8 ms·

How outrageous, they want to use the infrastructure like they're people?

deaddodo 4y ago
It's almost like, in a society, you sometimes give up some of your personal entitlements for the greater good. It's why you'd also be called entitled for using an elevator for your personal enjoyment, for defecating in a public pool, for playing around in a turnstile or for refusing to get vaccinated during a worldwide pandemic.
- foldr 4y ago
  If we're talking about people giving up personal entitlements for the greater good, car drivers should be the top of the list.
- burnished 4y ago
  Yeah, you're the one comparing riding a bicycle on a public road to shitting in a pool. I really cant imagine why you think other people are acting entitled.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    I also compared it to right-wing antivaxxers...come on buddy, that's the easier claim to discredit! Or, you could use the rational side of your brain (the portion that most people develop in their preteens) and apply it to the abstract concept of your singular need/want being less important than another hundred's. Especially if there's a dedicated piece of infrastructure built just for you. Kind of like a bike lane 30ft away, or a restroom six feet away from the pool. In other words, the literal definition of being entitled.
ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
NO. They're leaving the infrastructure we ALL paid to build for them vacant, and blocking that which we paid for to accommodate motorized vehicles.
- burnished 4y ago
  So, your assumption is that they are all just a bunch of uppity jackasses instead of semi rational human beings? Go give those routes a ride chum, you'll probably figure out whats going on in a hurry.
  - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
    No need for strawmen. This comment was specifically in regard to bikers riding outside of provided bike lanes, which I've seen happen in L.A.
    - foldr 4y ago
      I think we’re trying to figure out what conclusion you draw from that. Do you think the cyclists are doing it just to annoy you? If not, then why? Isn’t it likely that the dedicated cycling infrastructure is less adequate than you assume?
      - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
        I don't care why they're doing it. The case I witnessed involved a generously wide bike lane with excellent visibility, and bikers deliberately riding outside it and blocking traffic. Do they all do it? No. But it happens.
      - deaddodo 4y ago
        Except that I gave a specific example (Washington Blvd) which has a notoriously well maintained and accessible bike lane 30ft away; to give a specific example of the entitlement I was referring to.
        foldr 4y ago
        But then why do you think the cyclists are not using it? Again, do you think they are doing it just to annoy motorists? This doesn't seem plausible on the face of it.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> How outrageous, they want to use the infrastructure like they're people? If you apply this to walking as well, you'll see how silly it is.
- foldr 4y ago
  There are lots of roads in the US where there’s no sidewalk and you have to walk along the edge of the road if you’re a pedestrian. What’s silly about this? In general, it is perfectly legal to use roads for cycling and walking (though I'm sure there is some variation between jurisdictions).
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    It's silly that you think that this is anything to do with being a person. Why can't I walk in the middle of the road, you know, like a person? It's just such a bad faith argument.
    - burnished 4y ago
      Yeah, like in a suburban neighborhood? Or a variety of urban spaces, based on context? In your rush to accuse others of making bad faith arguments you're making just plain thoughtless ones.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        The context was rush hour Washington Boulevard. I'm not rushing to accuse anyone, and I'm not the one thoughtlessly ignoring the context.
        foldr 4y ago
        The context was cycling on rush hour Washington Boulevard, which isn't absurd if it's the easiest route to your destination, any more than walking down a road is absurd if you don't have an alternative.

It's almost like, in a society, you sometimes give up some of your personal entitlements for the greater good. It's why you'd also be called entitled for using an elevator for your personal enjoyment, for defecating in a public pool, for playing around in a turnstile or for refusing to get vaccinated during a worldwide pandemic.

foldr 4y ago
If we're talking about people giving up personal entitlements for the greater good, car drivers should be the top of the list.
burnished 4y ago
Yeah, you're the one comparing riding a bicycle on a public road to shitting in a pool. I really cant imagine why you think other people are acting entitled.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  I also compared it to right-wing antivaxxers...come on buddy, that's the easier claim to discredit! Or, you could use the rational side of your brain (the portion that most people develop in their preteens) and apply it to the abstract concept of your singular need/want being less important than another hundred's. Especially if there's a dedicated piece of infrastructure built just for you. Kind of like a bike lane 30ft away, or a restroom six feet away from the pool. In other words, the literal definition of being entitled.

ShadowBanThis01 4y ago

NO. They're leaving the infrastructure we ALL paid to build for them vacant, and blocking that which we paid for to accommodate motorized vehicles.

burnished 4y ago
So, your assumption is that they are all just a bunch of uppity jackasses instead of semi rational human beings? Go give those routes a ride chum, you'll probably figure out whats going on in a hurry.
- ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
  No need for strawmen. This comment was specifically in regard to bikers riding outside of provided bike lanes, which I've seen happen in L.A.
  - foldr 4y ago
    I think we’re trying to figure out what conclusion you draw from that. Do you think the cyclists are doing it just to annoy you? If not, then why? Isn’t it likely that the dedicated cycling infrastructure is less adequate than you assume?
    - ShadowBanThis01 4y ago
      I don't care why they're doing it. The case I witnessed involved a generously wide bike lane with excellent visibility, and bikers deliberately riding outside it and blocking traffic. Do they all do it? No. But it happens.
    - deaddodo 4y ago
      Except that I gave a specific example (Washington Blvd) which has a notoriously well maintained and accessible bike lane 30ft away; to give a specific example of the entitlement I was referring to.
      - foldr 4y ago
        But then why do you think the cyclists are not using it? Again, do you think they are doing it just to annoy motorists? This doesn't seem plausible on the face of it.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> How outrageous, they want to use the infrastructure like they're people? If you apply this to walking as well, you'll see how silly it is.

foldr 4y ago
There are lots of roads in the US where there’s no sidewalk and you have to walk along the edge of the road if you’re a pedestrian. What’s silly about this? In general, it is perfectly legal to use roads for cycling and walking (though I'm sure there is some variation between jurisdictions).
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It's silly that you think that this is anything to do with being a person. Why can't I walk in the middle of the road, you know, like a person? It's just such a bad faith argument.
  - burnished 4y ago
    Yeah, like in a suburban neighborhood? Or a variety of urban spaces, based on context? In your rush to accuse others of making bad faith arguments you're making just plain thoughtless ones.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      The context was rush hour Washington Boulevard. I'm not rushing to accuse anyone, and I'm not the one thoughtlessly ignoring the context.
      - foldr 4y ago
        The context was cycling on rush hour Washington Boulevard, which isn't absurd if it's the easiest route to your destination, any more than walking down a road is absurd if you don't have an alternative.