| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | | | |
| | ==Explanation== | | ==Explanation== |
| − | This comic follows [[Cueball]], [[Megan]], [[Knit Cap]] and [[Ponytail]] as their beliefs evolve widely from a conventional car-first view of urban planning, then questioning the wisdom of car-centered policies, then favoring pedestrian-centered design, and finally wanting to discourage driving with tactics as extreme as road spikes.
| + | {{incomplete|Created by a DUTCH BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} |
| | | | |
| − | As a clever form of satire, the comic has twin aims:
| + | This comic follows Cueball, Megan, Knit Cap and Ponytail as they begin to favor pedestrian-centered design. In the first panel, Cueball and Megan complain about the common problem many car-centric cities face about not having enough space for all the cars, and give the naive suggestion of making more space for cars. In the second panel, Knit Cap mentions how he is going to visit Amsterdam, a city known for its {{w|walkability}} and bike friendliness. Ponytail expresses concern over the popularity of cycling in the street presumably because cycling in the street is dangerous where she lives and so she expects it to be dangerous in Amsterdam. |
| − | # Present a progressive argument leading to a logical conclusion that's humorously radical, likely mirroring Randall's own evolution
| |
| − | # Satirize the irony of US policy discussions that elevate theory and feeling over actual best practices used in other countries.
| |
| | | | |
| − | The '''first two panels''' present the conventional view, known as a strawman argument.
| + | In the third panel, Cueball discusses another problem many car-centric cities face which is that there are not a lot of bike paths. Since there is a limited amount of space on a street, cities face a dilemma on how much space they should allocate to pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles. Car-centric cities often allocate the most space to cars, leaving less space for bikes and pedestrians. Many cities try and make up for a lack of space for bike lanes by allowing cyclists to cycle in the streets with the cars. This, however, is significantly more dangerous than a city having a dedicated bike lane which is why Ponytail was likely concerned in the second panel. (A recent study reported that painted bike lanes are more dangerous than no bike lane, and only protected bike lanes are safer: <span title="Conclusions: Protected bike lanes and buffered bike lanes had estimated protective effects on segments between intersections but estimated harmful effects at intersections. Conventional bike lanes had estimated harmful effects along segments and at intersections.">Garber, Michael D., et al: ''[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140523001056 Bicycle infrastructure and the incidence rate of crashes with cars: A case-control study with Strava data in Atlanta]''. Journal of Transport & Health, '''32'''. September 2023: Received 13 February 2023; Received in revised form 10 July 2023; Accepted 14 July 2023; Available online 11 August 2023. doi:[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101669 10.1016/j.jth.2023.101669]</span>) This danger was discussed more in the fifth panel as well. |
| | | | |
| − | * First, Cueball and Megan complain about the common problem many car-centric cities face about not having enough space for all the cars, and they give a conventional suggestion of making more space for cars.
| + | Megan's comment in the sixth panel is likely referring to pickup trucks in addition to regular trucks. Many pickup truck owners care a lot about the distance their vehicle is off the ground and so they will either purchase a pickup truck with a high ground clearance or raise it themselves, resulting in what is known as a lifted pickup truck. Many people believe that a vehicle with higher ground clearance will keep them safe on the road, and while this is true (one editor learned the opposite, that the elevated center of mass reduced safety due to reducing the stable tipping angle, although they’ve certainly appreciated high clearance on unpaved roads), it comes at the cost of potentially hurting others who are in smaller vehicles or no vehicle at all. Alternatively, it could refer to many large tractor trailer cabs or garbage trucks that if you stand directly in front of the cab you can't see the driver and they can't see you. It is particularly dangerous for children. |
| | | | |
| − | * Next, Knit Cap mentions how she is going to visit {{w|Amsterdam}}, a city known for its {{w|walkability}} and bike friendliness, which gives Ponytail a chance to share the conventional concern that road cycling is bothersome to drivers.
| + | {{w|Induced demand}} is an economic theory in which increasing the supply of a good or service causes the demand to rise faster than the increased supply, worsening the shortage. The most common example is traffic: some US cities have tried to alleviate traffic jams by widening the roads and highways, which incentivized more people to take up driving, thereby ''worsening'' their traffic jam problem. Conversely, other cities have tried removing traffic lanes or converting them to dedicated public transit lanes, and have claimed a reduction in traffic congestion. Among urban planners, this is known as the {{w|Downs–Thomson paradox}}. |
| | | | |
| − | * This is the only moment that anyone pays any attention to Knit Cap; later when she has lived experience of the topic, they ignore her.
