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

[themasterlurker]

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.

"We want walkable cities..."

"...But not too much walking"

Fat hands typed these posts

 

[vern]

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

I believe so, I'm not sure if I can find it but I think it was because he a) shares nulls view on the british a bit and b) parroted some thing about it wasn't real privatization because the government still owned the track and loans out the contract

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.

Maybe retheme this thread to general infrastructure/transportation sperging since I've seen a lot of retared takes about it besides the normal cars/trains tard fights.
The biggest one I've seen is regards to airlines since despite them only offering fix routes on select time tables and being government subsidized* just like public transit, the right and the left seem to swap places on this case and often make the other's argument for and and against it

 

[ghjoigcbn]

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

Really makes me of wonder how many of these people have lived in American cities or cities with significant crime / drug issues.

Not to PL too hard, but when I moves from SF to a large, more homogenous city overseas, I was struck by the culture shock I experienced. It was a positive culture shock of feeling safe while walking and taking transport through the city, because I did not have people harass me, I did not see people openly using drugs, or assualts and crimes taking place. I wonder how many of these commentors live in one such city, where you may see the odd homeless person or shop lifting incident, but the city is by and large very safe so they think others are being silly. I guess its more likely they just don't want to face the reality of what many cities are becoming and the uncomfortable conversations that come along with that.

I've known people who will deny any danger in horrible neighborhoods ( even when the locals themselves are literally telling the person hey its not safe here, you should probably leave) because they don't want to admit they felt unsafe in a black neighborhood.

In my circles, people are fleeing out of US cities, and even suburbs. They are becoming more ubliveable unless you are extremely rich and can therefore mostly insulate yourself from what is going on because you live in a gated community or have building security or something.

 

[TurdFondler]

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

The funny thing is if you take into account CO2 generated in relation to vehicle size, per liter of fuel burned scooters and motorbikes are the worst polluters. There aren't any catalytic converters or emission control devices.

 

[Duke Nukem]

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.

To be fair, the no-bail policy many cities have adopted does negate any potential positives that "hire more cops" could bring about. Then again these are the same kinds of people who want to make self-defense illegal yet will scream racism because we haven't abolished the police yet.

These anti-car people are just as foolish and hypocritical as the ACAB crowd so it would be no surprise they'd be in bed together.

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

To be fair, Australia did seriously consider the banhammer on carpentry tools after a youth gang assaulted a man. Yeah that'll show em.

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”

Let me guess, every one of these clowns is whiter than Casper's ass.

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
View attachment 3599995
Also another shilling of the “Dark brandon” meme
View attachment 3600010

Ah yes, the undying trope where Republicans are Nazis. At least there's a reason people compare Democrats to communists, because they're all brain rotted utopian dipshit cultists. Not unlike the "ban cars" crowd.

And yet they have still failed to explain how independent contractors or Amazon deliveries will function. Hell, I don't mind going back to horse drawn carts, as long as we can dump the shit onto these people's property.

"We want walkable cities..."

"...But not too much walking"

Fat hands typed these posts

If they stopped eating McDonald's all the time... maybe they count afford cars?

The problem with the American line of thinking is that they believe that cities themselves are inherently dirty and dangerous. In non-shitholes, this is far from the case. (Singapore, Japan, Korea) The leaders of these cities are just incompotent retards that voters in the suburbs seem so keen on keeping in there. Inner city voting can be excused due poor quality and funding, but the fact that suburbanites willfully keep voting in the retards that keep ruining cities makes them just as much to blame for their debauchery. If you just move away from the problem, it doesn't fix it.


Japan is cleaner and safer place than any zoo in the West. This is the ultimate cope.

It's also more of a police state than most western countries because individualism doesn't really have many roots there.

>implying voting does anything

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing, those who count the votes decide everything." I think @JosephStalin got this one right.

The funny thing is if you take into account CO2 generated in relation to vehicle size, per liter of fuel burned scooters and motorbikes are the worst polluters. There aren't any catalytic converters or emission control devices.

I my carbon footprint, fuck you car haters

 

[Lone Dogma]

I believe so, I'm not sure if I can find it but I think it was because he a) shares nulls view on the british a bit and b) parroted some thing about it wasn't real privatization because the government still owned the track and loans out the contract

It was fully privatised. Then this happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash

 

[DumbDude42]

The funny thing is if you take into account CO2 generated in relation to vehicle size, per liter of fuel burned scooters and motorbikes are the worst polluters. There aren't any catalytic converters or emission control devices.

those devices dont reduce co2 emissions, they just convert toxic exhaust gases into less toxic versions. like, they turn carbon monoxide (poisonous) into carbon dioxide (harmless) and nitrous oxide (poisonous) into nitrogen gas (inert)
they're important for keeping the air around streets breathable, but they don't do anything for the climate situation

 

[Cyberpunk Panatela]

Interesting topic, these characters are well worth looking at.

When I saw the topic I did hope that Architectural Urbanism had popped up again, which would have been even funnier.

Spoiler: Architecture - long, boring

The original "Urbanism" was a school of thought in architecture and Town Planning a long time ago (Back when High Modernism was big). They were one extreme of a debate regarding the best way that people should be spread through a country. The other extreme was called Distributionism (Prince Charles is probably a good example of that school of thought).

