| |
| ▲ | Antoniocl 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | How this issue skews probably depends on where you live, but in the area I live, I have the opposite complaint: that bicyclists should re-learn that they are legally required (in my city) to ride on roads, rather than barrelling down sidewalks. That said, this is coming from me as a pedestrian, so maybe someone who was primarily a driver would have a completely different take from both of us. | | |
| ▲ | dgunay 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't personally care whether bikes (or scooters) ride on the road or the sidewalk, but my one ask is that: If they ride on the sidewalk, they should behave like pedestrians. That is, do not blast into the crosswalk at 20mph (impossible for drivers to safely check for in most environments), do not randomly enter the road from the sidewalk, pass pedestrians at a respectful speed and distance, etc. If they ride on the road, they should behave similarly to motorists. That is, actually obey stop signs (rolling stop, or even treating it like a yield is okay), and actually obey traffic lights. I'll even tolerate transitioning from one to the other at appropriate traffic stops. Just please don't get upset if I almost run you over for abruptly taking right of way you never legally had. | | |
| ▲ | msgodel 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah bikes and pedestrians can mix as long as speeds don't. Mixed use paths (like the W&OD in Reston VA) really need something like a 5 mph speed limit. | |
| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Biking while respecting traffic rules dramatically increases mortality rates. | |
| ▲ | Mawr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No problem, in exchange I just ask that you pass safely (1.5m distance). Since that's not going to happen until hell freezes over, we're gonna have to settle on the current situation. | | |
| ▲ | josephcsible 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's often impossible except at super-off-peak times of day when there's no oncoming cars, except if the cyclist pulls over, but for some reason they never seem to do that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pavel_lishin 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Where I live, there are definitely places where I end up cycling on the sidewalk, because it would be nigh-suicidal to actually take my bike on the road. But I don't go barreling past pedestrians, and make sure I give them the right of way. | |
| ▲ | II2II 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have noticed a huge uptick in agressive behaviour from motorists over the past couple of years. By huge uptick, I mean behaviour that I used to see once every couple of weeks I am new facing multiple times daily. Quite bluntly, the politicians in my area are enabling life endangering behaviour towards cyclists by blaming cyclists for traffic congestion that have nothing to do with cyclists (e.g. road construction projects for motorists, or waterworks or building construction that have nothing to do with cyclists). While I am sticking to the roads, I don't blame other cyclists for seeking refuge on the sidewalks. | |
| ▲ | hamdingers 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Has your city made an effort to make it safe and attractive to ride on every street? Or is that a de-facto ban on cycling. |
| |
| ▲ | Foofoobar12345 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And I wish cyclists would re-learn that pedestrians have more rights of being on sidewalks. That said, the bigger plague on sidewalks are e-scooters. Additionally, most cyclists I see never stop at stop signs no matter how busy the intersection is. | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That's the "Idaho stop". You're moving at speeds slow enough to be easily able to check for traffic without stopping, plus losing inertia as a cyclist is much more annoying (and arguably even dangerous) than for a car. | | |
| ▲ | gibolt 3 days ago | parent [-] | | From a driver's perspective, you don't want to wait an extra 5-10 seconds because now the bike in front of you has to get back up to speed. 0-5mph is the slowest change and the most energy |
| |
| ▲ | nsnick 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In many places cyclists are not required to stop for stop signs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop | | | |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > And I wish cyclists would re-learn that pedestrians have more rights of being on sidewalks. That's not universal, but I do wish they would just learn those laws for their state. In my state, they have equal rights, and that is that no one has the right of way. If you run into someone, it's your fault full stop. If you couldn't stop in time, then you were travelling too fast for the situation. If someone is blocking the sidewalk, they're a dick, but you can't do anything about it without getting arrested except to find another way around. Also, if you're on a bike and about to pass a pedestrian, you must give an audible (to the ped) signal so as to warn of your approach. Even then, if you hit them, it's because you were going to fast to stop safely in case they wandered into your path. I love the laws in my state regarding shared cycling/pedestrian ways, and sidewalks in particular. Very reasonable and fair. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | bathtub365 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yep, including not being allowed to run red lights. It would also be great if they had license plates so you could easily report dangerous behaviour. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances. | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances. IIUC, cars are pretty much universally permitted to go through red lights at least 1/3 of the time -- right on red is legal (AFAIK) in all 50 states. In many states, left on red from a one-way street to another one-way street is also legal. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's true, but there are additional special rules that apply to cyclists, and sometimes motorcyclists, allowing them to go straight at a red light under specific circumstances. Depends on the state. Some are specifically "if there's a vehicle detection sensor and it doesn't detect your bike after 90 seconds", others are just "cyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign". |
