Also me when I drive by a nice forest in the middle of nowhere
Yep true story
I recommend becoming a total weirdo. You’ll fit in way better in the cheap places.
Sometimes it can happen, depending on your lifestyle. I work in tech and live alone. I come from a rural town of 7000 people. When I was a teenager in the 90ies, I wanted to live in a group of towers of a trendy neighborhood in my province’s biggest city. They are connected to an underground mall with a grocery store, a cinema, a pharmacy, multiple restaurants, etc… To me it seemed prestigious and useful to be able to live in a place without going outside for errands.
Ten years later I moved into that city but in a peripheral neighborhood. Then another few years later, I needed to move again and ended up in a tower near the ones I wanted to live in when I was a teenager. I didn’t even realize it at first. I just needed a place to live. But one day while coming back from the grocery store and exiting the tower complex, I realized that I wanted to live there twenty odd years ago, and now I go shop there while living two streets away.
But now that I traveled a bit more in the recent years, there are other places in the world where I have this feeling of “I could/I want to live there” and I know it’s probably not going to be possible. Also, as nice and tempting as other countries and cities are, it’s already not easy to find a place to live in your own country right now, let alone in a desirable neighborhood of another country.
I said this recently when visiting Brooklyn. Place felt like home to me, but I know my ass could never afford it.
It’s got a rough reputation, but even without a real yard, I believe I could get by in one of those humble old brownstones. If it was good enough for Arthur Miller to struggle in…I’d find a way to get by.
Can’t say I’ve done that. Went to Boston for a work trip, spent the weekend exploring. Nice city, I can see the charm and why people would want to live there. But it also wasn’t a place I’d want to live in.
You should have visited 10-15 years ago when It was a lot cooler.
Before all the bio/tech bros came and kicked out all the small businesses and diversity.
I get it, man. Urban/suburban life is not for me. Cities are fun to visit.
I also don’t think I could do island life beyond visiting. Loved my visit to the Hawaiian islands, but I’d lose my mind living there.
Cool 👍
That sign looks like it says “no cycling”?
That is light-on-dark, but the sign in the pic is dark-on-light. I guess this must have been what the artist intended
This one?
yes. dutch signs use red circles to indicate what is not allowed
In the UK, circular signs show what is prohibited (exceeding speed limits), triangular ones warn (junction coming up) and rectangular ones inform (300 miles to Whereversville).
Germans (and similarly, other countries following the Vienna Convention) do it like this:
Bike path
No bikes
How about this? Is this a bike-free road, as in Alkoholfrei? That’s why text doesn’t belong on road signs. Mostly.
(Yes, I’ve since learned that -frei in a compound word and frei as an adjective are different but you can’t tell if that’s meant to be a space because it’s a bloody pictogram and 4 letters.)
text doesn’t belong on road signs
Hard agree. Where I live, occasionally stop signs have a white lettered sign underneath that says “EXCEPT FOR RIGHT TURN”. Usually it’s at intersections where you’re not really turning per se but just continuing straight on a road that happens to be curving to the right. It works fine … for people that are from here that know that those signs are there and what they mean. But people from places where they don’t have these stupid fucking signs approach on the cross street and only see the back of the stop sign and have no idea that the car coming from the right doesn’t have to stop.
Interesting, as an American our road signage is similar to the standard the other person commented. I’ve only ever seen signs that indicate what is not allowed with a very prominent slash through it though - not just a circle
No, American signs mostly use “NO” in text to indicate “not allowed”. Very inefficient. (Edit: apparently R5-6 exists for no bikes. However, almost all other bans are verbal.)
In Europe, we use multiple thin black slashes over a greyed-out sign to indicate the ban has ended.
R9-3, R9-13, R9-14, R9-15, R9-16, R5-2, R8-3, R9-3, R14-5, R9-4
R9-4 has an R9-4a where it’s words, and I’d bet you that’s because someone argued in court that the former bans giving thumbs up, not holding up a hitchhiking sign.
Do Not Enter has words but that’s just extra lettering overlaid on a universal pictogram sign.
there is no “most” in american signs for common/universal things like skateboarding, swimming, smoking, etc. For almost every every “No” sign that exists, there exists a counterpart “slash” sign. Add to that not every “no” sign is a roadway sign (eg no smoking)
There is a legal difference between Parking, Standing, and Idling a vehicle. Not every jusrisdiction has distinct bans for each, so there isn’t a universal way to represent each. You also need qualifiers - any time, or certain hours, or either side of the street, so you get those signs with words.
You can’t really do a picto for “No commercial vehicles”. I suppose we could do a picto for No Thru Traffic. I could also see that you can do “No Pedestrians Bicycles Motor-driven Cycles” with 3 pictograms (IMO more than like 3 words on a road sign is just a bad idea)
Some of the green tails in my city have signs saying bikes are allowed (words, not symbols). They don’t say walking is allowed, so are they bike only? I know that all the trails allow bikes, so I find these signs confusing.
All the trails have the NO signs; no motor vehicles. But people ride e-bikes and scooters on them. Don’t electric motors count as motors? Am I over thinking again?This is how we end up with R5-10, which will soon be another sign that specifies e-bikes (and perhaps we need multiple discrete signs). We had a no phone use sign, then we needed no texting (or no mobile). The signage just hasn’t caught up.
But it gets even weirder when you’re talking about not even a roadway - so then signage changes between jurisdictions.
I tend to err on the side of caution, but dollars to donuts there’s enough ambiguity in that signage you’re thinking about where you can’t really be ticketed because you can win the argument in court. What results is lack of enforcement (which is another legal defense in and of itself).
PS IDK if it’s overthinking. This is the kind of stuff I think about lol (and apparently we’ve found our people)
By default, sidewalks and similar paths are pedestrian-only. Unlike Germany, Czech Republic is notorious for being overly explicit about what is allowed where.
Signs like End of cycleway
are super overused:
There’s also a separate sign for segregated foot/cycle paths.
Not only Dutch signs. They are pretty much standardized across most of Europe and some other places, thanks to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.
That’s black
Um. Really? No crossout? Jeez.
They must arrest a ton of British tourists.
yeah I get that the standardization is great, but no cross seems like an odd choice to me
Yep!
Yeah, the shape is wrong, but I think the intent was to indicate “bike street” or something of the sort
Funfact: If you build cities like it, walkable nice urban neighbourhoods, attractive for young families and others alike, can be perfectly affordable.
but then how do we capitalism though
Another fun fact: Walkable neighborhoods are cheaper to build. But we’ve made that illegal, and instead build insanely expensive car infrastructure everywhere, then wonder why we have an affordability crisis.
the pic is in SF i assume, yea its still a car centric city despite alot of bicycle paths, cars provide more revenue to the cities via dmv registraitons, taxes, gases, businesses, and commute through the bridges bay bridge always busy asf. “non-car” zones reduces that revenue source.
cheaper to
So less profitable?
Fun fact: spending less is a way to increase profits! (It is less profitable for the car lobby tho).
And since all ownership is kind of souped together, profits are averaged across industries.
Why the hell would you accept the capitalist lie that the owner class would compete against each other?
I hate this kinda thought. It is very much based on marxism (class consciousness or whatever), but very much conspirational. ‘They’ control everuthing and don’t want you to know about it!
Obviously there is to some level of cooperarion between the greedy fucks, but it really isnt like that. There are people who became billionaires off of green energy companies, and who would actively push in favor of more eletric cars, so that they make more money, inspite of the petrol companies.
It’s how it works. You don’t own one. You own 5% of twenty things, derivatives in ten others, and one chunk of money in a hedge fund that has you diversified into literally everything.
Its not a conspiracy. Nothing is behind closed doors here. It’s literally ‘diversify your investments’. The first thing literally any competent investment advisor tells you.
But ownership is much more abstracted now, so shares aren’t just shares, they’re bundled and derived, until derivative bundle derivative product bundle derivatives are 10% of your portfolio. It’s literly just a matter of class now. The actual money doesn’t matter.
That’s not at all how that relationship works.
Reducing the cost that it takes to produce something does not affect its margins negatively
It does, when you’re invested in everything.
But where’s the profit in that?
You guys can afford to travel?
I visit my family sometimes. Does that count?
A disproportionately high amount of lemmy users is older and in tech, so probably doing better than average.
For me, it’s living in Europe. I can get a train ticket to Paris and back plus a few night in a cheap hotel for 2 days wage. Less for Prague, Vienna, and a lot of other cities.
I’m genuinely extremely jealous of the vastly superior rail network in Europe. The only option for my area is car :^(
Cross border rail is a major PITA though. Ultra cheap airfares is what is moving people across Europe for peanuts.
I refuse to use planes for inner European journeys. And from where I am right now, I have direct trains to Zurich, Vienna, Prague, Verona, Rome, Paris, Berlin etc.
i travel to the end of the driveway every day. i’m that rich.
Look at this guy, he has a driveway!!!
yes, and we will complain to you that we can’t do more expensive and frequent trips.
With revolution, your chances significantly increase.
It’s okay to have dreams of walkable cities that are also affordable.
The picture doesn’t depict anything that looks particularly walkable
There’s a pretty wide sidewalk physically separated from the road, with tree coverage to help with shade. You could miss it at first glance though
Buses also get separate lanes so at least some thought has been put into public transit
It’s pretty walkable for a big north American city imo
But okay dreams, or the car industry will send someone to kill you and your entire family.
I spent a couple days in Chicago last year. Roughed it out in a park overnight. Went to the beach the next day. Spent more time on Amtrak than I did in Chicago for the whole trip. My body felt like death the whole time, but I had the best mental high I’ve had in years. My whole life goal is to move there now.
Go there in the winter before you make that decision.
also summer.
i was just driving down the “worst” neighborhood of the city i live in. saw two houses for sale i wouldn’t mind buying if i could afford it. i should probably look up if i can afford it, fucking love it here.
Not so sure I’d actually wanna live near the Highline
Near it, maybe. Within sight of it with a window facing, hell no
