352
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago

Won't anybody think of the poor cars? But seriously, resources are better utilised by bicycles to the benefit of all. There are no losers here other than the oil companies and car manufacturers.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Oops sorry I just noticed your last sentence. Yes there are losers. They include all the people whose lifestyles involve driving.

Pretending otherwise is childish and lame.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

And what exactly are those people going to lose if they get on a bike sometimes? Their diabetes?

[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I'm going to lose my lifetime, literally, by biking a total of 80+ km to work and back. And public transportation takes 2+ hrs one way.

[-] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

So how does more bike lanes in inner cities affect that?

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Then when you get into the city, you'll benefit immensely from 80% of the people being on separated bike paths rather than cars on the road.

There's no realistic plan where cities become carless, but can they not be the default?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I don't disagree with the plans to make the city careless. I answered the question what would be so bad about cycling. I think the time factor is often forgotten when talking about cycling and public transport

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The time factor is always forgotten when discussing ways to make society more efficient. As if the primary thing that the working poor are poor in isn’t time itself.

Time, as a resource to be paid for these various solutions, is treated like a throwaway resource. IMO it’s positively dehumanizing to wantonly allocate other people’s time like that.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

How is a driving person going to benefit from there being more people biking exactly?

Think that through. Why are there more people biking? Because the cost of driving went up.

If those who drive benefit from this system, it will mean more people choosing to drive as a result of driving being more valuable.

Don’t think you’re making the utility of cars better by this. If it made cars more useful it would result in more car trips. If it makes cars more useful and doesn’t result in more car trips, it must have forced some subset of people to stop using cars for the other drivers’ benefit.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

The costs don't have to go up at all. Merely uncover the costs that are already there but hidden. Everything from noise, space usage, wars in far off countries, lack of exercise, or just the surprise $1200 repair expense.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

No, lose it making money to maintain and feed the car ( how many working hours a year that is?) and sitting in a car for an hour in one direction. Correct time of commuting is time spent in traffic + time spent to earn the money for fuel. If you bikemute, you can actually consider a part of that time as free gym.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You have no idea how ableist you're being right now.

Even ignoring the jab at diabetics, what about other disabled people? Not everyone can just get on a bike.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

It's always so funny when car brains suddenly discover their heart for disabled people when they desperately reach for arguments against non car centric traffic planning. If you're genuinely concerned about disabled people and those who can't drive for other reasons (poverty springs to mind) you should advocate for transport options besides cars.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

A variety of transport options for a variety of preferences and disabilities. Some people have a disability that prevents them from cycling, others from walking, others from driving. Only building car centric is still unfair to those who cannot drive due to disability, age, or skill. Only building bike lanes and no transit or car lanes can also be unfair. Multiple options is the most fair in most scenarios.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Exactly. We need multiple options and realistic options for people with limitations. It's way too common on this community for people to call everybody a car brain just because they have trouble riding a bike.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I am a disabled person and I vote for transportation levies and taxes every time they come up, but nice trying to pretend that I'm a car brain just because I happen to need one.

Once again, ableism. Don't assume everybody is not disabled just because you don't see them in a wheelchair.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

You're a car brain because you jump from "we should build more bike lanes" to "they want to ban cars". Nobody is saying that.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

“they want to ban cars"

Nobody here is saying this as far as I know

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I also did not say that. I responded to a person who suggested that everybody should ride a bike.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's always so funny when car brains suddenly discover their heart for disabled people

This is viciously insulting. What the hell are you talking about “suddenly discover their heart”. What do you know about my heart?

You really think the only people to disagree with you are ice cold monsters? That’s a crazy way to see this scenario: you versus the cold blooded shade demons who don’t like being forced to change their lives.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I suppose it's generally easier for the disabled to drive, yeah?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

That will dramatically depend on the disability in question. For some, yes.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

They’re losing the ability to use their car with the same level of utility as before.

You’re squirming to not recognize this basic fact. It takes a lot of energy expenditure to not acknowledge this fact.

Just be okay with what you’re doing. Own it.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think that the problem here is that your definition of "losing" equates to "slight reduction in the massive subsidy that society provides to drivers, and forcing them to drive slower in cities because the lanes are narrower so that other people don't have to die." Yeah, technically "losing," but it still sounds pretty childish to complain about.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Yes there are losers. They include all the people whose lifestyles involve driving.

However, they'd on average be healthier and happier, that's not losing.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don’t really know that taking a person’s chosen lifestyle away is gonna make them happier, or that we have the right to force people for the sake of happiness.

Health wise, maybe. Maybe they have more stress because they spend more time in their car due to reallocation of road space from cars to bikes.

You’re dancing around the fact that you are taking from and giving to. It’s a reallocation of wealth from one group to a different group.

The group with wealth taken away loses.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. There are more car-only roads than bike-only roads
  2. Virtually no roads are ever completely closed off from car traffic and allocated strictly towards bicycles
  3. More lanes = more traffic jams (induced demand)
  4. More bike lanes = more people on bikes = fewer people in cars = fewer jams for "your lifestyle"
  5. Narrower roads = Fewer cars = fewer pedestrian deaths = fewer car-crashes
  6. More people biking/walking, healthier lifestyle, less stress on the healthcare system.

I don't see how this isn't a win for car-people and bike-people.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

ironically, they win.

whenever the road diet where i live, traffic improves. because it slows down to one lane and it prevents accidents.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

All of that is beside my point.

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
352 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12676 readers
890 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS