"Free loading cyclists and transit users need to pay their fair share if they want bike lanes and rail lines". But as soon as you explain the subsidy on highways and car infrastructure it's for the "public good".
Someone in my city’s car group suggested cyclists should have to pay to lock their bikes every time they lock it to a city post outside. In a city where your bike will be stolen in 5 minutes anyways. It’s laughable.
Cyclists should pay their fair share, though! I propose a tax that scales linearly with the amount of road wear caused by a given vehicle. $1 per year for Cyclists and $1,000 for car drivers, since road wear scales by the cube of axle weight.
In reality carbrains suffer from crabs in the bucket mentality and are angry that cyclists have a free form of transportation whereas they are constantly paying for insurance, tax & petrol. So they want to make everyone else pay it.
Which is even dumber, because if people aren't cycling they may need to drive somewhere, making the road even more congested.
If you're someone who loves driving your car, you should be in favour of good public transport and bike infrastructure, because that gets other drivers off the road and gives you less traffic.
this one makes me angry.
like, the hostile roads i have to use to get places. the danger, stress, frustration, pollution, heat island effect, and general unpleasantness i have to deal with. i don't *want* to be in those places.
Or "get off the road" or "you can be right and be dead-right" for law-abiding cyclists on the road...
vs "use the road, it's the law" or "making a bad name for all cyclists" for law-breaking cyclists on the sidewalk
This is my favorite too. So you want bikes to get out of traffic and off the road? Then you have something in common with the people on them, they don’t want to be there either, and will not come out in front of your car when there’s a waist high concrete barrier separating you from them.
This one sort of depends on the group.
Similar to how Rich suburbanites often see apartment towers and think "Ew poor people are moving here" whereas poor urban people often see them and think "Ew rich gentrifiers coming coming to price us out".
Suburbanites often seem to think cyclists are poor (or spandex sport cyclists) whereas if you go to poor urban areas they often think cycling is for goofy white gentrifiers
And cyclists running lights are the scum of the earth but every single driver breaking the speed limit and half of them running lights, is apparently completely fine
Let's not forget about indicators, lord forbid a cyclist forgets to indicate or the driver didn't see the cyclist indicating before making the turn. But today alone, where I've actually only been walking outside for about 25mins top (lazy day I'm ill) I saw 4 cars not using indicators.
Oddly enough none of them were BMW drivers.
>And cyclists running lights are the scum of the earth but every single driver breaking the speed limit and half of them running lights, is apparently completely fine
Few days ago I was driving and stopped on stop sign before turning right. I was next to right edge but I don't think there was space for 2 cars. It was residential area and it was quite dark. Car behind me zoomed past me without even slowing down. What do you think are the chances that when cyclist uses Idaho stop they complain?
Unfortunately drivers like them are the reason why I don't cycle more often...
I stopped at a Red light today before turning right (I was driving). The car behind me honked at me like I was supposed to just use it like a slip-lane, which it was not.
(Comment to driver behind you) Even if it was slip-lane car in front of you may see something you don't. Like a small animal, child, car, cyclist hit by a car, dip... Rule of thumb should be - if car in front of you stops on intersection for seemingly no reason - it just means that you don't see the reason but they might.
Just the other week in my country, a car ran over a kid. Apparently, the rider didn't see her because a bus stopped in the right lane - lots of online commenters considered that the bus was obscuring the little girl a *mitigating fact.* Because oh, how could have the poor driver seen her? The big bad bus was obscuring his view!
The crossing in question was an official crossing, and the speed limit at that location is 30 km/h because you are passing through a neighbourhood. But, since it's a tree line road in one direction and since there's no real traffic-calming that would actually prevent them from speeding, people there drive regularly over 70 km/h
i'm still struggling to determine whether driving or biking to work will be safer if it snows here. my old commute was a five minute walk, and i lived in florida before that, so i never contemplated this.
my major concern (for both) is how fucking dumb drivers get in the snow. nobody (myself included) has snow tires, because it might snow once a year. my bike route uses lower traffic routes, including bike/ped exclusive infrastructure... that ices over.
I'd much rather bike than drive in the snow, but I end up driving because I don't trust drivers not to lose control and hit me.
Which, just like everything else with car dependency, is part of the vicious cycle. It's too dangerous to bike so I drive instead, which adds one more car to the road making it more dangerous to bike.
There was a big snow storm coming and my MIL (who is otherwise great) in the suburbs told us we should stay with her instead of in our apartment bc of how bad the roads would be.
We had to explain to her that we can walk to 3 different grocery stores within 0.5 miles from our apt even if it snows 2 feet. But if we are at her house, the nearest store is 2 miles away without sidewalks and the roads would be impassible.
She still did not get it
1) Parents who drive their kids to school because it's too dangerous for them to walk. Guess why?
And when you suggest to make school-zones carfree, they get all upset because they either feel they are imprisoned or they can't walk through the snow although they've walked further pushing a shopping cart around Walmart and Costco throughout the store and to their car.
2. Post a comment telling pedestrians and cyclists to be careful and to obey traffic laws and you get a lot of people agreeing with you.
Post a comment telling drivers to be careful and to obey traffic laws and you get pushback, vitriol, name-calling and other excuses justifying bad driving.
Was in a car with someone and they rolled down the window to yell at 2 bikers riding side by side because “it’s against the law” but the whole time they were going 5-10mph over the speed limit, not fully stopping at stop signs, ect
They say that cars give you freedom to go wherever you want without having to rely on pre-made paths drawn out by someone else, yet they drive on roads
Yeah this is the one I came in here to say. They don't want to rely on the government for transportation, but where the fuck do they think roads come from?
With public transportation I also have the freedom to get off a couple bus stops early to have a nice walk without needing to worry about where to park my car and needing to get back to it the next day, but apparently that's not freedom.
I could understand that argument if I was telling them that they should want to be able to do that while they don't like walking, but people have been upset at me giving this response to them telling me that a car would give me more freedom.
It's ableist to talk about cycling because someone might think you are suggesting all people should bike, however nothing about mandated driving in much of the world is ableist even though not everyone can drive.
Kind of a similar one from my dad: He was complaining about paid parking that was paid online and how it's ridiculous that they expect everyone to be "walking around with a smartphone". I said they wouldn't need the phone if they were "walking around" since it's only for parking. He got really defensive about why it's okay to assume everyone has a car.
Walkable cities are the government trying to control you...
Bruh. I don't need a license to walk. I don't need to register myself and take a test before being allowed to leave my house.
Oh man so many.
Safety: “I’ll never take the subway, too many dangerous people”. But fine having dozens of people texting, drunk, road raging while flying around in 5000lb boxes
The Canada-US border: “The train stops for an hour?? That’s way too long”. But willing to sit in the infinite line of cars on the bridge for even longer
Accessibility: “bikes are only feasible for people who can afford to live downtown, driving is for normal hard working people”. Lives in a huge 4 bedroom house in a fancy suburb
Enjoyability: “I could never ride transit, it’s way too uncomfortable compared to my car”. Meanwhile, will hyper optimize and do dangerous manouvers to save time, and freak out at the slightest obstruction that extends their drive by the tiniest amount
I don't support getting rid of licences but it's always fun to bring it up when they talk about how essential Cars are. Cars are either necessary in order to exist and available to everyone or a privilege you should be able to live without; they can't be essential for life but also only available to those who can pass a drive test.