| + | Cueball's comment in the second-to-last panel that "anything that makes a city a worse place to drive in makes it a better place to live, short of scattering random tire spikes on the road" is a slight exaggeration. For example, a city that allows potholes to go unrepaired will make it more difficult to drive in, but could also make it more difficult for pedestrians to safely cross the street. |
| | | | |
| − | In the '''third and fourth panels''', Cueball and Megan begin to evolve their thinking, wishing for better transit and more bike paths – another shortage common in car-centric cities – with Megan noticing that optimizing for drivers discourages pedestrians, which in turn spurs more driving – later calling it "a vicious cycle."
| + | The title text references a cyberpunk book called "{{w|Snow Crash}}", by Neal Stephenson. An early scene in that book involves the equivalent of a skater using a magnet on a cable to attach onto the back of a pizza delivery vehicle. He swerves in order to dislodge her, she taunts him and attaches stickers to his vehicle. |
| − | * Megan's comments could relate to {{w|Induced demand}}, an economic theory in which increasing the supply of a scarce good or service causes the demand to rise faster than the increased supply, worsening the shortage. Traffic is a common example: when US cities try to widen roads and highways, they also incentivize even more vehicles and more driving, worsening the traffic problem. Conversely, other cities have tried removing traffic lanes or converting them to dedicated public transit lanes, and have reported a reduction in traffic congestion, due to people choosing other transportation options. Among urban planners, this is known as the {{w|Downs–Thomson paradox}}.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the '''fifth panel''' – taking place a week or two later – Knit Cap is back from her work trip to report that Amsterdam is really neat.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the '''sixth panel''' Cueball's questioning turns into anger at car culture, beginning his full 180 from his previous, conventional car-centric view as he adopts a strong pedestrian-centric perspective.
| |
| − | * Cities face a dilemma of how to allocate limited street space. Car-centric cities allocate much more public land to vehicle storage and movement, leaving less space for bikes, pedestrians, dedicated transit corridors, greenspace, and density.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the '''seventh panel''', Megan takes issue with a particular type of vehicle – "those giant trucks" – and their threat to kids. All cars have blind spots in the front, and large trucks have blind spots sizable enough for the truck driver to be unable to see a standing child right in front.
| |
| − | * "Those giant trucks" likely refers to large pickup trucks, though she might be singling out lifted pickup trucks (raised after purchase), large tractor trailer cabs, or garbage/construction-style trucks.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the '''eighth panel''', Knit Cap's relevant personal observations gets ignored and interrupted by the armchair theorists – a subtle nod to how US policy debates often ignore successful examples from other developed countries.
| |
| − | * As Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.”
| |
| − | | |
| − | In '''panels nine, ten, and eleven''', everyone's emotions peak with views that reach their zenith. Car culture is systemic! Driver-centric road planning is a vicious cycle! NETHERLANDS!
| |
| − | | |
| − | By the '''final two panels''', Cueball's and Megan's evolution is complete. Desperate for any fix, Cueball concludes that city livability calls for making the driving experience worse, and then he suggests tire spikes as a solution. The final joke is that Megan actually supports the tire spikes idea, and that this extreme idea emerges from logical reasoning.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Additionally, Cueball and Megan are coming up with crazy solutions while ironically ignoring Knit Cap's reasonable and practical lessons from how Amsterdam actually solves the problem. This continues the satire of US policy discussions that ignore real-world best practices because they come from across the Atlantic.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * A reader who has been nodding along the whole time may reflect if they agree with Megan's final idea — and if not, why not? The whole comic is a type of logical argument in which many small steps of reasoning can lead to eventually extreme and satirical conclusions, similar to the famous {{w|A Modest Proposal}} by Jonathan Swift. It seems that Randall is sharing the evolution of his own views, while self-awarely noting that (1) if you take those views as far as they'll go, you can support some radical implications, and that (2) it's common for Americans to ignore success stories like Amsterdam's.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The '''title text''' references a cyberpunk book called "{{w|Snow Crash}}", by Neal Stephenson. An early scene in that book involves the equivalent of a skater using a magnet on a cable to attach onto the back of a pizza delivery vehicle. He swerves in order to dislodge her, she taunts him and attaches stickers to his vehicle. | |
| − | | |
| − | ===What are the pros and cons of bike lanes?===
| |
| − | Protected bike lanes are safer compared to painted bike lanes, according to a [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140523001056 recent study]. It concluded that "protected bike lanes and buffered bike lanes had estimated protective effects on segments between intersections but estimated harmful effects at intersections. Conventional bike lanes had estimated harmful effects along segments and at intersections."
