This smart ass cyclist cuts into traffic to pass another cyclist, takes his eyes off the road to give the finger to a honking car, and then crashes without being touched. If he only paid attention to his riding rather than flipping off the driver, he would have been fine.
BAN EBIKES: Here's an entitled cyclist on an ebike blowing by pedestrians who are just inches away while obnoxiously blowing his horn, as If pedestrians are obligated to move out of his way. Ebikes are too dangerous for cities.
The urbansist in this video purposely endangers himself by riding his bicycle besides a car signaling a right hand turn at an intersection just so he can virtue signal against against cars. If you ever ride a bicycle, never pull beside a car signaling a right hand turn.
Cars let people go where they want, when they want, with whom they want, on the route they want, making all the stops they want, while carrying all their stuff, resulting in a high level of transportation utility, commensurate with the resources we dedicate to them.
It's actually a fair stereotype that urbanists are young people who try out city life for a a little while, tell everyone how to run their city while they are there, but then get bored and move to the burbs.
@jenny_schuetz
Libertarians and conservatives are always happy to exploit scarcity by giving the public something that sucks and then say it was their choice.
If people want to live car free in apartments, let's create a car free zoning classification. Developers will be able to build as dense as they want without parking, but occupants will be prohibited from owning cars. Just like that most community opposition will disappear.
Bicyclists complain about close passes except when it's the cyclist doing the close pass. Drivers should always give cyclists a wide birth, but it's hypocritical when cyclists do what they complain about cars doing. Cyclists can wait out traffic just like drivers.
It's sad when people let transit dependency destroy their self esteem. They then have to go to great lengths to build themselves up often by putting others down. It would be so much better if they accepted themselves and didn't feel ashamed to ask a friend for a ride.
Here's where you can learn to say "open streets" instead of "closed streets" or "traffic calming" instead of "traffic jamming," and learn how taking down a highway eliminates congestion on the highway.
I've lived in the city 11 years without a car. My standard of living improved immeasurably after I got a car and could go anywhere I wanted when I wanted. You have no business telling anyone in the city to get rid of their cars. None. No one should listen to urbansists.
Urbanists aren't homeless. They have sour grapes because they can't afford the neighborhoods they like. A housing shortage defined as desire to live in a particular neighborhood is frivolous. Complaining about nimbyism when you want to upzone someone else's back yard is hypocrisy
Cars give people independence, including the independence to live in communities separate from more crowded commercial districts, so people can live in peace and quiet with low traffic streets that are safer for families.
They want the congestion tax to support the MTA instead of a wage tax because they'd have to be pay the wage tax, but they don't want to pay for the transit they use.
Urbanist hypocrites want streets closed to car traffic but want trails closed to pedestrians. This cyclist comes upon the scene of a crash where a cyclist smashed into a child and says the moral of the story is not to walk in the "bike path."
Instead of being happy that so many people were able to drive from a broad area to get on a train to the city, this urbanist guy has to criticize parking at the train station. Of all the places there should be plenty of parking, it's at a suburban train station.
Bikes: about 10 mph, not fast enough, can't go up hills.
Mass transit: fixed routes and schedules, too inflexible and limited.
Cars and motorcycles: take you where you want, when you want.
The spaces dedicated to cars is commensurate to their high utility.
Describing driving as the "shackles of car dependency" is the height of absurdly. When you don't have a car, you're are literally dependent on mass transit schedules. When you have a car, you're enabled to go wherever you want, whenever you want to.
When a bike lane prevents people from stopping at the curb to load and unload passengers and cargo, the bike lane is impairing the basic functionality of the street.
@velo_voyager
The proposed arena would be built at a transportation hub, on top of a main regional rail station that carries all the train in the region, also by two subways, and multiple bus lines. They wouldn't need to build new parking because there are already plenty of garages in the area
Here's a senior citizen trying to use a walker on a bus. Urbanism is ageism on top of ageism. Urbanists want mobility impaired seniors to live in 15 minute cities, walking to stores and to transit and taking the train to the hospital, so some young people can walk to a streetery.
Ben is a spoiled brat. He is able to ride his bike past a row of waiting cars but had to stop to harras a driver who is slightly over the line. With behavior like this, cyclists don't deserve bike lanes.
My parking story is that I've lived in walkable urban neighborhoods for decades including 11 years without car. When I got a car it improved my standard of living dramatically. Urban parking scarcity creates a bad quality of life and is bad the economy.
Taking away car parking to accommodate a vehicle that goes 10mph is irrational. If bike riding is so good, everyone would be riding bikes, no special infrastructure required.