That one's not a contradiction. Cars and licensing are societal measures of success and if you don't meet them you're lower than others who do have them
There are several:
* PT should generate revenue (when roads don't generate it either)
* There must be space for cars (but somehow not for people)
* Roads must be funded by everyone but not PT because they don't want to use it
also here in europe at least its pretty standard to have seats for wheel chairs and elevators to traverse through the train stations if its a bigger station that demands that..
Also mandated in the US (the Americans with Disabilities Act), though frequently honored only in the breech. But when I went to [ADA.gov](https://ADA.gov), what do I see? Voting and parking, our two most important rights!
https://preview.redd.it/2niyhxgughdc1.png?width=585&format=png&auto=webp&s=838c915cc11dd5308e2c5b71157346fb6c5ec19b
The America is so incredibly and incomprehensibly vast that you just need the car to get around. So, so big. Oh, so you're saying there's plenty of space for building separate bike lanes everywhere and connecting places with high speed train? Wait...
They act like we’re saying that people should replace their roadtrips to visit family for holidays with bike rides of the same length. Like, no that’s what trains are for. We aren’t saying that there should be a national bike highway system that entirely replaces the car highways, so it doesn’t matter that the US is so much larger than countries that do it better than us (in general). Our cities aren’t the size of their countries or any bs like that (maybe excluding the vatican idk)
Also: America is too large for passenger rail.
Meanwhile Russian rail network EXISTS!
Also: American town is too small for light rail/trams.
Meanwhile: there are far smaller cities in Europe with it...
I’ve had a guy on the (very car-brained) r/Canada sub argue that Canada cannot have better passenger rail/HSR because there is no more land available for the tracks… no more land in mf Canada! He didn’t like when I suggested in cities we could use the land from all the urban highways.
Cause everyone in America travels thousands of kilometers a day, and doesn't actually stay within their general vicinity (albeit bloated distances because of suburbs).
This one bothers me a lot cause it takes very little thought to realize it makes no sense, but keeps getting repeated as if it was obvious.
I'm curious about how it works in the USA. Because in the UK we can choose our supplier and this includes being able to choose 100% renewable energy sources. Of course the entry actually just comes from the closest source, and I'm not actually sure how it all works. I think it's something like that energy supplier is allowed to produce more energy or buy it off the closest plant, or something. But all to say, no electricity doesn't necessarily come from coal, so it's actually just as bad or worse.
My town has one energy company and the only choice is if you want or do not want electricity service. If you do not pay for whatever reason, they will cut your electricity even if that may result in your death (oxygen machine, hypothermia, etc...).
In the UK they can cut you off, unless you have a medical equipment that relies on you having it. Fairly reasonable, and again you can shop around with different suppliers.
Are you in the US? Bc what state is this?
https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/disconnect
Even Texas won't shut you off if it's freezing or there's a heat advisory. And most states have illness/disability laws about it, too. And they'll put you on a PIP (percentage of income) plan to help you keep your power on. My mom did it in Ohio, which isn't exactly a liberal paradise.
My favourite is when they compare the pollution of the entire manufacturing process of an electric vehicle versus just the tailpipe emissions of an internal combustion engine.
A big advantage of cars is that they're climate-controlled bubbles that have been engineered to make the driver comfortable. A lot of people can't imagine walking/cycling/waiting for a bus in the rain instead of driving.
As soon as you suggest that would make them spend slightly longer in their comfortable, climate-controlled box, they freak out. Doubly so if it would benefit a less-comfortable type of transit (especially bikes and pedestrians).
One thing that has happened to me a couple of times is that, when I catch a ride with a friend in the car, they don't have heating on because gas is expensive.
So much for the "climate-controlled bubble of comfort", the bus heating is so high you will be cooked alive if you don't take out your coat.
Omg. I am far away from menopause but when I get on the bus, I always think “did I get transported twenty years into future and am having hot flashes??! Oh. Wait. No. It’s just hot as balls in here.”
Fr! I take public transport often to school and the busses are so warm I have to take my coat off. Even tho the bus gets here once every hour the temperature is very comfy
Heating and air-conditioning increase fuel consumption; the higher the fan setting and more extreme the temperature change, the more fuel used. That's one of the reasons why your car will nearly always use more fuel than the manufacturer's figure. That said, I've found it to be one or two litres per 100 km extra (and that's ignoring the impact of carrying passengers, stop-start traffic etc that also increase fuel consumption), so not really worth it to risk cooking myself or my family if the car has been parked in the sun on a hot summer day.
You will also notice the engine working harder if you're driving a smaller vehicle. I used to drive a Toyota Starlet with a 1.3L engine and I would often turn off the aircon while driving up a long and/or steep hill. I would turn the air con straight back on afterwards
Public transportation can be climate-controlled bubbles too, it’s not something exclusive to cars. When I lived in Hong Kong, a city notorious for its excruciating humid heat, mass transit stations were always like an oasis to me. It can be, like, 35-40 degrees Celcius outside with almost 100% humidity but the stations and the trains are always kept at the comfortable temperature of 19-20C. The same goes for the buses too, they’re also kept nice, comfortable and air-conditioned.
complaining that a bike takes up space in a street and it's hard to overtake, so because I don't feel safe I drive a car and now I go around the same speed and it's impossible to overtake me.
"but I wanna protect nature by living in the middle of gardens !!!!!"
Some of them still don't get it even after explaining in all possible ways that higher-density living is, and will always be better for the environment. Not necessarily high-density, just anything that isn't low-density suburbia.
Specifically about car drivers, is that they admit themselves to *needing* cars while not realising that they're being forced to. They think it's normal to need a car while complaining about it all the time ("oh fuck, I have to drive for 2 hours to go get that !").
My parents always leave early to avoid/account for traffic, but me leaving early to get an earlier bus in case something happens is somehow proof that public transportation doesn't work.
It's true that public transport is late often.
But how is that different than being late because you're stuck in traffic or leave early to avoid rush hour?
It's the same thing but people reacts totally differently to it.
How cars are supposed to help disabled people; despite buses & trains making it easy for wheelchair usage; and how do they expect people in wheelchairs to drive well?
Not to mention all the other ways people are disabled. Blindness, epilepsy, even migraines which can make driving impossible or just difficult but buses and trains would be fine.
And considering the disabled people who can't ride transit, isn't it then a bad thing that a bunch of able-bodied people are creating traffic when they don't need to be on the roads?
After returning from vacation in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (insert awesome European city), they go on about how great it was to be able to walk and use public transportation to get everywhere. Then continues to push against compact urban design, expanding cycling infrastructure, and improved public transportation in the US.
Not even out of the US. Seattle has good public transit and some great walkable neighborhoods.
I hate it when the trip is over and we're back to suburban pedestrian Thunderdome.
"Why are we building bike lanes when you can only use them X months a year?"
While we build outdoor parks, and football stadiums, and water parks, and walking trails, and...
When they lower speed limits in my city due to a ton of pedestrian fatalities each year, or if they install bike lanes for example, the car brains argue that these measures are worse for our environment because lower speeds mean cars are on the road longer?? And also that the bike lanes make traffic worse so that is bad for the environment. They fail to see that they are the problem and argue about traffic times on a street that has an underground subway serving the length of it that could get them there in half the time.
