Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
They gotta be thinking 100 m and 102 m. They added an extra zero for some reason?
Maybe it was originally in inches and the author didn't bother to convert units?
1000 x 0.0254 yields about 25.4 m, which would be pretty reasonable. Let's assume that all lanes are 4 m wide, which would be much more than normal. (Usually, they're closer to 3 m wide each, which would yield about 20 m; 2 m is included for the kerbs to separate traffic).
Then with 6 lanes (2 mainwalks, 2 bicycle lanes, 1 car lane + carriageway), you'd have 24 m. Give 1.4 m for some kerbs and then you get the 25.4 m.
@zaphod@sopuli.xyz , @Successful_Try543@feddit.org , I think I have the answer.^
Not all streets are like that, by the way. All of them have side/mainwalks, but not all have the other lanes.
You right, 100 meters isn't reasonable. I've had about 3h of sleep in the last 48 or so, so my brain is a bit mush. 😆
tbf katy freeway is over 100m wide in some parts. but hopefully that is rare, and probably is 'unreasonable'.
Those dudes need some more trains over there.
Fun facts: The Katy Freeway goes to Katy, Texas, and Katy, Texas is a southern terminus of the Katy Railroad (formally the Missouri, Kansas and Texas railroad, or "MKT"). The Katy was a major passenger railroad once upon a time.
So in a way, the freeway is helping motorists get to the trains, just trains that are in the past.
That's a freeway though, I suppose.
sib??? get some sleep dawg
Sib?
Yeah I slept well this night. No worries. 😊
1.75 m is the height of the person labeled for scale, so if you turn them sideways it would take 57 people drawings to equal 100 m. But in the drawing only about 20 sideways people can fit. So it can't just be an extra 0 added
You right, you right
If you take the 10 m scake below as a measure, the person would be 5 m tall and the 100(0) m would be ~60 m.
Yeah at a bare minimum the numbers in this drawing are all completely totally wrong. Is this an AI drawing?
What person would label a human as "1.75 m"? We know what a "human for scale" is. Also, every single graphic, despite credited to the same author, uses a different scale marking: zebra, bar, tick, snaking (and then ignores it). The fonts differ too (look at every capital R) but oddly not within drawings, it seems to be an AI optimized for vector output.
As the cited paper is from 2008, I was tempted to say no. However, only the relative shares of the modes of transport are from the article, not the graphic itself.
So yes, this is likely an AI generated graphic.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292752103_Making_cycling_irresistible_Lessons_from_europe
One cited paper is from 1889, predating this whole graphics style by about a century. The graphics are probably what an AI made as a response to "illustrate this text passage" or "redraw this figure as vectors". (Yes, this one probably generates vectors, otherwise the font families would be inconsistent within images, not just between them)
Fuckin hell.