Urbanists were of the opinion that concentration of the population into large, efficiently designed metropolises (with any neccessary remaining towns being modernised into "microcities") would be the most efficient way to meet the needs of the population. Concepts associated with this school were "megastructures"(big buildings), "metropolitan condensation"(making one city out of two), "conurbation"(the result of the previous process) and "new town" (big city built where there previously was nothing).

This debate quickly deteriorated into irrelevance because both sides were taken over by irresponsible utopian crackpots and most town planners had a more pragmatic opinion anyway.

I see the "strong towns" guy claimed to be an engineer and lied. I haven't watched his content, just looked at the redditors and that trolleybus Stalinist.

Can someone tell me whether "Strong Towns" is into "extreme peak oil" (as in, global oil production will rise and then suddenly drop off very steeply after "peaking").

Reason I ask is there was an organisation called "Transition Towns" (which is a very similar name) in the early 2000s, also led by a disgraced engineer, who were oil peakers and really into this sort of stuff - they wanted cities to "prepare for the peak" by "building petroleum resilience". Also very anti-car. Am wondering if it's the same guy.

These people seem to have a desire to return to an idealised version of the past, whether that be the benevolent Stalinist apartment block or the quaint medieval European city centre, which of course never existed in reality and is mostly a figment of their imagination.

As regards trolleycars, all the old people I know who were around before they got scrapped and replaced with bus lines say they were dangerous in that they veered in and out of traffic (no driving license was needed for their operators), and that occasionally a whole line would come to a halt because of idiots in flats tapping power from the overhead line.

Seriously, nobody misses the things. Extremely bad take from the Stalinist guy.

I'll try and get some Transition Town information, because even if they're unrelated to "Strong Towns" they belong here for they were highly lulzworthy.

 

[quaawaa]

It was fully privatised. Then this happened.
View attachment 3600236

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield_rail_crash

To be fair, that happens with government run trains as well. Amtrak had a crash just over a month ago that killed four and injured 150.
Also, the British trains are privatized-in-name-only. They're still heavily regulated and subsidized by the government, and most of the tracks are owned by a single "company" called Network Rail whose only shareholder is the Department of Transport. The full structure is far too complex to post here, but it's not as simple as "private = bad".

There is no such things as "suburban leadership" (except for HOAs, but they're more of an annoyance). People zoned to the census designated area that encompasses the city are responsible for voting in the mayoral or council election, irregardless of how far or close to the center they are.

WTF are you talking about? Suburbs are typically their own cities with mayors and city councils and they do all the standard city stuff like build roads, run schools, police, fire departments, etc. Since they are residents of a different city, they literally cannot vote for anyone in the "main" city's government. Why should a resident of one city give up control over their local area and subsidize another city, just because it is nearby and more famous?

 

[Haffhart]

wtf i love cars now

No seriously, how could you base your entire life around loathing cars? Cars are based:

Spoiler: gas gas gas

I went on the Dutch internet and attempted to find Jason Slaughter's workplace. I was unsuccessful but I did find this article about him from a Dutch web magazine. Apparently it's mostly circle-jerking swampkrauts who watch his channel, they comprise 47% of viewership. The only other thing of note from there is this comment:

gechaaden, gebaseden


Dammit he's right about that at least - but wrong about literally everything else. This ten minute video was made to rebuke Alan Fisher but it works against all these idiots because they're all intellectually inbred:

 

[Gamercat]

at first I thought this thread was going to be about people who are in love with automobiles

 

[quaawaa]

I went on the Dutch internet and attempted to find Jason Slaughter's workplace.

Do the Dutch have public records like the US does? In the US you can find out the address of anyone who pays property taxes or has a mortgage unless they are rich enough to buy a house outright through an LLC and care more about privacy than losing their tax advantages. Of course, if he's a renter there wouldn't be any mortgage/tax records, but I'd assume that someone who is as in love with a city as he is would buy property.

 

[Sprate Header]

wtf i love cars now

No seriously, how could you base your entire life around loathing cars? Cars are based:

Spoiler: gas gas gas

View attachment 3600272
View attachment 3600273
View attachment 3600275

I went on the Dutch internet and attempted to find Jason Slaughter's workplace. I was unsuccessful but I did find this article about him from a Dutch web magazine. Apparently it's mostly circle-jerking swampkrauts who watch his channel, they comprise 47% of viewership. The only other thing of note from there is this comment:
View attachment 3600282
gechaaden, gebaseden

View attachment 3600291
Dammit he's right about that at least - but wrong about literally everything else. This ten minute video was made to rebuke Alan Fisher but it works against all these idiots because they're all intellectually inbred:

Lmfao

 

[Lone Dogma]

To be fair, that happens with government run trains as well.

I know it does.

Amtrak had a crash just over a month ago that killed four and injured 150.

This was a crossing accident and could happen any and everywhere. It bares no correlation to Hatfield, other than a train derailed and 4 people died. The reason Hatfield came up was because one of the dumb fucks we're mocking here said BR wasn't truly privatised, which it was.

at first I thought this thread was going to be about people who are in love with automobiles

They want to stick their dick into something, just not cars. I'll leave up to you to figure out what that something is.

