can you prove they are worse than useless? this is very counterintuitive to me. They effectively calm traffic better than zero speed bumps. Don’t strawman me. I know there are better options. I’m not saying to add speed bumps
Here’s a starter guide on how to drive. I feel like it belongs here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L-jseyTm1iDAUudu6MCq2bcmS0m4uGsa/view?usp=drivesdk
No, it’s just like solar. You need existing infrastructure to make it worthwhile, e.g. the top, sides, or inside of an apartment building . Otherwise there would be vertical farms everywhere. America is entrepreneur/Venture capital heavy. If it penciled out properly, people would be doing it.
It’s just not destined to ever be a ‘bike w/out 2 operating brakes’ city. Unless the hill grades are 20% I suppose. But even then an argument could be made against cars since hills drastically reduce their efficiency.
I commute 14 miles one way. Spandex saves a lot of energy. Plus safer because you’re faster. Faster means less cars pass you per minute. The number of cars passing you is important because the odds of getting rear ended by a distracted driver is proportional to the number of cars we are exposed to. The effect is greatest if you can make a yellow light. For context I commute in Phoenix on 45mph roads. It’s also much safer in crosswinds because you swerve less. You can buy used cycling clothing for $25 on eBay. The first mistake I made was to buy regular cycling gear. I should have invested in triathlon year which is much easier to walk in.
People won’t stop driving entirely. Some are legitimately afraid of rain, sun, wind, snow, etc . Placing the toll booths every 100m would go a long way to reducing traffic and reducing dangerous vehicle speeds.