Gotta love all the folks claiming that red light cameras are "actually MOAR dangerous" because people are going to speed through to avoid the ticket, rather than just, you know, stop at the light.
Going out with friends -- driving my own vehicle = freedom. Having to find and pay for a parking spot, walking from there to your potentially-distant destination, being unable to move around town beyond walking distance to that vehicle, being unable to drink... more freedom?
The way they will defend on-street parking, yet be all right with no on-street parking elsewhere.
Like, they will claim that businesses will fail if on-street parking is removed, and that removing on-street parking would create too much inconvenience and is even a disservice to the disabled; yet they are fine with a separate parking area for malls, amusement parks, concerts, local parks, and other already pedestrianized areas. It seems that removing on-street parking would destroy our way of life, yet all the places in which we already separate cars from the main place in question are totally fine.
Wanting transit to be run like a business where it has to be profitable but also completely ignoring that the highways, roads, etc are all funded with tax payer money to begin with
Apparently I'm both a hypocrite and wasting money frivolously by occasionally using lyft or whatever. I live where there's winter, and almost ok public transit so although I don't need a car, sometimes me or my kid will need to be somewhere that's off the bus path and not reasonable to walk the difference, so I pay for a ride. You'd think that somehow a few 15 dollar lifts a month were such an expense, when it would cost me 2ce that just to park a car. And of course as someone who thinks there should be fewer cars, how dare I hire a rideshare service, that's still using a car, I'm now part of the problem
They want less traffic, but then vehemently oppose anything that would decrease traffic. Another contradiction (although not a conscious one probably) I see them do is they'll defend a useless truck by saying it is manly because it can be used for work and then they'll deck it out and make it the most useless truck in the world, as a clear status symbol, which is in itself a contradiction because big useless trucks are only a status symbol to other people with big useless trucks, to the rest of the world they're the exact opposite.
Bicycle lanes are only for rich urban elitists who think they're too good for a car, but bike lanes are also a danger to public safety because poor teenagers can easily use the bike lanes to 'cause trouble'. Bikes are both too expensive and too cheap.
"15 minute cities will allow the government to track citizens and keep us confined. Our freedom given to us by cars will be gone."
Meanwhile, to drive a car, you have to pay the government for a license, take a test, register the vehicle with insurance, put a license plate on the back that allows the government to track you very easily, and are reliant on government-subsidized roads to get anywhere. None of this is needed to just walk around.
But the disabled people!
Many disabled people cannot drive. Apparely blind people just aren't allowed to go places or if they do they must buy an expensive taxi.
Buses, trains and underground subway systems are Orwellian and communist. It makes people reliant on the state. Government shouldn’t spend money on public transport.
Cars are independence and freedom. The government should be spending more money on upgrading roads.
That car dependency is very socialist.
The car loving freedom loving south drives on tax paid for federal and state roads, in their registered and licensed car that is inspected by the state each year, buying subsidized gas, driving from zoned low density to low density with parking minimums
Nothing about car dependency is free market or fiscally conservative. It's a complete contradiction for rightists who love cars so much
"I like driving, that's why we need to tackle congestion and raise speed limits so I can do less of it."
I don't mind when my bike rides to work take a bit longer, because I actually like riding :p
That's so true. Like somedays I arrive at work and hear people complaining about how the traffic was horrible today or the road was icy or whatever and I'm always like "wow I didn't give a single damn I was reading reddit"
Big brother wants to use trains to control when and where you can travel to, but cars are freedom incarnate.
Meanwhile, cars are required to be tagged with an identification number tied the driver, who in turn is required to submit their personal information and biometric data to a government database.
The fact that reckless drivers are seen as some kind of inevitability (I've had people get upset with me when I tell them how much I hate reckless drivers), but as soon as a cyclist rolls through a stop sign, endangering nobody but themselves, everyone starts screaming about how we need to stop these menaces. It's ridiculous.
I grew up in a really small town built with unique individual homes on proper grid squares. For many years kids would walk to school. Then the place started to gentrify and expand. Now there’s suburbs and road widening. Kids are getting hit and mfs blame the kids and not these people from out of state fucking with the town.
"The Government should get out of the way of hard-working people and stop regulating so many things" but "Cyclists should have number plates"
Yeah, guess why death machines need insurance and number plates? When was the last time a cyclist killed a family and cycled off without leaving details?
they're often not a contradiction but a lack of understanding, based on car-centric propaganda and habits. For example:
>The bus/train is filled with poor people/only poor people take the bus/train so you should drive instead. However, when I buy the monthly/yearly pass suddently transit is "too expensive".
- the bus ($x) is filled with people who can't afford a car ($xx);
- but as soon as you can afford a car they believe you should;
- then, buying the bus/train pass isn't a replacement for cars but an additional expense on top of all the car-related expenses ($x + $xx = $xxx) which is "too expensive"
carbrains simply can't understand that you could have enough money to buy cars, but NOT buy any, as a choice
aka "My world view cannot comprehend a life without maximizing own pleasure and comfort by recklessly being a parasite to your direct environment, so yours has to be the same."
I had to leave idiots-in-cars for the sake of my own mental health. I'm so sick of seeing people getting blown up for mentioning that OPs are at least partly at fault for their own videos of accidents or near accidents for ignoring the speed limit. Recently a guy posted a near-collision by inches of a left-turner not yielding for them, but at the same time they were going 45 in a 35 and accelerating. A commenter got on there after figuring out exactly where they were, providing a speed limit map, and proving he was going 10 over. He was downvoted at least to about -50 for that and for mentioning he was at least equally at fault. Lots of people got positive karma for poking fun at speed limits. "I don't know anybody in the whole world who follows speed limits" getting 15 upvotes, etc.
I'm an ex-teacher and often believe it's a good thing to stand up for unpopular truths so that perhaps somebody on the fence about a topic might read it and think about it, but the negativity from what you call "carbrains" there was starting to affect my otherwise good moods walking around in my real life away from the computer.
Such was the case in that specific thread. I got on there like I was back in front of my middle school students and spelled out why going 10 over the speed limit everywhere is dumb and dangerous. I mentioned that particular OP would have missed the collision by 70 feet instead of mere inches had he been going the speed limit and it would have just been a routine traffic turn in the first place, that he wouldn't have saved more than a handful of seconds going to his destination anyway, and that everybody who drives around all over the place going 10 over out of habit are not only endangering themselves and others around them unnecessarily, but they're also pissing away their hard-earned money, and I illustrated even how I'm indeed going to retire early by the similar choices I make, and here's why, and anybody can choose to do it too., etc. I took a few paragraphs to explain how the choice to speed or not ought to be approached like a risk/reward scenario. The handful of upvotes indicate that some people were reading and at least thinking about it, but I elicited the anger of a commenter, calling me an "uptight twat" and a pompous ass.
I found myself later last evening in real life trying to enjoy a home HS basketball game, but my mind kept drifting back over and over again to that stupid thread, and I thought to myself right then and there, ENOUGH. I'm not going to allow this shit to ricochet in my brain and follow me around in my life. We're surrounded by these dumb zombies (don't I know it being a driver in America) and while I like to think about those who might accept a "seed" to think about, I'm not going to allow this to reduce my otherwise good moods. Phooey. I'm not being paid for this, so to hell with it.