 

[Lone Dogma]

I didn't know collectivist bugmen had functional genitals.

Who said they were functional?

 

[Jarolleon]

So Induced Demand is basically Malthusianism except you actually argue for eating the Irish cars rather than have a satirist pre-empt you?

I think the sometimes implicit (but sometimes explicit) anti-White racial animus of the urbanist movement should be called attention to. The whole idea of suburbs, exurbs, highways, and design based on individual transit (e.g. cars) is very White. Anti-White leftists know this, which is why they hate it. It's not really about traffic fatalities, "walkability," or cow car farts. It's about a conflict between different modes of being. Europeans long for connection to nature and the land, open spaces, travel, and being the master of our own fiefs (even if that "fief" is just a single acre of suburban/exurban land and a house).
Suburbia is not perfect for these needs, but it's better designed to accomodate them than the urban bugman lifestyle. It's sort of a compromise between what kind of lifestyles White people want and what a modern economy demands, which is what makes it unacceptable to the (((urbanism))) crowd.
Note how often they talk about suburbs being "racist" or "rooted in racism," etc. I.e. "they belong to the civilization we are trying to destroy."
Other civilizations (e.g. China) are much more content to live in hive-like cities that emphasize efficiency and interdependence over personal ownership, autonomy, or freedom of movement. Our rulers would certainly prefer this way of structuring society (as it makes the population easier to manage), but it is something that most Europeans will instinctively resist and find deeply unfulfilling. Hence the extremely adversarial rhetoric and advocacy. It's about forcing a subject population to accept the whims of its rulers.

I wonder if this passage is related. Do Italians accept the bughive more than Germans/Anglos?

It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany never live in cities and will not even have their houses adjoin one another. They dwell apart, dotted about here and there, wherever a spring, plain, or grove takes their fancy.

Their villages are not laid out in the Roman style, with buildings adjacent and connected. Every man leaves an open space round his house, perhaps as a precaution against the risk of fire, perhaps because they are inexpert builders.

 

[I'mma real anime gurl]

I wish we can just bug bomb cities.

 

[Sprate Header]

snip

snip

snip

snip

Go have gay sex in the Thunderdome instead of shitting here, please
(https://kiwifarms.net/threads/i-hate-pro-bughive-channels.120626)

 

[talk talk talk]

Interesting topic, these characters are well worth looking at.

When I saw the topic I did hope that Architectural Urbanism had popped up again, which would have been even funnier.

Spoiler: Architecture - long, boring

The original "Urbanism" was a school of thought in architecture and Town Planning a long time ago (Back when High Modernism was big). They were one extreme of a debate regarding the best way that people should be spread through a country. The other extreme was called Distributionism (Prince Charles is probably a good example of that school of thought).

Urbanists were of the opinion that concentration of the population into large, efficiently designed metropolises (with any neccessary remaining towns being modernised into "microcities") would be the most efficient way to meet the needs of the population. Concepts associated with this school were "megastructures"(big buildings), "metropolitan condensation"(making one city out of two), "conurbation"(the result of the previous process) and "new town" (big city built where there previously was nothing).

This debate quickly deteriorated into irrelevance because both sides were taken over by irresponsible utopian crackpots and most town planners had a more pragmatic opinion anyway.

I see the "strong towns" guy claimed to be an engineer and lied. I haven't watched his content, just looked at the redditors and that trolleybus Stalinist.

Can someone tell me whether "Strong Towns" is into "extreme peak oil" (as in, global oil production will rise and then suddenly drop off very steeply after "peaking").

Reason I ask is there was an organisation called "Transition Towns" (which is a very similar name) in the early 2000s, also led by a disgraced engineer, who were oil peakers and really into this sort of stuff - they wanted cities to "prepare for the peak" by "building petroleum resilience". Also very anti-car. Am wondering if it's the same guy.

These people seem to have a desire to return to an idealised version of the past, whether that be the benevolent Stalinist apartment block or the quaint medieval European city centre, which of course never existed in reality and is mostly a figment of their imagination.

As regards trolleycars, all the old people I know who were around before they got scrapped and replaced with bus lines say they were dangerous in that they veered in and out of traffic (no driving license was needed for their operators), and that occasionally a whole line would come to a halt because of idiots in flats tapping power from the overhead line.

Seriously, nobody misses the things. Extremely bad take from the Stalinist guy.

I'll try and get some Transition Town information, because even if they're unrelated to "Strong Towns" they belong here for they were highly lulzworthy.

Chuck Marohn let his engineering license lapse and some butthurt Dakota guy complained to the board the he called himself an engineer when he had a lapsed license.

I believe Marohn has now moved to "retired" status on his license.

Fun fact: Marohn is a Catholic and gets yelled at fairly often by the Loony Left for that, too.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

>I said it so it has to be true for everyone

Nobody's paying $1000 for car insurance unless they live in California and have a DUI on their record. Give it up bong, like your daughter gave it up to the paki at the chippy and his friend in the bobbies