That’s like saying “I’m pro-life and anti-gun control”.
Oh. Wait.
Edit: Guy confirmed that he is, indeed, pro-life and anti-gun control.
I’m pro bike and anti bike lane.
The entire street should be for bikes only
That’s what happens in my city, people hella mad about it
Car users arent people.
You lie. That’s how. They aren’t pro bike they are just saying it to make their point
Bike lanes suck. Separated bike paths are much better. Or just streets without cars at all, no need for a bike lane if there are no cars.
In this paradise, where are the Rollerbladers?
Dead since about 1990.
Rollerblade lane.
Separate but equal. /s
4 wheels bad.
2 wheels good.
8 wheels, mmmm OK, over there please.
Nah nah nah, rollerblade path. No need for a rollerblade lane of there are no bikes.
In this paradise, where are the pogo sticks?
Next to the unicycle path.
Some of them are against bike lanes because they say it gives drivers a false sense of entitlement and cyclists a false sense of security when they’re supposed to be sharing the road.
That doesn’t sound like this guy, though.
I ride an odd bike, a recumbent. I have seen a few cars watching me rather than the road, which is good for me — they give me loads of space — but bad for anyone ahead of me as the drivers show no lane control for a good 50m after they pass me. Where that happened most recently is also where a driver killed a cyclist by wandering into the bike lane despite having a six metre wide lane to themselves (even the cycle lane there is three metres wide)
Got a friend this way. He hates bikes on the road. And yells to get on the greenways etc. Cause slow his lifted f150, that he needs to commute and get groceries, down for 30 seconds. The bike then get on the greenway and then he bitches they go too fast there.
Also he weighs about 300 lbs and doesn’t work out in any way.
Pro-life + anti-gun control = pro-birth.
Or in other words: He’s pro after-birth abortions.
Birth them all; let school shooters sort them out
No, thats too messy. Cars cull the weak outside, where cleanup is easier.
“Solve school shootings by birthing backup-children.”
“it’s simple math” - read about that expression on Facebook, never actually had math themselves as they were home schooled in creationism and flat earth.
Wtf even is simple-math? Arithmetic? Logic? The 2006 Kansas middle-school curricilum?
You all need to visit the Netherlands.
NL is flat, Switzerland’s a much more convincing example: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pWnreLG_cvc&t=837s&pp=ygUOY3ljbGluZyB6dXJpY2jSBwkJsAkBhyohjO8%3D
The cycling infrastructure in Switzerland is good, but the Netherlands are on a whole different level.
The video is ok, but contains incorrect information. Fines aren’t scaled by income, they’re fixed. Only for major infractions that go before a court of law is the penalty scaled.
Also, there is a shot from Bern saying “look people don’t cycle when it’s unsafe” but what is being shown is the roundabout of the motorway exit Ostring. No one cycles around that as there is no point. Cyclists would bypass that ugly sin from the 1970s.
It’s also funny to hear Basel being called a small city, in Switzerland it’s considered one of the biggest, like Genève, Zürich, Bern, Lausanne.
It’s also funny to hear Basel being called a small city
That’s kind of amusing to me as I was recently in an online debate about whether the state of New Hampshire could support passenger rail. It’s a rural state but the population centers you’d connect aren’t all the much smaller.
For posterity: yes it’s worthwhile. Normally (especially in the US) you’d think the population is too small, but
- the track exists and is still in use
- three biggest population centers in a straight line and fairly close
- it’s the same track served by a Boston commuter line
- the southern part of New Hampshire has a large population of people who work in Boston.
So MBTA could extend one of their lines, on existing track to capture thousands of additional car commuters literally ten miles to the border. And New Hampshire could get useful rail service by paying them to go an extra 70 miles. Zero infrastructure cost and NH doesn’t even have to figure out how to run a railroad
All your arguments might be invalid, because:
Rails, even with overhead wire, may be cheaper to maintain than roads in that climate.
I’m not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that Switzerland is cold, snowy and mountainous, or that New Hampshire is cold, snowy and mountainous?
The maintenance cost is a particular blind spot in the US. Maintaining rail seems excessive, because we really haven’t done any in over a century and somehow think it must pay for itself. Maintaining roads is cheap because there’s always money to build a new one and cost is no object. It’s not a sustainable way of thinking.
I had been hoping Detroit’s plight would open some eyes. Among the many problems that city had was maintenance. No one can afford to maintain infrastructure for 1,850,000 on a tax base of 630,000 and still shrinking. It’s a similar deal with our road system everywhere. We build for max population, assuming cars are the only possibility, without considering that people move and that other forms of transportation may be more scalable and maintainable
Yeah. We should increase surveillance on cars to block freedom 0f movement, and militarize roads for freedom.
That’s your argument against rail?
Or did we slip into the RoboCop universe?
The town I grew up in has approx. 4000 inhabitants. It is served by a railway station with 4 trains per hour (one per direction every 30min), all day, from 05:00 to 24:00. On top of that it has four bus lines with frequencies between 30 and 10 minutes. It lies next to a medium sized (for Switzerland) city of 55k inhabitants, which has much much more public transport, like 20+ trains an hour in 6 directions and dozens of bus lines.
Just for comparison.
A 55k community in the USA would probably be considered a very small town, I guess. Not worthy of even a single railway line.
We do have our share of actual small towns, but in the sense of rail investments yes that’s way too small. All too many major cities still don’t have rail here.
My town is 60k but we have two (soon to be three) stations and regular service by virtue of being a suburb of Boston. That’s a lot tougher of an argument for a rural state like New Hampshire, but they’ve been facilitating freight rail and preserving track so they’re in a good place. Most importantly this is an opportunity to take advantage of the “network effect” of just extending an exiting line rather than starting from scratch. All too much of the US can’t do that
Bostons commuter rail network has really been expanding for the last couple decades and this would be a natural extension
A related initiative has been to organize the region’s airports to take some of the air traffic off Boston. We already have commuter rail and Amtrak service south to Providence to help with that: not just to go there but to make it easier for more people to use that airport when they have to fly. Including Manchester New Hampshire Airport in Boston’s transit network would be a nice win.
