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

[pellegrino31415]

Apparently Jason Slaughter is considered a "tech expert" now according to the Wall Street Journal.

View attachment 4089270
source (a)

View attachment 4089279
source (a)

I will give him that he's correct about self-driving cars and actually gives a good reason, but we all know from the response to CGP Grey's video that urbanists hate self-driving cars for being cars first and foremost.

Well i don't know if this has been posted before but here is his LinkedIn Account.

 

[Tour of Italy]

Well i don't know if this has been posted before but here is his LinkedIn Account.

I’m noticing a conspicuous lack of a civil engineering or urban planning degree.

He has all the hallmarks of a person who believes that their solutions are correct simply because they are novel.

I am an engineer in a more relevant field of study, and I’ve been following this thread for a while trying to fully form my opinion on the debate. In a few bullet points, this is what I’ve got so far:

-You cannot encourage urban living in the US without addressing crime. I am not opposed to efficient transport or walkable neighborhoods, I just need them to be safe.
-“Just walk/bike to and from work” is an oversimplification and a slap in the face to retail workers on their feet all day and blue collar workers whose jobs are physically demanding.
-“Just ride the bus” is not only a huge burden on families but a burden on those who would like as much time with their families as possible. A bus will never be faster than a car.
-The economy of scale offered by city infrastructure is not as cut and dry as it seems. Larger systems are more complex and operating costs often eat into any gains you may see in overall efficiency. System failures also carry more risk. When the power goes out in your neighborhood, you light a candle. When it goes out in an urban center, you grab your gun and start praying. A sewer failure in a big city has the potential to be an ecological and public health disaster. Distributed networks under less load simply have less risk.
-Converting a city to be more efficient, and even maintaining existing large systems, is costly. Urban construction is several times more expensive than suburban construction. Building a city from the ground up to serve a large population is a ridiculous expectation when there’s no guarantee on return.
-Along those same lines, European cities are a disingenuous comparison because they had their infrastructure razed to the ground and then rebuilt with the benefit of literally hundreds of years of industrial advancement and civil engineering knowledge. They knew their demand, and could scale appropriately from the get-go. They also had the US bankrolling it, which is often overlooked. They did not have to enter the organic cycle of growth/tax revenue because they had Marshall plan funds as a backstop against overspending.
-I have personally seen the standards of construction for wooden multi-family developments and it is a subject of frequent concern in my professional circles. It is easier to get away with because the owner of an individual unit has less access to maintenance than a single family homeowner.
-“Successful” walkable new construction in the US almost universally shares two things in common; it is specifically designed to price out anyone below upper middle class, and it includes, as a package, what many NotJustBikes style new-urbanites would consider a neocapitalist hellscape of corporate retail and restaurants. I am not the biggest fan of cities, but I do occasionally enjoy urban neighborhoods with history and character. In contrast, new developments feel utterly artificial, and in order to be profitable (and thus built in the first place) they cater to the worst extremes of luxury and excess.

Just a few thoughts that have been kicking around. I am not an urban planning expert, but I have an advanced degree in civil engineering and almost a decade of experience in the public and private construction/transportation industries.

 

[singlele]

It's not in common use but I like Dutchaboo. Welcome to the farms btw, fren.

I use Euroboo for Europe as a whole

 

[Xarpho's Return]

I’m noticing a conspicuous lack of a civil engineering or urban planning degree.

He has all the hallmarks of a person who believes that their solutions are correct simply because they are novel.

I am an engineer in a more relevant field of study, and I’ve been following this thread for a while trying to fully form my opinion on the debate. In a few bullet points, this is what I’ve got so far:

-You cannot encourage urban living in the US without addressing crime. I am not opposed to efficient transport or walkable neighborhoods, I just need them to be safe.
-“Just walk/bike to and from work” is an oversimplification and a slap in the face to retail workers on their feet all day and blue collar workers whose jobs are physically demanding.
-“Just ride the bus” is not only a huge burden on families but a burden on those who would like as much time with their families as possible. A bus will never be faster than a car.
-The economy of scale offered by city infrastructure is not as cut and dry as it seems. Larger systems are more complex and operating costs often eat into any gains you may see in overall efficiency. System failures also carry more risk. When the power goes out in your neighborhood, you light a candle. When it goes out in an urban center, you grab your gun and start praying. A sewer failure in a big city has the potential to be an ecological and public health disaster. Distributed networks under less load simply have less risk.
-Converting a city to be more efficient, and even maintaining existing large systems, is costly. Urban construction is several times more expensive than suburban construction. Building a city from the ground up to serve a large population is a ridiculous expectation when there’s no guarantee on return.
-Along those same lines, European cities are a disingenuous comparison because they had their infrastructure razed to the ground and then rebuilt with the benefit of literally hundreds of years of industrial advancement and civil engineering knowledge. They knew their demand, and could scale appropriately from the get-go. They also had the US bankrolling it, which is often overlooked. They did not have to enter the organic cycle of growth/tax revenue because they had Marshall plan funds as a backstop against overspending.
-I have personally seen the standards of construction for wooden multi-family developments and it is a subject of frequent concern in my professional circles. It is easier to get away with because the owner of an individual unit has less access to maintenance than a single family homeowner.
-“Successful” walkable new construction in the US almost universally shares two things in common; it is specifically designed to price out anyone below upper middle class, and it includes, as a package, what many NotJustBikes style new-urbanites would consider a neocapitalist hellscape of corporate retail and restaurants. I am not the biggest fan of cities, but I do occasionally enjoy urban neighborhoods with history and character. In contrast, new developments feel utterly artificial, and in order to be profitable (and thus built in the first place) they cater to the worst extremes of luxury and excess.

