Ban Dangerous Wasteful Cybertrucks
Like the other huge expensive pickups that automakers are focusing on, the Cybertruck will be dangerous to people walking, rolling, cycling and driving. It will also have high manufacturing GHG emissions and be a general waste of energy and resources taking them away from the badly needed electrification of buses and the trucks needed to move goods. Especially in the short term, this could actually increase GHG emissions.
The prototype was larger than full size pickups from Ford, Dodge and GM. Musk has indicated that production Cybertrucks will be pretty much that size. It is likely that the Cybertruck will not be sold European and Australian as it does not comply with pedestrian safety standards.
From Why the Tesla Cybertruck won’t be legal in Europe by Ethan Jupp of Motoring Research:
“The front of the vehicle must not be stiff,” explains Stefan Teller, expert at SGS-TUV Saar GmbH.
“The bumper and bonnet must be able to absorb energy to protect the pedestrians,” meaning those “strong modifications to the basic structure,” would be necessary. Teller follows that for type approval, the Cybertruck would need to be compliant with 50 to 60 different regulations.
Looking back to the reveal of the Cybertruck, much was made of how stiff and strong its rolled stainless steel structure and panels were. Great for sledgehammers, but potentially deadly for the occupants and unwitting pedestrians…
Car companies are touting these acceleration rates as a selling point, which is ominous. Although supercharged pick-up speeds serve no practical purpose, they create real danger for other road users—especially those on foot or in a wheelchair who have scant time to get out of the way.
{{gas_on=true}}{{country?countries=CA,US}}
{{include?tweet_this_by_countries}}
{{tweet_this_official_list_set?countries.us.pres,countries.us.cab.trans,countries.us.cab.epa&country=US}}
{{tweet_this_official_list_set?government_canada.mps.leaders.prime,government_canada.mps.port.trans.minister,government_canada.mps.port.environment.minister&country=CA}}
Ban SUVs
SUVs are dangerous especially to people walking, cycling, and rolling and a leading cause of the climate crisis.
A report from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that found that:
SUVs crashes were a leading cause of the skyrocketing deaths of people walking, which increased 46% between 2009 and 2018, according to an investigation by The Detroit Free Press and USA Today.
According to Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market based on an analysis published World Energy Outlook:
A Report on Toronto, Vancouver traffic reveals outsized health risks posed by trucks and SUVs states:
While pollutants from tailpipe exhaust have declined as cars have become cleaner, those emissions have been overtaken by other sources of traffic pollution, including fine particles and metal dust from increased wear on brakes and tires, a trend researchers say matches the growing prevalence of heavier consumer vehicles such as SUVs.
A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that:
The auto industry is failing to protect people's health and safety and the environment. As a result, folks around the world are demanding that governments take serious action including the banning of SUVs especially in communities where there are lots of people around. Time for Canada to take serious action on the climate and road fatality crisis by banning SUVs.
Photograph: WTHR 13 Investigates: Millions of vehicles have unexpected, dangerous front blind zone
Ban Big Pickups
{{country?countries=CA,US}}{{CA_leaders=government_canada.mps.leaders.prime,government_canada.mps.port.trans.minister,government_canada.mps.port.environment.minister}}{{US_leaders=countries.us.pres,countries.us.cab.trans,countries.us.cab.epa}}Huge pickups with high front ends are dangerous especially to people walking, cycling, and rolling and a leading cause of the climate crisis. They are also dangerous to those in other passenger vehicles.
Due to their high front ends, pickups are more likely to hit people in the head and upper body injuring vital organs. They are especially dangerous to children:
In spite of knowing for decades of these safety problems, the automakers refuse to take action. Instead, they just keep building larger, even more dangerous pickups. A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that:
While some do need pickup trucks for work, many don't. Those who do, could likely use trucks with lower, safer front ends like the automakers used to sell instead of the really big trucks being sold today.
The auto industry is failing to protect people's health and safety and the environment. As a result, folks around the world are demanding that governments take serious action including the banning of big pickups especially in communities where there are lots of people around. Time for Canada to take serious action on the climate and road fatality crisis by banning big dangerous pickups.
Photo: Montreal police examine a pickup truck that fatally struck a pedestrian in January 2017. PHIL CARPENTER / Montreal Gazette
The End of Rush Hour - Will anyone really miss it?
