There may be folks with some types of disabilities who benefit from using a drive thru, but there are also folks with other types of disabilities who can’t use a drive thru because they can’t drive and who are materially harmed by the lack of walkability drive-thrus cause.

In fact, considering that there’s nothing in the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires restaurants to have drive-thrus, and moreover that lawsuits regarding drive-thrus and people with disabilities tend to be almost universally about people who can’t use the drive-thru being forced to use it rather than the other way around, I’m very confident that my position isn’t ableist.

(And that’s considering your argument at face value, which is pretty charitable considering how often it’s made in bad faith.)

Well, smaller cars are less of an issue on every metric. They take away less space…

Unless they’re kei cars in an area with special zoning laws mandating half-size parking spaces for them, all cars take up the same amount of space at rest: one parking space each.

In motion, the space cars take up is dominated by following distance, not the length of the vehicle itself, so small cars don’t meaningfully increase the capacity of the road either.

In other words, from an urban design/engineering perspective, all cars are effectively the same size. The only things that get considered separately are the really big vehicles, like firetrucks, buses, and 18-wheelers.

As for the other aspects: yes, small cars are better, but it’s a marginal gain rather than a transformational one. In this space, of all places, I prefer to focus on those transformational gains rather than preemptively compromising. Remember, a radical flank is always necessary in order to make the moderate position look moderate. You can’t shift the Overton window without demanding more than you expect to get.

I don’t know if he used it correctly before the edit, but FYI it can be either.

This is already the “taking a mile” phase.

To me, it feels like some ICE thug trying to meet his quota while doing the minimum amount of work.

It’s kinda like Homer Simpson and the creepy shopkeeper:

“He ‘deported’ a guy for no valid reason, probably because it was easy and he’s a lazy amoral fuck who knows the fascists in charge are just looking at AI summaries and don’t really give a shit who gets deported or how”

“That’s bad”

“But the guy was leaving anyway and avoided a deportation order that would cause him problems later, and ICE spending its time on this might’ve meant one less ‘real’ deportation instead”

“That’s good”

“But the media coverage of deporting a famous person arbitrarily with impunity helps sow fear of the regime, which is what it wants”

“That’s bad.”

I would expect it to be the opposite: that the returns would accelerate as the bike infrastructure network becomes more and more complete, until cyclist mode share approaches Dutch levels.

Come to think of it, why do our letters have a standard order, and if they have to, why that one?

Because some Phoenician jerk picked it arbitrarily about ten thousand years or so ago and it stuck.

Considering that this article is about the UK/Europe, that causation is pretty indirect.

The toilet is obviously designed to hold your weight, since its normal use involves sitting on it.

The lid spans about a foot across the bowl rim and is typically made of wood or plastic about 1/2" thick. Those materials are plenty strong enough to hold the weight of a human across that size span.

The only lids I would hesitate to sit on are the absolute bottom-dollar cheap plastic ones like this, where the lid has been hollowed out to save material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj9SDSAOXf4

They also made a velvet toilet seat, which I’d argue is even worse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ORbHSQ5pw

Also, another Youtuber one-upped them with a “mood ring whole bathroom”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6vhlmWzIQs

I hesitated to remove this because of the appearance of censoring someone for arguing with me, but the rule-breaking was too clear-cut. If you can make a similar point without using bad-faith tactics, I’ll leave it up.

For the record, the idea that ending car dependency is even slightly equivalent to “there must be zero personal powered vehicles” is disinformation and will not be tolerated.

The paper, titled “The link between low-stress bicycle facilities and bicycle commuting,” reports that protected bike lanes see about 1.8 times the number of bike commuters than standard bike lanes do and 4.3 times as many as blocks without bike lanes.

So doing the math, even an unprotected bike lane is about a 2.4 times improvement over no bike lane at all.

I find that to be an interesting contrast compared to a survey done in my city as part of a trails planning process, where planners asked respondents whether they “would recommend” use of bike infrastructure based on type. In that, only 8% of respondents would recommend using an unprotected bike lane and 14% were unsure, while 56% would recommend a bike lane with flex posts and 20% were unsure. In other words, respondents were between 3.5 and 7 times more likely to “recommend” use of a protected bike lane than an unprotected one.

I had suspected that that disparity in perception was greatly inflated compared to the actual difference in amount of use, and I’m glad to now have actual science to point to to back up that hunch. Thanks!

Vodka, maximally diluted.

I really dislike seeing stuff like this posted here, not because I’m a fan of big trucks, but because I feel like it’s often interpreted as car-brained apologia for lower/smaller cars. It’s an excuse to avoid fixing the real underlying problem – car dependency itself – by scapegoating one particular class of cars and absolving another.

Most people just don’t use ff

How do you know? Statistics reported by websites… which are recording user agent strings?

That’s not how the American political system works. Parties have changed ideology or collapsed and been replaced with new ones, but there’s always only two major parties.

While the liberals were busy punching leftists while courting right-wing donors, you mean.

Seems to me that changing the zoning code to disallow drive-thrus entirely would be an even better idea.

No, it’s sometimes instructive to understand what he’s lying about and why.

It’s just you. There’s been a distinct lack of subtlety in right wing propaganda for a long time, going back at least to “this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”