4 ms·

You have this hypocritical outlook: when any bike lanes are built, you think that's the powers that be "forcing" you to cycle. But then what about all the place

by _dain_ 4y ago

You have this hypocritical outlook: when any bike lanes are built, you think that's the powers that be "forcing" you to cycle. But then what about all the places where literally the only way to get to them is by car? Is that not being forced to use a car? Seems like it to me. There are a lot of places like that. >Cycling is not driven by what people want - around my way bike lanes are basically empty, while traffic is congested. I do cycle by the way. I just don't like being forced to. I hear this all the time, it's bullshit. This has been studied, when you build proper bike lanes and related infrastructure it increases the amount people cycle. When people are polled, a huge percentage of people say they would like to cycle more but are worried about safety. So they're either building shit bike lanes where you live or you're just inattentive or lying. (And occasionally I bike down certain roads and there isn't a car in sight. What entitled motorists, we build these lovely roads for them and they don't get used, grumble grumble) These sorts of things (bike lanes, LTNs, ULEZ, etc) are actually quite popular. This is 100% clear from how people actually vote in council elections. It's really just a loud minority of affluent Clarksonoid motorists that get up in arms about it. Local governments are steadily realizing they can just call your bluff and win.

happymellon 4y ago
Most of the cycle lanes aroud here are just cut out of the existing road, so they are just driven on. They are also not a network, just some roads have a part painted for cycling. Or parked on, which is the usual scenario.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Banning driving on the pavement would go a long way into solving traffic problems in cities.
  - happymellon 4y ago
    Is this British or American pavement that you are referring to? As far as I am aware, it is illegal in the UK to drive on the pavement.
    - _dain_ 4y ago
      I think he might have meant "parking on the pavement" and mistyped.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        How do you get your car onto the pavement without driving it on there? Prevent that and you cut vehicle ownership in towns and cities dramatically, thus reducing congestion and pollution
      - happymellon 4y ago
        Parking on the pavement is a terrible move as well, as it impacts wheelchairs and pushchairs. Although people can park in bike lanes without parking on the pavement when sections of existing roads is marked as bikes, we should ban parking on all these features, set the fine high and enforce it to clear all the illegal parking.
        iso1631 4y ago
        A proper bike lane will have at least a solid white line that a driver is not allowed to cross (other than when accessing an adjacent property where they have to give way). Same as a bus lane. Thus it's impossible to legally park in those lanes
verisimi 4y ago
Yay, councils. Yay, bikes. Is there any talking with you? > But then what about all the places where literally the only way to get to them is by car? Right. Councils, governments have designed the transport system around cars. They did this, spending our money to do so. Now they are spending more money (on things you like) and you are happy. But the new system can't possibly work. Most people won't cycle to places. Is it wrong to expect the 'social contract' we were promised to remain intact? Shouldn't we agree to change? Isn't that how things are meant to work? Is it ok, for the governance structure to tear the status quo up, and partially implement a new system, at our expense, and with a loss of service? Did you ever get an opportunity to vote on this? No. The reason is that these are all sustainable development plans from the UN. Councils write their implementations based on the UN templates. This is why it is the same story everywhere. Plainly you are from the 'government is there to help' school of thought - the case for global cooling, no warming, no change, has been made to you, and you are convinced something must be done (despite the lack of any personally verifiable evidence). But you can surely see this is authoritarian? No one has chosen this. The governance structure provides all the information and the solutions - judge, jury and executioner. Surely you can see that in aggregate we lose freedom of movement and money - as someone else said above - we are constrained. (They were happy about the constraint - they want to be constrained! It's insanity.) Even if you as a cyclist gain more cycle lanes.. Isn't the point of life to live freely, as you like - is government there to lightly imprison us or help us achieve more freedom? All of us? I think it is clear which direction we are moving in. And it amazes me that well-meaning people are cheering and demanding other people's losses. All this on the basis of information that cannot be personally verified, even if there appears to be consensus. You do realise that the very worst of us want to govern us? That they want power to force us? They have education, media, nudge units, etc all sorts of tricks and narratives to engineer our consent, regardless of reason, if it furthers their agendas. Anyway, I'm blathering - all the best.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  what is anyone even supposed to say to this? you have persecutory delusions. here's an idea: why don't you actually go to your local council meetings and find out how your city is actually run. there's a lot of graft and incompetence and pandering, but I assure you the UN depopulation plans are nowhere to be found.

by _dain_ 4y ago

happymellon 4y ago

Most of the cycle lanes aroud here are just cut out of the existing road, so they are just driven on. They are also not a network, just some roads have a part painted for cycling. Or parked on, which is the usual scenario.

iso1631 4y ago
Banning driving on the pavement would go a long way into solving traffic problems in cities.
- happymellon 4y ago
  Is this British or American pavement that you are referring to? As far as I am aware, it is illegal in the UK to drive on the pavement.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    I think he might have meant "parking on the pavement" and mistyped.
    - iso1631 4y ago
      How do you get your car onto the pavement without driving it on there? Prevent that and you cut vehicle ownership in towns and cities dramatically, thus reducing congestion and pollution
    - happymellon 4y ago
      Parking on the pavement is a terrible move as well, as it impacts wheelchairs and pushchairs. Although people can park in bike lanes without parking on the pavement when sections of existing roads is marked as bikes, we should ban parking on all these features, set the fine high and enforce it to clear all the illegal parking.
      - iso1631 4y ago
        A proper bike lane will have at least a solid white line that a driver is not allowed to cross (other than when accessing an adjacent property where they have to give way). Same as a bus lane. Thus it's impossible to legally park in those lanes

verisimi 4y ago

Yay, councils. Yay, bikes. Is there any talking with you? > But then what about all the places where literally the only way to get to them is by car? Right. Councils, governments have designed the transport system around cars. They did this, spending our money to do so. Now they are spending more money (on things you like) and you are happy. But the new system can't possibly work. Most people won't cycle to places. Is it wrong to expect the 'social contract' we were promised to remain intact? Shouldn't we agree to change? Isn't that how things are meant to work? Is it ok, for the governance structure to tear the status quo up, and partially implement a new system, at our expense, and with a loss of service? Did you ever get an opportunity to vote on this? No. The reason is that these are all sustainable development plans from the UN. Councils write their implementations based on the UN templates. This is why it is the same story everywhere. Plainly you are from the 'government is there to help' school of thought - the case for global cooling, no warming, no change, has been made to you, and you are convinced something must be done (despite the lack of any personally verifiable evidence). But you can surely see this is authoritarian? No one has chosen this. The governance structure provides all the information and the solutions - judge, jury and executioner. Surely you can see that in aggregate we lose freedom of movement and money - as someone else said above - we are constrained. (They were happy about the constraint - they want to be constrained! It's insanity.) Even if you as a cyclist gain more cycle lanes.. Isn't the point of life to live freely, as you like - is government there to lightly imprison us or help us achieve more freedom? All of us? I think it is clear which direction we are moving in. And it amazes me that well-meaning people are cheering and demanding other people's losses. All this on the basis of information that cannot be personally verified, even if there appears to be consensus. You do realise that the very worst of us want to govern us? That they want power to force us? They have education, media, nudge units, etc all sorts of tricks and narratives to engineer our consent, regardless of reason, if it furthers their agendas. Anyway, I'm blathering - all the best.

_dain_ 4y ago
what is anyone even supposed to say to this? you have persecutory delusions. here's an idea: why don't you actually go to your local council meetings and find out how your city is actually run. there's a lot of graft and incompetence and pandering, but I assure you the UN depopulation plans are nowhere to be found.