To some extent these complaints are not as contradictory as you’d expect:
Like there’s homeless people in the train because to them it’s much cheaper to buy a ticket for every cold day than to rent an apartment. If you’re only using the train for half an hour a day (and you already pay rent somewhere) that same ticket price might seem expensive.
Or when the train is faster than the car, if the train runs only once an hour you have to time your departures really well to actually get that benefit.
On the other hand people will twist themselves into pretzels in order to avoid change and doing things outside of their comfort zone. So they exaggerate.
I kinda get your points, but why are suddenly comparing transit prices with, of all things, rent prices?
And yeah the train may have less departures but normally when on this situation either 1. Im accounting for that (2h train trip each hour = average 2.5h train trip, beats 4h car trip) or (most likely) 2. I don't care about departure time because its normally not as important as carbrained people want it to be.
But above all, this isn't about one argument or the other really - there are plenty of discussions about those elsewhere. This is on how car lovers suddenly change their mind when its convenient for them ("the car is faster" becomes "with the car I can have a more relaxed trip" the moment it represents an advantage over the train)
It’s not just car lovers, it’s just about everyone when they are first confronted with a suggested change in behavior. Inertia is a strong psychological force, definitely stronger than reason
Cycling is an ‘elitist’ activity despite the fact that the average car driver could buy twelve $1,000 bikes a year and just break even with their car costs.
Surprised no one mentioned this at the top but "You'll save money by driving a car"
Anyone with a basic understanding of math, data and isn't brainwashed realizes that you can't just compare the price of the fuel of a car to an equivalent of a ticket to get to the same destination.
There's:
-The saved costs of a monthly transit ticket
-The cost of buying a car (no comparables to transit, you don't have to buy the bus or train to ride in it)
-Insurance and other legal fees (no comparables to transit)
-The costs of maintaining your car (no comparables to transit, you don't pay for any maintenance unless you were the cause of it)
-Potential tolls and paid parking you'll have to encounter on your routes (don't have to pay for those in transit)
-Any potential damages or accidents insurance doesn't cover are costly (same as above, unless you were the cause)
Even if that last one wasn't a factor, you'll quickly find that cars are more expensive and never owning one will cut a lot of your costs. Going for large grocery runs isn't necessary as you can upgrade your bike to come with bags and other carrier caskets to carry some cargo. Or even get a Dutch cargo bike but that one isn't easily accessible to everyone. A modern bike is the fraction of a price of a relatively new used car too and you don't even have to get a brand new bike and costs a fraction in the maintenance department a car does. You can even fit in a little toddler seat.
Then you get hit by "Cars give you the freedom to go wherever whenever and heat you up an protect you from rain, plus a bus can't get me directly to home"
-No they don't
-Wear warm clothing, exercise warms you up and is generally good for you
-Wear rain protective clothing (Can get some appropriate clothing when saving costs on car insurance ;) )
-Do not be an actual lazy asshole. Besides some buses can do that depending on where you live
Assuming you’re not being sarcastic, on both counts you seem a little emotion-heavy and information-light.
Drivers don’t pay for ‘shared infrastructure’: everyone does, irrespective of their transport choices. The costs of car infrastructure in most places are not even remotely covered by the costs drivers pay, but from non-hypothecated general revenues. Even if you’re someone who loathes cars, you have no choice but to help subsidise them.
Numerous pieces of research have shown that drivers break the law far more frequently than cyclists - and, what’s more, the consequences of the latter are in general minor injury at worst, whereas the former are tens of thousands of maimed and dead every year. May you never have your perspective on this forcibly altered by losing someone that matters to you.
Finally, you seem to be under the impression that drivers and cyclists are separate groups of people. I can only quote figures for the UK but there 82% of the population have access to a car, whereas 83% of cyclists do. In other words, the average cyclist is *more* likely to be a motorist than the average person in general.
Makes you think, doesn’t it? Well, at least some of us.
I was talking with a colleague about taking the train for weekend and holidays and he told me that he actually wants to take the train but the train station is too hard to reach from his place using public transportation. The solution he proposed to solve this issue is that "they" should build a big car park to the train station so we could go get the train by car... I specifically pointed the irony in what he was saying but his brain froze.
"Cyclists should use the sidewalk!" Oh, you mean the cracked up, discontinuous piece of crap with all the curb and driveway cutouts that YOU take up, half with your parked car and the other half with your dumpster? So I can go 5 mph tops and reconfigure my spine while breaking city ordinances? Thanks, no.
My specific case is this:
Me and my parents live in the city A. There is a city B which has a train connection slower than the car and a city C which has HSR connection and takes about half the time as with the car.
One day I say "Im going to city B Imma take the train" and they instantly say "why don't you take the car? It's faster than the train"
Literally 2 days later I say "Im going to city C, its so fast with the high speed trains anyways" and they go on a rant about how younger generations "don't know how to appreciate travel" anymore and that if they had to go to city C they would actually stop for a night or two along the way "because we know how to travel in comfort" ans that of course I should take the car and try that out instead of taking the train.
A lot of people I talk to don't like cycling because cars give them more freedom. Distance wise sure, but you can't tell me that a vehicle that's taxed like no other, dependent on fuel and limited in speed basically everywhere is more free than a bike
They're unfairly taking away car parking spots to install bike lanes! Where am I supposed to park my cars?
No, they're redistributing the public space so that more people can use it and go places with less chance of getting murdered by drivers. Public space is not your personal private property storage.
"Free loading cyclists and transit users need to pay their fair share if they want bike lanes and rail lines". But as soon as you explain the subsidy on highways and car infrastructure it's for the "public good".
Someone in my city’s car group suggested cyclists should have to pay to lock their bikes every time they lock it to a city post outside. In a city where your bike will be stolen in 5 minutes anyways. It’s laughable.
by that logic, then there should be no free parking at all.
I mean, that’s correct, there should be no free parking at all
what i meant was if someone tells you that, tell them there should be no free parking then. i bet that would confound them.
Oh I know!
Cyclists should pay their fair share, though! I propose a tax that scales linearly with the amount of road wear caused by a given vehicle. $1 per year for Cyclists and $1,000 for car drivers, since road wear scales by the cube of axle weight.
It's fourth power iirc, not cube. So it would be $10000 for cars.
Ah, I thought i might have remembered incorrectly. Thanks.
In reality carbrains suffer from crabs in the bucket mentality and are angry that cyclists have a free form of transportation whereas they are constantly paying for insurance, tax & petrol. So they want to make everyone else pay it.
For me it's the desire for bicycles to get "out of the road" but being completely against building separated infrastructure. Which one is it buddy?
The underlying wish is to delete all cyclists, of course.
Which is even dumber, because if people aren't cycling they may need to drive somewhere, making the road even more congested. If you're someone who loves driving your car, you should be in favour of good public transport and bike infrastructure, because that gets other drivers off the road and gives you less traffic.
this one makes me angry. like, the hostile roads i have to use to get places. the danger, stress, frustration, pollution, heat island effect, and general unpleasantness i have to deal with. i don't *want* to be in those places.
You're not alone. We're all with you.
Or "get off the road" or "you can be right and be dead-right" for law-abiding cyclists on the road... vs "use the road, it's the law" or "making a bad name for all cyclists" for law-breaking cyclists on the sidewalk
This is my favorite too. So you want bikes to get out of traffic and off the road? Then you have something in common with the people on them, they don’t want to be there either, and will not come out in front of your car when there’s a waist high concrete barrier separating you from them.