@OmariBeSaying
I'm not anti-urbanism; I love cites; I'm anti-urbanist. Urbanists are kids who are newbies to cities but play city planner and think they know more about city life than people who've lived in cities for decades. Very cringeworthy.
Inefficiency is a train with one passenger. This guy's using more transportation subsidy than any driver used today. We're paying so so a transportation network can operate a whole train for this single guy.
"Car dependency" is a false concept. It implies there is a transportation alternative with equal utility. People can drive between an unlimited number of unique locations on their own schedule. Mass transit means dependency on a third party for limited destinations on a schedule
There will be no mass adoption of cycling for transportation because it is a low standard of living to cycle in the cold, wind, rain, snow, heat, and most people can't even cycle up a hill.
I lived 11 years in the city without a car, and then getting a car improved my standard of living dramatically. Assholes who have sour grapes over cars ruin cities.
It turns out that
@FuckCarsReddit
lives in a single family detached house in car dependent Brainerd, MN. No one should get rid of their cars until
@clmarohn
moves to Minneapolis and gets rid of his.
Urbanists are always saying most car trips are just a few miles, but Americans drive an average of 13,500 miles per year, which comes out to 36 miles per day. It's not practical to commute 36 miles by bicycle.
If those vehicles are considered to be at the curb illegally, this is a bike lane failure. Streets cannot fulfill their basic purpose if people can't stop at the curb for pickups, deliveries, or perform other vital services.
Since bicycles can't keep up with traffic, they are by definition inferior transportation that should not be given priority. The fact bicycles need separate infrastructure because they're too slow is proof of they're inferiority. Bicycle infrastructure is a waste of space.
If cycling was anything more than a niche, no one would ever ask for bicycle lanes because there would be a critical mass of cyclists displacing the cars on the streets. Bicycle lanes are only requested because of how few people will ever cycle.
@sam_d_1995
Cars let people go where they want, when they want, with whom they want, on the route they want, making all the stops they want, while carrying all their stuff, resulting in a high standard of living, easily justifying the space we dedicate to them.
@schmangee
I used to tell my daughter that she'll never know what it's like to play in the street around horses carcasses without the fear of being hit by a car.
I've pointed this out before, but it bears repeating. The critique of car dependency is easy, but after 100 years of car oriented development, the solutions are hard. Urbansists often conflate the critique with the solution, and that's why their solutions are so out of touch.
Urbansists don't get that cities are not islands disconnected from the greater community. People who live in the city have cars so they can traverse their region. People in South Philly have every right to drive to Media Pa to work, see people, or have a meal.
This is a newbie reaction to city living. Urbansists are young people from the suburbs who think they're special because they discovered cities. The cringiest part is that they think their discovery makes them experts who can tell everyone else in the city how to live.
The reality is that most Americans live in 15 minute communities where they are 15 minutes away from supermarkets, restaurants, and all types of stores, and they are quite happy about it.
Bikes: about 10 mph, not fast enough
Walking: even slower than bikes, can't even walk a mile in 15 minutes.
Mass transit: fixed routes and schedules, too inflexible and limited.
Cars and motorcycles: take you where you want, when you want.
Selfish people taking over the public realm and blocking people from parking who need their cars, so a few people can hangout for a couple hours on the weekend. Too lazy to go to a park.
You have "car brain" if you like the convenience of going where you want, when you want, with whom you want, on the route you want, making all the stops you want, while carrying all your stuff, in a comfortable climate controlled environment.
I've never considered myself a car guy. I drive a Hyundai Accent. But the idea that walkability means never having to drive is absurdly extreme. Just because you can walk places near by doesn't mean you want to be cut off from driving everywhere else.
Anyone who lives in a neighborhood where developers were able to weasel out of parking minimums knows that it means the developer is externalizing the cost of parking on the community while the developer makes mint.
I can't imagine there are 140 people on that bus, but if there are that's 140 people who aren't stopping off for groceries on their way home, picking up their kids, making any spontaneous unscheduled stop.
"Car dependency" assumes there is some alternative no strings attached transportation, but there isn't. Cars make people independent, while mass transit makes people dependent on a third party for service to a limited number of locations on a limited schedule.
Pedestrian accessibility should be something everyone likes. But urbanists poison it by trying to model all development on Manhattan and making their movement an attack on cars, instead of trying to make communities more walkable on terms the communities actually want.
Do yourself a favor and don't cycle on slick street during the winter. Your bicycle tires depend on having good traction with the street to keep you upright.