Not Just Bikes / r/fuckcars / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design

[What the shit]

There is absolutely nothing wrong for advocating for bike lanes or public transit or whatever the fuck it may be. Just don’t be a cock-sucking faggot about it and make it your whole schtick. These people are the worst not only because they look down upon people for doing the thing they hate, but also not even doing anything to circumvent or change anything. Just make youtube videos and constantly tweet about the problems of US infrastructure.

 

[Wally]

AdamSomething made a video in which he advocates for the 19th century technology known as the trollybus:

A real Electrical Engineer, Dave Jones of EEVBlog, made a response video basically calling him out for being wrong:

Adam admits to having no idea what he is talking about:


This is what a bus line looks like:

This is what a trollybus line looks like:

Same city.

 

[TurdFondler]

This thread reminded me of a totally sweet bugman cost cutting measure I saw on the CBC




I'm almost positive that trike is a Sunseeker Delta, the electric version retails for $2.8k USD, if she bought the regular one and then got a motor and batteries it would still be about the same price.

So in order to save money/the environment she dropped enough money to pay for at least a half year of car ownership, contributed to the rare earth metal mining trade and still kept her car.

 

[quaawaa]

There is absolutely nothing wrong for advocating for bike lanes or public transit or whatever the fuck it may be. Just don’t be a cock-sucking faggot about it and make it your whole schtick. These people are the worst not only because they look down upon people for doing the thing they hate, but also not even doing anything to circumvent or change anything. Just make youtube videos and constantly tweet about the problems of US infrastructure.

They do try and there are many cities in the US implementing their ideals. Their major problem is that the people who live in the areas they want to "improve" don't want their "improvements", which is why they came up with conspiracy theories like Big Oil and Big Car brainwashing everybody to prefer houses and cars. A typical suburban resident has no problem building a trail system but has an enormous problem with 50% of the car lanes being taken away and given to a handful of cyclists. Urbanists don't want to improve transit/biking access; they want to destroy the ability to drive. This is the key point that a lot of the people in this thread are missing.

No greater example can be shown than the seethe they have for truly multi-modal infrastructure:

Here's a nice small intersection in Japan with bike lanes and a pedestrian bridge:

You would think something like this is exactly what the urbanists would want, but you'd be wrong.
They actually hate this:

Source (Archive)

Here's a similar bridge in China, but in a much bigger intersection:

There are massive pedestrian plazas on both sides of the street, a two-way bike lane on the left side of the street that is shaded by trees, and a nice bridge to allow pedestrians to cross the major road without waiting for the lights to change.
What do reddit urbanists think about it?



Source (Archive)
A second picture of the same bridge up close (Chinese redditors appear to be quite proud of it):




Source (Archive)

Notice the common thread throughout all of these comments: it's not enough to improve non-car transportation (I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that Chinese and Japanese cities don't have good transit), you have to actively make it difficult to drive. Their ideal city is the medieval European city center, and they hate anything that doesn't look like that.

 

[Meriasek]

This thread reminded me of a totally sweet bugman cost cutting measure I saw on the CBC

View attachment 3599475
View attachment 3599473

I'm almost positive that trike is a Sunseeker Delta, the electric version retails for $2.8k USD, if she bought the regular one and then got a motor and batteries it would still be about the same price.

So in order to save money/the environment she dropped enough money to pay for at least a half year of car ownership, contributed to the rare earth metal mining trade and still kept her car.

Aww yeah, I loved those things as a kid.


/ETA: Those pedestrian bridge constructions show that if a city would have nothing but trams and pedestrians, these people would still complain if they needed to take an overpass to cross tracks somewhere, or sunken rails that kills them when they're cycling along.

 

[DumbDude42]

They do try and there are many cities in the US implementing their ideals. Their major problem is that the people who live in the areas they want to "improve" don't want their "improvements", which is why they came up with conspiracy theories like Big Oil and Big Car brainwashing everybody to prefer houses and cars. A typical suburban resident has no problem building a trail system but has an enormous problem with 50% of the car lanes being taken away and given to a handful of cyclists. Urbanists don't want to improve transit/biking access; they want to destroy the ability to drive. This is the key point that a lot of the people in this thread are missing.

