all 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 62 points 1 month ago (5 children)

my brain read Carbarians and I think that's going to stick for me

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 105 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    had a car brain joke about watching bicycle accident videos and i said i watch videos of cars getting obliterated by trains, guy was super pissed at me lmao

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    What about all those billions we spent on car infrastructure they could have used? All that and they have to slow down the trains?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    trying to convice car drivers that highways and one more lane are a black hole for money is often a waste of time sadly

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    The way that many carbrains speak, it seems that they regard roads as naturally-occurring, geological features. (E.g. the Lemming who argued that pushing for cycling was harmful to people in undeveloped nations, who will have to drive in coming years, because bike lanes are too expensive for their governments to construct.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    But what if I'm inconvenienced for minutes per year due to cyclists??? I should be able to kill them!!! /s

    Sidenote, in 3 years of using Boost for Lemmy, this is the first post that crashes it consistently when I tried to load the comment view. I wonder what could possibly be going on with it. Had to use the web UI to make this comment.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Facebook doesn't give a shit either, and honestly they should be held liable if a cyclist is ever killed by someone who has ever left or read a comment like this one that Facebook chose not to take down. For the last couple of years, I've started keeping a log of all the comments I've reported on Facebook, and then updating that log if I get a notification that they took action. Very, very few have needed updating. Here's my log of not removed comments:

    image

    And here are the ones they did remove:

    image

    Facebook actively encourages extreme violence.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago

    I cannot say I'm surprised. They moderate only under very narrowly defined circumstances. Thank you for keeping track of it.

    I remember they would always remove and punish me for just language. Let's say some guy says something like "Fuck fa***ts". I report it, nothing happens. I tell the guy he's a homophobic piece of shit, removed and temp ban for 3 days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago

    Right Wingers and their bloodlust disgusts me

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That's in northwest Arkansas. Bella Vista is like 45 minutes north of Fayetteville and full of retirees. Those facebook groups are disgusting hard right nutjobs.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Yup. I've been on two wheels since June, and thankfully, I've only run into a handful of crazy drivers who make it a point to let met know how much they hate me being on the road.

    But even that handful is fucking scary.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    America uniquely hostile to non-car transport. I feel safer riding a motorbike through the densest traffic Vietnam has to offer, in the middle of a monsoon than an American stroad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Yup, and you can be obeying traffic laws and operating perfectly safely and at least one asshole will still act inappropriately toward you just for using the road.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Traffic laws in America are dumb as shit, especially those designed around 2-wheelers. You can be perfectly legally blocking traffic and creating an unsafe situation for everyone behind you by being or pretending to be a car doing 10 mph.

    We must all share the road, the bicyclists who take up a lane when the shoulder is clear and they aren't turning left or something are nearly as big assholes as the drivers who see a bike filtering at a light or stopped traffic and move to block them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    The cyclists have every right to use the road as you do, and whether you like it or not is immaterial. The only exception is a freeway.

    The assholes are the people in the two-ton death machines who think it's their prerogative to endanger someone's life because they want to get to that red light ahead two seconds faster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    The cyclists have every right to use the road as you do

    I haven't driven a car in years.

    You're an asshole if you block traffic for literally no benefit to anybody and you will be treated that way whether you're doing it in a car, bicycle, mobility scooter, or just dancing in the middle of the road taking videos during traffic.

    To be clear, the other dumb laws for 2wheelers include where filtering and splitting are illegal, allowing cars to park blocking the bike lane, not allowing bikes to use sidewalks and instead forcing them to act like cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    Going slower than you normally go is not blocking traffic. You will wait until a you reach a passing lane like a fucking civilised human being.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I hate cars because mass use of cars is detrimental to everybody's mental and physical wellbeing.

    You hate cars because it gives you a pretense to be an asshole.

    Also part of the reason I love motorbikes and ebikes is that I can simply go around obstacles like cars, pedestrians, road construction, you apparently. The freedom promised by cars is only realized by bikes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (20 children)

    If it's Fayetville, Arkansas, it looks like it has some gravel and mountain bike paths, but also low-traffic mountain roads that probably have poor passing opportunities. And it also looks like people might come to cycle there.

    From Fayetteville, road cyclists will discover one of the largest road networks in Arkansas – with over 400 miles of scenic paved roads accessible from town. Low traffic density, high road quality, and diverse mountain topography make Fayetteville the ideal destination for your next road cycling vacation.

    https://www.experiencefayetteville.com/experience/cycling

    So there's a possibility local traffic is being held up by tourists cycling nowhere in particular on roads where you might have to wait a while for a safe passing opportunity, made even longer by people struggling with an incline.

    What would be a good infrastructure solution to this problem?

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    What would be a good infrastructure solution to this problem?