{{share_buttons?}}
As we discovered during the worst of the pandemic, with roads being practically empty at all times of the day, essential workers commuting and essential goods being delivered creates very little traffic. Rush hour(s) disappeared. Many of those packing roads and transit discovered that they could work from home. It seems that a great portion of rush hour traffic is created by those who don't even need to go anywhere to work.
The Center for Disease Control is already recommending that during the pandemic, employers “Allow employees to shift their hours so they can commute during less busy times.” and “Stagger shifts, start times, and break times as feasible to reduce the density of employees in common areas such as screening areas, break rooms, and locker rooms.” These would be good policies to encourage or even require after the pandemic to reduce crowding on transit and congestion on roads.
While the focus of the media and government transportation officials professionals is the travel time impacts of rush hour congestion on drivers, at least drivers are in relative safety in the comfort of their vehicle. The impact of crowding at rush hour is often worse for many people using transit.
Women are likely harassed and assaulted more when transit is crowded. Those with money often end up being forced to spend more money for transportation by buying a motor vehicle or using taxis or ride hailing. Those with lower incomes or who are unable to drive have no choice but to be subjected to harassment and assault. Both situations are totally unacceptable.
Disabled people, seniors those with injuries and others with mobility changes and those using strollers and carts are much more likely to experience pass-ups during peak periods than temporarily able people. When transit is more crowded, people are less able to be economically, socially or personally productive. It is harder to use a smartphone or tablet or read a newspaper or book.
Vast amounts of valuable land and enormous amounts of money have been devoted in trying to reduce road congestion. Yet, even before the pandemic, this only provided some travel time benefits to some people during peak periods at the expense of pretty much everyone else and everyone during the vast majority of hours in a week. Using space for bus lanes, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, greenspace and patios benefits pretty much everyone all the time. And, more often than not, road expansion has failed to reduce congestion and often has made it worse by encouraging more people to drive.
Several cities have successfully implemented congestion pricing significantly reducing congestion and pollution. However, congestion pricing is typically politically difficult and expensive to implement. It also places the cost and responsibility of reducing congestion on workers who likely don’t have much choice when they have to go to work. Implementing and operating congestion pricing can also be very expensive. It also places the burden on individuals to reduce their motor vehicle travel during peak periods. While some people can choose to travel at other times, others are required by their employer or school to commute during peak periods. They are forced to either pay more to drive, take transit when it is most crowded or cycle on what are likely unsafe streets in many cases.
A fairer, more equitable and likely less expensive option would be to encourage or require employers and educational institutions to help employees and students travel less especially during peak hours. Some of this has already been done during the pandemic. Now would be a great time inclusive engagement with those accessing essential services, workers, students, employers, educational institutions and others on how to continue and enhance and improve measures to reduce the need to travel especially during rush hour over the longer term. The overall goal should be enabling more equitable, accessible and healthier communities for everyone.
An good example is how the BC Government took action requiring that employees only work at one long term care or assisted living facility to avoid the spread of COVID. This is likely better for most workers, essential during the pandemic and reduces driving making our roads less congested and safer. It would be a good idea to strongly encourage this through regulations or incentives after the pandemic.
After moving to a 4 day work week in Iceland:
Workers reported feeling less stressed and at risk of burnout, and said their health and work-life balance had improved. They also reported having more time to spend with their families, do hobbies and complete household chores.
Here are some other ideas. I’m sure there are a lot more. Let your elected representatives know what your ideas, concerns and thoughts are on enabling people to travel less during rush hour.
