4 ms·

Yes, the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is hostile and should receive lashes for being such an angry hat

Yes, the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is hostile and should receive lashes for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world. I think the problem here is there is scarce resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to. All people shall travel at the speed of the bicyclists. This is good and just and non-negotiable. (And your math is flawed - how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass - can you even see your incredible bias here?)

_9c1y 4y ago
I completely agree with you on these points. When unbending, the cyclists’ stance on this kind of thing feels very misattuned to physics and social awareness. Doesn’t it create more carbon emissions to cause cars to be on the road for twice as long, running at less-efficient speeds? Especially when a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass. And sure, equal rights to the road, I can get behind. If a thoroughfare is intended for different types of vehicles with average speeds that can differ by an order of magnitude, it feels aware and attuned to me that the operators of these vehicles respectively know when to relax a tight-fisted grip on “rules no matter what”, and adjust according to the situation.
- notacoward 4y ago
  > a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass But then they wouldn't get their Strava KoM! Oh, the horror.
avianlyric 4y ago
Yes, the universe shall operate on the car's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is a hostile and should be run down and mutilated at the first possible opportunity for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world. I think the problem here is there is scare resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to. All people shall travel at the speed of the car. This is good and just and non-negotiable.
gjm11 4y ago
I did not say (and don't believe) that "the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed". You just made that up. Most of the time, when a car meets a bicycle, the car overtakes. The only question is what happens in places where that isn't safe. The answer you suggested is that bicycles shouldn't ever be on those roads. I don't think that's a good answer. I did not say anything about you (or others who might disagree with me) being "hostile". You just made that up. (You are being pretty hostile, as it happens, but I wasn't complaining about that.) And of course I didn't say anything about punishing people for being "angry haters"; again, you just made that up out of nothing. I agree that the basic problem is scarce resources. I have no idea why you think I "cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as [I] expect them to". I didn't say anything remotely like that, and I didn't mean anything remotely like that. I did not say (and don't believe) that everyone should travel at bicycle speeds. Cars should be able to travel at car speeds when it's safe. Bicycles should be able to travel at bicycle speeds when it's safe. The only difficult question is what to do in the unusual situations where both of them can't safely do their thing. Again, your solution was to say that cyclists shouldn't be on those roads at all, and I don't think that's a good solution. > how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass I agree: they should totally do that, if there are a bunch of cars behind them and there isn't going to be a safe place for ordinary overtaking soon, and if they're actually safer to drive past when stationary than when cycling. (It's what I do if I'm on a bicycle in that situation.) I'm not sure what makes you think I don't think they should do that. If you'd said "If you're cycling on a road where cars can't get past you, stop and let them past every now and then" I'd have nodded my head and thought "yup, good advice". But you didn't. You said "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic." and the only thing you said about overtaking was to complain about how cyclists encourage drivers to overtake. (I don't know the specific roads you have in mind, but from what you said the situation I was imagining was one where the road is so narrow that you can't safely pass them even if they're standing beside their bicycle rather than riding it.) If your actual complaint was that some cyclists could give you a safe overtaking opportunity and don't do it, maybe you should have said that, rather than complaining about the fact that they're on the road at all?

_9c1y 4y ago

I completely agree with you on these points. When unbending, the cyclists’ stance on this kind of thing feels very misattuned to physics and social awareness. Doesn’t it create more carbon emissions to cause cars to be on the road for twice as long, running at less-efficient speeds? Especially when a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass. And sure, equal rights to the road, I can get behind. If a thoroughfare is intended for different types of vehicles with average speeds that can differ by an order of magnitude, it feels aware and attuned to me that the operators of these vehicles respectively know when to relax a tight-fisted grip on “rules no matter what”, and adjust according to the situation.

notacoward 4y ago
> a cyclist blocking a half-dozen or more cars could pull over for 30 seconds to let them pass But then they wouldn't get their Strava KoM! Oh, the horror.

avianlyric 4y ago

Yes, the universe shall operate on the car's time and speed. Anyone disagreeing with this is a hostile and should be run down and mutilated at the first possible opportunity for being such an angry hater of anything that is good and just in this world. I think the problem here is there is scare resources, and you cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as you expect them to. All people shall travel at the speed of the car. This is good and just and non-negotiable.

gjm11 4y ago

I did not say (and don't believe) that "the universe shall operate on the bicyclist's time and speed". You just made that up. Most of the time, when a car meets a bicycle, the car overtakes. The only question is what happens in places where that isn't safe. The answer you suggested is that bicycles shouldn't ever be on those roads. I don't think that's a good answer. I did not say anything about you (or others who might disagree with me) being "hostile". You just made that up. (You are being pretty hostile, as it happens, but I wasn't complaining about that.) And of course I didn't say anything about punishing people for being "angry haters"; again, you just made that up out of nothing. I agree that the basic problem is scarce resources. I have no idea why you think I "cannot understand or deal with this in any other way than to force everyone to live in the universe as [I] expect them to". I didn't say anything remotely like that, and I didn't mean anything remotely like that. I did not say (and don't believe) that everyone should travel at bicycle speeds. Cars should be able to travel at car speeds when it's safe. Bicycles should be able to travel at bicycle speeds when it's safe. The only difficult question is what to do in the unusual situations where both of them can't safely do their thing. Again, your solution was to say that cyclists shouldn't be on those roads at all, and I don't think that's a good solution. > how much time does the bicyclist lose by pulling over and allowing the cars to pass I agree: they should totally do that, if there are a bunch of cars behind them and there isn't going to be a safe place for ordinary overtaking soon, and if they're actually safer to drive past when stationary than when cycling. (It's what I do if I'm on a bicycle in that situation.) I'm not sure what makes you think I don't think they should do that. If you'd said "If you're cycling on a road where cars can't get past you, stop and let them past every now and then" I'd have nodded my head and thought "yup, good advice". But you didn't. You said "Don't ride on narrow back-county roads where you block the regular flow of traffic." and the only thing you said about overtaking was to complain about how cyclists encourage drivers to overtake. (I don't know the specific roads you have in mind, but from what you said the situation I was imagining was one where the road is so narrow that you can't safely pass them even if they're standing beside their bicycle rather than riding it.) If your actual complaint was that some cyclists could give you a safe overtaking opportunity and don't do it, maybe you should have said that, rather than complaining about the fact that they're on the road at all?