| |
| ▲ | MisterMower 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Riding a bike without a helmet is permitted in most states, too. Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That's a new and moved goalpost far from the original discussion, but sure. Is there a specific state's laws that you think describe a circumstances when a bike may proceed through a red light, but it is unsafe to do so? If so, how does that unsafety compare to your opinion on cars turning right on red? | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Let me be more direct: because it’s legal for cyclists to run red lights, you think they should? I hope you can see what I am getting at now. You can’t have it both ways. If cyclists are going to use roads designed for and paid by motorists, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes, and enforcement. You’re welcome to defend a double standard for cyclists, but it won’t change the fact that it is indeed a double standard and is inherently unfair. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your implication, without coming out and saying it, is that you think that a cyclist going through a rad light is a bad idea. You've not supported this with anything. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cyclists to go through red lights. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cars to go through red lights. Roads are designed for both bikes and cars alike, or do they not have bike lanes where you're from? Since bicycles and cars are fundamentally different vehicles, they should have different sets of laws applied to them. To try to apply the same set of rules would be inherently unfair. You're welcome to try to argue that that's actually fair, but you've currently backed up your stance with nothing but fake leading questions and baseless claims. "The law prohibits the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges" | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There was no implication. I was just genuinely curious why you think the double standard should exist and why you think it is fair. There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents. The reality is that very few roads in America were ever designed to accommodate cyclists and in order to please a small but very vocal minority of people, lanes were stolen, in the literal sense of the word, from motorists and given to cyclists. That is what it takes to keep cyclists safe on roads: redistribution of property from those who funded it and for whom it was designed for originally, giving it to cyclists. And even doing that can’t truly protect them when they do dumb things, like run red lights. The truly unfair and dangerous thing here is propagating the illusion that cyclists can coexist with motorists. They can’t, for all of the reasons you yourself stated. Obviously I’m discussing things as I believe they should be, not as they are, so I’m not sure what evidence you want me to provide, short of the logic inherent in the arguments I’m making. Feel free to point out where you think there are gaps in the logic. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Plenty of roads were designed for horses. It's clearly unsafe to have paved those roads and allowed automobiles on them, the result of doing so was as you said increased traffic congestion and more accidents. Why are you okay with the double standard of redistributing property to the motorists, but not redistributing property from the motorists? I find your position immensely hypocritical. What do you think is the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45? | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Automobiles saved an order of magnitude more lives when they replaced horses because horses leave manure on streets, which breed flies and other insects that can spread deadly diseases like typhoid fever. Cities were littered with horse droppings. The reduction in deadly disease spread caused by widespread automobile adoption more than outweighed the deaths caused by automobile crashes. I know that’s not really what you were getting at with you comment, but it’s worth noting when people try to demonize cars, as cyclists are wont to do: they’re the least bad and most versatile mode of mass transportation available. The context in which the automobile met horses matters: contrary to your portrayal of roads, very few of them were actually paved in any meaningful sense. They were mostly compacted dirt, sometimes gravel. Lanes existed in a less explicit way, and speeds were much slower because pedestrians were always mixed in as well. Cars were a vast improvement over this situation along every meaningful axis. They’re faster, don’t leave manure on streets, and are safer when you consider operation. Horses get spooked and buck their riders, they can kick, they weigh hundreds of pounds and can crush you. And most importantly, they were cheaper than owning a horse. People didn’t switch overnight for no reason. To the heart of your comment, the reason why we have the infrastructure we do is because cars were so much more capable than horses. Traffic signals, lane demarcations, signage: all of these things came about because cars were so much faster than horses. Congestion doesn’t matter if you can get there in half the time. When you need to get to the hospital, do you ride a bike? When you want to buy a couch at the store, how do you get it home? When you need to visit your grandparents the next state over, how do you get there? Overwhelmingly, the answer is a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, the value of that vehicle is proportional to the infrastructure available to use it. Here’s the rub: cycling is a luxury. Access to a motor