“The vast majority of the people in the community did not want these bike lanes and do not want the bike lanes,” he said. “They were just put up there against our will.”
Fray said that the lost parking spaces on one side of Oceania Street had a ripple effect. Residents who can no longer park there now compete for the spaces elsewhere in the neighborhood. “Everyone here drives,” he said.
Dumbasses and their wild assumption that everyone is just like them. name a more iconic duo
If the community didn't want them, how did the article manage to find people who use them? Did they drive in from another part of town just to use the bike lane?
Do you mean the two residents who were in their healthy prime? Article made it sound like every house on the block was not a fan of this. Likely (given the people they did interview) it is because these are all older folks with no other means to travel.
Maybe those old people could still use the cycle lane if they had decades of exercising their muscles and joints on a bike instead of sitting in traffic in a car.
The lane also provides mobility for people too young to drive, unable to afford to drive, or those who prefer not to drive.
Fuck teenagers who want to get around without their parents though right? Fuck the kids who can safely bike to school though right? The old people can still drive, they didn't rip out the car lane.
@FireRetardant@Zoot In fact, narrowing roads and reducing speeding makes it easier for seniors to keep driving as their vision and reaction time decline. Older drivers tend not to feel very comfortable driving on 5 or 6 lane wide stroads.
Old people shouldn't be on the road in the first place. But many can still ride a bike, just like many people with disabilities can't drive but can ride.
So did you finish reading the article then or just black out right there? These are 70 year old residents who can't physically move all that great.
I'm all for adding more bike lanes, but let's not hurt a different group of people in the process. Maybe they should have implemented bus routes and other public transportation before ripping out the roads for cyclists.
"Dumbasses and assumptions" and all that goes both ways.
Yes, on street parking was removed. Effectively removing the shoulder for a Bike Lane. It doesn't sound like they offered any solution for the old folks who can't simply bike or walk to the grocery store.
They should have added more public transportation before ripping up the streets.
It even says in the article that they are in a public transportation desert, so this solution is hardly even a bandaid.
At least cars from China are predominately electric, which is the lesser evil in the short term. And they are mostly smaller than the absurdly large trucks that dominate the US market.
If I were a cyclist in that neighbourhood I would ride my bike through the no bike lanes signs. If you won't let me have a lane where else do you expect me to cycle?
Ride safely in these particular streets, follow every traffic law and take the lane. People might hate you, or realize a protected area will keep the traffic separated sO pEoPlE cAn gO fAsT.
I don't like irritating people I disagree with as a tactic, but sometimes a little friction helps to make a point.
Of course, the doofi may decide to try banning bicycles outright instead 🤦
The lanes already exist so in reality I would be using the lanes but my previous comment is the overall sentiment I have.
"Everyone drives here" is such a biased reason for no bike lanes and the fact it connects kids to schools should make this a non protestable issue. Are you able to protest a school bus stop because your neighbours have kids but you don't?
What systemic problems are you referring to? Seoul has some of the best public transport in the world and the vehicle was a sedan. The driver either was drunk/high or had a stroke.
9 dead people don't speak for themselves in your mind, I guess. Why are you on this community?
I'd love to go through it with you, step by step, using crayons and simple wording if I must, but alas! Not one of the 19 articles I looked at provided an exact location or pictures clear enough to figure that out.
My logic here is very simple: If a car can hit pedestrians, then the infrastructure is bad. 9 people died to prove this point and you're acting as if this is a freak accident that happens once in a decade. It doesn't, people die all the time because of inattentive drivers or faulty vehicles. Bollards save lives.
Looking at the second photo in the article it looks like it bent the bollards over, which I would guess mightve launched the car into the air...
I think the bigger systemic problem would be the 8 lane roads in the area which enabled enough space for the car to get up enough speed to do that sort of damage to a bollard: https://maps.app.goo.gl/aHDmVJMPt3LKvAeL9?g_st=ac
Another systematic problem is the enbiggening of vehicles in the name of occupants saftey(larger pillars for better rollover protection, and extra passenger cabin rigidity, which also harms visibility for the driver due to wider pillars)
The systemic problems are a stroad which seems designed for high speeds, yet with many dangerous points of interactions with pedestrians and other drivers. There seems to be no infrastructure to protect pedestrians and no design features to limit speeds. As you point out, this wasn't caused by a tank of a vehicle but a standard sedan.
This is in stark contrast to Vision Zero, a strategy where it's nearly impossible for vehicle collisions to cause fatalities. It doesn't matter if a driver is impaired, we have the technology to engineer away these deaths. From the images in article, the road seems to follow almost none of the tenants of Vision Zero.
I thought they were completely insane but losing their parking because of poor planning is a good reason to be mad.
The city planners created a town that wasn't walkable and then took away parking from a few people knowing that a minority of complainers can't fight back.
