|
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 |
On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan.I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities.
That's definitely not true, and feeds into the whole holier-than-thou assertion that you're directly responding to. That being said, I'm all for cyclists and bike lanes and public transportation and green options, wherever they're feasible. Sadly, my suburban + highway commute doesn't personally offer me much flexibility in terms of transportation.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On June 11 2019 18:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan.I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities. That's definitely not true, and feeds into the whole holier-than-thou assertion that you're directly responding to. That being said, I'm all for cyclists and bike lanes and public transportation and green options, wherever they're feasible. Sadly, my suburban + highway commute doesn't personally offer me much flexibility in terms of transportation.
Of course its true.
Its pretty obvious really.
I'm not saying this from the point of view of a vegan or a cyclist, I'm neither. Its just when I see people getting angry at vegans for not eating meat they always have some made up bullshit justification about a holier than thou attitude and exactly the same thing is happening here with cyclists.
Its just nonsense.
The thing is, cyclists make motorists feel bad about being motorists, but not because of anything they have said. Its simply because cycling is not harmful, and driving is. Motorists feel bad because they should and then blame cyclists for that, which is frankly laughable.
We all get that some people need to drive around. We all get that this isn't an ideal situation - but the frustration caused by that doesn't need to be taken out on the people who don't drive.
|
On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan. I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities.
The annoying thing about vegans (in my experience) is that they just won't shut about it, and this is very off topic anyway.
As someone who cycles to work everyday in a city with almost no cycle lanes, let me chip in with my experience. Every time a car passes me by at 50 mph half a meter away I shit my pants. I have to make a left turn at some point on a roundabout, and I won't begin making the turn until I make eye contact with the drivers in the opposite lane and they've slowed down (I almost got run over once), which pisses everybody off on my lane and I get honked at. If there was a bike lane on the opposite side I wouldn't be risking my life every morning with cranky drivers.
|
On June 11 2019 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan. I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities. The annoying thing about vegans (in my experience) is that they just won't shut about it, and this is very off topic anyway.
Absolutely doesn't fit my experience. Usually people tell me that they are vegan when they suspect that i will be preparing food for them, or possibly when choosing a restaurant to go to. That is, in situations where i clearly need that information. I have yet to see a single person tell me that they are vegan in a context that doesn't involve food, and usually they just mention it once.
On June 11 2019 19:03 EnDeR_ wrote:
As someone who cycles to work everyday in a city with almost no cycle lanes, let me chip in with my experience. Every time a car passes me by at 50 mph half a meter away I shit my pants. I have to make a left turn at some point on a roundabout, and I won't begin making the turn until I make eye contact with the drivers in the opposite lane and they've slowed down (I almost got run over once), which pisses everybody off on my lane and I get honked at. If there was a bike lane on the opposite side I wouldn't be risking my life every morning with cranky drivers.
Exactly. Cyclists are usually very aware of how dangerous cars are to them, and how little some of the drivers of those cars care. I, too, never cross a car lane until making eye contact with the drivers of said cars.
|
On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan.I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities.
Lol, what a ridiculous generalization.
Edit: Maybe that's how it is in the UK and I'm being ignorant about it
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On June 11 2019 19:28 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan.I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities. Lol, what a ridiculous generalization. Edit: Maybe that's how it is in the UK and I'm being ignorant about it
I really don't think it is a ridiculous generalization, certainly no way as ridiculous as the idea that cyclists all have a holier than thou attitude.
|
On June 11 2019 19:50 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 19:28 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan.I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities. Lol, what a ridiculous generalization. Edit: Maybe that's how it is in the UK and I'm being ignorant about it I really don't think it is a ridiculous generalization, certainly no way as ridiculous as the idea that cyclists all have a holier than thou attitude.
"Everyone wants be vegan but they aren't because they don't have the discipline" is much more ridiculous generalization than "cyclists have a holier than thou atitude", but sure.
|
On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan. I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities.
As I described before, your experience in different cities may vary.
Bicyclists in the Twin Cities have no regard for traffic. I've seen accidents involving bikers doing this stuff. I've responded to it as a paramedic. Regularly.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, the frustration people have is that this "holier-than-thou" attitude is very real and has nothing to do with "lack of discipline". If I "lack discipline" for not agreeing to quadruple my commute time just because that's the only public transportation infrastructure available to me, then I think you need to re-adjust your definition of "lacks discipline". This is a very normal experience for Americans that don't live on the coasts.
Also, as someone else said, vegans are frequently obnoxiously vocal about the fact that they are vegan and about how everyone else is a terrible person for not being one. But go ahead, keep telling yourself that we're all just jealous.
