Space which gets more expensive with density right? The density that you're trying to increase. This just makes it illegal for poor to middle class people to have cars.
No, it just means that if you don't need parking you don't have to pay for it. And reducing parking requirements makes it easier to not need a car (and thereby parking) which is great if you're poor to middle class.
Not Just Bikes is a convincing advocacy channel. But just because you agree doesn't mean you should ignore that he is trying to convince you of a certain viewpoint. Specifically, urbanization is good, cars are bad (and unfun to drive), bikes are great.
Rewatch the videos, you'll note you can only enjoy many of the changes if you're an advid year round cyclist who lives in a flatish city with nice weather (and who doesn't need anything too far away, most of the time). Buses need roads. Not everyone can cycle, not even with (very, very expensive, even on the low end) ebikes.
His channel is literally called not just bikes. He likes bikes, but is not a bike supremicist. He has videos talking about how driving is more pleasant in Amsterdam (true from my experience), he has videos about how awesome Swiss trains are, he has videos about how a walkable city is good for health.
Really his channel should be called “not just cars.” Bikes are just one option he likes as an alternative.
Nobody says they can and not everyone can drive either (:O). In fact, more people can cycle than drive, funny that.
> (very, very expensive, even on the low end) ebikes
Show me a calculation that results in ebikes being in any way expensive compared to a car. In any case, arguing about the expense of biking is absolutely hilarious when you can get a perfectly adequate commuter bike for $50.
Nobody's saying cycling is the miracle solution that works for every person in every situation, everywhere. What they are saying is transportation in dense cities must be efficient and the only way to achieve that is a combination of walkability, cyclability, and public transport. Oh, and you can just use a car if you'd like to, just prepare to pay for the burden you place on others by doing so.
I don't need to be convinced of their viewpoint, I live it. I live in another European country, in a city with over million people. I live midway between the middle of the city and the outskirts. Practially everything one needs is available within a 10 minute bike ride. The weather is atrocious sometimes but everyone deals with it by wearing a rain poncho. People who can't bike are on mobility scooters and e-wheelchairs (paid for by health insurance) who share the bike lane. Sometimes I'm too lazy and I take buses, trams, subways and trains which are ubiquitous. And I am not an avid cyclist, wish I was. My bike for me is a tool, a $150 second-hand tool.
Is that the same everywhere in the country or even the city? No. But it's common enough that you'll see parents carrying their kids around in cargo bikes practically anywhere in the country.
P.S. I was generalizing when I said everything's within a 10 minute bike ride to account for all people who live along the same radius as I do. For me personally, everything's available within a 5 minute *walk* - grocery stores, cafes, restaurants, bars, gym, park, playgrounds, kindergartens, schools, train station, doctor, dentist.
This is an ironic example. Countries are a social/political construct. Whether a country even exists (Taiwan, micronations, various other countries) depends on who you ask, as does the boundaries of the border. Countries do not exist in any physical sense. Indeed countries and race are very tied to each other and exist about equally. Even if you pretend that culture is a physical thing, you'll find that cultures don't align with the borders of Nation-states properly either.
Society exists, and it has (often serious) repercussions but it isn't an inherent physical property of geography or genetics.
I think you're missing the point. The question isn't whether concepts refer to existing things or not, but whether they are valid and useful.
Nothing general ever exists - only the particular. The number two doesn't exist, although you can find twos in nature. Basic Aristotle. Similarly, race doesn't exist, but you can find instances of races in nature.
That's why arguing that a concept is invalid because it is "only" a social construct is disingenuous. Concepts are always constructs; they are never "natural" in themselves. What determines their validity is their usefulness, which is related to how closely they mirror the structure of human experience.
You are just putting to much wieght on skin color. You can't tell someone's race by looking at them. Australia aboriginal people are not really related* the Africans for example.
Race is a political construct that varies in definition by country, culture, and year. (See how race is defined in places like Mexico and Brazil vs the US for example). People of the same race can much more variation in genetics that people of the same area. Where you live is actually a much better predictor of your genes (yeah it's correlated but obviously it's not the same thing)
Race is roughly correlated with ancestry especially in places where mating between races was discouraged. So often race is a close enough measure of family history, but make no mistake, there is no pure members of a race.
If there is a biological race like construct it doesn't match with whatever races your country's census records.
There's not a privacy preserving way because children are smart. I don't think we should enable more surveillance for the flimsy "think of the children " argument.
Speaking of "think of the children", I have a conspiracy theory that the PMRC[0] was less about Dee Snider and Cyndi Lauper and more about creating a labelling regime that could ensure english-lyric Eurodisco[1] tunes wouldn't get any US distribution.