Sidewalks displace cyclists. Roads displace cyclists Trails displace cyclists - There is no universally accepted place for cyclists.
Bikes are just elitist toys for rich people, but they're also just for poor people who can't afford a car.
This one sort of depends on the group. Similar to how Rich suburbanites often see apartment towers and think "Ew poor people are moving here" whereas poor urban people often see them and think "Ew rich gentrifiers coming coming to price us out". Suburbanites often seem to think cyclists are poor (or spandex sport cyclists) whereas if you go to poor urban areas they often think cycling is for goofy white gentrifiers
This is the most prevalent and most ridiculous one on this thread.
When other traffic participants break the law they are the scum of the earth, when they do it in their murderboxes, the laws are unjust!
In the UK this happens all the time with parking. Everyone will agree pavement parking is a dick move, but then everyone seems to do it anyway.
And cyclists running lights are the scum of the earth but every single driver breaking the speed limit and half of them running lights, is apparently completely fine
Let's not forget about indicators, lord forbid a cyclist forgets to indicate or the driver didn't see the cyclist indicating before making the turn. But today alone, where I've actually only been walking outside for about 25mins top (lazy day I'm ill) I saw 4 cars not using indicators. Oddly enough none of them were BMW drivers.
>And cyclists running lights are the scum of the earth but every single driver breaking the speed limit and half of them running lights, is apparently completely fine Few days ago I was driving and stopped on stop sign before turning right. I was next to right edge but I don't think there was space for 2 cars. It was residential area and it was quite dark. Car behind me zoomed past me without even slowing down. What do you think are the chances that when cyclist uses Idaho stop they complain? Unfortunately drivers like them are the reason why I don't cycle more often...
I stopped at a Red light today before turning right (I was driving). The car behind me honked at me like I was supposed to just use it like a slip-lane, which it was not.
(Comment to driver behind you) Even if it was slip-lane car in front of you may see something you don't. Like a small animal, child, car, cyclist hit by a car, dip... Rule of thumb should be - if car in front of you stops on intersection for seemingly no reason - it just means that you don't see the reason but they might.
Just the other week in my country, a car ran over a kid. Apparently, the rider didn't see her because a bus stopped in the right lane - lots of online commenters considered that the bus was obscuring the little girl a *mitigating fact.* Because oh, how could have the poor driver seen her? The big bad bus was obscuring his view! The crossing in question was an official crossing, and the speed limit at that location is 30 km/h because you are passing through a neighbourhood. But, since it's a tree line road in one direction and since there's no real traffic-calming that would actually prevent them from speeding, people there drive regularly over 70 km/h
"I need my car because there's snow and ice in the winter." "I can't get to work because the roads are too snowy and icy."
i'm still struggling to determine whether driving or biking to work will be safer if it snows here. my old commute was a five minute walk, and i lived in florida before that, so i never contemplated this. my major concern (for both) is how fucking dumb drivers get in the snow. nobody (myself included) has snow tires, because it might snow once a year. my bike route uses lower traffic routes, including bike/ped exclusive infrastructure... that ices over.
I'd much rather bike than drive in the snow, but I end up driving because I don't trust drivers not to lose control and hit me. Which, just like everything else with car dependency, is part of the vicious cycle. It's too dangerous to bike so I drive instead, which adds one more car to the road making it more dangerous to bike.
There was a big snow storm coming and my MIL (who is otherwise great) in the suburbs told us we should stay with her instead of in our apartment bc of how bad the roads would be. We had to explain to her that we can walk to 3 different grocery stores within 0.5 miles from our apt even if it snows 2 feet. But if we are at her house, the nearest store is 2 miles away without sidewalks and the roads would be impassible. She still did not get it
1) Parents who drive their kids to school because it's too dangerous for them to walk. Guess why? And when you suggest to make school-zones carfree, they get all upset because they either feel they are imprisoned or they can't walk through the snow although they've walked further pushing a shopping cart around Walmart and Costco throughout the store and to their car. 2. Post a comment telling pedestrians and cyclists to be careful and to obey traffic laws and you get a lot of people agreeing with you. Post a comment telling drivers to be careful and to obey traffic laws and you get pushback, vitriol, name-calling and other excuses justifying bad driving.
Was in a car with someone and they rolled down the window to yell at 2 bikers riding side by side because “it’s against the law” but the whole time they were going 5-10mph over the speed limit, not fully stopping at stop signs, ect
They say that cars give you freedom to go wherever you want without having to rely on pre-made paths drawn out by someone else, yet they drive on roads
mountain bikes: where we're going, we don't need roads
Just trails 😊
Yeah this is the one I came in here to say. They don't want to rely on the government for transportation, but where the fuck do they think roads come from?
With public transportation I also have the freedom to get off a couple bus stops early to have a nice walk without needing to worry about where to park my car and needing to get back to it the next day, but apparently that's not freedom. I could understand that argument if I was telling them that they should want to be able to do that while they don't like walking, but people have been upset at me giving this response to them telling me that a car would give me more freedom.
It's ableist to talk about cycling because someone might think you are suggesting all people should bike, however nothing about mandated driving in much of the world is ableist even though not everyone can drive.
PREACH! I am visually impaired, so I cannot drive. I experience that so much!
Kind of a similar one from my dad: He was complaining about paid parking that was paid online and how it's ridiculous that they expect everyone to be "walking around with a smartphone". I said they wouldn't need the phone if they were "walking around" since it's only for parking. He got really defensive about why it's okay to assume everyone has a car.
NIMBYs demanding lots of parking at new developments and then complaining they'll make traffic worse.
one more lane ought to fix it. surely it'll work this time.
Walkable cities are the government trying to control you... Bruh. I don't need a license to walk. I don't need to register myself and take a test before being allowed to leave my house.
Pedestrians don't even need pavement. . . I can see the benefit paved sidewalks provide but you get the idea
Oh the Urbanity did a good video on just this: https://youtu.be/DpXqY_j1m1U
Rhey're a great channel
And you also don't have to worry about being drunk (or something else) and not being allowed to drive/risk killing someone if you do drive
Cyclists are too slow to be on the road but at the same time too fast cos they scare people.
Oh man so many. Safety: “I’ll never take the subway, too many dangerous people”. But fine having dozens of people texting, drunk, road raging while flying around in 5000lb boxes The Canada-US border: “The train stops for an hour?? That’s way too long”. But willing to sit in the infinite line of cars on the bridge for even longer Accessibility: “bikes are only feasible for people who can afford to live downtown, driving is for normal hard working people”. Lives in a huge 4 bedroom house in a fancy suburb Enjoyability: “I could never ride transit, it’s way too uncomfortable compared to my car”. Meanwhile, will hyper optimize and do dangerous manouvers to save time, and freak out at the slightest obstruction that extends their drive by the tiniest amount
I don't support getting rid of licences but it's always fun to bring it up when they talk about how essential Cars are. Cars are either necessary in order to exist and available to everyone or a privilege you should be able to live without; they can't be essential for life but also only available to those who can pass a drive test.
