others and going off scot-free.

The rule is also, in all areas where there’s only a painted bikelane with non-continuous lines going like - - -, and the road has a single car lane, this is what you do. When you see a bicyclist, you’ll have to slow down to 30 km/hr, but then can overtake them (temporarily driving on the bike lane). You’re not allowed to park or stop there, however.

If the line is continuous, such as ——, then you cannot drive over on the bike lane.

Nowhere as optimal as 9292 though. And for walking and bicycling, OpenStreetMaps or Komoot or Tourtje are better as well than that Americrap. The latter two are annoying in that you need to make an account, though.

On top of that, all those I mentioned are much less data hungry than G**gle Maps.

I’m not sure how “rarely talked about” we’re talking about, but it doesn’t get brought up often enough that Reagan and Thatcher were involved in Operation Cyclone, a CIA and MI5-backed financing of terrorists. specifically, they financed the deeply religious mujahedeen, and even met their leaders.

Those groups opposed labour rights’ movements around the world, which would greatly have benefited engineers, plumbers, electricians, nurses, farmers, scientists, and so on around the world.

My hot take there is this. Osama used to help the mujahedeen, so in retrospect, most theocratic violence (yes, even 9/11) was caused by the aftereffects of Reagan’s and Thatcher’s politics backing religious fundamentalists, rather than y’know, moderate socialists. Capitalists remain capitalists, after all.

Does iodé allow for an iOS-like look? A minor thing for me, but nonetheless…

CalyxOS was founded by someone who worked for the feds through Raytheon, no? I’m doubtful… granted, he got threatened by the FBI, so there’s that.

LineageOS or iodéOS are options, the latter being better if what this summary says is true..

Unfortunately, iodé doesn’t sandbox apps, nor has per-app storage & contact scopes, which are pretty big things. Verified boot is also not thorough, excluding app updates.

And doesn’t Nothing have a privacy policy where the data that they transfer and store, can be outside the EEA/UK? See point 9 there.

Samsung is too big tech for me, so that’s out of the question. Asus would be an option, but the short support is indeed questionable.

Nokia is a possibility, but they got into the AIslop.

Then what is the next best?

As far as daily drivers go and if your threat model would say your risk is low, I think Fairphone with e/ is a great choice, yeah. I was thinking of the Fairphone 6 for that case, actually.

But if your threat model is higher, or if you want to support people with higher threat models, or want to prioritise security, I think GOS seems better. My worry is primarily about the ethics of a Motorola or Pixel, considering where Motorola is based and who owns it.

They are, yes. But it feels all very paradoxical.

A company owned by a country with pervasive surveillance, set in a country with pervasive surveillance laws, cooperating with a OS developer for anti-surveillance measures.

Granted, I could see that from places with pervasive surveillance, a need arises for something that removes all that surveillance. But then, would governments not be harsh on that?

You forgot omnisexual.

Sadly so far only Belgium, Germany, and France. Why those already managed to put in Wero while the rest hasn’t, is beyond me.

Are there actual, practical reasons? Or are other countries’ governments being lobbied too hard to not put through with Wero?

iDEAL from what I know is basically Wero, just local. So you’re already kind of using it, if you do so.

fascist*

Should also add that a lot of libertarians in reality tend to be more of the “I want the freedom to repress others” people, eg wanting homeschooling (which can increase abuse), opposing measures that would improve every person’s quality of life (such as universal healthcare) etc.

Anarchists on the other hand, tend to be more often on the socialist or communist kind, in where they favour the abolition of hierarchy and thus favour an egalitarian society, by abolition of private (but not personal) property.

Bij1. They’re as close to anarchist/council communist as it gets imho, pretty good stuff.

GET OUT OF THERE! HE’S STILL ALIVE!

That would be the situation of De Ruijter in the Netherlands. It’s a “Koninklijke” (royal-approved) company, but the company’s ultimately owned by Americans. Which imho doesn’t make it very koninklijk!

Go to IRL places, find IRL painters, pay them.