@stratos
"But drivers" is not whataboutism. Bikers and drivers are using the same roads. You can't say "bikers are horrible for traffic, swerving everywhere mucking everything up" when there's no real reason to think that bikers actually make traffic worse than cars. "But drivers" is bringing us back to the real point of comparison at issue, not deflecting. I swear to god that the majority of the time people say "whataboutism" it's totally uncalled for. Do you really think that an extra bicyclist on the road makes traffic for you in your car reliably worse than another car on the same road?
It is precisely whataboutism.
We're not talking about drivers. As I said, everyone knows that drivers are dangerous. We're trying to get rid of driving through a host of different initiatives precisely because of this. Cops actually enforce traffic laws related to driving. People widely acknowledge how dangerous it is.
This is not new or even relevant information. I started talking about why people get frustrated with bikers and increasing bicycle lanes because people in this thread apparently just cannot fathom how letting bikers run unchecked with no rules or enforcement whatsoever can piss people off. You kept saying that "I guarantee that them cutting you off isn't that dangerous" and this is patently false. Cutting off a moving car to cross the street is incredibly dangerous, both for the bicyclist and for the driver. It obviously can lead to grave injuries for the bicyclist, plus can easily to the driver swerving out of the way and causing a traffic accident with other drivers (I have personally responded to this multiple times).
As I said, I'm all for increasing public transportation infrastructure. I hate driving in the metro area because traffic is the worst. I love using the Light Rail wherever it's available. I just understand the frustrations of drivers when there's no accountability for bicyclists and there is still plenty for drivers.
|
Norway28924 Posts
All bicyclists have 'regard for traffic'. They might not adhere to every rule cars do (not all of them make sense for cyclists, and they will disrupt traffic much more if they have to start and stop at every occasion), but like.. Bicyclists are generally exceptionally aware of their surroundings when they bike. That doesn't mean accidents don't happen, and certainly some are too reckless, but you can't successfully commute by bicycle without strongly taking the traffic into regard.
There's prolly some correlation to the whole vegan thing - the perception that cyclists and vegans have a holier than thou attitude, and that this perception is caused by a pretty tiny group of vocal vegans/cyclists. I don't think the they 'are jealous of their discipline' theory has anything to it - it's just that people tend to condemn groups based on actions and statements made by individual members of a group. Enough vegans are annoying about it for many people to have encountered an annoying vegan (it makes sense to me - veganism is the type of lifestyle change you will only really bother with undertaking if you care exceptionally much about it, it's not like 'I'm gonna try to drink a bit less' or whatever, thus people who are into it are likely to care about it.) But it doesnt mean vegans/cyclists have a holier than thou attitude, just that it makes sense that people might have that perception. 
|
I have to say it's nice to have a topic that's not the mueller report for a few days
Cyclists being able to selectively break rules is counterbalanced by the fact that most cyclists are hyper-aware of being naked and squishy and surrounded by metal death machines. There are, of course, idiots everywhere, but Darwin alone puts a cap on the escapades that cyclists will pull. I've seen no evidence on the anti-bike side for the assertion that bike lanes equate to "letting bikers run unchecked with no rules or enforcement".
I will say that on both sides, it's rarely helpful to talk in absolutes about something like this, because different places will have different conventions and much of road etiquette is about doing what people expect you to do. I ride every day in a country that is still not all that bike friendly, and consequently I err on the side of giving way to cars when the situation is ambiguous. This might not be the right thing to do elsewhere, but it feels appropriate where I am. I suspect that things that are common in Europe may be a faux pas in the States/Australia and vice versa.
That said, I have a general philosophy that I should ride and drive so as to minimise interactions with other road users, because the points where vehicles' paths cross is where they are in danger of colliding. If someone is going faster than me, I want to make it easy for them to overtake me and be on their way, as it's in nobody's interest for them to follow me along constantly trying to interact. Likewise if I am going faster than someone else, I want to overtake them smoothly and predictably and precisely once, and I get really annoyed when I'm driving and slower drivers speed up to cockblock an overtake.
Some general thoughts from the last couple pages:
As a cyclist, if the car would need to brake hard to not hit me, I would probably not get in front of it. I do understand that people with higher risk tolerances might appear to be "swerving through traffic". The bike does have the right to change lanes even if it is slower, just as a car whose lane is ending has the right to merge even if it has had to slow down, but the threshold between asserting that right and cutting people off is blurred. As with everything, predictability and giving good warning by indicating goes a long way.
Personally I don't lane-filter at a set of lights if there is no bike lane. This one:
On June 11 2019 07:42 IgnE wrote:
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been biking and an angry driver passes me on the left only to come to a red light 300 ft away, where I catch up and overtake them. is something I would not do in my city. A lot of places synchronise traffic lights so that cars get a line of greens if they go at roughly the speed limit. It's a mistake to see that car stop 300 ft away and think they overtook the cyclist for nothing. That car is very likely stopped at that set of lights because being stuck behind the cyclist made them miss their green wave. By filtering past them and forcing them to overtake again, the cyclist causes them to miss the next one as well, and we end up with an infinite loop of interaction, a big stack of cars, and everyone getting more and more enraged.
