6 ms·

I hope not, this seems like a nightmare scenario. Giving away the conveniences of cars is not something most people desire. People advocating for bikes have thi

by soheil 4y ago

I hope not, this seems like a nightmare scenario. Giving away the conveniences of cars is not something most people desire. People advocating for bikes have this sense of moral superiority, think people shouldn't want too many nice things anyway and believe protecting their version of the common good is definitely worth some martyrs.

nforgerit 4y ago
They might also be just people who are fed up with cars filling up the streets taking precious space in cities and be a life-threatening issue when you're cycling around. But hey, "moral superiority" is easier to say.
- FpUser 4y ago
  I cycle in Toronto nearly every day. Often downtown / midtown area. Do not see much real danger. Sure shit happens but that's life.
- jbm 4y ago
  I don't find the safety canard to be very convincing. You can turn it against cyclists fairly easily. I've seen reports of cyclists who murder pedestrians through hit and runs. Sure this is rare, but we need to make sure the elderly are "safe" from belligerent cyclists and their poisonous online culture. As such, it might be necessary for us all to walk, at least until we can develop practical systems to regulate speeds on bikes and ensure that the roads are not mad max style kill zone. I suggest a top bike speed limit of 10-12 km to ensure safe streets, with powerful automated brakes that prevent accidental pedestrian hits. It might flip the cyclist over xer handlebars but I'm sick of socializing risks and privatizing benefits; if you are in a rush, you should have left earlier. Why settle for anything less than safety for decent society? Incidentally, I agree with reducing polluting cars for pollution reduction measures. Sadly that means I don't care once we move to electric cars. You'll find most people are in that boat.
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    > As such, it might be necessary for us all to walk, at least until we can develop practical systems to regulate speeds on bikes and ensure that the roads are not mad max style kill zone. I suggest a top bike speed limit of 10-12 km to ensure safe streets, with powerful automated brakes that prevent accidental pedestrian hits. I'm amused that you think this is some sort of "gotcha". As someone who cycles, I would take this deal without hesitation it got rid of cars. Of course, cycle-on-pedestrian deaths basically zero relative to the deaths caused by cars, so it's a worthless analogy. However, I do like the implication that we should be regulating transit based on momentum rather than just having special status for cars.
- everdrive 4y ago
  A lot of this debate is really just a city / country debate. I completely agree with regard to the city. A reduction in cars is nearly an unalloyed good. For the country, there really aren’t so many alternatives.
CalRobert 4y ago
I want my child to be able to walk and bike places without dying. Your ability to drive everywhere is not worth martyring her.
- soheil 4y ago
  The good ol' let's protect the children argument. Yes cars were solely made to murder children; no other reason whatsoever.
- jbm 4y ago
  The only time my daughter went to the hospital was when a careless cyclist with an umbrella in her hand struck her on the sidewalk. The MRI and everything was awful and I wish I had been able to do something to stop it. You are going to be disappointed if you think anything will keep our kids safe. (Unrelated but in Japan, our health care did not cover the costs for the accident; the cyclist paid us for our out of pocket expenses as the police had found her pretty quickly)
  - jobs_throwaway 4y ago
    > You are going to be disappointed if you think anything will keep our kids safe. Car crashes are a top 2 (often top 1) killer of children in ~every developed country. Cycling doesn't crack the top 10. Its intellectually dishonest to pretend that cars and bikes are comparable dangers to children.
    - jbm 4y ago
      If you increase the number of cyclists you'll see more accidents. If anything, the anonymity that accompanies cycling could result in more accidents if a larger portion of the population engages in it. I have seen bikes ride on the sidewalk, ringing their bells at pedestrians — even when there is a bike path. Sorry but that culture needs to change and demanding the whole world change first is just not going to suffice. As a sidenote, disregarding someone's life experience over statistics is antisocial behavior that only "works" on internet forums. You'll find, IRL, that RL stories are stickier and we need to listen and understand rather than just appeal to numbers (especially in post-truth "all numbers are lies" modern culture) /rode a bicycle for more than 40 years, drove three kids on a Panasonic e-mama chari to baseball games and school. Way worse than a car.
FpUser 4y ago
I use bicycle nearly every day even during winter in Toronto. And no I am not taking my car downtown, it is crazy, I use bike for it. Still I own car, use it for pleasure travel and for visiting my relatives and friends spread all over Ontario, also when shopping for larger items. To those who want to take my car away: FUCK YOU.
LeftHandPath 4y ago
It's also simply not feasible for people who don't live in metropolitan areas. Should we just leave rural folk to go back to the horse and buggy? What does Joe Blow in Wyoming do if he lives 2 miles from his nearest neighbor and 25 miles from town? There's a giant class of people that will be left behind if we get rid of cars, and they're being continually ignored by the anti-car movement. The pro bike / anti-car people have a point, but they will have to address this problem if they want to reach their end goals.
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago
  Rural folk are already a relatively small portion of the population in developed countries (<15% in the US) and that trend will only continue. We should be optimizing for the areas where the vast majority of people live, and where car-free lifestyles are absolutely feasible with proper infrastructure.
  - LeftHandPath 4y ago
    I do agree that we can optimize for the cities, but the general attitude towards the people who are going to be worst affected by the ban of ICEs is to look down at them and laugh - as Colbert exclaimed, "I don't care if gas goes to $15 a gallon, because I drive a Tesla!" That's not a healthy approach (and note, I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just explaining the way this issue is being approached by the upper class at large). 15% of the US is about 50,000,000 people. To reduce the fraction, that's 3 in 20 Americans. That's a lot of people to just hand-wave away and leave behind. These are people, not dinosaurs. They also control our food supply. I think it's in our best interest to account for them in our plan for the future, and treat them well.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I think Texas continues to defy this, especially in politics. Dallas, Houston, Austin/San Antonio all tend to be more liberal and are the larger concentration of population, however they always get out voted by the rural populations. (gerrymandering has really done a number here) So in this case, the rural adds up to be large enough numbers to not be ignored. The sheer size of Texas is unique though, so it is kind of an edge case, but definitely not one to be ignored.
bluecalm 4y ago
It's not about morals. It's about wanting to get somewhere in cities in reasonable time, not breathing poisonous air and without fear of getting run over by a 2 ton SUV. Cars are just too inefficient (because of their size) and too expensive a solution. If you ban all of them in cities today and give people small electric vehicles (e-bikes, e-wheelchairs etc) personal transport would actually be faster (and healthier and safer and cheaper) plus we would free up a very significant % of most valuable land.