    Is this a serious question? You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road.

    Like in Banff National Park

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yes, I guess that's really the only good answer. Just on mountain roads, space might be at a premium, but there are probably alternate routes a bike path could take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago*

    Yes, but with all the construction equipment already there, it’s a fraction of the cost to build it alongside. Also that way you can wildlife protect it along with the highway. A seperate route would be at risk of animals (and need to be wary of migration paths) or need its own protection and animal crossovers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    You have a separate bike pathway/trail that twins the road

    For this specific use case, that's only a viable alternative if the separated bike path is just as wide as the road itself. Normal bike paths designed for cyclists commuting or otherwise transporting themselves can be half the width for a bi-directional cycleway as a single car lane, but for cyclists training in the hills, they need the road width to be able to take corners at speed safely.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago* (13 children)

    Uhh… the pathways have 20/km limit, it’s also for pedestrians, roller bladders, skateboarders etc. and your risking your life going fast in the mountains wildlife can be around any corner. If you’re treating a pathway or trail like a road, you’re an ass.

    If you’re road training, than you do it on roads… they don’t need to make a specific trail just for that. Don’t go on a busy road, there’s plenty of less used roads that you can do that on.

    And how would you be going fast UPHILL, this is mountainous territory that’s being talked about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    Road training is literally what we're talking about here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (11 children)

    Do you think the only people biking on scenic mountain highways are trainers?

    We get plenty of overseas tourists who would be a disaster on the regular roads, it’s also illegal on some roads to cycle as well since it’s so dangerous for everyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    I think this post clearly shows a picture of a sports cyclist, the post referenced a location with clear advertising aimed at attracting sports cyclists, and the discussion thread above makes it very unambiguously clear that we're talking about sports cycling. One would have to be completely oblivious or wilfully ignorant to pretend otherwise.

    As someone who does both sports cycling and transport cycling, I fucking hate it when people from one side act as though the other side doesn't exist or is lesser than or not worth considering. The fuckwits who complain about "tour de france wanabees" while claiming to be cycling advocates are no better than NIMBYs complaining about their parking. We're all on the same side here, and anyone who acts otherwise can fuck off as far as I'm concerned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (9 children)

    Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers? Where no one else could safely use that trail safely? Not even a pedestrian or a person with disabilities? That’s a great use of resources lol.

    The link also talks about all types of cycling.

    There’s plenty of roads with almost no traffic that road cyclists can use, why do you think they’re being ignored? They aren’t the problem demographic here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Are you seriously suggesting that trails should be built for one particular group of bikers?

    No. And only an intentionally bad-faith reading of my comment could come away thinking it was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (7 children)

    Like you’re doing in this chain with a post link you’re ignoring that started this whole topic….?

    I’ve addressed your concerns, you’re saying these trails need to be road wide, I provided reasons why they don’t need to be. Just because you don’t like the answers doesn’t mean I’m here in bad faith. It just means you have a bias and are the one not wanting to discuss something, you just want to be heard and your view is the only one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    you’re saying these trails need to be road wide

    No, I'm saying in the context where the intended audience is road cyclists they would need to be road wide. The fact that you're completely ignoring the context is what makes you an arsehole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

    And for the last time, road cyclists aren’t the only ones out there. If you make the track for road cyclists so they can fast, it’s useless for anyone else since it’s not safe. Meaning you’re making it for one group of people only…. Like I’ve said.

    I’m not ignoring context, I’ve explained everything multiple times, you just refuse to listen.

    And unless you’re in a large group and clustered together (which in stupid and dangerous) you don’t need more than a regular multi use pathway. Why do you think you need 12 feet of width to make massively large sweeping turns?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    I'm done with you. Go away troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (3 children)

    This community truly has some of the most ridiculous and ignorant users.

    How am I trolling for answering your concerns? You’re the one whinging and bitching, and not contributing to the conversation, those are what a troll does.

    Take the L and go home.

    If the point you’re making isn’t that all pathways should be road wide, you’re doing a shit job of it, and not answering questions or providing information so you can help be steered to the right information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    How am I trolling for answering your concerns?

    You're not. You're ignoring them. This was always a conversation about one thing and you insist on turning it into something else and you blame me for not going along with your offtopic nonsense. Piss off dickhead.

    On the very, very slight chance that you're genuinely confused and not being a dickhead, or for the benefit of any audience, this started with someone observing that maybe in this circumstance local traffic is genuinely being held up be people out for exercise. I pointed out that if you wanted to have fully separated paths for those users, you would need it to be just as wide as the road. Nowhere in there was I talking about anyone other than road bikers, because nowhere before that was anyone talking about anyone other than road bikers.

