Both of these can be solved with policy.
If you make it so that the institution that determines where the cameras will be placed doesn’t stand to financially benefit from them, that reduces the incentive to turn them into revenue generating machines.
And if you issue fines based on income, which is already the case in countries like Finland and Switzerland, you also solve the unfairness of the fines.
If the roundabout is properly designed, and the space needed for turning trucks is taken into account, then a truck should be fully capable of navigating a turbo roundabout as well.
Those turbo-roundabouts that are common in the Netherlands are also commonly used by trucks without problem.
They are easier to navigate than a regular multi-lane roundabout. The only thing you need to take into account is to sort into the right lane before the roundabout (which requires proper signage) and then it reduces risk on the roundabout itself by eliminating the possibility for lane changes.
It helps keep the flow of cars going smoothly, which is their main benefit.
Source: I live in the Netherlands and turbo-roundabouts are all over the place here.
Turbo-roundabouts aren’t really urban infrastructure though, nor are they are one size fits all solution to traffic.
They take significantly more space than an intersection would, and are generally used to improve traffic flow for cars, not bikes. Even in the Netherlands they are generally only used outside of cities on main routes for cars, with segregated bike infrastructure to keep cyclists out of the roundabout.
It’s car infrastructure, not bike infrastructure.
Edit: I also feel the need to point out that this intersection is not reinventing any wheels.
Protected intersections for cyclists like this are common all over the Netherlands, and are a proven piece of infrastructure when used in the appropriate way.
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive…
Citizen’s Initiatives are great, but I’m not sure they are the right mechanism in this case.
They are meant to make parliament address a concern, and not to inform legislators how you feel about a law proposal that is already on the table. All a Citizen’s Initiative does is force the European parliament to address a concern if a certain threshold of signatures is met. They will be doing that anyway when the law proposal is being voted on.
And on top of that, the time frame for a Citizen’s Initiative is too long (over a year) to be a meaningful shield against Chat Control.
Contacting your representatives to the European Parliament is probably the best way forward at this point.
I’m not sure how contacting my representatives in the European Parliament over something that I am concerned about, would be spam.
I don’t care what party they are from, or what part of the country they are from. They are still my representatives.
They sit there to represent the concerns of their constituents in parliament, and they cannot effectively do that if they do not know the concerns of their constituents.
If you have good ideas for collective action I’d love to hear them, but until then shooting an email can never hurt.
Edit: Just so there is no confusion, I don’t think signing a four year old change.org petition is any more effective than directly contacting your MEPs
Instead it might be more helpful to directly contact your representatives.
This website can help you figure out who they are, and help formulate an email send to them:
https://fightchatcontrol.eu/
(Obviously it is best to write your own response, or at least update the text to be your own, but it could be a good springboard)
The EU is a democracy.
While it’s not perfect (no system is), each of the bodies that make up the EU legislature are democratic:
Not every body is directly voted on, but each body comes forth from a democratic election
Edit: The message I responded to originally made the claim that the “EU is no democracy.”
This looks like an AI generated article
Yes, that system in also in place in Eindhoven and enforced heavily at the station.
If they suspect that your bike has been abandoned it gets a sticker on the frame warning you when it will be removed at a certain date.
If it isnt abandoned you can just remove the sticker and that will be the sign that it’s still owned and used. Otherwise it gets taken to a depot, and sold after a grace period of (I believe) a year.
I’m not sure if that number is correct.
I counted the bikes at the request of @tyler@discuss.tchncs.de
My rough estimate is about 1200 bikes, so that is closer to 1:15.
It’s all part of the station rework. They are going to use that space for housing.
Looks like the construction made the taxi stand temporarily unreachable, so this appears to be the solution they came up with.
Edit: Worth noting that on the north side of the station there is an underground car parking garage, so it’s not like they have removed all parking.
I do think the accessibility of the station is quite well balanced though. It’s pretty clear that bike and bus are the main methods by which they expect you to come to the station, with taxi and car as an option.
Counted 99 bikes in one row, for a total of 10 rows and 4 partial rows.
So I’m guestimating about 1200 bikes
I cycled there real quick
Looks like they’ve since converted the car park to a temporary taxi stand and disabled parking lot as well
There is a bit of a running joke in my city that if your bike got stolen you can buy one for five euros at the station. Just approach the guy with the bolt cutters.
No, bike theft is a thing also in the Netherlands
Most bikes come with a frame lock for short stops, and they are usually paired with a chain lock for more security.
I would imagine the bikes that are not secured to a rack in the picture are locked twice. Personally I don’t trust that at the station (too risky) and I always lock it to a rack with my chain lock
There is bike racks for most spots. I personally prefer parking at the north side though.
Source: Eindhoven is my city :)
It’s at Eindhoven Central Station in the Netherlands
The goal should be to improve safety, not benefit financially.
Placing speed cameras is a tool in your belt to achieve that, but it’s not the only one.
Other alternatives are narrower lanes, speed bumps, trees and objects closer to the road, etc.
But if more cameras means more revenue for the institution in charge of road safety, then that pushes them to not actually fix the reason why people are speeding in the first place. Because that would lower their revenue.
Edit: Here in the Netherlands it is the public ministry who determines where the cameras are located. And the police issues other traffic fines.
However the money from fines is going into the general national budget (just like a tax). Neither the public ministry, nor the ministry of safety who runs the police, gets more money for more fines issued.
This means that their priority is to improve road safety and not maximize revenue.