by soheil 4y ago

nforgerit 4y ago

They might also be just people who are fed up with cars filling up the streets taking precious space in cities and be a life-threatening issue when you're cycling around. But hey, "moral superiority" is easier to say.

FpUser 4y ago
I cycle in Toronto nearly every day. Often downtown / midtown area. Do not see much real danger. Sure shit happens but that's life.
jbm 4y ago
I don't find the safety canard to be very convincing. You can turn it against cyclists fairly easily. I've seen reports of cyclists who murder pedestrians through hit and runs. Sure this is rare, but we need to make sure the elderly are "safe" from belligerent cyclists and their poisonous online culture. As such, it might be necessary for us all to walk, at least until we can develop practical systems to regulate speeds on bikes and ensure that the roads are not mad max style kill zone. I suggest a top bike speed limit of 10-12 km to ensure safe streets, with powerful automated brakes that prevent accidental pedestrian hits. It might flip the cyclist over xer handlebars but I'm sick of socializing risks and privatizing benefits; if you are in a rush, you should have left earlier. Why settle for anything less than safety for decent society? Incidentally, I agree with reducing polluting cars for pollution reduction measures. Sadly that means I don't care once we move to electric cars. You'll find most people are in that boat.
- fineIllregister 4y ago
  > As such, it might be necessary for us all to walk, at least until we can develop practical systems to regulate speeds on bikes and ensure that the roads are not mad max style kill zone. I suggest a top bike speed limit of 10-12 km to ensure safe streets, with powerful automated brakes that prevent accidental pedestrian hits. I'm amused that you think this is some sort of "gotcha". As someone who cycles, I would take this deal without hesitation it got rid of cars. Of course, cycle-on-pedestrian deaths basically zero relative to the deaths caused by cars, so it's a worthless analogy. However, I do like the implication that we should be regulating transit based on momentum rather than just having special status for cars.
everdrive 4y ago
A lot of this debate is really just a city / country debate. I completely agree with regard to the city. A reduction in cars is nearly an unalloyed good. For the country, there really aren’t so many alternatives.