vehicle when you need it is a neccesity. When you need to get to the ER, the last thing you want to do is be fighting a bunch cyclists to get there. When it’s snowing and -20F outside, you’re only taking the bike if you absolutely have too. Your freedom of movement depends on infrastructure built for motor vehicles. Your ability to really do anything beyond get to work and back in a city depends on reliable and efficient access to a motor vehicle. We should stop wasting money on bike lanes and build real public transit in our cities. The reason people feel compelled to use a bike is the alternatives are too awful to be competitive. If you think that’s hypocritical, I don’t know what to tell you. Cyclists degrade infrastructure built for motorists. Infrastructure you need. Infrastructure they contribute to the upkeep of via gas taxes. Not sure about the answer to your question without looking it up, but probably “car crash” given the context of our conversation. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > The reduction in deadly disease spread caused by widespread automobile adoption more than outweighed the deaths caused by automobile crashes. [Citation needed] That's really a...unique...take. The reduction in disease was due to things like antibiotics and water treatment facilities, and preventing contamination from human sewage. Horse manure does not cause widespread disease. Are you just making things up? Like, that's LLM-level hallucination right there. The rest of your comment is just you stating your opinion as though it's fact because I guess you live somewhere 100% car dependent. Just because your freedom of movement and ability to do things other than commute relies on a motor vehicle, does not make that true of others outside your bubble of wealth. That said, as established above I'm either arguing with a robot or with a person who has no problem inventing swaths of history out of whole cloth, so I guess the joke is on me. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower a day ago | parent [-] | | From the Typhoid Fever page on Wikipedia: “Industrialization contributed greatly to the elimination of typhoid fever, as it eliminated the public health hazards associated with having horse manure in public streets, which led to a large number of flies, which are vectors of many pathogens, including Salmonella spp.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_fever I appreciate the compliment, but no, I’m not an LLM, just an ordinary guy who has more understanding of these issues than you do. Here’s a wild idea: fact check the stuff you claim I’m making up before you make a fool of yourself. I think this conversation is over. You’re clearly an angry, closed minded person. Have a nice day. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I think that's wise. The presentation of the single largest non-age-related killer in the western world as something that needs to be protected, for safety's sake, means we're sufficiently far apart on things like the value of a human life that productive discussions are difficult without someone getting frustrated and devolving into listing the sort of person the other is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bathtub365 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | None of them, most of the time. |
| |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It would also be great if they had license plates Lol, like hell it would. The supposed "danger" is not worth more legislation and overreach. | | |
| ▲ | kyleee 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Just think of the YouTube videos though; sovereign citizens on bicycles. |
| |
| ▲ | nradov 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | At some intersections the sensor loops literally never activate for bikes (especially carbon bikes with very little metal). If you don't run the red light then you'll be stuck there until a car happens to come along and trip the sensor for you. | | |
| ▲ | aetherson 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Okay, that seems ultra relevant to the ~100% of bikes that routinely run red lights in San Francisco at fully trafficked intersections where the sensors are clearly already tripped. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Who cares about San Francisco? This article is about New York. |
| |
| ▲ | mkl 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So you dismount and cross as a pedestrian. I mostly cycle, and the lack of bike sensors at some intersections is occasionally annoying but not a reason to break the road rules. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | stronglikedan 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I just wish every cyclist would re-learn that they're bound by the same traffics laws as every driver on the road. I'd bet accidents are more often than not mostly their fault. | | |
| ▲ | margalabargala 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There is no US state where the traffic laws for cars and cyclists are identical. Where are you located that they are? | |
| ▲ | cooljoseph 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'd bet accidents are more often than not mostly their fault. That's actually not true. Most surveys I've seen show that drivers are at fault ~80% of the time. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Surveys? “Yes I’ve been in an accident on my bike Mr. Poll Taker.” “What? Of course it was the other guy’s fault!” | | |
