Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
I never did... I literally said I just did not understand the behaviour... that is all... the entire "bad faith argument" is in your head
No, I am trying to understand why they are not used when they are, by far, the safest option.
So it's a surprise to you that erratic behaviour on the road may lead to more accidents?! If I had said the same thing about drunk drivers, would you assume I am giving myself the permission to go out and hurt them? I think this interpretation says more about you than me bud. The only reason I even posted here was to try and understand why cyclist do not use their safer options, precisely because I cannot understand why people would choose to put themselves in harms way... it turns out, people like you rather put themselves in danger and blame everyone else for, saving a few minutes in commute
Oh so you issue an opinion, assign it to me and then attack me for it?.... well that's a new level of strawmaning
I am starting to think you're trolling. We've gone in a few circles... Could be a communication issue on my part, but it feels more like dishonest debating on your part, to me... Benefit of the doubt and all that though:
I gave reasons why I sometimes don't use the bike path, hopefully you understood those reasons. If not, just say so and I can try to explain better. Unfortunately I can't say why some bikers don't use your specific 3k section, but feel free to ask them I guess. But I do still think "In Ottawa, bike lanes mean nothing" is rhetoric against bike lanes/paths. Even if your next statement is that you don't understand why bikes are still in the road.
A bit unrelated but a bike lane (or even just the car lane) is sometimes safer than a bike path due to visibility at crosswalks (probably not in your 3k bike path situation though).
I... actually didn't say that though... So who is assigning opinions? I pointed out that what you said implies that another's behavior may not justify your extra caution if they're doing something illegal. The correct drunk driving example would be this statement:
See how the "even if" part suggest they might not deserve your goodwill? As if you'd be more inclined to give space to bikes if they never broke the law. Maybe my interpretation of your statement isn't what you actually meant? (Side note, just checked your original comment and it actually said "even though" - doesn't change anything I think).
This is kinda rich. Because while I did say that the road is more dangerous than a separated bike path, I didn't suggest that I blamed cars or others for the increased risk I take when I chose the road over the bike path. I weigh the risks and chose convenience. If I had it my way, bike infrastructure would just meet my needs on a bike better than road infrastructure so that I never wanted/needed to be in the road. So then is this a moot point? Maybe even a strawman? You've accused me of a few strawmans but I'm starting to think you either don't know what that means, or just don't hold yourself to a similar standard.
Also, all people in all parts of life do dangerous things for convenience? Cars speed, or maintenance is ignored, actually just driving at all is likely the most dangerous thing anyone does in their life on a regular basis. Biking and walking are safer without cars around, but around cars, cars disproportionately endanger bikes and pedestrians. Most people don't care (because of personal convenience at the expense of others), but I think it could make a legitimate argument for the need for safer biking and walking infrastructure.
This actually kind of is the fault of me - I was thinking you never answered my question of ~"so then what nefarious reason are bikes in the road when a bike path exists?" But you actually did clarify that you don't know and don't think the answer has to be nefarious. Where I got confused is that my base claim is that <they probably have a reason, and it probably isn't to make cars angry> and since it felt like you didn't accept my claim, it led me to believe that you hold <they don't have a good reason, or the reason could be to make cars angry>. So I guess maybe we agree here, and maybe we don't. I'd appreciate some clarity though
Edit: I also want to throw in that your original claim was for Ottawa but the goal post has shifted to your 3k section of bike path. Yet you haven't specified that you're only confused about the actions of cyclists at your 3k section of bike path. But since I've sort of exhausted any input for your 3k section, here's a video that may give you some clarity: Why Don’t Cyclists Use Bike Lanes?