This is funny to me because the one time I was in NYC, the streets were empty but the sidewalks were congested as fuck.
Dave isn’t very bright
That’s obvious. He pays to use Twitter.
Bike lanes are fine as long as we don’t get rid of roads in the process. Living 10 miles from a city, terrible public transport and chronic pain means I’m not about to use my bike for actual errands. Before we say “just fix public transport” there is a balance of how much it will cost vs how much it is worth and no, I don’t think it will be worth fixing
Always check twice whenever someone claims “it’s simple math”!
the simple math supports the idea. the normal math does not.
😸
Right? If it’s so simple, show me the damn math! I’m happy to check your work, it being so simple.
If it is simple, it is often an oversimplification
“It’s simply meth”
They’re still on xitter, and they paid for blue checks. Who cares what opinion they hold on literally anything?
please call it Twitter. just to piss elon off. Xitter sounds even worse than X honestly
I read it as “shitter” and it makes me chuckle. Is that not how you’re supposed to say it?
Sadly, a lot of people on that platform do.
I’m anti bike lane. Roads should be for bikes and pedestrians. Cars should get their own single separated lane on the occasional road.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. They are not needed unless you consider the entire street to be for cars by default.
Also dave is an idiot. Maximum capacity would be a cycle and transit only street because those have the highest throughput per lane. Cars are incredibly space inefficient.
Bike lanes are car infrastructure. They are not needed unless you consider the entire street to be for cars by default.
They’re better when they protect cyclists from cars with more than paint. I ride, and I’m less of an arsehole to drivers when I have a separated lane with as good or better rights than the cars
I would like to see streets slowed down and bike infrastructure better protected on roads. I don’t need bike lanes on streets, as almost all of them are pretty safe for cyclists — drivers seem happy to go slower and leave metres of space when passing
Relevant not just bikes about the streets in Tokyo that prioritise pedestrians: https://youtu.be/jlwQ2Y4By0U
Slight disagreement there. Streets are for pedestrians and bikes and trams and the occasional car (in a dedicated car lane). Roads (as in large arterial roads in very limited areas, meant for fast travel between faraway zones when trains are inconvenient, or highways between cities) can be considered as intended for cars, and even those should have pretty good space dedicated to bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.
Given that a car is a priviledge in most (all?) of the world, I’d argue there should be absolutely zero car-only infrastructure because it creates second class citizens for which some parts of the street are inaccesible.
Think of it this way, would you support the creation of a sidewalk in which only people who own a 50k ring can go?
Only because its funny. Yes.
A bus in a kind of car. Biking 30km in one go is a bit much too.
@Tlaloc_Temporal @stevedice One of those carries 30-100 people with lower carbon emissions, using significantly less road space, is highly affordable, and is driven by a professional driver.
The other is a private car.
Busses use car infrastructure, is my point. Almost all car infrastructure can be used to run busses. You can expand that to most utility vehicles too, postage trucks and garbage trucks need to get around too. There is no such thing as car-only infrastructure. Car-centric, sure, but not car-only.
there’s no such thing as car only infra
“Robert Moses” has entered the chat
Busses can use car infrastructure, but sometimes they use mode-specific infrastructure that cars cannot use.
Like what? Are there special roads that busses can drive down but a sedan gets stuck on? Some kind of road made especially for the tires of the bus and no other vehicles? Like a tram system, or gondolas maybe?
Cars and busses are both road vehicles, and roads serve them both. We can put up signs and write rules about which vehicle can go where, but those are basically free to change.
I very clearly meant private cars, friend. Come on.
Private jets are also a privilege, should we demolish all airports? Private schools too, should we have no education-only infrastructure?
The issue with car-centric infrastructure is that it prioritizes expensive and inefficient systems over others. It’s the priority that’s the issue, not the existence of roads at all.
What would car-only infrastructure even look like? A highway that busses aren’t allowed on? No utility vehicles? No firefighters?
Private jets are also a privilege, should we demolish all airports? Private schools too, should we have no education-only infrastructure?
Public airports aren’t exclusive to private jets and private schools aren’t publicly funded.
Please be more careful next time, you’re scaring all the birds.
What would car-only infrastructure even look like?
Every single road where pedestrians or alternative modes of transportation aren’t allowed and isn’t part of a public bus route is car-only infrastructure.
A highway that busses aren’t allowed on?
These exist. You are aware these exist, right?
Public airports aren’t exclusive to private jets and private schools aren’t publicly funded.
Roads aren’t exclusive to cars and most of the private schools around here do receive public funding. Just because something is used poorly doesn’t mean it’s completely useless.
Every single road where pedestrians or alternative modes of transportation aren’t allowed and isn’t part of a public bus route is car-only infrastructure.
The only road around here that pedestrians and bicycles are explicitly barred from are the freeways, where blocking traffic is very dangerous, but busses, utility vehicles, and industrial vehicles use those all the time.
A highway that busses aren’t allowed on?
These exist. You are aware these exist, right?
No, I’m not aware of public roads where it’s physically impossible to run a bus line or ride a bike. If a sedan can use it, a bike can use it. If a delivery truck can fit, so can a bus.
I am aware of roads too dangerous to bike on and roads too sparce of destinations to run busses on, but that’s because of how roads are used, not a condemnation of roads themselves. If the city decides to add a bus route to a road, no infrastructure needs to be changed. If someone decides to send a charter bus or shuttle, the roads are open to them.
I’m stealing this.