Just a few thoughts that have been kicking around. I am not an urban planning expert, but I have an advanced degree in civil engineering and almost a decade of experience in the public and private construction/transportation industries.

All of these are excellent observations.

- YES, they ignore everything that is an impediment to walkable or "good" cities that is not automobiles or automobile infrastructure. This is up to and including all manners of homeless behavior, such as blocking sidewalks with tents or intimidating passersby.
- YES, most of these people, if they have a job, work in a comfy office. They are definitely not blue-collar.
- YES, but they insist that a bus will be faster if they sink enough money into it/cripple the car infrastructure.
- YES, the economy of scale will still have a massive car component even if it has a huge rail component (see NY, for instance)
- YES, if such a city is possible at all. Most of their "examples" function as city components at best.
- YES, but also it's that European cities had American machine politics making things suck before the suburbs took off.
- YES, multi-family buildings (especially isolated ones not connected to a development) deteriorate MUCH faster than single-family homes.
- YES, the new "walkable" areas are all built for yuppies, not actual people.

 

[2lolis1cup]

-“Successful” walkable new construction in the US almost universally shares two things in common; it is specifically designed to price out anyone below upper middle class, and it includes, as a package, what many NotJustBikes style new-urbanites would consider a neocapitalist hellscape of corporate retail and restaurants. I am not the biggest fan of cities, but I do occasionally enjoy urban neighborhoods with history and character. In contrast, new developments feel utterly artificial, and in order to be profitable (and thus built in the first place) they cater to the worst extremes of luxury and excess.

This is something these people don't seem to understand. The system they are trying to change is much larger than "covered bike lanes". Almost all of the infrastructure is built to entice a certain person and service their needs. These Developers are buying farm land and building sprawling homes for as much ROI as possible. The businesses building up in the area are making sure they can service as many of these people as possible to get their ROI. You then get in a nice loop of the vast majority of all developments going to 500,000 to 2,000,000 dollar properties. These "walkable" communities are just the same thing but with a smaller footprint when it's available. The rest of the "communities" being built are there to service people with money and those people have cars.

If you want to see how cheap they can make houses, then look into slab constructions.

 

[Nod Flenders]

We all know the real reason why these morons hate cars and love urbanism. They see cars as personal freedom for people, and they don't like that at all. They want everyone to be forced to take public transportation.

 

[Meriasek]

-Along those same lines, European cities are a disingenuous comparison because they had their infrastructure razed to the ground and then rebuilt with the benefit of literally hundreds of years of industrial advancement and civil engineering knowledge. They knew their demand, and could scale appropriately from the get-go. They also had the US bankrolling it, which is often overlooked. They did not have to enter the organic cycle of growth/tax revenue because they had Marshall plan funds as a backstop against overspending.

That makes it sound like European cities have all been razed to the ground in WWII and rebuilt completely, but that's not true at all. Even the heavily damaged cities retained much of their original layouts and limitations, and few cities were ever constructed with much foresight or planning. What happened after WWII that lots of new parts and areas were developed, but that also happened in the US as part of the general economic rise of post WWII.
Roman cities had careful planning to their layouts, very similar to US cities with strict grid layouts, but since late antiquity, European cities have been much more prone to sprawling, often in circular ways around an historical city center like a church. Few cities had the strict planning of Roman or American cities.

 

[WelperHelper99]

That makes it sound like European cities have all been razed to the ground in WWII and rebuilt completely, but that's not true at all. Even the heavily damaged cities retained much of their original layouts and limitations, and few cities were ever constructed with much foresight or planning. What happened after WWII that lots of new parts and areas were developed, but that also happened in the US as part of the general economic rise of post WWII.
Roman cities had careful planning to their layouts, very similar to US cities with strict grid layouts, but since late antiquity, European cities have been much more prone to sprawling, often in circular ways around an historical city center like a church. Few cities had the strict planning of Roman or American cities.