- Enabling, encouraging and or mandating changes to work hours and number of workdays to decrease peak period crowding on transit and congestion on roads
- Four or three day work weeks
- Fewer or no days in offices
- More remote work and learning
- Staggered work and school hours to avoid rush hour commuting
- Business hours that encourage customers to travel in off peak hours
- Medical appointments during peak hours could be prioritized for those who live close while off peak appointments could be prioritized for those who drive or take transit
- Fees or taxes on employers that require workers to travel during peak periods
Other ideas to encourage less travel by automobile
- Policies that encourage more full time work so people don't have to work and commute to several part time jobs
- Polices that discourage split shifts
- Require employers to pay a living wage so people don't have commute to more than one workplace in a day
- Enabling employees to “swap” jobs without losing pay or benefits so their workplaces are closer to where they live
- Much greater government investment in social housing
- Land use policies that encourage more affordable housing close to employment centres
- Mandatory trip reduction plans for workplaces. Washington State does a good job of this
- Better transit service early in the morning, late at night and on the weekends
- Reallocate traffic lanes for bus lanes, protected bike lanes and wider sidewalks
- Banning street parking except where needed for essential access. It slows down buses, causes congestion and increases crashes. The space then can be used for bike lanes, bus lanes and wider sidewalks
- Banning monthly pay parking. Only pay by day
{{survey?page_slug=end_of_rush_hour_poll}}{{the_names= your MLA, MP and Mayor}}
More info
Just 3% of Black professionals want to return to the office full-time, post-Covid
Germany plans for 'right to work from home for a minimum of 24 days a year
It’s Time to Do Away With Rush Hour
‘I’m utterly sick of it’: UK workers on the return of the commute
Four-day week 'an overwhelming success' in Iceland
A thread that outlines some of the advantages and problems that need to be address.
🏭 Pollution reduction: many companies we've spoken to care massively about the environmental impact that eradicating the office – and the commute – will have
— Chris Herd (@chris_herd) October 5, 2020
108 million tons of Co2 less every year
Photo: BERNARD WEIL / TORONTO STAR
{{mailer?headline=Tell Your MLA, MP and Mayor to Help End Rush Hour&introduction=Let them know how they can help you, your family, friends and coworkers travel less especially during peak periods and how this would improve your life and community. Forever. &subpage=emergency_lanes_letter&[email protected]&postal_code_first=true&to=mla.local,mp.local,mayor.local&cc=acturgently&placeholder=Your message to Your MLA, MP and Mayor*}}{{override_template=true}}
Please share
{{share_buttons?}}
Please contribute what you can to help spread the word!
{{donation?page_slug=donate&display_content=false&display_headline=false}}
{{include?page_slug=mailer_autoresponse&subject=Thank You For Acting Urgently!&thank_you_message=Thank you for helping end rush hour. Forever.&sample_email_introduction=Please join me in helping to end rush hour. Forever.&campaign_name=End Rush Hour&sample_email_closing=Let your MLA, MP and Mayor know how ending rush hour would improve the quality of life for your family, friends and community}}
Cycling, Walking and Transit Are Real Climate Solutions
A study from the UK prioritizes energy efficient forms of transportation such as walking, cycling, rolling and transit acknowledging that the adoption of EVs will not happen at a rate anywhere near fast enough to mitigate climate change. It recommends systemic support for clean healthy choices including increased investment and priority use of road space. {{to=government_bc.mlas.leaders.premier,government_bc.mlas.port.transportation.minister,government_bc.mlas.port.environment.minister}}
{{the_names={{format_list?{{for?index=={{to}}&&do==((query_widget?((index))&template=[[signup.prefix]] [[signup.last_name]],))}}}}}}
Shifting the focus: energy demand in a net-zero carbon UK's overall recommendations include:
- Prioritise energy demand solutions
- Consider and promote all the benefits of demand-side solutions
- Scale up policies that work
- Develop long term plans for demand-side innovation
- Build effective institutions for delivery of demand-side solutions
- Involve a wider range of stakeholders to build capacity across society
The Mobility recommendations include:
Systematic support for the very lowest energy modes of transport
Enabling and encouraging a shift from private motorised travel to more energy efficient modes requires systematic support for the very lowest energy methods of transport – walking, cycling (including e-bikes and e-scooters) and public transport, through investment programmes on both capital and revenue spending, priority use of road space, and an expansion of ‘soft’ or ‘smarter’ methods of encouraging behavioural change. The goal would be to design “a mobility system where it is more normal to take part in activities using the most sustainable modes more of the time”.
As in B.C., the study notes than in the UK that people, especially younger folks, are using sustainable modes more than transportation planning models predict. Policies and investments need to be updated to reflect what people are doing and want to do instead of assuming that people want to drive everywhere. This is needed to avoid self-defeating over spending on and allocating too much space for roads, parking and other motor vehicle infrastructure and subsidies.
