EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1541
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9244 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24799 Posts
In such a case, the general guidance to drink the water after diluting it would be horribly irresponsible. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10163 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9244 Posts
On June 09 2019 22:39 Mohdoo wrote: Saying "it's fine once you dilute it" is some bullshit right there. Everything is fine once you dilute it. Every single thing. It doesn't say that, it says it's fine once it's diluted. As in the problem fixes itself quickly just by having water running and there's no dangerous contamination. There would be no point telling people to dilute it and drink it before it dilutes itself, that would achieve nothing other than maybe saving you a cent per bottled water. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On June 09 2019 03:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Sounds like a pretty big loss for Trump, considering he clearly failed at keeping his campaign promise (to build a wall as the solution to illegal immigration, let alone having Mexico pay for it), and him making the stupid decision to create tariffs for Americans to pay extra money and then change his mind. The markets have most recently been dropping and have been volatile throughout his whole presidency from 2018 onward, so his unpredictability, knee-jerk reactions, and bad decision making hasn't benefited the stock market. It appears now that the whole tariff threat thing was just a lie; the countries had agreed to the deal months earlier, so Mexico didn't need to be intimidated into accepting the deal within the past week. Not sure if this bodes well for his foreign policy going forward. He certainly isn't taken seriously as a person by other countries (except his kin like Jong Un, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and Orban), though of course he still has US power at his disposal. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46326 Posts
On June 10 2019 00:54 Doodsmack wrote: It appears now that the whole tariff threat thing was just a lie; the countries had agreed to the deal months earlier, so Mexico didn't need to be intimidated into accepting the deal within the past week. Not sure if this bodes well for his foreign policy going forward. He certainly isn't taken seriously as a person by other countries (except his kin like Jong Un, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and Orban), though of course he still has US power at his disposal. I can't imagine his foreign policy could get much worse*, from distancing our allies to provoking our enemies. Trump definitely cares deeply about optics and how he is perceived by people... which is why I find so many of his decisions so peculiar. I guess they resonate with his base (at the expense of the majority of Americans and the rest of the world), so it would be more accurate for me to say that he cares about how he looks to the people who already love him. *Edit: I suppose he could literally launch a nuke. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On June 10 2019 02:48 JimmiC wrote: I thought this was a interesting article given the environmental bend this thread has taken lately. Also the bikelash article linked within is interesting. But this talks about research that points out the benifits of bike lanes to a urban centers financially. I think most would think it was bad thing mpney wise but apparently not. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/love-them-or-hate-them-research-offers-financial-case-for-big-city-bike-lanes/ar-AACzVAs?li=AAggXBV#image=4 The number 1 in that articles (bycicle lanes increase business around them) is interesting, but from a macro standpoint this business is being drained from somewhere else in the city, so I'm not sure I would chalk that up to an advantage of bikes. Same for number 2. Number 3 (properties around bike lanes increase in value) is not something I would necessarily consider positive (the article itself mentions bike lanes as a tool of gentrification). Number 4 is minor, all things considered, and for number 5, it makes sense if you're looking at the advantages for a single city, but if you're thinking nationwide, the same criticism can be brought as in number 1 and 2: the number of talented workers nationwide is a given. Imo, the advantages/disadvanges of bike lanes have to be understood in terms of their impact on urban mobility and polution, not iffy second order finantial effects. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11962 Posts
On June 10 2019 08:01 JimmiC wrote: I don't disagree, I think the purpose of this is that often the biggest opponents to bike lanes are the businesses and down town organizations. With the thought being, with less cars able to travel there won't be anyone to shop. So perhaps it's only purpose is to show those few that their specific business or property won't suffer. I am amazed that there are people who are against bike lanes. Bike lanes are amazing, and really something that all participants in traffic should be in favor of. Cyclist are happy that they get their own part of the road and don't have to constantly fear being overrun by cars. Cars don't have to deal with slow cyclists blocking their roads or weaving through traffic in a dangerous way. Pedestrians don't have to fear being run over by cyclists. Are the people who are against bike lanes also against pedestrian walkways? Different isolated lanes for people who move in a very different way at different speeds are just incredibly sensible. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
That position works for a while, because without bikelanes there will be very few people mad enough to ride in hostile traffic, so drivers can mutter to themselves that the cyclist is in the wrong for taking up valuable asphalt. The logic falls over once there are enough cyclists around anyway that the options are no longer bikes vs no bikes, but bikes-in-my-lane vs bikes-i-can-overtake. My own city feels like it is right on this threshold. Other opponents include the aforementioned roadside businesses that cry about losing their on-street parking, to whom that article is quite relevant. There's another blog linked in that article from a purported ex-cycling advocate who seems to argue that bike lanes encourage inexperienced cyclists to ride and therefore cause accidents. This is... questionable but it's at least a take I hadn't heard before. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28879 Posts
Which is a fantastic development. Biking is great, it lets you get places quickly with no environmental damage and while positively impacting your own health. While it's certainly true that certain areas are more suited for bikes than other areas, their prevalence in Trondheim is a testament to how big of a difference infrastructure makes; Trondheim is a very hilly city with icy roads between november and april, yet looking at the % of people using bikes / travels done with a bike rivals the most bike-friendly cities in the US (places that climate and geography-wise are far better. ) We're never gonna get dutch or danish numbers, but if there's political will to make a city bicycle-friendly, more people are gonna bike, and that is a good thing. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 10 2019 19:04 Belisarius wrote: The people against bikelanes tend to be drivers who would prefer bikes not exist, in my experience. Yeah its the classic "I know I should bike more, but I don't because I don't see it as worth it, so other people are wrong to think it is worth it" | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 10 2019 19:04 Belisarius wrote: There's another blog linked in that article from a purported ex-cycling advocate who seems to argue that bike lanes encourage inexperienced cyclists to ride and therefore cause accidents. This is... questionable but it's at least a take I hadn't heard before. I'm curious about his regulation theories. Is there any sort of licensing for bikes in the popular biking countries in Europe? I'd assume your driving programs have more training and information around sharing the road with bikes as well. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11962 Posts