I think an important distinction is to be made that many were rebuilt in mere years under central plans, sprawling or not. The US is very piece meal, building up areas and ramming them into the infrastructure when needed. That said it's not nearly like what Not Just Bikes describes, like it's some sort of nightmare to get around.

 

[Tour of Italy]

That makes it sound like European cities have all been razed to the ground in WWII and rebuilt completely, but that's not true at all. Even the heavily damaged cities retained much of their original layouts and limitations, and few cities were ever constructed with much foresight or planning. What happened after WWII that lots of new parts and areas were developed, but that also happened in the US as part of the general economic rise of post WWII.
Roman cities had careful planning to their layouts, very similar to US cities with strict grid layouts, but since late antiquity, European cities have been much more prone to sprawling, often in circular ways around an historical city center like a church. Few cities had the strict planning of Roman or American cities

Layout is one thing. Modern stormwater management, sewers, electric grid, etc. is another. The had a chance to install all of those things in a cost-effective way over the period of a single decade, for a known level of demand. This is not a luxury that even modern cities have.

 

[Meriasek]

I think an important distinction is to be made that many were rebuilt in mere years under central plans, sprawling or not. The US is very piece meal, building up areas and ramming them into the infrastructure when needed. That said it's not nearly like what Not Just Bikes describes, like it's some sort of nightmare to get around.

I think the influence of the destruction is overestimated here. Especially when the worst hit cities like Berlin are still shit, and cities that are flaunted as peak cities by the carfrees like Amsterdam didn't have much damage.

Layout is one thing. Modern stormwater management, sewers, electric grid, etc. is another. The had a chance to install all of those things in a cost-effective way over the period of a single decade, for a known level of demand. This is not a luxury that even modern cities have.

Every city had that opportunity after WWII since economic growth was high everywhere, and thus cities developed. Destruction was most severe in Germany and Eastern Europe, yet cities everywhere managed to modernise their infrastructure.
The Marshall Plan helped, though, at least in Germany, and the stronger influence of governments in Europe compared to the more laissez faire approach in the US I guess.

 

[WelperHelper99]

I think the influence of the destruction is overestimated here. Especially when the worst hit cities like Berlin are still shit, and cities that are flaunted as peak cities by the carfrees like Amsterdam didn't have much damage.

Every city had that opportunity after WWII since economic growth was high everywhere, and thus cities developed. Destruction was most severe in Germany and Eastern Europe, yet cities everywhere managed to modernise their infrastructure.
The Marshall Plan helped, though, at least in Germany, and the stronger influence of governments in Europe compared to the more laissez faire approach in the US I guess.

I think with Berlin being split during the cold war, it's a special cWar, that and like you said, the Europeans have way more overbearing governments, able to henpeck how a city is laid out, how the electrical, water, sewage is run, vs the US where we contract that out.

 

[Meriasek]

I think with Berlin being split during the cold war, it's a special cWar, that and like you said, the Europeans have way more overbearing governments, able to henpeck how a city is laid out, how the electrical, water, sewage is run, vs the US where we contract that out.

Indeed. Berlin is a shit example because it has always been a shitstain on the Markian sands, and it never looked better than when it was burning in 1945.
But yeah, city layouts rarely changed much, and the way cities grew in the 50s was barely any methodical. Those carefully laid out American suburbs are a very good example city planning and logical layouts, but obviously the carfree fellas hate that because they are designed with cars in mind and not without them. Historical European city centers were not designed at all, and rather grew historically around horse carts and walking peasants.
Yet we also don't really see things like careful grid layouts in newer European developments, apart from few exceptions. Although residential areas tend to be very similar to sprawling American suburbs.
Good city planning is few and far between even here.
It's just that cars came after the big cities were built, and you couldn't just make the streets wider all that easily. So transportation has to keep that in mind. Walking, cycling, public transport is going to be important because that's how those cities grew.
Infrastructure like power grid and water and sewers then were kept up to date mainly because European laws and regulations regarding these things just tend to be stricter, so there was more of an incentive to keep things modern. Also, something that Adam Something mentioned: Up until after WWII, infrastructure in cities tended to be shite. Living situation was abysmal, houses were still mostly from the 19th century and had barely running water, often just one bath per floor, shitty heating and so on. During the economic boom, commieblocks were built to increase housing capacity, and those were more modern and comfortable than what the legacy houses of the cities could offer. That then led to an incentive to modernise and renovate those old houses, which in places like Berlin is seen as gentrification because they really like living in squalor as long as its cheap.

 

[AdmiralRenae]

I believe that this is all tied to this WEF Dystopian Bullshit “Great reset”, as the WEF wants to end private car ownership.

its sad really.

 

[quaawaa]

Another cope post:


Source (Archive)

---

Laura Ingraham is on to them:


Video the screenshot is taken from:

Spoiler: Archive

Relevant part starts at ~5:00

Agenda 202130 is a real plan and we can see its ideas being implemented all around the world...