Bikes do present a fundamental problem by going slower than the traffic in congested areas, and I very much understand drivers' frustration when trying to overtake. Ideally, yes, the driver should overtake a bike as if overtaking a car by using the whole other lane, but cities also tend to be narrow and windy and have constant traffic in the oncoming lane, such that an actual car going the speed of a bike would be almost impossible to overtake. This is one of the key reasons that bike lanes are good for everyone.
|
On June 11 2019 19:56 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 19:50 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2019 19:28 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 11 2019 17:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 11 2019 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 11 2019 11:50 IgnE wrote:
Cars also swerve in front of other cars. Most bicyclists (and pedestrians for that matter) are killed while following the law. Confident "swerving through traffic," as you call it, and I think I know what you mean, is almost undoubtedly less dangerous than you think it is. It looks dangerous sure, and this is not to discount that some bikers are undoubtedly dangerous riders, I am simply trying to point out that drivers almost always overreact to typical bicycling maneuvers — maneuvers that are, in some sense, adaptations to having to share the road with cars in the first place.
I guess you are for bike lanes then, where bikes don't have to swerve in front of cars? I'm all for policies that phase out cars completely. They cause a whole host of problems. I just empathize with the frustration that drivers can have with this subject and that bikers often have a "Holier-than-thou" attitude that makes it sound like they think they are morally superior just because they bike. Public transportation, biking, or other "green" options simply aren't viable for a huge chunk of the American public at this time.Also, "but drivers" is pure whataboutism. Everyone knows the problem with drivers and all of the danger that driving in general puts people in. This is discussion is specifically about biking and why people are frustrated with it. This makes me suspect that you are actually disguising something else. Its exactly the same thing that people say about vegans. Mostly though, people are just annoyed because they wish they had the discipline to be vegan.I've not really encountered a holier than thou attitude to cycling, I've not seen bike lanes be anything but a massive help to cities. Lol, what a ridiculous generalization. Edit: Maybe that's how it is in the UK and I'm being ignorant about it I really don't think it is a ridiculous generalization, certainly no way as ridiculous as the idea that cyclists all have a holier than thou attitude. "Everyone wants be vegan but they aren't because they don't have the discipline" is much more ridiculous generalization than "cyclists have a holier than thou atitude", but sure.
I don't think it's fair to say that everyone wants to be a vegan. However I can't make a rational argument against veganism and I'm still not a vegan, so in that way I relate to what Jock is saying.
(And since I recognize this argument, we can see in the thread that Angry Jack is still around  )
|
Why is rationality the touchstone for determining the propriety of individual actions against the backdrop of society as a whole when that game is full to the brim with necessarily irrational decision making?
|
On June 11 2019 21:15 Belisarius wrote:Personally I don't lane-filter at a set of lights if there is no bike lane. This one: Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 07:42 IgnE wrote:
I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been biking and an angry driver passes me on the left only to come to a red light 300 ft away, where I catch up and overtake them. is something I would not do in my city. A lot of places synchronise traffic lights so that cars get a line of greens if they go at roughly the speed limit. It's a mistake to see that car stop 300 ft away and think they overtook the cyclist for nothing. That car is very likely stopped at that set of lights because being stuck behind the cyclist made them miss their green wave. By filtering past them and forcing them to overtake again, the cyclist causes them to miss the next one as well, and we end up with an infinite loop of interaction, a big stack of cars, and everyone getting more and more enraged.
YMMV. I lane filter because I am going diagonally across a city, not staying on the same road the whole way, and piling up at any individual stop makes no sense. Why file through a four-way stop sign when I can cross the street remora-like with a car. It reduces the waiting for everyone else. I don't have any problem with cars passing me when it makes sense. It's assholes careening wildly around me, or even worse, beeping their horn, on a one lane road, or when I am turning left.
|
On June 11 2019 22:52 farvacola wrote:
Why is rationality the touchstone for determining the propriety of individual actions against the backdrop of society as a whole when that game is full to the brim with necessarily irrational decision making?
Rationality isn't a state, it's a method. Why not use it every time we can, regardless of the times when we can't?
|
On June 11 2019 20:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It is precisely whataboutism.
We're not talking about drivers. As I said, everyone knows that drivers are dangerous. We're trying to get rid of driving through a host of different initiatives precisely because of this. Cops actually enforce traffic laws related to driving. People widely acknowledge how dangerous it is. […]
Surely you see that "bikes are annoying" is implicitly an argument for more cars? You tacitly make this comparison throughout this post and the others before it.