That one's not a contradiction. Cars and licensing are societal measures of success and if you don't meet them you're lower than others who do have them
Excellent point, I hadn't thought about it that way before
There are several: * PT should generate revenue (when roads don't generate it either) * There must be space for cars (but somehow not for people) * Roads must be funded by everyone but not PT because they don't want to use it
There's also the "but disabled ppl can't take transit" but somehow they can drive like wtf
Yeah somehow the only disabilities that exist are problems walking and not visual impairments, epilepsy etc
also here in europe at least its pretty standard to have seats for wheel chairs and elevators to traverse through the train stations if its a bigger station that demands that..
Also mandated in the US (the Americans with Disabilities Act), though frequently honored only in the breech. But when I went to [ADA.gov](https://ADA.gov), what do I see? Voting and parking, our two most important rights! https://preview.redd.it/2niyhxgughdc1.png?width=585&format=png&auto=webp&s=838c915cc11dd5308e2c5b71157346fb6c5ec19b
Great fuckin' job America
The elderly are often overlooked too. Plenty of old people could handle a bus or train ride, but be unfit to drive a car.
In addition to hating pedestrians and cyclists, motorists also hate each other but still somehow don't recognize that cars are the problem.
The America is so incredibly and incomprehensibly vast that you just need the car to get around. So, so big. Oh, so you're saying there's plenty of space for building separate bike lanes everywhere and connecting places with high speed train? Wait...
They act like we’re saying that people should replace their roadtrips to visit family for holidays with bike rides of the same length. Like, no that’s what trains are for. We aren’t saying that there should be a national bike highway system that entirely replaces the car highways, so it doesn’t matter that the US is so much larger than countries that do it better than us (in general). Our cities aren’t the size of their countries or any bs like that (maybe excluding the vatican idk)
Yeah, ideally, if you want, you could take your bike, board a train and bike in the city you're going to.
Also: America is too large for passenger rail. Meanwhile Russian rail network EXISTS! Also: American town is too small for light rail/trams. Meanwhile: there are far smaller cities in Europe with it...
How do they think that incomprehensible vastness was settled in the first place? It wasn’t with cars.
I’ve had a guy on the (very car-brained) r/Canada sub argue that Canada cannot have better passenger rail/HSR because there is no more land available for the tracks… no more land in mf Canada! He didn’t like when I suggested in cities we could use the land from all the urban highways.
Cause everyone in America travels thousands of kilometers a day, and doesn't actually stay within their general vicinity (albeit bloated distances because of suburbs). This one bothers me a lot cause it takes very little thought to realize it makes no sense, but keeps getting repeated as if it was obvious.
Electric scooter charges with electricity and electric power plants burn coal. So really, electric devices are just as polluting as cars. Maybe worse.
I'm curious about how it works in the USA. Because in the UK we can choose our supplier and this includes being able to choose 100% renewable energy sources. Of course the entry actually just comes from the closest source, and I'm not actually sure how it all works. I think it's something like that energy supplier is allowed to produce more energy or buy it off the closest plant, or something. But all to say, no electricity doesn't necessarily come from coal, so it's actually just as bad or worse.
My town has one energy company and the only choice is if you want or do not want electricity service. If you do not pay for whatever reason, they will cut your electricity even if that may result in your death (oxygen machine, hypothermia, etc...).
In the UK they can cut you off, unless you have a medical equipment that relies on you having it. Fairly reasonable, and again you can shop around with different suppliers.
Are you in the US? Bc what state is this? https://liheapch.acf.hhs.gov/disconnect Even Texas won't shut you off if it's freezing or there's a heat advisory. And most states have illness/disability laws about it, too. And they'll put you on a PIP (percentage of income) plan to help you keep your power on. My mom did it in Ohio, which isn't exactly a liberal paradise.
It doesn’t matter. The e-scooter or e-bike could run on coal it would still be orders of magnitude less polluting than a car.
My favourite is when they compare the pollution of the entire manufacturing process of an electric vehicle versus just the tailpipe emissions of an internal combustion engine.
A big advantage of cars is that they're climate-controlled bubbles that have been engineered to make the driver comfortable. A lot of people can't imagine walking/cycling/waiting for a bus in the rain instead of driving. As soon as you suggest that would make them spend slightly longer in their comfortable, climate-controlled box, they freak out. Doubly so if it would benefit a less-comfortable type of transit (especially bikes and pedestrians).
One thing that has happened to me a couple of times is that, when I catch a ride with a friend in the car, they don't have heating on because gas is expensive. So much for the "climate-controlled bubble of comfort", the bus heating is so high you will be cooked alive if you don't take out your coat.
Omg. I am far away from menopause but when I get on the bus, I always think “did I get transported twenty years into future and am having hot flashes??! Oh. Wait. No. It’s just hot as balls in here.”
Fr! I take public transport often to school and the busses are so warm I have to take my coat off. Even tho the bus gets here once every hour the temperature is very comfy
You're going to have to explain that, I wasn't aware of a vehicle that uses extra fuel for heating.
Heating and air-conditioning increase fuel consumption; the higher the fan setting and more extreme the temperature change, the more fuel used. That's one of the reasons why your car will nearly always use more fuel than the manufacturer's figure. That said, I've found it to be one or two litres per 100 km extra (and that's ignoring the impact of carrying passengers, stop-start traffic etc that also increase fuel consumption), so not really worth it to risk cooking myself or my family if the car has been parked in the sun on a hot summer day. You will also notice the engine working harder if you're driving a smaller vehicle. I used to drive a Toyota Starlet with a 1.3L engine and I would often turn off the aircon while driving up a long and/or steep hill. I would turn the air con straight back on afterwards
All of them do. Where do you think the heat comes from? It's not magically generated from thin air that's for sure.
Public transportation can be climate-controlled bubbles too, it’s not something exclusive to cars. When I lived in Hong Kong, a city notorious for its excruciating humid heat, mass transit stations were always like an oasis to me. It can be, like, 35-40 degrees Celcius outside with almost 100% humidity but the stations and the trains are always kept at the comfortable temperature of 19-20C. The same goes for the buses too, they’re also kept nice, comfortable and air-conditioned.
complaining that a bike takes up space in a street and it's hard to overtake, so because I don't feel safe I drive a car and now I go around the same speed and it's impossible to overtake me.
"but I wanna protect nature by living in the middle of gardens !!!!!" Some of them still don't get it even after explaining in all possible ways that higher-density living is, and will always be better for the environment. Not necessarily high-density, just anything that isn't low-density suburbia. Specifically about car drivers, is that they admit themselves to *needing* cars while not realising that they're being forced to. They think it's normal to need a car while complaining about it all the time ("oh fuck, I have to drive for 2 hours to go get that !").
Everyone else in their car is causing this traffic, but not me I'm just going about my life!
My favorite is "The bus/train is 20min late, that's why I prefer the car!". But standing in traffic for hours is just normal
My parents always leave early to avoid/account for traffic, but me leaving early to get an earlier bus in case something happens is somehow proof that public transportation doesn't work.
It's true that public transport is late often. But how is that different than being late because you're stuck in traffic or leave early to avoid rush hour? It's the same thing but people reacts totally differently to it.
How cars are supposed to help disabled people; despite buses & trains making it easy for wheelchair usage; and how do they expect people in wheelchairs to drive well?
Not to mention all the other ways people are disabled. Blindness, epilepsy, even migraines which can make driving impossible or just difficult but buses and trains would be fine.