    Then you came in and decided to shoehorn in an irrelevant topic. If we were talking about people riding on off-road trails, the solution would be obvious. So obvious it's not really necessary to talk about it in an already un-motornormative space. Or at least, I try to assume that level of good faith from users here unless they prove otherwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    I responded to someone’s comment about a post link you muppet, how is that not on topic! Lmfao, you truly are a special one.

    Everyone but you has been able to follow along, you’re the only one dude, so who’s the troll?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago*

    Why would you need to build a road width trail when there’s already thousands of other roads? The point you’re making isn’t even relevant let alone valid. You have a solution to your problem already, choose a less busy road….

    Everyone else shouldn’t be on a road, so they need a safe pathway, so you can make one for them, and than everyone has a way to travel, instead of only road bikers.

    You’re view on this is far too narrow and only about you. I think most of us understand road bikers already have other options. If they choose to use a poor one, everyone else shouldn’t have to compromise, how’s that fair? A trail designed for road bikers could only be used by them, it’s a massive waste of resources, so that’s why it’s not done.

    Also, a road biker needs max 6 foot wide trails, that’s around the same width of a multi use pathway, what and why are you going off about needing “road width” for turning?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    A simple solution is to have extra wide bits where the topology allows it, with the width added to the uphill side of the road. Adding an unseparated bike lane on long straighter sections or round the bend is usually going to be sufficient for relatively low-speed mountain overtakes. What you should never do is encourage anyone to overtake a cyclist going downhill.

    Here's some examples from Australia:

    image

    image

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    I’ll add that even in the US, it’s somewhat common for mountain roads to periodically have an extra passing lane, pull-off points, or an extra wide shoulder so motorists can get around slower traffic.

    So there’s really no excuse for not adding a bike lane on uphill portions in cycling heavy areas whenever those roads need to be repaved.
    …so maybe we’ll see some of that in the next 50 years…

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 month ago*

    If you were joking about murdering minorities with your AR to remind them that they have their own neighborhood to go back to, you'd at least be investigated by th- Oh wait, Arkansas? Nevermind.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    Used to bike and walk in that area actually... I've been hit by 11 cars. Nowhere else have I had that issue and I live in what is considered a "less bike friendly" place now. Those folk up there are aggressively hateful towards pedestrians and cyclists.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago* (14 children)

    Vehicular cycling advocates have set cycling back decades in USA, with the result being this thought.

    A car or a bicycle travelling at 30% of the speed of traffic introduces a considerable risk. It’s why bike lanes aren’t also sidewalks. But it’s not a reason for vehicular homicide!

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

    I get why getting behind any vehicle moving at 30% of the expected rate of speed is an annoyance, and that annoyance is doubly so when it’s a person just doing recreation.

    But what I come back to is that cycling isn’t just recreation. It’s also a legitimate form of transportation for some people who cannot drive (for various reasons) or for those who cannot afford it. It’s also one of the last remaining forms that isn’t privacy-invasive (either by the state or corporations).

    People on two wheels should be conscious of holding up traffic, but those on four don’t own the roads. We’re all in this together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    One thing people don't get is that car people think that the cyclist took his car to ride his bike as a fun activity. Nobody could be doing anything "legitimate" like going to work on a bicycle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    That’s also part of the Vehicular Cycling/Forester problem. Forester, distilled and paraphrased, was a proponent of “serious” cyclists, which included the MAML (Middle-Aged Man in Lycra) on racing bikes and excluded the person picking up groceries on a bike with baskets. Which summs up to “cycling is for recreation”. And visibly, the aggressive cyclists tend towards that MAML image, rather than dad picking up groceries or mom cycling to work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    What is a vehicular cycle and why would one advocate for it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Video Essay or Wikipedia

    Tl;DW/R: pretending bikes are cars and claiming bike lanes are dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    This is like if women's MMA didn't exist so they had to come up with a lot of copium to justify women competing against men.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    No? The difference between women and men is nowhere close to the disparity between a car and a bike. What is this comparison?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children)

    What do you think the win:lose ratio of men against women would be if professional MMA put all women in competition with men and made no other adjustments?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    Without dealing with the institutional misogyny that affects sports and especially MMA (budget for example) that discourages women from training and prevents them from getting the same facilities as their men counterparts? Yeah, the ratio would be skewed towards men. Maybe more if you for some reason decide to eschew weight classification, a system that is actually based on more than "all women are weak little flowers that will be wrecked by any man"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I get your point, but more often than not, the car lanes are the only option for cyclists

    If you're driving your 2 ton shitbox in public, then you have to drive knowing that one mistake of yours or someone else's can and will cost lives

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Ha! I used to live where this meme is talking about.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    time for cyclist to start dropping nails in the middle of the road...

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments