5 ms·

I don't like the idea of the government banning stuff. I'm a lifelong cyclist, ex-bike courier. Cars don't offend me. Bad drivers do. I always loved the freedo

I don't like the idea of the government banning stuff. I'm a lifelong cyclist, ex-bike courier. Cars don't offend me. Bad drivers do. I always loved the freedom of cycling. The lack of regulation and traffic stops is one of my favorite points. Never enjoyed 'cycling routes' or special bike lanes. They always seem to box me in. I feel less safe in these areas.

Heliosmaster 8y ago
The government is banning stuff all the time. You are not allowed to do a plethora of things that harm other people or society (stealing? murder? destroying public property?). A ban on petrol/diesel car is nothing special.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Its more of a revocation of the privilege to use destructive vehicles on public land. I'm sure after the ban your cars will still be legal to use on private property.
- provolone 8y ago
  Controlling violence is one of the primary justifications for government. You're comparing apples and oranges - Violent acts and prohibition of inanimate objects don't fit in the same scope. Prohibition of alcohol would be a more apt comparison.
  - knorker 8y ago
    You are not allowed to possess a knife in public (without good reason), nor are you allowed to own guns. Cars physically hurt people even when they aren't hitting people. I think your rule about possession being different from action doesn't hold water at all.
    - provolone 8y ago
      Books are also inanimate and have been banned throughout history. Cannabis is another interesting one. Lots of data and settled science about how terrible it was... Lately western nations have been walking that one back.
      - knorker 8y ago
        You are comparing books and the right to poison the air, not paying for the HUGE externalities it causes? If you're an ultra-libertarian I think you need to get your externality philosophy straightened out first in your model of utopia.
        provolone 8y ago
        As opposed to a centrally planned model of utopia?
        knorker 8y ago
        Sorry, I didn't realise I was standing next to a straw man who you must have mistaken me for.
viraptor 8y ago
Bike lanes are what cities make them. A lane in Amsterdam is not the same as a lane... pretty much anywhere else I've seen.
- provolone 8y ago
  Competence builds confidence. Seems like most of the safety complainers don't want to cycle and are looking for excuses.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    There is no way in hell I would let my kid cycle on the vast majority of "cycle lanes", and suggesting that I should let her wobble around until she builds competence or dies is ridiculous. Vehicular cycling has set back actual progress in safe infrastructure by decades and is woefully ill-informed about the needs of anyone other than fit, adult, experienced cyclists with excellent vision, hearing, and reflexes. If you wouldn't let your 8 or 80 year old relative use it, it's crap bike infrastructure.
    - provolone 8y ago
      Seems like we went everywhere from age 8 via bicycle. No supervision, just be back for dinner. Worked out fine and there were no designated bicycle lanes.
      - Symbiote 8y ago
        Without saying when and where you lived at age 8, this is a pretty useless comment. Aged 8, I was in the UK in the 1990s. - Most children went to the nearest school (no longer the case with increased choice from parents) - The tabloid "paedo-fear" thing hadn't really set in, so more children were allowed outside unsupervised. - There were fewer people, and fewer working people [1] - The number of car trips has gone up (although not much), and the number of walking trips has gone down massively [1] - The number of children being driven to school (on a parent's way to work) has increased massively [1]. That presumably adds traffic at the worst possible place and time for children who could otherwise walk or cycle to school. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/657839/commuting-in-england-1988-2015.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
CalRobert 8y ago
So don't use them. They're not mandatory and the open road remains yours for the taking, aside from motorways. But just as not all people are track runners, not all people are ex-bike-couriers, and it would be nice if they could ride a bike in something other than abject terror. Also, I actually don't favour a total ban for the most part, just pricing in the externalities. Which would make petrol and diesel powered cars astonishingly expensive. Removing a liter's worth of CO2 from the air would have to be priced in to the cost of a liter of fuel. Paying for your dead neighbour's funeral would need to be covered too (though insurance is meant to cover this, drivers who kill people walking or cycling are rarely found at fault, because it's legal to kill people with your car if they're in the street). Meanwhile, you'd still let the odd hot rod or classic car enthusiast have a project car to wrench on during the weekends, and honestly, I think that's great. They're a key part of our cultural history and great fun. But right now we still pay for all of those things! We just make _everyone else_ pay for them, which is very unfair. My taxes pay for the street where people drive too quickly to stop before killing my child if she slips from the pavement, and where they emit pollution that has rendered her less intelligent than she might be otherwise, though it's impossible to say by how much. I don't even own a car. So that seems unjust.
- provolone 8y ago
  We might have some common ground here. I don't drive and I don't want to pay for it either. For me the bigger negative externality is in foreign policy. I don't want any part of overseas adventures for oil. The financial costs alone are astronomical. At the same time, I do benefit from transportation infrastructure in terms of shipping and purchasing goods which are transported. But if it were my decision I'd say just privatize the whole thing. If a private road pollutes or otherwise harms anyone, then they should be liable. Problem solved. Lawyers have every incentive to claim damages. About the abject terror, just build your way up. You can do it. Once you try it you'll see that it truly is as easy as riding a bike. Back to your main point - it is not selfish to not want to ban petrol/diesel vehicles. I am ready to share the road with anyone.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    I am a confident cyclist. I used to commute 4400 mi per year from Santa Monica to Marina Del Rey via Lincoln blvd on a recumbent, if that tells you anything. Check out street view - it's hell for the most part. But most people are not me, and we definitely don't demand new drivers live in utter terror until they get numb to it. Nevermind survival bias. Dead ex-bike-couriers aren't here to give their view.