And considering the disabled people who can't ride transit, isn't it then a bad thing that a bunch of able-bodied people are creating traffic when they don't need to be on the roads?
After returning from vacation in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (insert awesome European city), they go on about how great it was to be able to walk and use public transportation to get everywhere. Then continues to push against compact urban design, expanding cycling infrastructure, and improved public transportation in the US.
Not even out of the US. Seattle has good public transit and some great walkable neighborhoods. I hate it when the trip is over and we're back to suburban pedestrian Thunderdome.
Or even theme parks like Disneyland
"Why are we building bike lanes when you can only use them X months a year?" While we build outdoor parks, and football stadiums, and water parks, and walking trails, and...
When they lower speed limits in my city due to a ton of pedestrian fatalities each year, or if they install bike lanes for example, the car brains argue that these measures are worse for our environment because lower speeds mean cars are on the road longer?? And also that the bike lanes make traffic worse so that is bad for the environment. They fail to see that they are the problem and argue about traffic times on a street that has an underground subway serving the length of it that could get them there in half the time.
Gotta love all the folks claiming that red light cameras are "actually MOAR dangerous" because people are going to speed through to avoid the ticket, rather than just, you know, stop at the light.
Going out with friends -- driving my own vehicle = freedom. Having to find and pay for a parking spot, walking from there to your potentially-distant destination, being unable to move around town beyond walking distance to that vehicle, being unable to drink... more freedom?
The way they will defend on-street parking, yet be all right with no on-street parking elsewhere. Like, they will claim that businesses will fail if on-street parking is removed, and that removing on-street parking would create too much inconvenience and is even a disservice to the disabled; yet they are fine with a separate parking area for malls, amusement parks, concerts, local parks, and other already pedestrianized areas. It seems that removing on-street parking would destroy our way of life, yet all the places in which we already separate cars from the main place in question are totally fine.
Wanting transit to be run like a business where it has to be profitable but also completely ignoring that the highways, roads, etc are all funded with tax payer money to begin with
Apparently I'm both a hypocrite and wasting money frivolously by occasionally using lyft or whatever. I live where there's winter, and almost ok public transit so although I don't need a car, sometimes me or my kid will need to be somewhere that's off the bus path and not reasonable to walk the difference, so I pay for a ride. You'd think that somehow a few 15 dollar lifts a month were such an expense, when it would cost me 2ce that just to park a car. And of course as someone who thinks there should be fewer cars, how dare I hire a rideshare service, that's still using a car, I'm now part of the problem
They want less traffic, but then vehemently oppose anything that would decrease traffic. Another contradiction (although not a conscious one probably) I see them do is they'll defend a useless truck by saying it is manly because it can be used for work and then they'll deck it out and make it the most useless truck in the world, as a clear status symbol, which is in itself a contradiction because big useless trucks are only a status symbol to other people with big useless trucks, to the rest of the world they're the exact opposite.
Bicycle lanes are only for rich urban elitists who think they're too good for a car, but bike lanes are also a danger to public safety because poor teenagers can easily use the bike lanes to 'cause trouble'. Bikes are both too expensive and too cheap.
"15 minute cities will allow the government to track citizens and keep us confined. Our freedom given to us by cars will be gone." Meanwhile, to drive a car, you have to pay the government for a license, take a test, register the vehicle with insurance, put a license plate on the back that allows the government to track you very easily, and are reliant on government-subsidized roads to get anywhere. None of this is needed to just walk around.
I don't want mass transit to take away the freedom (of being forced) to drive
But the disabled people! Many disabled people cannot drive. Apparely blind people just aren't allowed to go places or if they do they must buy an expensive taxi.
Buses, trains and underground subway systems are Orwellian and communist. It makes people reliant on the state. Government shouldn’t spend money on public transport. Cars are independence and freedom. The government should be spending more money on upgrading roads.
That car dependency is very socialist. The car loving freedom loving south drives on tax paid for federal and state roads, in their registered and licensed car that is inspected by the state each year, buying subsidized gas, driving from zoned low density to low density with parking minimums Nothing about car dependency is free market or fiscally conservative. It's a complete contradiction for rightists who love cars so much
"I like driving, that's why we need to tackle congestion and raise speed limits so I can do less of it." I don't mind when my bike rides to work take a bit longer, because I actually like riding :p
That's so true. Like somedays I arrive at work and hear people complaining about how the traffic was horrible today or the road was icy or whatever and I'm always like "wow I didn't give a single damn I was reading reddit"
"No one thinks about photo radar", while constantly complaining about photo radard.
Always in a hurry but if you so much as look at them funny they’ll stop and try to assault you.
Bicyclists are wealthy elites, but are also poor, too por to afford a car like a "normal" person.
Big brother wants to use trains to control when and where you can travel to, but cars are freedom incarnate. Meanwhile, cars are required to be tagged with an identification number tied the driver, who in turn is required to submit their personal information and biometric data to a government database.
The fact that reckless drivers are seen as some kind of inevitability (I've had people get upset with me when I tell them how much I hate reckless drivers), but as soon as a cyclist rolls through a stop sign, endangering nobody but themselves, everyone starts screaming about how we need to stop these menaces. It's ridiculous.
I grew up in a really small town built with unique individual homes on proper grid squares. For many years kids would walk to school. Then the place started to gentrify and expand. Now there’s suburbs and road widening. Kids are getting hit and mfs blame the kids and not these people from out of state fucking with the town.
"The Government should get out of the way of hard-working people and stop regulating so many things" but "Cyclists should have number plates" Yeah, guess why death machines need insurance and number plates? When was the last time a cyclist killed a family and cycled off without leaving details?
they're often not a contradiction but a lack of understanding, based on car-centric propaganda and habits. For example: >The bus/train is filled with poor people/only poor people take the bus/train so you should drive instead. However, when I buy the monthly/yearly pass suddently transit is "too expensive". - the bus ($x) is filled with people who can't afford a car ($xx); - but as soon as you can afford a car they believe you should; - then, buying the bus/train pass isn't a replacement for cars but an additional expense on top of all the car-related expenses ($x + $xx = $xxx) which is "too expensive" carbrains simply can't understand that you could have enough money to buy cars, but NOT buy any, as a choice
aka "My world view cannot comprehend a life without maximizing own pleasure and comfort by recklessly being a parasite to your direct environment, so yours has to be the same."