CalRobert 4y ago

I want my child to be able to walk and bike places without dying. Your ability to drive everywhere is not worth martyring her.

soheil 4y ago
The good ol' let's protect the children argument. Yes cars were solely made to murder children; no other reason whatsoever.
jbm 4y ago
The only time my daughter went to the hospital was when a careless cyclist with an umbrella in her hand struck her on the sidewalk. The MRI and everything was awful and I wish I had been able to do something to stop it. You are going to be disappointed if you think anything will keep our kids safe. (Unrelated but in Japan, our health care did not cover the costs for the accident; the cyclist paid us for our out of pocket expenses as the police had found her pretty quickly)
- jobs_throwaway 4y ago
  > You are going to be disappointed if you think anything will keep our kids safe. Car crashes are a top 2 (often top 1) killer of children in ~every developed country. Cycling doesn't crack the top 10. Its intellectually dishonest to pretend that cars and bikes are comparable dangers to children.
  - jbm 4y ago
    If you increase the number of cyclists you'll see more accidents. If anything, the anonymity that accompanies cycling could result in more accidents if a larger portion of the population engages in it. I have seen bikes ride on the sidewalk, ringing their bells at pedestrians — even when there is a bike path. Sorry but that culture needs to change and demanding the whole world change first is just not going to suffice. As a sidenote, disregarding someone's life experience over statistics is antisocial behavior that only "works" on internet forums. You'll find, IRL, that RL stories are stickier and we need to listen and understand rather than just appeal to numbers (especially in post-truth "all numbers are lies" modern culture) /rode a bicycle for more than 40 years, drove three kids on a Panasonic e-mama chari to baseball games and school. Way worse than a car.

FpUser 4y ago

I use bicycle nearly every day even during winter in Toronto. And no I am not taking my car downtown, it is crazy, I use bike for it. Still I own car, use it for pleasure travel and for visiting my relatives and friends spread all over Ontario, also when shopping for larger items. To those who want to take my car away: FUCK YOU.

LeftHandPath 4y ago

It's also simply not feasible for people who don't live in metropolitan areas. Should we just leave rural folk to go back to the horse and buggy? What does Joe Blow in Wyoming do if he lives 2 miles from his nearest neighbor and 25 miles from town? There's a giant class of people that will be left behind if we get rid of cars, and they're being continually ignored by the anti-car movement. The pro bike / anti-car people have a point, but they will have to address this problem if they want to reach their end goals.

jobs_throwaway 4y ago
Rural folk are already a relatively small portion of the population in developed countries (<15% in the US) and that trend will only continue. We should be optimizing for the areas where the vast majority of people live, and where car-free lifestyles are absolutely feasible with proper infrastructure.
- LeftHandPath 4y ago
  I do agree that we can optimize for the cities, but the general attitude towards the people who are going to be worst affected by the ban of ICEs is to look down at them and laugh - as Colbert exclaimed, "I don't care if gas goes to $15 a gallon, because I drive a Tesla!" That's not a healthy approach (and note, I'm not accusing you of doing this, I'm just explaining the way this issue is being approached by the upper class at large). 15% of the US is about 50,000,000 people. To reduce the fraction, that's 3 in 20 Americans. That's a lot of people to just hand-wave away and leave behind. These are people, not dinosaurs. They also control our food supply. I think it's in our best interest to account for them in our plan for the future, and treat them well.
- dylan604 4y ago
  I think Texas continues to defy this, especially in politics. Dallas, Houston, Austin/San Antonio all tend to be more liberal and are the larger concentration of population, however they always get out voted by the rural populations. (gerrymandering has really done a number here) So in this case, the rural adds up to be large enough numbers to not be ignored. The sheer size of Texas is unique though, so it is kind of an edge case, but definitely not one to be ignored.

bluecalm 4y ago

It's not about morals. It's about wanting to get somewhere in cities in reasonable time, not breathing poisonous air and without fear of getting run over by a 2 ton SUV. Cars are just too inefficient (because of their size) and too expensive a solution. If you ban all of them in cities today and give people small electric vehicles (e-bikes, e-wheelchairs etc) personal transport would actually be faster (and healthier and safer and cheaper) plus we would free up a very significant % of most valuable land.