| |
| − | | |
| − | From a wider perspective, however much you attempt to segregate different forms of transport (at junctions and other bottlenecks where space cannot be reserved), you'll always need to bring bicycles and traffic back into contact, briefly, and in circumstances where motorized traffic has become unused to sharing the roadspace with the lighter vehicles. This is unlike a more integrated place like Amsterdam where a driver is rarely going to be surprised by the presence of bicycles, overlook them and therefore cause an accident.
| |
| | | | |
| | === What makes a city walkable? === | | === What makes a city walkable? === |
| − | To achieve a walkable area, urban planning (or zoning) must be seamlessly integrated with public transport planning. The central truth is that everybody is a pedestrian for some time, which also includes car drivers. Crucially, the average pedestrian is willing to walk about 2000 ft from their home to the next public transport stop, and an additional 2000 ft between the last public transport stop and their workplace. Opportunities for shopping and eating should exist at every connecting station, with the connections scheduled in a way that it both allows changing to the connecting train/tramway/bus immediately – as well as buying groceries.
| + | As all of Europe<sup>''[citation needed]''</sup> agrees, urban planning (or zoning) must be seamlessly integrated with public transport planning. The central truth is that everybody is a pedestrian for some time, which also includes car drivers. Crucially, the average pedestrian is willing to walk about 2000 ft from their home to the next public transport stop, and an additional 2000 ft between the last public transport stop and their workplace. Opportunities for shopping and eating should exist at every connecting station, with the connections scheduled in a way that it both allows changing to the connecting train/tramway/bus immediately - as well as buying groceries. |
| | | | |
| − | For an area to be walkable, at a minimum, all roads should have a sidewalk,{{Actual citation needed}} which, of course, costs area, but make the pedestrians' lives much easier and safer. But then, not only roads impact walkability. In the United States, many places open to the public are, by municipal ordinances, forced to provide enough parking space for [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8 all customers at any given time], which leads to serious knock-on effects: Pedestrians must often cross a large and weather-exposed parking lot in order to shop. A building can often be only re-purposed if a neighboring building is bulldozed to create the necessary parking area. And tenants who live in an apartment, but do not own a car, are forced to pay for the parking space they do not need. This creates difficulties, particularly in urban areas.
| + | All roads should have a sidewalk, which, of course, costs area, but make the pedestrians' lives much easier. But then, not only roads impact walkability. In the United States, many places open to the public are, by municipal ordinances, forced to provide enough parking space for [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUNXFHpUhu8 all customers at any given time], which leads to serious knock-on effects: Pedestrians must often cross a large and weather-exposed parking lot in order to shop. A building can often be only re-purposed if a neighboring building is bulldozed to create the necessary parking area. And tenants who live in an apartment, but do not own a car, are forced to pay for the parking space they do not need. |
| | | | |
| − | Another topic is subsidizing public traffic. Municipalities in Switzerland, for example, order bus connections – e.g. a hourly bus from 6 AM until 10 PM, and in exchange, they cover the deficit of any such connection. That way, families, who usually are better taxpayers, move to villages, and beginning with grade 5, 6 or 7, pupils can still easily commute to a district school. | + | Another topic is subsidizing public traffic. Municipalities in Switzerland, for example, order bus connections - e.g. a hourly bus from 6 AM until 10 PM, and in exchange, they cover the deficit of any such connection. That way, families, who usually are better taxpayers, move to villages, and beginning with grade 5, 6 or 7, pupils can still easily commute to a district school. |
| | | | |
| | ==Transcript== | | ==Transcript== |
| Line 99: |
Line 70: |
| | :Megan: It's a vicious cycle. | | :Megan: It's a vicious cycle. |
| | | | |
| − | :[Knit Cap is walking around with two Dutch flags raised in her hands.] | + | :[Knit Cap is walking around with two Dutch flags raised in his hands.] |
| | :Knit Cap: '''''Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!''''' | | :Knit Cap: '''''Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands! Netherlands!''''' |
| | | | |