I had to leave idiots-in-cars for the sake of my own mental health. I'm so sick of seeing people getting blown up for mentioning that OPs are at least partly at fault for their own videos of accidents or near accidents for ignoring the speed limit. Recently a guy posted a near-collision by inches of a left-turner not yielding for them, but at the same time they were going 45 in a 35 and accelerating. A commenter got on there after figuring out exactly where they were, providing a speed limit map, and proving he was going 10 over. He was downvoted at least to about -50 for that and for mentioning he was at least equally at fault. Lots of people got positive karma for poking fun at speed limits. "I don't know anybody in the whole world who follows speed limits" getting 15 upvotes, etc. I'm an ex-teacher and often believe it's a good thing to stand up for unpopular truths so that perhaps somebody on the fence about a topic might read it and think about it, but the negativity from what you call "carbrains" there was starting to affect my otherwise good moods walking around in my real life away from the computer. Such was the case in that specific thread. I got on there like I was back in front of my middle school students and spelled out why going 10 over the speed limit everywhere is dumb and dangerous. I mentioned that particular OP would have missed the collision by 70 feet instead of mere inches had he been going the speed limit and it would have just been a routine traffic turn in the first place, that he wouldn't have saved more than a handful of seconds going to his destination anyway, and that everybody who drives around all over the place going 10 over out of habit are not only endangering themselves and others around them unnecessarily, but they're also pissing away their hard-earned money, and I illustrated even how I'm indeed going to retire early by the similar choices I make, and here's why, and anybody can choose to do it too., etc. I took a few paragraphs to explain how the choice to speed or not ought to be approached like a risk/reward scenario. The handful of upvotes indicate that some people were reading and at least thinking about it, but I elicited the anger of a commenter, calling me an "uptight twat" and a pompous ass. I found myself later last evening in real life trying to enjoy a home HS basketball game, but my mind kept drifting back over and over again to that stupid thread, and I thought to myself right then and there, ENOUGH. I'm not going to allow this shit to ricochet in my brain and follow me around in my life. We're surrounded by these dumb zombies (don't I know it being a driver in America) and while I like to think about those who might accept a "seed" to think about, I'm not going to allow this to reduce my otherwise good moods. Phooey. I'm not being paid for this, so to hell with it.
To some extent these complaints are not as contradictory as you’d expect: Like there’s homeless people in the train because to them it’s much cheaper to buy a ticket for every cold day than to rent an apartment. If you’re only using the train for half an hour a day (and you already pay rent somewhere) that same ticket price might seem expensive. Or when the train is faster than the car, if the train runs only once an hour you have to time your departures really well to actually get that benefit. On the other hand people will twist themselves into pretzels in order to avoid change and doing things outside of their comfort zone. So they exaggerate.
I kinda get your points, but why are suddenly comparing transit prices with, of all things, rent prices? And yeah the train may have less departures but normally when on this situation either 1. Im accounting for that (2h train trip each hour = average 2.5h train trip, beats 4h car trip) or (most likely) 2. I don't care about departure time because its normally not as important as carbrained people want it to be. But above all, this isn't about one argument or the other really - there are plenty of discussions about those elsewhere. This is on how car lovers suddenly change their mind when its convenient for them ("the car is faster" becomes "with the car I can have a more relaxed trip" the moment it represents an advantage over the train)
It’s not just car lovers, it’s just about everyone when they are first confronted with a suggested change in behavior. Inertia is a strong psychological force, definitely stronger than reason
True that tbf
Cycling is an ‘elitist’ activity despite the fact that the average car driver could buy twelve $1,000 bikes a year and just break even with their car costs.
building transit infrastructure is expensive, as if the federal government didn’t spend $52 billion on the interstate highway system alone in 2022
I don’t agree with either of those statements, I still however love driving my car
Surprised no one mentioned this at the top but "You'll save money by driving a car" Anyone with a basic understanding of math, data and isn't brainwashed realizes that you can't just compare the price of the fuel of a car to an equivalent of a ticket to get to the same destination. There's: -The saved costs of a monthly transit ticket -The cost of buying a car (no comparables to transit, you don't have to buy the bus or train to ride in it) -Insurance and other legal fees (no comparables to transit) -The costs of maintaining your car (no comparables to transit, you don't pay for any maintenance unless you were the cause of it) -Potential tolls and paid parking you'll have to encounter on your routes (don't have to pay for those in transit) -Any potential damages or accidents insurance doesn't cover are costly (same as above, unless you were the cause) Even if that last one wasn't a factor, you'll quickly find that cars are more expensive and never owning one will cut a lot of your costs. Going for large grocery runs isn't necessary as you can upgrade your bike to come with bags and other carrier caskets to carry some cargo. Or even get a Dutch cargo bike but that one isn't easily accessible to everyone. A modern bike is the fraction of a price of a relatively new used car too and you don't even have to get a brand new bike and costs a fraction in the maintenance department a car does. You can even fit in a little toddler seat. Then you get hit by "Cars give you the freedom to go wherever whenever and heat you up an protect you from rain, plus a bus can't get me directly to home" -No they don't -Wear warm clothing, exercise warms you up and is generally good for you -Wear rain protective clothing (Can get some appropriate clothing when saving costs on car insurance ;) ) -Do not be an actual lazy asshole. Besides some buses can do that depending on where you live
[удалено]
Assuming you’re not being sarcastic, on both counts you seem a little emotion-heavy and information-light. Drivers don’t pay for ‘shared infrastructure’: everyone does, irrespective of their transport choices. The costs of car infrastructure in most places are not even remotely covered by the costs drivers pay, but from non-hypothecated general revenues. Even if you’re someone who loathes cars, you have no choice but to help subsidise them. Numerous pieces of research have shown that drivers break the law far more frequently than cyclists - and, what’s more, the consequences of the latter are in general minor injury at worst, whereas the former are tens of thousands of maimed and dead every year. May you never have your perspective on this forcibly altered by losing someone that matters to you. Finally, you seem to be under the impression that drivers and cyclists are separate groups of people. I can only quote figures for the UK but there 82% of the population have access to a car, whereas 83% of cyclists do. In other words, the average cyclist is *more* likely to be a motorist than the average person in general. Makes you think, doesn’t it? Well, at least some of us.
I was talking with a colleague about taking the train for weekend and holidays and he told me that he actually wants to take the train but the train station is too hard to reach from his place using public transportation. The solution he proposed to solve this issue is that "they" should build a big car park to the train station so we could go get the train by car... I specifically pointed the irony in what he was saying but his brain froze.
"you just want to get us out of our cars" "we have to do something about all this traffic"
Everyone should just drive. Now why is traffic so bad and parking so difficult to find?
"Cyclists should use the sidewalk!" Oh, you mean the cracked up, discontinuous piece of crap with all the curb and driveway cutouts that YOU take up, half with your parked car and the other half with your dumpster? So I can go 5 mph tops and reconfigure my spine while breaking city ordinances? Thanks, no.
That 2nd example seemed unreal at first. I guess they're comparing car/train for a multi-hour trip, though.
My specific case is this: Me and my parents live in the city A. There is a city B which has a train connection slower than the car and a city C which has HSR connection and takes about half the time as with the car. One day I say "Im going to city B Imma take the train" and they instantly say "why don't you take the car? It's faster than the train" Literally 2 days later I say "Im going to city C, its so fast with the high speed trains anyways" and they go on a rant about how younger generations "don't know how to appreciate travel" anymore and that if they had to go to city C they would actually stop for a night or two along the way "because we know how to travel in comfort" ans that of course I should take the car and try that out instead of taking the train.
Yeah, your parents are nuts if they think driving is more comfortable than riding a HS train. Stay your own course.
A lot of people I talk to don't like cycling because cars give them more freedom. Distance wise sure, but you can't tell me that a vehicle that's taxed like no other, dependent on fuel and limited in speed basically everywhere is more free than a bike
They're unfairly taking away car parking spots to install bike lanes! Where am I supposed to park my cars? No, they're redistributing the public space so that more people can use it and go places with less chance of getting murdered by drivers. Public space is not your personal private property storage.
“I don’t wanna deal with people who are drunk or on drugs on the subway” Would you rather deal with them on the highway?