The tradeoff is that the higher you carry the bag (i.e. on your shoulders), the more space you have when maneuvering between cars. You can imagine how, if your bag was at the same level as the bike saddle, it would be more likely to get pinched when cycling through traffic. A clever cyclist could even stand upright with the bag on their back to get a few more inches of clearance when need be!
Capacity is still needed, or you will miss out on a lot of deliveries in peak hours, where you load up several orders and then deliver them all in one route and you dont really need to carry whole bag to client/restaurant, just fish up the package.
Also boxy bags allow for bigger packages(pizza, water bottles) and usually help to pack orders in a way that damages them less.
Delivery workers should fuck up their backs because otherwise (1) customers would get their shitty fast food and soggy fries 15s or 20s later, and (2) boxes would eat into the profit of the shareholders.
Reminds me of seeing amazon workers struggle to drag those plastic boxes full of deliveries around the sidewalks of the neighborhood while UPS provides a hand truck. I get it, a hand truck cost more than that 10 cent box they abandon all over town.
ULEZ and similar scheme are not about vehicle size. They are about Euro-spec of the engine.
There is a very vocal opposition against those: big recent SUVs are compliant, but small old cars are not, which goes against how people perceive their respective emissions.
In general:
- any EV or hybrid is OK
- petrol cars are OK if they're not too old (depending on Euro rating of the engine, I also have a 22 yo compliant petrol car, though a car from the same year could be non-compliant if the engine has a lower Euro rating)
- diesel cars need to be recent (in general equipped with DPF and other emission-control equipment that's become mandatory to pass more recent Euro-specs)
The main benefit of using a 100% European cloud is to be 100% GDPR compliant.
No matter how you slice it and how lawyers/companies try to wiggle around it, it's not possible to host data with a US company and be GDPR compliant, because of US laws.
Customers do ask about it, and it's always iffy to have to justify your GDPR compliance when using US cloud companies.
Which is why the big cloud providers have European data centers that comply with all relevant European laws where many big European companies, including some banks, medical companies, etc. choose to host their stuff. You know, the type of companies that would actually care a lot about such things and let their lawyers make sure they are doing all the right things.
AWS actually joined Gaia-x years ago. I think MS and Google did as well. They want to be compliant. Keeping their European customers happy is important to them. They use European legal entities as well to do business here. Because that is indeed required. No need to switch cloud provider. Just make sure you use them correctly and do all the right things. Which in any case is 100% your responsibility as you will be on the spot if you get that wrong. This job doesn't change if you switch cloud provider.
The main takeaway is that, unless you are trained for it (like lifeguards are) and actively looking for the signs, you will probably not spot someone drowning, even if they are right next to you.
Someone drowning isn't at all like pictured in movies. Those videos aim to dispel that, and maybe teach you some of the signs of someone drowning, and also that you should watch your kids closely when they're at the pool.
Step 1: Make it illegal (if it isn't already) to remove pollution / noise reduction features from cars.
Step 2: Enforce a yearly or bi-yearly tech inspection that checks the pollution / noise against the standard the car was made for (so old cars can still run on older pollution standards)
There, problem solved. Seems like government over-reach? Well, that's how it is in several developed countries in Europe.
That doesn't stop 100% of people from modifying their cars, but it'll quickly become very very niche, because consequences for doing that are too high for most enthusiasts. The main consequence are (1) if police checks and the pollution / noise reduction features are not there, you can be ordered to get your car back to stock in quick order, or in the worst case the car will be destroyed, and (2) in case of a crash, your insurance drops you because your car is not road-legal.
As with all things, there must be a political will to do that, and some people will fight it very hard.
While I have not cycled in Amsterdam, as a Parisian cyclist I can confirm. Paris is currently overwhelmingly better than what's in most other big cities, but still far away from being as good as the Netherlands infrastructures.
There are still a lot of oddities, insufficient infrastructure, and cycling no-man's land.
But yes, it has overall made things better for everyone, even for the remaining motorists: as reduced demand have kicked in, the remaining motorists (as far as my observations go) experience less traffic. Of course, there is a LOT less cars now.
Though now, bicycle lane jams are actually happening ... Which is a good problem to have I guess.
I'd work on whatever my current hobby is. The actual hobby changes over time.
Currently, my hobby is maintaining/repairing cars. If I had more time (and space), I'd restore old cars and/or build a track car (and of course use it on track).
Unfortunately the time and space limits means I don't even have the time to finish my very long TODO list on my own car.
My understanding is that the author is arguing that:
- guardrails should always be between the sidewalk and the road. Not after the sidewalk
- in places where statistical data shows collision or where there's a high risk of cars going on the sidewalk, bollards should be installed. A prime example is in parking lots where cars park facing the sidewalk.
Anyone know if we can reasonably estimate X for "A bollard installed here will save X/100000 lives per year on average" for various spots one might want to install bollards, and what the CI would be of such an estimate?
Presumably in cities with enough traffic it's possible to empirically measure number of times a car jumps the curb per year, but in other areas maybe not?
People also generally don't arrive sweaty when biking (at least not more than those taking public transportation in the summer).
To avoid being sweaty: go slower to not over-exert yourself, wear less clothing (you might be a bit cold when starting your commute, but that's not a big deal), and if it's still not enough (not fit enough, hills, etc...), an electric-assisted bike might be the solution.
Same here. I'm pleasantly surprised when I try a new itinerary, and now it's mostly bike lanes. Even 5 years ago, it was 50/50 whether there was a proper separated bike lane you could use.
I also remember 20 years ago, when a car was a normal way to move around in Paris. It hasn't been the case for several years for me now.
Around 2019/2020, something important happened: the critical mass for bicycle infrastructure was crossed, and nearly overnight a lot of people started cycling (no doubt helped by 2019 strikes and 2020 covid lanes). Since then, bicycles are a common sight everywhere.
- no need to fuss when you mount/dismount your bike, your backpack is already on your shoulders. Speed is key.
- the focus is not on carrying capacity, it's on speedy delivery. There's only so much food in their backpack.
- because of the time waiting for orders / going to the restaurant / going back to a hotspot, most of the time the backpack is actually empty.
- a box on the back of a bike costs money.