Heliosmaster 8y ago

The government is banning stuff all the time. You are not allowed to do a plethora of things that harm other people or society (stealing? murder? destroying public property?). A ban on petrol/diesel car is nothing special.

ndnxhs 8y ago
Its more of a revocation of the privilege to use destructive vehicles on public land. I'm sure after the ban your cars will still be legal to use on private property.
provolone 8y ago
Controlling violence is one of the primary justifications for government. You're comparing apples and oranges - Violent acts and prohibition of inanimate objects don't fit in the same scope. Prohibition of alcohol would be a more apt comparison.
- knorker 8y ago
  You are not allowed to possess a knife in public (without good reason), nor are you allowed to own guns. Cars physically hurt people even when they aren't hitting people. I think your rule about possession being different from action doesn't hold water at all.
  - provolone 8y ago
    Books are also inanimate and have been banned throughout history. Cannabis is another interesting one. Lots of data and settled science about how terrible it was... Lately western nations have been walking that one back.
    - knorker 8y ago
      You are comparing books and the right to poison the air, not paying for the HUGE externalities it causes? If you're an ultra-libertarian I think you need to get your externality philosophy straightened out first in your model of utopia.
      - provolone 8y ago
        As opposed to a centrally planned model of utopia?
        knorker 8y ago
        Sorry, I didn't realise I was standing next to a straw man who you must have mistaken me for.

viraptor 8y ago

Bike lanes are what cities make them. A lane in Amsterdam is not the same as a lane... pretty much anywhere else I've seen.

provolone 8y ago
Competence builds confidence. Seems like most of the safety complainers don't want to cycle and are looking for excuses.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  There is no way in hell I would let my kid cycle on the vast majority of "cycle lanes", and suggesting that I should let her wobble around until she builds competence or dies is ridiculous. Vehicular cycling has set back actual progress in safe infrastructure by decades and is woefully ill-informed about the needs of anyone other than fit, adult, experienced cyclists with excellent vision, hearing, and reflexes. If you wouldn't let your 8 or 80 year old relative use it, it's crap bike infrastructure.
  - provolone 8y ago
    Seems like we went everywhere from age 8 via bicycle. No supervision, just be back for dinner. Worked out fine and there were no designated bicycle lanes.
    - Symbiote 8y ago
      Without saying when and where you lived at age 8, this is a pretty useless comment. Aged 8, I was in the UK in the 1990s. - Most children went to the nearest school (no longer the case with increased choice from parents) - The tabloid "paedo-fear" thing hadn't really set in, so more children were allowed outside unsupervised. - There were fewer people, and fewer working people [1] - The number of car trips has gone up (although not much), and the number of walking trips has gone down massively [1] - The number of children being driven to school (on a parent's way to work) has increased massively [1]. That presumably adds traffic at the worst possible place and time for children who could otherwise walk or cycle to school. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/657839/commuting-in-england-1988-2015.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

CalRobert 8y ago

So don't use them. They're not mandatory and the open road remains yours for the taking, aside from motorways. But just as not all people are track runners, not all people are ex-bike-couriers, and it would be nice if they could ride a bike in something other than abject terror. Also, I actually don't favour a total ban for the most part, just pricing in the externalities. Which would make petrol and diesel powered cars astonishingly expensive. Removing a liter's worth of CO2 from the air would have to be priced in to the cost of a liter of fuel. Paying for your dead neighbour's funeral would need to be covered too (though insurance is meant to cover this, drivers who kill people walking or cycling are rarely found at fault, because it's legal to kill people with your car if they're in the street). Meanwhile, you'd still let the odd hot rod or classic car enthusiast have a project car to wrench on during the weekends, and honestly, I think that's great. They're a key part of our cultural history and great fun. But right now we still pay for all of those things! We just make _everyone else_ pay for them, which is very unfair. My taxes pay for the street where people drive too quickly to stop before killing my child if she slips from the pavement, and where they emit pollution that has rendered her less intelligent than she might be otherwise, though it's impossible to say by how much. I don't even own a car. So that seems unjust.

provolone 8y ago
We might have some common ground here. I don't drive and I don't want to pay for it either. For me the bigger negative externality is in foreign policy. I don't want any part of overseas adventures for oil. The financial costs alone are astronomical. At the same time, I do benefit from transportation infrastructure in terms of shipping and purchasing goods which are transported. But if it were my decision I'd say just privatize the whole thing. If a private road pollutes or otherwise harms anyone, then they should be liable. Problem solved. Lawyers have every incentive to claim damages. About the abject terror, just build your way up. You can do it. Once you try it you'll see that it truly is as easy as riding a bike. Back to your main point - it is not selfish to not want to ban petrol/diesel vehicles. I am ready to share the road with anyone.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  I am a confident cyclist. I used to commute 4400 mi per year from Santa Monica to Marina Del Rey via Lincoln blvd on a recumbent, if that tells you anything. Check out street view - it's hell for the most part. But most people are not me, and we definitely don't demand new drivers live in utter terror until they get numb to it. Nevermind survival bias. Dead ex-bike-couriers aren't here to give their view.