Comments by "DS_SD" (@simondahl5437) on "Not Just Bikes" channel.

  1. Which is not what he says. He’s too nice to say that. (Even if there’s some small truth to it.
    3
  2. Yes. But next to a Third World War overpopulation is not solvable right know. So you fix the next best thing. And secondly stand alone homes may be nice but that depends entirely on what infrastructure and where they are built. Something the US and Canada isn’t very good at.
    3
  3. Which is the very problem he talks about. The very problem is density. It’s like people don’t watch the video.
    3
  4. The problem with cities like Houston is that they are economically and environmentally unsustainable. Which affects us all.
    3
  5. He was kidding.
    3
  6. The chart source is not exactly necessary, it’s common information which you can find right about everywhere. And really, does everything have to be peer reviewed when most of it is just common sense?
    3
  7. I doubt the people who made this whole study failed to take that into account…
    3
  8. I think significant is arguable…
    3
  9. London may have good transit but really doesn’t come close in walk and bike-ability.
    3
  10. Ever been to say, slightly north of Battery Park New York City? Is one of those streets really distinguible from another? While New York as a whole certainly was an experience as a Swede (We have very few skyscrapers), I can’t remember any specific place in the Business district. Besides the memorial of course.
    3
  11.  @RunD.Ones1s  Tribeca isn't exactly skyscraper territory...
    3
  12. You wear a jacket.
    3
  13. Having other people in your garden is not more of a problem in Europe than in the US. Secondly just because you want a nice, oversized home with a car. Doesn’t mean that lifestyle is sustainable.
    3
  14. It’s Groningen.
    3
  15.  @gainsgamingginger2177 . Yes but by the “public court” you’d often be blamed. The judgement of peers has a tendency to unfortunately matter less than the court of law
    3
  16. Well I’m pretty sure just about everybody except you considers siting in a car and you know steering and pressing the pedals as driving. No matter the area.
    2
  17. He was kidding.
    2
  18. The answer to all your problems, he has addressed in his other videos. Or rather the very simple solution is what he addresses.
    2
  19. That depends entirely on demand. If self driving cars are attractive enough we risk taking ridership away from public transit. Increasing demand for self driving cars, which may nullify much of the benefit.
    2
  20. It's only stupid (for you) because YOU don't agree. Which makes you... an idiot
    2
  21.  @hermitcrack9091 . Probably. But I like to hear peoples arguments.
    2
  22. That’s the joke…
    2
  23. I've heard it's quite smelly, but then again I don't know if that's true... In all other aspects I've heard it's great...
    2
  24.  @krombopulost4699 . No it’s not. If you had proper public transit that wouldn’t be the case. Imagine just walking out to the street and jumping on the bus that leaves every 10 minutes to the train station that has a train to wherever you want to go every 30 minutes. No need for a parking lot, insurance, to buy a car. Freedom is where you don’t need a car. And instead of buying all your groceries for two weeks at once take 2 bags every 3 days. Just walk by the store on your way to the bus stop. If you’ve forgotten something you could grab it tomorrow. It would take 3 minutes extra to just grab something instead of driving there for the sole purpose. If you think sitting in traffic and needing a car is freedom you’ve never experience proper public transit. You can just as well say “I like the fact that I don’t have to take the car to get to work in the morning”
    2
  25. There is a need when car centric cities like Houston can’t sustain themselves economically and then go bankrupt…
    2
  26. That’s the joke. Yes.
    2
  27. He’s from there... And because people on every video are like “That’s not London”
    2
  28. A mix between a street and a road. It tries to do both, and it sucks at both.
    2
  29. Cheaper and easier than a car...
    2
  30.  @avonmusk3420 . No thats still there... And nobody says it's all suburbs fault, but the economics and sustainability of suburbia is faulty. That's plain fact. And the improved economics of more dense housing isn't too hard to figure out. When people lives in dense areas public transit is more suitable, you need less roads. Since people are close to the city and you don't need roads to every house. Same goes for water and other utilities. Fire, police and paramedic services are less efficient in suburbs so you would need more of them to cover the bigger distances. Same goes for other city services.
    2
  31. Grow up and get a brain.
    2
  32. Everybody knows…
    2
  33. People who aren’t read in to the debate are always the quickest to criticize. Nobody is advocating to take cars away from the people who need it, but for the people who are within distance, cars shouldn’t be the the only option.
    2
  34. It's The Netherlands, and that argument only applies when you mention that Dutch people bike from one side of the country to another. The US could and should still implement biking infrastructure and biking behavior in large areas like Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco. Cities that are often known (especially Los Angeles) for their ludicrous amounts of traffic... So yes it is very much relevant, you just have to scale it up, and maybe not include a transcontinental bike highway.
    2
  35. Evidence? I’ll give something better. “Logic” The right of the political spectrum have for all of modern history represented ideals in line with individualism, private ownership. The car serves these ideals well. You don’t need to sit next to one, you own your own car, by using a car you are also more likely to own your own house. And so on and so forth. The ideals of the right simply line up with what cars provide. Seeing as public transit, pedestrian and bike infrastructure often discourages the use of cars, and in many ways tries to limit the use of them. People who like cars and what they provide are naturally the ones who get pissed when a city experiments (and democratically tries to implement something) and impacts their love of cars. Those people who love cars? They are the right. That’s how.
    2
  36.  @Cl0ckcl0ck . I agree. But nobody said anything about rationality. And people tend to start screaming, before realizing why.
    2
  37. *inpopularity
    2
  38.  @nitePhyyre . I have to disagree. The primary point in the video is and has to be that the development around transit in the US doesn’t work, and cities and towns are using not building proper development as an excuse for no transit at all. After that you could start arguing the different systems, and compare. And I think he establishes this perfectly well.
    2
  39. They likely will after it’s implemented, but the test is not finished and there is no point in doing so right now.
    2
  40. If you had experienced a city where there’s a road for express traffic and streets for stopping you would experience something not only convenient but also safe.
    2
  41. Did it strike you that self driving cars aren’t widespread yet. Most of what is brought up in this video are thing that could happen in the future. And SF is comparatively good for pedestrians. In cities where pedestrian infrastructure is lacking, AVs will be more of a problem.
    2
  42. If the outside was more appealing with proper activities and such, the internet wouldn’t be such an attractive option.
    1
  43. You do realize the town pays the county sheriffs…
    1
  44.  @justinchamberlin3651 . How’s that relevant.
    1
  45. 840 000 a year is a very misquoted figure. 350 children are kidnapped by strangers every year in the US. The rest are runaways, or parental kidnapping. Which in many states isn’t even illegal. So yes it is fear mongering media, and you should do your research and not click on the first link when googling. And you might not like it but being lazy and driving a car everywhere isn’t environmentally or economically sustainable, so sooner or later it has to go.
    1
  46.  @marklandgraf7667 . Not triggers at all, but you know. Sitting is sitting and driving is driving. (;
    1
  47. Which was not the point.
    1
  48. And it’s encouragement o use the buss, or train. Which is something all societies should strive towards.
    1
  49. No. “You can’t legally murder someone” doesn’t at all need to indicate that you would want to murder someone…
    1
  50.  @HylianSoldier64 . Stating facts, and presenting a subject?
    1