Here's an analogy: "Hillary is so old!" "But wait, Donald Trump is old too" "Stop your whataboutism, everyone knows Donald Trump is old!"
|
On June 11 2019 22:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 22:52 farvacola wrote:
Why is rationality the touchstone for determining the propriety of individual actions against the backdrop of society as a whole when that game is full to the brim with necessarily irrational decision making? Rationality isn't a state, it's a method. Why not use it every time we can, regardless of the times when we can't?
Because “using” rationality when it is neutral or uncalled for creates a host of problems, one of the biggest being the lack of ability to argue using other persuasive methods among leftists. It’s that “rationality every time, until it doesn’t work” attitude that leads to incredibly stupid popular tacks like the “herp derp, big man in the sky retards” criticism of religion.
I like eating meat, I try to only purchase meat that is raised responsibly, and there is a fair amount of highly complicating evidence in terms of meat and animal products being important dietary sources. Whether or not I act on those bases has only a tangential relationship to rationality at best.
|
On June 11 2019 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:There's prolly some correlation to the whole vegan thing - the perception that cyclists and vegans have a holier than thou attitude, and that this perception is caused by a pretty tiny group of vocal vegans/cyclists. I don't think the they 'are jealous of their discipline' theory has anything to it - it's just that people tend to condemn groups based on actions and statements made by individual members of a group. Enough vegans are annoying about it for many people to have encountered an annoying vegan (it makes sense to me - veganism is the type of lifestyle change you will only really bother with undertaking if you care exceptionally much about it, it's not like 'I'm gonna try to drink a bit less' or whatever, thus people who are into it are likely to care about it.) But it doesnt mean vegans/cyclists have a holier than thou attitude, just that it makes sense that people might have that perception.
Hey I disagree with Drone for once, I think Jock is right.
It's much easier to do what you've always done without asking yourself too many questions, but it has moral ramifications. A lot of people get angry at vegans because vegans have asked themselves that question, and they came up with the non-reassuring answer that the behavior we've always had is wrong. This suggests that if you asked yourself that question, you might change your own behavior, and therefore that right now you might be doing something morally reprehensible. From this setup it's pretty easy to have someone say "I'm vegan" and hear "You're a bad person", which is probably not what they were saying in the first place.
|
On June 11 2019 22:57 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 20:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:
It is precisely whataboutism.
We're not talking about drivers. As I said, everyone knows that drivers are dangerous. We're trying to get rid of driving through a host of different initiatives precisely because of this. Cops actually enforce traffic laws related to driving. People widely acknowledge how dangerous it is. […] Surely you see that "bikes are annoying" is implicitly an argument for more cars? You tacitly make this comparison throughout this post and the others before it. Here's an analogy: "Hillary is so old!" "But wait, Donald Trump is old too" "Stop your whataboutism, everyone knows Donald Trump is old!"
You're creating a false dichotomy.
The option isn't "bike or car".
Its "car, or bike, or implement biking infrastructure better/make better rules, or improve other infrastructure such as busing, light rail, etc., or improve roads so traffic congestion isn't horrible, or any combination of the above."
|
United States44443 Posts
To me it sounds like the Mexico deal involves the US funding Mexican efforts to control the movement of asylum seekers and migrants. In short, Mexico is going to build a wall and the US is going to pay for it.
Art of the deal folks.
|
On June 11 2019 23:10 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2019 20:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:There's prolly some correlation to the whole vegan thing - the perception that cyclists and vegans have a holier than thou attitude, and that this perception is caused by a pretty tiny group of vocal vegans/cyclists. I don't think the they 'are jealous of their discipline' theory has anything to it - it's just that people tend to condemn groups based on actions and statements made by individual members of a group. Enough vegans are annoying about it for many people to have encountered an annoying vegan (it makes sense to me - veganism is the type of lifestyle change you will only really bother with undertaking if you care exceptionally much about it, it's not like 'I'm gonna try to drink a bit less' or whatever, thus people who are into it are likely to care about it.) But it doesnt mean vegans/cyclists have a holier than thou attitude, just that it makes sense that people might have that perception. Hey I disagree with Drone for once, I think Jock is right. It's much easier to do what you've always done without asking yourself too many questions, but it has moral ramifications. A lot of people get angry at vegans because vegans have asked themselves that question, and they came up with the non-reassuring answer that the behavior we've always had is wrong. This suggests that if you asked yourself that question, you might change your own behavior, and therefore that right now you might be doing something morally reprehensible. From this setup it's pretty easy to have someone say "I'm vegan" and hear "You're a bad person", which is probably not what they were saying in the first place.
You’re doing a great job of proving the point originally made, that vegans (or their admirers) think themselves uniquely self-inquisitive and willing to address their own behavior is pretty close to an elemental holier than thou attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