| ▲ | cooljoseph 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No, surveys like where researchers show up to hospitals and look at the police reports for the injured cyclists. Sorry if I wasn't clear in my wording. By "survey" I was trying to point to the specific kind of research methodology where you survey people about what has happened in the past instead of trying to control variables like in a typical experiment. I wasn't talking about random internet polls or self-reported blame analyses, but actual research papers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | MisterMower 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cyclists contribute to congestion and occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits. Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists. Cyclists are rarely subjected to traffic law enforcement despite demanding all of the rights that motorists pay for and are licensed for. Cyclists are a danger to themselves and others while operating in the same area as motorists, but are not required to carry insurance or wear safety equipment, while motorists are held to more stringent regulation. In a nutshell, cyclists are free-riding risk takers who are arrogant to boot. When they start acting like motorists and pay taxes like motorists and are fined like motorists for violating the law, I will happily change my opinion. | | |
| ▲ | Mawr 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Cyclists contribute to congestion How many cyclists can fit in a space of one car? Or, would you rather that every cyclist was in a car instead? Would that increase or decrease congestion? > occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits So roads get funded in full by motorists and cyclists can't possibly also own motorized vehicles and they don't pay tax that definitely doesn't contribute to the roads that they surely wear down at a rate that's not on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands lower than cars. Oh and 16 lane highways are built because of all the damn cyclists clogging up the roads. > Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists. A cyclist on the road is only a danger to himself. A motorist can mow down a school trip on a pedestrian crossing on a whim. The latter two points just repeat the above. Yes, driving a 2 ton machine at 80 mph is going to have be a little more restricted than a 20 kg bicycle at 20 mph. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Cyclists travel slower than the prevailing speed of motorists, and they accelerate from a stop much slower. And while they don’t take up much space, the space they consume is not zero. We can argue the magnitude here, but the effect is obvious to anyone who has shared the road with a cyclist. Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier traffic, sure. But deterioration from temperature cycling, road salt application, and weather happens whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use this infrastructure, they should contribute to its upkeep. If cyclists have a car and contribute by paying these taxes and fees, then let’s build a regulatory regime that exempts these users from cyclist fees and taxes. The point here is to make those using the infrastructure pay for their share of upkeep and their contribution to congestion. Deer are only a danger to themselves too, right? People never experience damage to their vehicle or personal injury when they hit a deer? The damage and risk is not proportional to both parties, sure. But it is false to say that drivers experience no risk of damage or bodily injury when in an accident with a cyclist who disobeys traffic laws. Cyclists should be insured at whatever rate is necessary to protect against this risk. Your school children example is not really applicable here. We’re discussing cyclists who want to be treated like motorists but refuse to act like them and obey common traffic rules. That is about as far as you can get from from an innocent group of school children crossing the street with the flashing red stop sign on the school bus activated. | | |
| ▲ | nostrebored 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Your takes are really, really ignorant. Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. Your “obvious” example is something that’s unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you. The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced. The idea that it’s a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput. Having separate rules is entirely consistent here. If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non problem. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Your takes are really, really ignorant. Thank you for sharing that. I hope you feel better now. > Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. The second sentence of the abstract of this study would imply you're ignorant, but I won't stoop to name calling: "Red light running violation of bicyclists is the major contributory factor to the crash involvement of bicyclists worldwide." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22143... > Your "obvious" example is something that's unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you. If I'm following a cyclist who is going 20mph in a 30mph zone, they're contributing to congestion. This is obvious to every human, even those who have never even seen modern infrastructure or the vehicles that operate on it. It happens when walking in hallways or on stairways. When someone is slow and people can't get around them, you get congestion. > The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced I don't have any disdain for cyclists, only those dumb enough to try and coexist with motorists and arrogant enough to try and change traffic laws and infrastructure to fit their needs at the expense of everyone else. I ride my bicycle at the park with my kids, and partly why I feel so passionately about this is because I don't want my kids riding in situations where they are very likely to get themselves injured or killed. You're absolutely right, waiting at an intersection is one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. This is because riding on roads with motorists is the most dangerous moment for cyclists. There is no way to make it safe for cyclists to coexist with motorists. Mixing the two results in more people getting injured and dying. This should be reason enough to ban them from roads with motor vehicles, putting aside every other issue I've raised. Allowing them to run red lights is a recipe for disaster. Use your brain: motorists reasonably and rightfully expect to have the right of way when the light is green. Literally every other moving object yields to them at intersections with a signal. Making an exception for cyclists will result in more people running red lights, and more corresponding injuries and deaths. > The idea that it's a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput. Go look up what the phrase double standard means. It is by definition a double standard. You can defend the double standard, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one. > If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non-problem. If by this you mean we should reduce the amount of subsidization to zero for both, I agree completely. Infrastructure should be paid for with use fees. If cyclists want to use it they should pay for it. If motorists want to use it, they should pay for it. Currently motorists contribute, while cyclists do not. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | achierius 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do pay taxes, just like a motorist might. Where do you live that you think your car or your gas is taxed in a way that contributes to road upkeep? In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades, roadways are maintained out of the common coffers (incl. large federal incentives which come straight out of your income tax payments). | | |
| ▲ | josephcsible 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades But the tax is still constantly being collected even though the rate isn't going up. This is like saying electricity must be free if you haven't had a rate hike in a while. | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it? What exactly is your point? For the record, I support closing that gap, in addition to taxing the odometer on electric vehicles which don’t contribute to gas tax revenue but use roadways like other motorists. | | |
| ▲ | Mawr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it? I don't think you understood what you wrote. Non-motorists subsidize motorists. Feel free to look up the % of funding for roads that gas tax or w/e accounts for in your country. Also look up the fourth power law, that'll tell you how much tax a cyclist should pay compared to a driver in terms of road wear. Say a cyclist should pay $1, how much should you? Then check how many millions it costs to build a mile of highway and internalize the fact that cyclists are not allowed there. Nor do they use car parking. Nor do they cause 40 thousand deaths per year in the USA. What's the cost of human life again? Once you figure all that out, we'll be ready to start talking about pollution and its effects. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | More than half of the US doesn’t pay income taxes. Your point about non-motorists subsidizing motorists is nonsensical in this context. At least some of the taxes motorists pay are directly used for road maintenance. Roads deteriorate whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use them, they should pay to maintain them. I don’t know why you find this idea so controversial. Adjust the fees commensurate with their weight if you want, but by definition those fees should not be zero. Roads are obviously expensive, hence why it is repulsive that cyclists pay nothing to build or maintain them, but actively increase the danger on them and degrade the efficiency of using them. Pollution? In what world do cyclists not require fuel to operate? Cyclists use the most expensive fuel possible to operate: consumable calories. We burn fuel to operate machinery to produce food, then transport it to stores and then transport it home, cook it, and then use only a portion of the available calories to operate a bicycle because the human body isn’t 100% efficient. You’re delusional if you somehow think cycling is good for the environment. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nostrebored 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Motorists __DO NOT COVER__ the costs of roads. Your existence as a motorist is entirely subsidized. The cost of driving is borne by government and society. Road infrastructure, maintenance, and space for cars is actually insanely expensive. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 3 days ago | parent [-] | | What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropriated for cyclists. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Road wear is fourth power of axel weight, so trucks/lorries are overwhelmingly the cause of what repair money gets spent on fixing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law Complaining about cyclists getting bike lanes is like complaining about pedestrians getting footpaths. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, it would be like a city building a dog park and then having parents bring their kids to the park and demanding that dog owners keep their dogs on leashes while in the park. By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less. Never mind that the park was created for dog owners, and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who shouldn’t even be there. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Your analogy is the bad one here. To be like that, almost everyone would need to own a dog, and everyone including the non-dog-owners would have things delivered by dog, the dog park would have to actively block access to most places, and the fees for the dog owners pay for the dog park would have to be insufficient for the dog park and the park instead subsidised by general taxation even from the people who only get stuff delivered by dog… which would be quite fair and reasonable because almost all the damage to the dog park that the maintenance fees would need to cover, would be due to specifically the delivery dogs. The actual point of the dog park fees in this scenario would be to reduce the usage of the dog park, due to everyone riding their dogs everywhere. Which is a heck of a mental image. Roads aren't for pleasure, they're economic infrastructure that some people happen to enjoy. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm sorry you aren't able to see the parallels. Let me explain them for you: Dog owners are the motorists. Dedicated infrastructure was built specifically for them to use. Parents with kids are the cyclists. They want to restrict how that infrastructure is used so that they can enjoy it in the way that is most convenient for them, at the expense of the dog owners. Initially, dog owners used the park freely without any interference from parents with kids. But at some point, parents with kids felt they were entitled to use the dog park in ways it was never intended to be used, and changed regulations to restrict dog owners enjoyment of the park. I intentionally left out any discussion of how these things are paid for to highlight the unfairness of this situation. It doesn't matter how it's paid for, since the infrastructure already exists for a specific purpose and is being used for that purpose. To include the finance side of things in this analogy, it would be like funding the dog park with a special sales tax on dog food, which increases the unfairness of the whole situation when it's taken over by the parents with kids, who paid nothing to maintain or build it. In case you don't understand how analogies work, they highlight critical similarities between two situations that are otherwise dissimilar to help understand the underlying concept. They aren't parallel in all respects, nor can they be. If your best argument against my analogy is to introduce irrelevant dissimilarities to distract from the obvious point of the analogy, I'll take that as an endorsement it was effective. | | |
| ▲ | aspenmayer a day ago | parent [-] | | I think we're ignoring the wider context of this thread, which would be the context of TFA, which is New York City specifically. The roads in NYC predate the existence of the automobile. NYC had a bicycle boom in the late 1800s. https://www.nytimes.com/1869/03/08/archives/velocipedes-thei... | https://archive.is/UDhZf Bike cops in NYC in the late 1800s were likely more common than cars. https://flatironnomad.nyc/history/brief-history-of-bicycling... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250713044710/https://flatironn... > In 1896, then New York City Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt launched the first-ever group of bicycle-riding officers. This team evolved into a 100-member organization with its own station stated Evan Friss, co-curator of the Museum of the City of New York’s 2019 exhibit Cycling in the City: A 200-Year History[0]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250319112028/https://www.mcny.... By the time this film was created in 1911, cars existed, but they had to share the road with pedestrians, cable cars, and horse carriages. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx5sUa_2SD8 > This documentary travelogue of New York City in 1911 was made by a team of cameramen with the Swedish company Svenska Biografteatern, who were sent around the world to make pictures of well-known places. > Opening and closing with shots of the Statue of Liberty, the film also includes New York Harbor; Battery Park and the John Ericsson statue; the elevated railways at Bowery and Worth Streets; Broadway sights like Grace Church and Mark Cross; the Flatiron Building on Fifth Avenue; and Madison Avenue. Produced only three years before the outbreak of World War I, the everyday life of the city recorded here—street traffic, people going about their business—has a casual, almost pastoral quality that differs from the modernist perspective of later city-symphony films like Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler’s "Manhatta" (1921). Take note of the surprising and remarkably timeless expression of boredom exhibited by a young girl filmed as she was chauffeured along Broadway in the front seat of a convertible limousine. Jaywalking wasn't even really a concept until ~1915. It's legal again in NYC as of last year. Jaywalking laws against pedestrians and other non-drivers could be viewed as a taking from or enclosure of the commons; in this case, roads as public thoroughfares for one and all. In this light, the behavior of drivers towards cyclists is a continuation of their hostility towards horse carriage users and pedestrians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking https://www.cnn.com/travel/jaywalking-legalized-new-york-cit... | https://archive.is/Y2MCk Folks have been cycling in NYC long before cars were common. Before that, folks were using the roads for all manner of pursuits. Roads are tools for living, and they're for everyone who needs them if a better option more suited for your mode of transportation isn't available. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nostrebored 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s more like the cities have chosen to turn _every public space_ into a dog park that you have no ability to escape. For the pleasure of living in this inefficient landscape, you are charged in the form of taxes to maintain it. Dog owners remain convinced that because they pay sales tax on kibbles, that they have a right to this space. After all, it’s just how places naturally are! |
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? Paying for our highways circa 1993 [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_Sta... | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You realize states levy taxes on gas too, right? And that those taxes are remitted to city governments to build and maintain infrastructure? | | |
| ▲ | nostrebored 2 days ago | parent [-] | | What percentage of the TCO of roads do you think is covered by gas tax? You are using a state service whenever you use the road. It is a subsidy that people who are the largest offenders consistently choose to entrench. | | |
| ▲ | MisterMower 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Not enough. I've been consistently stating throughout this thread that people need to pay for their use. The fact that motorists shoulder some but not all of the cost is not an argument that cyclists should be exempted from paying any of the cost. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