No greater example can be shown than the seethe they have for truly multi-modal infrastructure:

Here's a nice small intersection in Japan with bike lanes and a pedestrian bridge:
View attachment 3599429
You would think something like this is exactly what the urbanists would want, but you'd be wrong.
They actually hate this:
View attachment 3599430
View attachment 3599433
Source (Archive)

Here's a similar bridge in China, but in a much bigger intersection:
View attachment 3599482
There are massive pedestrian plazas on both sides of the street, a two-way bike lane on the left side of the street that is shaded by trees, and a nice bridge to allow pedestrians to cross the major road without waiting for the lights to change.
What do reddit urbanists think about it?
View attachment 3599458
View attachment 3599459
View attachment 3599460
Source (Archive)
A second picture of the same bridge up close (Chinese redditors appear to be quite proud of it):
View attachment 3599474
View attachment 3599491
View attachment 3599495
View attachment 3599497
Source (Archive)

Notice the common thread throughout all of these comments: it's not enough to improve non-car transportation (I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that Chinese and Japanese cities don't have good transit), you have to actively make it difficult to drive. Their ideal city is the medieval European city center, and they hate anything that doesn't look like that.

yeah
build regular intersections with crossings for pedestrians -> they complain about having to wait before crossing
build bridges for pedestrians over the roads -> they complain about having to walk up and down the stairs
build bridges for roads above the pedestrians -> they complain it's dark and loud under the bridge

 

[What the shit]

They do try and there are many cities in the US implementing their ideals. Their major problem is that the people who live in the areas they want to "improve" don't want their "improvements", which is why they came up with conspiracy theories like Big Oil and Big Car brainwashing everybody to prefer houses and cars. A typical suburban resident has no problem building a trail system but has an enormous problem with 50% of the car lanes being taken away and given to a handful of cyclists. Urbanists don't want to improve transit/biking access; they want to destroy the ability to drive. This is the key point that a lot of the people in this thread are missing.

No greater example can be shown than the seethe they have for truly multi-modal infrastructure:

Here's a nice small intersection in Japan with bike lanes and a pedestrian bridge:
View attachment 3599429
You would think something like this is exactly what the urbanists would want, but you'd be wrong.
They actually hate this:
View attachment 3599430
View attachment 3599433
Source (Archive)

Here's a similar bridge in China, but in a much bigger intersection:
View attachment 3599482
There are massive pedestrian plazas on both sides of the street, a two-way bike lane on the left side of the street that is shaded by trees, and a nice bridge to allow pedestrians to cross the major road without waiting for the lights to change.
What do reddit urbanists think about it?
View attachment 3599458
View attachment 3599459
View attachment 3599460
Source (Archive)
A second picture of the same bridge up close (Chinese redditors appear to be quite proud of it):
View attachment 3599474
View attachment 3599491
View attachment 3599495
View attachment 3599497
Source (Archive)

Notice the common thread throughout all of these comments: it's not enough to improve non-car transportation (I doubt anyone can say with a straight face that Chinese and Japanese cities don't have good transit), you have to actively make it difficult to drive. Their ideal city is the medieval European city center, and they hate anything that doesn't look like that.

They fail to realize that there is no incentive to build all that if there isn’t any money going towards it. Of course cities are going to prioritize cars over bikes and pedestrians seeing as though they carry the bulk of goods and money as well as having an endless supply of tax-money because people constantly need gas. Also how else are they supposed to build these massive none-automobile infrastructure if less people pay for gas? These people are just fucking dumb and they fail to realize that cars are important for everyday life.

 

[Wally]

Their ideal city is the medieval European city center, and they hate anything that doesn't look like that.

The European fears the Public Land Survey System.

 

[BestFriendsAnimalSociety]

Lots of cope in response to a real concern that people have




archive / source

 

[Rudolf's Friend]

someone should go drive the most polluting car you can think of and rev it up in front of these urbanists as a joke.

 

[Markass the Worst]

Lots of cope in response to a real concern that people have
View attachment 3599758
View attachment 3599759
View attachment 3599760
View attachment 3599787
archive / source

This is most infuriating because there's one single way that these fucktards could fix crime: Hiring more police. But they never talk about that and I'm willing to bet they all overlap with ACAB types too.

Also crime is notoriously underreported (especially in countries like Japan that put up a facade of being a safe, clean place) and the US is the same country infamous for its amount of mass shootings, so dismissing completely valid fears as "poor people fearmongering" is disingenuous gaslighting.

 

[Wally]

You are more likely to be killed by a blunt object than a rifle. Therefore, gun crime is not an issue. Also, ban hammers.

 

[Cat Stew]

If they want good public transit, just move to. China.

 

[Sneeds]

Some /r/fuckcars lunacy from their front page:
View attachment 3597984
Source (Archive)

If the Amish don't need cars, neither do you:
View attachment 3598012
Source (Archive)

How dare people not want to sit next to schizos and junkies on public transit:
View attachment 3598009
Source (Archive)
This woman isn't afraid of the homeless schizos on the train, but she is supposedly often catcalled by drivers:
View attachment 3598021
View attachment 3598015
Could there be some reason other than "respect" as to why public transport is safe in Korea?

OMG a Truck exists!
View attachment 3597957
Source (Archive)
It's gonna kill the kid:View attachment 3597959
They're even invading the Holy Land!
View attachment 3597995
Source (Archive)
View attachment 3597997

/r/fuckcars user discovers that having roads doesn't mean that you can't walk to the store:
View attachment 3597971
Source (Archive)

I wonder if they also seethe at Mexicans who own pickups or only at “white magats” so they won’t be racist towards the “LatinX”

 

[vern]

Yep pretty much. I personally don't really care who is right, all I know is there's a ton more autism and shit to laugh at on the urbanist side. Maybe I might add something about certain figures like Randall O'Toole who's arguably just as dumb as urbanists except holding opposite viewpoints.

You know what always gets my about O'Toole, despite being the most well known figure in anything that involves trains, he runs a blog dedicated to stremliner trains from the 1950s-60s and how great they where and how it is a tragedy that they died out

http://streamlinermemories.info/

Also I know two people that might be worth looking into for this thread:
The first is someone called American Rail Club/Demetris Villa. He was one of the first one to start making videos around 8-9 years ago. The best way to describe him is the Florida man of this urbanist movement which is fitting since he's from there. Also interesting is unlike the rest of this lot that are primarily left wing socialists, he managed to come to the "trains good, car bad" idea from a libertarian mindset so most of his arguments are that the reason why transit sucks in the US is because there not handled by private companies like the good old days or like countries like Japan or Hong Kong. He was fairly big before people like notjustbikes started but nowadays he isn't really relevant 7and due to a death of either his girlfriend or fiancé he largely stepped back from online stuff aside from the occasional livestream.

Second one is a group called Well There's Your Problem. In short its a podcast hosted by
Justin "Roz" Roczniak: a structural engineer and admitted socialist
Liam Anderson: a systems analyst and former roommate of Roz
and Alice Caldwell-Kelly: A tranny muslim from the UK
All but Liam has other projects/stuff on the Internet that could be discussed and laughed at, but the podcast itself it pretty simple. One of the hosts picks out an engineering disasters and goes over why it happened. However they sometimes apply the concept of "engineering disasters" to pretty much anything they want such as print media, any and everything involving the military, and the former governor of New York. And while they seem to understand why a disaster occurred 9 times out of 10 they blame it happening in the first place on cars, capitalisms, right wingers, are all of the above.

 

[Markass the Worst]

Thanks, I'll look into them a bit more.

Also interesting is unlike the rest of this lot that are primarily left wing socialists, he managed to come to the "trains good, car bad" idea from a libertarian mindset so most of his arguments are that the reason why transit sucks in the US is because there not handled by private companies like the good old days or like countries like Japan or Hong Kong.

Has anyone told him of the disaster that was British rail privatization?

Second one is a group called Well There's Your Problem. In short its a podcast hosted by
Justin "Roz" Roczniak: a structural engineer and admitted socialist
Liam Anderson: a systems analyst and former roommate of Roz
and Alice Caldwell-Kelly: A tranny muslim from the UK

Oh yes, I wanted to include this because NJB came on there once and because of the tranny who makes literally no effort to sound feminine and all the salt that results from his voice being mistaken because of that. The main reason I didn't include it is because they're not really related to urbanism as you've described them. However I'm not sure what other thread they could go in.

 

[quaawaa]

I wonder if they also seethe at Mexicans who own pickups or only at “white magats” so they won’t be racist towards the “LatinX”

They absolutely do:


Source (Archive)

 

[Sneeds]

They absolutely do:
View attachment 3599971
View attachment 3599973
Source (Archive)

Jews for Adolf

I’m guessing these are the retards that say “you support trump and are brown? If this was back in the day. The “nazi republikkans” would’ve deported you and put you a gas chamber. You uneducated LatinX”

Also fuck cars is definitely not racist

Also another shilling of the “Dark brandon” meme

 

[Wally]

Also another shilling of the “Dark brandon” meme

Sleeper agent Joe > dark brandon.

 

[Lone Dogma]

Personally, the train-wank bugs me more than any of it, just because it's so disingenuous. They'll make a dozen videos blaming cars for being loud, yet want everyone to live within walking distance of a train station.

Trains are quite noisy and you don't want to live next to a railway line.

For example, at one point there was a proposal to connect BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) to the peninsula. I believe that was killed because people living in suburban silicon valley didn't want people from Oakland and SF to just be able hop on a train and flood into their neighborhoods. People moved to suburbs to get away from crime, drugs, and degeneracy rampant in American urban centers. They don't want their neighborhoods to be easily accessible for that reason.

There's a school where I live, where at least half of the students are from the nearby city and thus, they travel in by train. Since they have train passes and know the area, they have, in the past, come into the town in evenings with the sole intent of causing trouble, including once, the assault of one of my neighbour's grandduaghter and her boyfriend.

The metro system in this city also underwent a massive expansion recently. Because of this, several areas now served by this system have seen a rise in anti social behaviour, mostly centred around the stations. The system itself also suffers from ASB and certain sections of lines are no go areas at night. Improved public transport has its benefits, but it also has its issues.