Skip the red light camera phase and just start redesigning the streets so they don't invite speeding and dangerous driving. No amount of enforcement is ever going to stop assholes. Making them feel like they might hurt THEMSELVES if they drive recklessly will.
Don't know why you're getting modded down. This is precisely the aim of Vision Zero. They have been narrowing streets, experimenting with zig-zag roads along schools, extending curbs into streets etc. The idea is to slow traffic down.
Right now were in a transitional phase where drivers are feeling the squeeze and starting to get riled up. Plus the overcrowding is not helping either. So drivers are not only more fatigued from traffic but now feeling at odds with pedestrians because of these modifications. I suspect that this is the reason for the spike. I've lived here my whole life and it's way more crowded than ever. Pedestrians are spilling into the streets and competing with drivers.
The need to push and remove more needless cars. I also want to see more bike lanes. Some of the roads I have seen narrowed have left plenty of room for dedicated or protected bike lanes but they left as unmarked no man's land. I also see some roads and intersections with very questionable redesigns and traffic patterns which force cars and pedestrians to fight. So the city needs to accept that some intersections they have designed arent as safe as they want them to be. One redesign by me has forced a lot of traffic through the local side streets which are major pedestrian routes (school right down the roads with lots of children about) and have not received ANY vision zero attention at all. So they just push the problems from one place to another. The only way to fix the issues is to eliminate cars. Honestly, they need a quota or some other restriction of ownership and driving in NYC.
Yep! But I don't think a ban is needed to remove cars. Just make it undesirable to have one. Remove incentives to drive. For example, removing parking (free parking especially) is a great way to remove cars.
If you mean setting up streets like the Monaco Grand Prix, you're in for a
treat. Nothing inflames the male urge to nail the throttle like a hairpin
turn or dangerous looking street "berm". Congestion pricing would be my
first-order solution. Fewer cars fewer accidents is inarguable.
It's the giant SUVs. The answer is obvious just by walking around, but the data is an obvious correlation as well. Any car that you can't see a child out of should be illegal.
Flat, simple logo design has nothing to do with "going digital" - all the gradients and chrome shit layered on top of the existing logo are far more "digital" than anything that came before or after.
Lots of definitive-sounding opinions from people who clearly don't have design experience. It's fun to be equipped to see through comments that sound good but are total bullshit to someone who knows what they're talking about - I don't often get that on here :)
Hate to break it to you, but all these "problems" with the logo were exactly the same in the old logo. You got distracted by the ham-fisted layer styles and fooled into thinking that made it good.
The fact that you said "makes the letters pop" would send shivers down any designer's spine.
Having the text as negative space on dark is still perceptually different to having it on a transparent background (which is perceived as negative space). This is enough to make it feel unbalanced.
This article is just a guy whining about how he personally doesn't like a logo. This logo is just fine, and it's certainly better than the old one that tried to look like it was made of physical material. Obviously the logos that are applied to the cars will look metallic because, well, they will be made of metal. This is a better logo in general, especially for print and online purposes. No excessive fake gradients and material renders, simpler lines and colors that will reduce well, and it goes back to the original state of their logo before they piled a bunch of fake chrome on it in the last couple decades.