In communities large and small around B.C. where substantial investments in transit, cycling and walking have been made, many people are choosing healthy transportation proving that many don't want to drive. Systemic changes need to be made and budgets need to be reprioritized to ensure that everyone in B.C. has access to healthy clean transportation choices.
Dream Big! Massive Investment in Cycling, Walking and Rolling. NOW!
{{share_buttons}}
Massive investment is needed NOW to complete cycling, walking and rolling networks in communities across B.C. to give people safe healthy affordable basic mobility choices and to help address the climate crisis.
Please share major cycling, walking and rolling infrastructure vision, projects or network plans that need provincial funding below. Let folks know how much it would help people in your community.
Then you can share it with others so they can write {{query_widget?government_bc.mlas.leaders.premier&template=[[relationship.title]] [[signup.last_name]]}} and {{query_widget?government_bc.mlas.port.trans.minister&template=[[relationship.title]] [[signup.last_name]]}}.
{{suggestion_add?title_placeholder=Vision, Project or Plan Title *&suggestion_placeholder=Vision, Project or Plan Details *&show_all_initially=true&sign_in_message=Sign In to Add Your Vision, Projects and Plans}}
{{column_break}}
{{include?page_slug=bc_funding_letter}}
{{donation?page_slug=donate}}
{{child.template=bc_funding_child_template}}{{suggestions_at_end=true}}{{action?tag=BC Funding - Idea&html=Share Your Vision, Plans and Projects. NOW!&action_count_page_slug=bc_funding&action_label=visions&anchor=#}}
Ban SUVs - Save Lives and Help Stop the Climate Crisis
SUVs are dangerous especially to people walking, cycling, and rolling and a leading cause of the climate crisis.
A report from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that found that:
{{to=government_canada.mps.leaders.prime,government_canada.mps.port.trans.minister,government_canada.mps.port.environment.minister}}{{tweet_this?A SUV or pickup crashing into a person walking is 2 to 3 times more likely to kill them than a passenger car.&&to=={{to}}&&hashtags==BanSUVs,ClimateEmergency,VisionZero}}
SUVs crashes were a leading cause of the skyrocketing deaths of people walking, which increased 46% between 2009 and 2018, according to an investigation by The Detroit Free Press and USA Today.
According to Growing preference for SUVs challenges emissions reductions in passenger car market based on an analysis published World Energy Outlook:
{{tweet_this?SUVs were the second-largest contributor to the increase in global CO2 emissions since 2010 after the power sector, but ahead of heavy industry as well as trucks and aviation.&&to=={{to}}&&hashtags==ClimateEmergency}}
{{tweet_this?Bigger and heavier cars, like SUVs, are harder to electrify. Their rising demand may slow down the development of clean and efficient car fleets.&&to=={{to}}&&hashtags==BanSUVs,ClimateEmergency,VisionZero}}
A Report on Toronto, Vancouver traffic reveals outsized health risks posed by trucks and SUVs states:
While pollutants from tailpipe exhaust have declined as cars have become cleaner, those emissions have been overtaken by other sources of traffic pollution, including fine particles and metal dust from increased wear on brakes and tires, a trend researchers say matches the growing prevalence of heavier consumer vehicles such as SUVs.
A study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that:
{{tweet_this?SUVs Are 28 Percent More Likely To Kill Other Drivers In A Crash&&to=={{to}}&&hashtags==BanSUVs,ClimateEmergency,VisionZero}}
The auto industry is failing to protect people's health and safety and the environment. As a result, folks around the world are demanding that governments take serious action including the banning of SUVs especially in communities where there are lots of people around. Time for Canada to take serious action on the climate and road fatality crisis by banning SUVs.
Photograph: Yann Schreiber/AFP/Getty Images via 'A deadly problem': should we ban SUVs from our cities?
We call on the federal government to ban the sale of SUVs and large pickup trucks until and unless safety and environmentally problems are addressed. Specially, government regulations must mandate:
- safer lower front end designs and other measures eliminating the risk people of walking, cycling, rolling, or occupying other vehicles being killed or seriously injured
- significantly lighter vehicles decreasing manufacturing and operating GHG emissions enough to address the climate emergency; decreasing harmful tire and brake dust emissions; and enabling rapid fleet electrification