mslate

Pulling a Tanium would be to fire people right ahead of their vesting cliff:

https://www.inc.com/business-insider/tanium-security-startup...

The study does not control for distance traveled.

This is all hand-waving, to try and bolster the case for safer infrastructure for bicyclists (electric and not) which I of course also support.

No, what's that?

Yes yes, the person outside of a car must provide deference to the car owner. Poor people serve the rich.

Bus fare on SamTrans to the San Mateo County Fair is also cheaper with Clipper Card ($2.05) vs. cash ($2.25).

Probably much better fraud protection, and much better usage tracking (e.g. accurately tracking bus stop boarding metrics).

I was with you until your assertion that enforcement is the answer. Copying Texas on traffic engineering is not a serious take:

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/trf/trafficsafety/engin...

Having to drive defensively to avoid other people’s recklessness is a signal that you’re operating your vehicle in a higher risk traffic environment. Insurance already differs by geography, that sounds like more accurate pricing of risk. Bad drivers raise everyone’s collective insurance costs.

Why is it Caltrain’s fault that you chose to live far from a station, your employer chose to lease offices far from a station, and you chose to work for said employer?

The fact is that San Mateo was built as a suburb of San Francisco, and the transit choices were built as a function of residents commuting into San Francisco.

Why did you choose to live in San Francisco? You cannot expect the transit system to revolve on a dime around your housing & employment choices.

No, I do not want everyone to be forced to drive--a reality that many are discussing in this thread but you choose to ignore.

The mandate is accomplished with parking minimums, federal highway subsidies.

I cannot find an apartment in my community that does not have a parking space--it has been illegal to build such a unit of housing for decades.

The amount of publicly owned real estate that is given for free to car owners to store their cars is worth trillions.

And you tell me I'm being paternalistic :)

Because it is a public health problem.

The US is 7th for GDP per capita among nations.

It is 59th among nations for life expectancy.

These are policy choices, not individual choices.

I personally think that's a great service offering, though I haven't had reason to use it yet.

The friction of personal checked baggage on airline travel is huge. Easily multibillion dollar per year huge.

Yes, I deal with this same issue owning a car. It’s choosing between buffet and a la carte pricing. When it comes down to socializing, you do not want to be thinking twice about choosing to mobilize to visit friends/family for cost reasons, and ridehailing pricing does that.

Bicycles. They are so radically inexpensive to acquire & service. Why did I ever stop riding at 18?

How is banning multi-family housing from being constructed on privately-owned land the same thing as your city’s subsidized housing commission? Ones banning humans from being able to physically move into town at all (or existing landowners from exercising their property rights), the other is using city funds to subsidize/incentivize some people’s housing costs. You seem to be equating the two.

What’s your revenue?

And e-bikes are outpacing EVs:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-21/u-s-e-bik...

The only piece I don’t understand: why are actuaries involved?

They drive vehicles that cost $10,000USD per year to own. And maybe they need two, if they have 2 or more children(!).

Cars are a great technology, but a city cannot scale with everyone owning their own car, and families cannot build wealth paying $20,000+/year for their 2-car transit lifestyle.

Thank you for admitting that you don’t live in San Francisco. The fact is you don’t know who this parent is. You have made the assumption that they are taking unacceptable risks. I don’t know your motivation, but your criticisms aren’t constructive.

It is literally victim-blaming.

You are choosing to frame a reality where transiting by car is the only acceptable way to live. Many don’t bike by choice, they bike because of economic reality—especially as parents.

San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities on earth, and you must cover rent for cars in addition to yourself. If you want to discourage family formation then go ahead, make it prohibitively expensive to exist as a family in our cities.

No one is taking that stance. Where is there a comment to that effect?

It's odd but entirely understandable--many parents and immigrants and non-ultra rich people cannot afford cars or parking in an ultra-high cost of living city like San Francisco.

It's condescending to assume they can.

You are implying that the parent you saw biking with their child is at fault for endangering their child.

No, the drunken driver and traffic engineering is at fault.

Some parents cannot afford a car or two, especially living in a city like San Francisco. You assume that they can.

This is what's not discussed enough.

Wrong takeaway

We could take these vehicles off the road.

They have to be registered with the state department of motor vehicles.

Either charge them a differentially higher vehicle registration fee, or ban them outright.

Another front is questioning whether car insurance rates reflect the real legal liability that drivers of these vehicles incur?

If they truly kill kids then shouldn't their car insurance rates be exorbitantly higher?

You’re right, let’s not.

San Jose is both larger by population and geography so the homelessness per square mile and per capita are lower than SF.

This article understates the context of this “right of return”—-that the German state in the 1940s systematically murdered over 6 million Jews. Today’s Germans are not guilty of this crime, but it is an oddly missing fact from this article—-especially in the context of fleeing Brexit.

I say this as someone who has exercised my right of return to Austria.

Perhaps this type of calculated price discrimination will a) make the roads a little safer and b) encourage non-car transit.