If the council wants to take away a few citizens' parking, how about they bulldoze the council members yards for parking lots. Even better is eminent domain the council members homes to turn it mixed use urban design to make the town walkable. Then they can have more bike lanes and everyone is happy.
It's not their parking, it's street parking on public land. If the public decides through a council that the safety of the citizens is more valuable then a couple peoples parking spaces they can choose to reallocate that land. These people still have private driveways and garages to park there car whereas bike lanes can only go in certain places.
The city planners who made the decision to make the neighborhood car dependent are long dead or retired. These council members are trying to make it less car dependent and you want to bulldoze there houses for trying?
If we want to move away from car dependence we'll never get anywhere if we have to stop and consider every minor inconvenience that motorists may suffer and conive someway to put that cost on the people trying to change things.
Logistically yes, again there's only a certain amount of places a bike lane can be and still be effective. If we put it only in front of council members houses it wouldn't be a good bike lane. Same if we bulldozed their houses and put up a parking lot, the people who lost parking would probably not be close enough to even park in those lots.
We as a society recognize that to complete certain projects some people may loose out on previous privileges. If we don't we descend into nimbyism and nothing ever gets done.
This is a bit of a reach but bike lanes are most effective when they connect directly. That means they are built on major roads, not cul-de-sacs that go nowhere.
Who buys roads in front of major roads: the poor. Because the expensive homes are in cul-de-sacs far from the heavy road noise.
So the law is equally just to rich and poor in the same way it is equally just to rich and poor by making sleeping under a bridge illegal.
Everyone benefits from the bike lanes, but only the poorer homeowners are inconvenienced.
So he starts each of his post with an emoji showing which language he's posting in. I know there's also a language tag built into Mastodon, but he's chosen to use the emoji
Because they didn't have to pay for that land, the city plows and maintains it, the city repaves it, your partner doesn't complain when your project car leaves oil stains on the curb. So basically entitlement to public land is what they insist on.
Because the garage is full floor-to-ceiling with trash and the household owns 3-4 cars. There are numerous houses on my street that do this and, at times, the street is so choked with cars on both sides that it makes it very unsafe to drive and cycle through. Especially if they park trailers or boats out on the street. Extremely limited visibility and like a hands-width of clearance on either side.
My family of 5 owns 4 cars (I've moved out and ride a bike). I'm so sorry families like mine exist lol. They know my feelings on cars and even agree with a lot of what I say because it's pretty incontrovertible. But in the end they don't really care. They metaphorically pat me on the back for riding my bike and continue to live their privileged life style that makes life worse for the rest of us.
Rich people literally don't give a fuck about anyone else. They donate to charity and feel genuinely sad for unprivileged people but will fight tooth and nail against anything that remotely threatens their way of life.
Except predictions on manufacturing capabilities of a country with a history of well-coordinated economic plans, can be a bit more reliable. But sure, I get your point, and tbh I haven't even opened the link on the post.
A town near me had been gradually making things more and more walkable, bikable, dedicated bus lanes. Excellent transit. All good.
However we couldn’t use transit and it got down to just one street you could realistically cross west to east, until they took away two of the three lanes for bike and bus on that one remaining through street. wtf. That went too far.
I live in a pretty liberal larger city and had a similar experience when the city was considering installing bike lanes on an arterial road. People love their parking. There is a sense of entitlement that someone should be able to drive door to door anywhere in the city. Honestly that was the way it used to be. The problem is partly having built a lifestyle that requires a large number of cars combined with not wanting anything to change. I've been a biker for a long time and recently bought an e-bike so I'm obviously biased but in a city, even one not designed for bikes, e-bikes are often a superior way to travel. Weather and needing one bike per person are the main problems. Can e-bikes reduce the number of cars in a given area and free up more parking so we can accommodate more bike infrastructure? Car share is another option I was a fan of and my city has seen those options come and go. A ubiquitous car share problem would help a lot. Not sure why those programs struggle so much.
Our goal is to peacefully encourage more people to cycle and convince car owners to use their car for less trips when viable to do so. A lot of people own cars, would calling them Nazis really help our cause?
My vision is we make cyclists and public transit users look like responsible happy citizens and attract jealousy of those stuck in traffic.
Then why call it Fuckcars? Call it CuddlyPussDriverLove
I find it good too vent at arseholes who drive. They hold all the power, we're not punching down here by making fun of, or laughing at them and it can be a relief valve to vent at their choices both directly and indirectly that enable the car centric shit show to.continue. I wouldn't go into /c/cars and expect angst against cars and drivers but /c/fuckcars ? Yeah... it's in the name
I don't think it needs to be as specific as that why bit just don't incite violence. Period. Otherwise, it's making a statement about the community as a whole. (also, this is already covered by the rules)
Fuck Cars
Active
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 0 day(s) ago).