Upvote for explaining the reference. But to expect the average reader to know that is a bit far stretched.

Interesting piece.

A poll in early 2016, conducted by the University of Exeter, found that 46 per cent of the farmers they questioned said the interests of British agriculture would be best served by the UK remaining in the EU, while only 36 per cent indicated it would be better to leave.

Another poll a few days before the referendum vote found that 38 per cent wanted to remain, 34 per cent to leave and 28 per cent were undecided.

Two polls, one in December 2016 and one in December 2017, both with near identical results found that among the farmers who responded, 53 per cent voted to leave, 45 per cent voted to remain and 2 per cent did not vote.

Please, show me the protest in russia about the revelations that their own people rape and torture. I will wait here.

It was literally in the article:

The Crew Against Torture, a Russian NGO that was previously known as the Committee Against Torture, said with regards to the original attack that “the answer to barbarism must not be barbarism”, and that that the value of testimony extracted by law enforcement agents under torture was critically low.

Gibt’s ein bisschen mehr Infos?

• Benzin/Elektro
• Reichweite
• Leistung
• Gewicht
• v_max
• c_W

Best online translator in town. Better than Google.

DeepL.com

App

Bullshit

In theory yes, in reality no.

Speaking for Germany.

If Europe would welcome them with open arms, giving them residence permit, a flat and work, much more would desert.

And we would have desperately needed skilled workers.

With an audience smaller than the crew.

Parking is the biggest problem with everyone having a car.

Parking is a problem only in cities. 20% of the population lives rural.

But you know, it would be easier to share these taxis if we didn’t go door to door. Like, maybe we could have well defined routes for these autonomous taxis. … It’s much easier to travel specific routes anyway.

Better than predefined routes is aggregated ride sharing like MOIA. Which is essentially a big taxi.

We drop some inefficacy by not having every car go door to door as well. Excellent.

Excellent? Sort of inconvenient, people have to walk to the nearest station. Especially with groceries. And impractical for the elderly, disabled and small children.

if we have a track we could also get rid of those heavy metal microplastic spewing tires.

Why is particulate matter in trains stations so high?

You go back and tell me which of these proposed efficiency improvements actually reduces efficiency and we’ll talk.

If everything is so efficient, why on earth needs a tram 15 kWh per passenger per 100 km?

Pilsener Urquell@lemm.ee?

Downvote because this is a bullshit marketing move.

Iveco paid Metallica to promote their hydrogen, electric and LNG (fossil-fuel) trucks. They don’t do it out of conviction, but just for the money.

You’re right that 60% of all accidents of bikes are with cars. And of these 75% are caused by cars. Link So with less cars and better infrastructure bike-accidents could be cut in half and deadly accidents nearly eliminated.

Glad that you accept trains as not much more energy efficient than cars.

None of these three links is behind a pay wall. (You have to accept the GDPR-banner thou.)

Those [fast] trains are not comparable to cars, they’re comparable to airplanes. The metros and light rails that are intended to replace cars are overwhelmingly more efficient per potential passenger.

Local public transport needs about twice as much energy than high-speed trains.

Source: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/479/publikationen/texte_156-2020_oekologische_bewertung_von_verkehrsarten_0.pdf

Comparing a vehicle [train] that is usually run near capacity

The average capacity utilization is more like 20%. See the source above or https://www.zeit.de/mobilitaet/2019-02/nahverkehr-oepnv-bus-bahn-zahlen-preise-statistik

Every human being carrying around multiple tons of metal with them can’t possibly be efficient.

Explain to me how a train with 2 metric tonnes per passenger can be efficient?

Only German and Swiss sources, sorry for that. But should not differ much to other countries.

• https://www.energie-gedanken.ch/2019/ein-elektroauto-verbraucht-gleich-viel-energie-wie-die-eisenbahn/
• https://www.elektroauto-news.net/news/wie-umweltfreundlich-ist-die-bahn-eigentlich
• https://www.airliners.de/energieverbrauch-bahn-flugzeug-apropos/36592
• https://m.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/klima/klimabilanz-der-bahn-noch-eine-unbequeme-wahrheit-1488587.html

But you can use regenerative energy surces

Same with electric cars.

I dont think you can kill as many people with bikes than you can with a car.

If bikes would drive the same annual passenger-kilometers, they would.

You anyway need a new car every 15 years. So no additional costs.

Car drivers chose cars for convenience so anything that makes them inconvenient is a positive factor to getting them out of cars.

That’s the wrong way. Bike should be made more convenient. But artificial worsening is no good thing.

Bicycles and trains are hundreds of times more efficient than cars in terms of energy and space…

A fast train like TGV, ICE or Shinkansen needs 10 kWh per passenger per 100 km. This includes infrastructure like heated railway switches, train stations, etc.

This is not much more energy efficient than an electric car.

And bike crashes don’t kill over a million people per year globally.

Compare the passenger-kilometers done by car and by bike.

Better now?