On June 11 2019 01:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: I'm curious about his regulation theories. Is there any sort of licensing for bikes in the popular biking countries in Europe? I'd assume your driving programs have more training and information around sharing the road with bikes as well. Biking is pretty popular here in Germany, and there are no regulations on who is allowed to ride a bike. There are regulations on what features bikes need to have to be allowed on public roads (stuff like "working brakes, front and back light that fit some specifications etc..."), but these are often ignored, and that is rarely punished. There are voluntary programs (usually a few hours)by the police to help people to learn how to ride a bike safely in traffic, and those are often held at elementary schools, so most children participate in such a course at least once. Getting a (car) drivers license does involve a few things questions about bikes in the theoretical tests, and can involve bikes in the practical lessons, as those happen on public roads, where cyclists can be. We do generally have bike lanes on most roads (not on all of them though). Not the most amazing ones, but they do exist. I personally think that the "bike lanes lead to inexperienced cyclist riding their bike and causing accidents" argument to be utterly ridiculous. Just turn this argument on cars and then lets see how well that works. "Roads lead to inexperienced drivers driving their car and thus lead to accidents" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Furthermore, how should inexperienced cyclists become more experienced if not by riding their bike? Every cyclist starts inexperienced and slowly accumulates experience. The same is true for every driver of a car. The argument only works if those people never start cycling, and are generally in favor of less cyclists on the road. Otherwise, they are inexperienced for a small period of time, and then become more experienced. And if i am an inexperienced cyclist, i would much rather be able to gain that experience on a separate lane rather than on a road full of cars. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On June 11 2019 01:45 Simberto wrote: Biking is pretty popular here in Germany, and there are no regulations on who is allowed to ride a bike. There are regulations on what features bikes need to have to be allowed on public roads (stuff like "working brakes, front and back light that fit some specifications etc..."), but these are often ignored, and that is rarely punished. There are voluntary programs (usually a few hours)by the police to help people to learn how to ride a bike safely in traffic, and those are often held at elementary schools, so most children participate in such a course at least once. Getting a (car) drivers license does involve a few things questions about bikes in the theoretical tests, and can involve bikes in the practical lessons, as those happen on public roads, where cyclists can be. We do generally have bike lanes on most roads (not on all of them though). Not the most amazing ones, but they do exist. I personally think that the "bike lanes lead to inexperienced cyclist riding their bike and causing accidents" argument to be utterly ridiculous. Just turn this argument on cars and then lets see how well that works. "Roads lead to inexperienced drivers driving their car and thus lead to accidents" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Furthermore, how should inexperienced cyclists become more experienced if not by riding their bike? Every cyclist starts inexperienced and slowly accumulates experience. The same is true for every driver of a car. The argument only works if those people never start cycling, and are generally in favor of less cyclists on the road. Otherwise, they are inexperienced for a small period of time, and then become more experienced. And if i am an inexperienced cyclist, i would much rather be able to gain that experience on a separate lane rather than on a road full of cars. Thank you for the information. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6313 Posts
Lanes leading to inexperienced cyclists causing accidents is dumb. Even if it were the case cycling is much safer than driving a car. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
/s I've travelled anti cyclical to the majority of the residents of the Germany city of Stuttgart quite often this year and I would be horrified to face this kind of congestion that appeared on the opposite lane on a daily basis. Early when going into the city and late when getting out of it. As clearly many workers are dependent on their car for mobility and the public transport in Stuttgart being rather horrible, they face little alternative right now. This can only be ameliorated by something different to individual car-based mobility. Being it lift sharing, better public transport or company-sponsored coworking spaces outside of the city boundaries. The status quo is bound to fail if we don't start implementing alternatives. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 10 2019 18:33 Simberto wrote: I am amazed that there are people who are against bike lanes. Bike lanes are amazing, and really something that all participants in traffic should be in favor of. Cyclist are happy that they get their own part of the road and don't have to constantly fear being overrun by cars. Cars don't have to deal with slow cyclists blocking their roads or weaving through traffic in a dangerous way. Pedestrians don't have to fear being run over by cyclists. Are the people who are against bike lanes also against pedestrian walkways? Different isolated lanes for people who move in a very different way at different speeds are just incredibly sensible. People don't like bikes in cities because bikers are atrocious in some cities. For example, in my city (Minneapolis-St. Paul), bikers are the absolute worst. They don't follow traffic laws. Ever. Anyone who claims that they do are full of shit. They regularly cut cars off, weave through traffic, and just cause all kinds of hell for those of us that need to drive (American commuting distances are unrealistic for our public transportation infrastructure to cover if you're not in a place like NYC). It slows down traffic and causes all kinds of safety problems. Your mileage varies by city, but traffic has gotten exponentially worse over the past 10 years in the Twin Cities, and we've been adding plenty of bike lanes. They do not help. At all. Maybe if there was actually some enforcement of safe biking practices it would help, but I've lived here my entire life and I have yet to see any. The goal of it all is great; get more cars off the road, reduce pollution, save money, reduce traffic overall, etc. etc. etc. The problem is the execution. As others have alluded to, businesses don't like it at all. It also sinks a lot of money into something that only relatively few can take advantage of (those of us who can't afford to live in the actual city itself or need to live farther out can't use public transportation or bike with any regularity). Finally there isn't a huge benefit when bike lanes are basically unusable 6 months out of the year due to the weather. | ||
| ||
