3 ms·

Yes, how dare people try to enjoy life with their family in the city. Don't they know that cities are the exclusive domain of cars and their drivers?

sidfthec 4y ago
I vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes. That's not the current reality, though. The current reality is that biking in SF is extremely dangerous.
- snozolli 4y ago
  I vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes. "I vote for one thing, but that won't stop me from victim-blaming and maintaining the status quo." You know what's way cheaper than building bike lanes and the public transit necessary for private car restrictions? Better testing of drivers, regular re-testing and ongoing education, and severely punishing drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians through negligence or malice. As it stands, you're virtually guaranteed to get away with murder so long as you do it in a car. There's an epidemic of idiots who barely know how to control their multi-ton vehicle on a good day. But hey, thoughts and prayers, and malice in your comments, right?
  - sidfthec 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - snozolli 4y ago
      People here seem to be taking the stance that we need to sacrifice a bunch of people (including children) in order to get attention to the issue. Wow. Just wow. You're a bit abhorrent.
      - dang 4y ago
        Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. I'm not going to ban you because we haven't warned you before this thread, and because you've posted good comments—but I've also noticed other cases where you broke the site guidelines in previous threads. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
    - mslate 4y ago
      No one is taking that stance. Where is there a comment to that effect?
      - sidfthec 4y ago
        > If a lot of people have to die in order to eventually get us cycling lanes, so be it > The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!" > it will just cause the cyclists to remove themselves from traffic after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it
dang 4y ago
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, no matter how provocative another comment is or you feel it is. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- snozolli 4y ago
  I don't understand how this is in any way perpetuating a flame war. Calling people out for victim blaming is flaming?
  - dang 4y ago
    It was snarky and reduced another commenter's position to something stupid, in order to dismiss it. Those are both hallmarks of flamewar and the site guidelines specifically ask you not to do either of them: "Don't be snarky." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Btw, if you find yourself "calling people out", you've definitely departed from the space we want discussion to happen within on HN—what you could call the window of curiosity. We're trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...

sidfthec 4y ago

I vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes. That's not the current reality, though. The current reality is that biking in SF is extremely dangerous.

snozolli 4y ago
I vote for those who want to limit cars in the city and build protected bike lanes. "I vote for one thing, but that won't stop me from victim-blaming and maintaining the status quo." You know what's way cheaper than building bike lanes and the public transit necessary for private car restrictions? Better testing of drivers, regular re-testing and ongoing education, and severely punishing drivers who kill cyclists and pedestrians through negligence or malice. As it stands, you're virtually guaranteed to get away with murder so long as you do it in a car. There's an epidemic of idiots who barely know how to control their multi-ton vehicle on a good day. But hey, thoughts and prayers, and malice in your comments, right?
- sidfthec 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - snozolli 4y ago
    People here seem to be taking the stance that we need to sacrifice a bunch of people (including children) in order to get attention to the issue. Wow. Just wow. You're a bit abhorrent.
    - dang 4y ago
      Crossing into personal attack will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. I'm not going to ban you because we haven't warned you before this thread, and because you've posted good comments—but I've also noticed other cases where you broke the site guidelines in previous threads. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
  - mslate 4y ago
    No one is taking that stance. Where is there a comment to that effect?
    - sidfthec 4y ago
      > If a lot of people have to die in order to eventually get us cycling lanes, so be it > The problem here is that if people stop biking until it becomes safer, then city planners and elected officials will say "why do we need to spend millions to install biking infrastructure (and disrupt car infrastructure), nobody is out biking!" > it will just cause the cyclists to remove themselves from traffic after which there is even less of a reason to do something about it

dang 4y ago

Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN, no matter how provocative another comment is or you feel it is. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

snozolli 4y ago
I don't understand how this is in any way perpetuating a flame war. Calling people out for victim blaming is flaming?
- dang 4y ago
  It was snarky and reduced another commenter's position to something stupid, in order to dismiss it. Those are both hallmarks of flamewar and the site guidelines specifically ask you not to do either of them: "Don't be snarky." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Btw, if you find yourself "calling people out", you've definitely departed from the space we want discussion to happen within on HN—what you could call the window of curiosity. We're trying to avoid the online callout/shaming culture: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...