Spoiler: Rich people's trains in Switzerland

I wonder where he got that idea from...


The left doesn't want to ban cars, they just want sensible car control:








Really now?






Source (Archive)

 

[WelperHelper99]

Indeed. Berlin is a shit example because it has always been a shitstain on the Markian sands, and it never looked better than when it was burning in 1945.
But yeah, city layouts rarely changed much, and the way cities grew in the 50s was barely any methodical. Those carefully laid out American suburbs are a very good example city planning and logical layouts, but obviously the carfree fellas hate that because they are designed with cars in mind and not without them. Historical European city centers were not designed at all, and rather grew historically around horse carts and walking peasants.
Yet we also don't really see things like careful grid layouts in newer European developments, apart from few exceptions. Although residential areas tend to be very similar to sprawling American suburbs.
Good city planning is few and far between even here.
It's just that cars came after the big cities were built, and you couldn't just make the streets wider all that easily. So transportation has to keep that in mind. Walking, cycling, public transport is going to be important because that's how those cities grew.
Infrastructure like power grid and water and sewers then were kept up to date mainly because European laws and regulations regarding these things just tend to be stricter, so there was more of an incentive to keep things modern. Also, something that Adam Something mentioned: Up until after WWII, infrastructure in cities tended to be shite. Living situation was abysmal, houses were still mostly from the 19th century and had barely running water, often just one bath per floor, shitty heating and so on. During the economic boom, commieblocks were built to increase housing capacity, and those were more modern and comfortable than what the legacy houses of the cities could offer. That then led to an incentive to modernise and renovate those old houses, which in places like Berlin is seen as gentrification because they really like living in squalor as long as its cheap.

I will be that guy and say not all US cities, though most fit that bill. A good example would be Utah. Even now the state has an iron grip on development, demanding everything fit into the grid system mold that first came about when the Pioneers settled the area in the 1800's, while continuing to modernise and upgrade the road system, due to being a vital link between the west coast and the rest of the country. That said, many areas are still as you described, with infrastructure decades behind the curb. Finally, as for Berlin, I don't get the want to live in apartments. It's good for starting out, but long term? Hell no. I can't imagine it.

 

[Markass the Worst]

Laura Ingraham is on to them:
View attachment 4096017
View attachment 4096020
View attachment 4096026
View attachment 4096041
View attachment 4096047
Agenda 202130 is a real plan and we can see its ideas being implemented all around the world...

View attachment 4096029

Spoiler: Rich people's trains in Switzerland

View attachment 4096032

View attachment 4096059
View attachment 4096062
I wonder where he got that idea from...
View attachment 4096068

The left doesn't want to ban cars, they just want sensible car control:
View attachment 4096113
View attachment 4096119
View attachment 4096122
View attachment 4096125
View attachment 4096128
View attachment 4096131

View attachment 4096101
Really now?
View attachment 4096092
View attachment 4096071
View attachment 4096074
View attachment 4096077
View attachment 4096083

Source (Archive)

I do wonder if they've stopped pretending to be an apolitical movement that isn't leftist or simply never tried.

 

[quaawaa]

I do wonder if they've stopped pretending to be an apolitical movement that isn't leftist or simply never tried.

They're mostly "a"political in that thread but only because Laura called them out. They downvoted the few conservatives who dared to agree with them and the thread is full of people preaching that there is no such thing as the left because they're so far left that they think everything is "far-right".

Denying the movement is political:




Downvoting conservatives who agree with them:


"The REAL left doesn't exist":

 

[Absolutego]

It will never not be funny how redditors will endlessly wax poetic about how cultured and internationalist they are yet Western Europe sets their global political spectrum.
Africa and the Middle East have a right wing that would have every simpering retard on that site bitching about how "America has no Left" shaking in their boots. They have no idea how limited and privileged their worldview is.

 

[Lord Quackers]

I have a thought.

NJB has stated in one of his videos that he hates motorbikes and mopeds, but loves electric bikes.

But does he love electric motorbikes & mopeds? If not, why? they're the same as an e-bike but with more power and licence requirements. I don't know why he'd be against mopeds at all since they're efficient and save space on the roads. I suspect he's just a run of the mill snob who hates anything not associated with the fashion in his clique

 

[WelperHelper99]

I have a thought.

NJB has stated in one of his videos that he hates motorbikes and mopeds, but loves electric bikes.

But does he love electric motorbikes & mopeds? If not, why? they're the same as an e-bike but with more power and licence requirements. I don't know why he'd be against mopeds at all since they're efficient and save space on the roads. I suspect he's just a run of the mill snob who hates anything not associated with the fashion in his clique

Motorbikes in general are interesting modes of transport. Due to the motor, they can carry a surprising amount while still being nimble and speedy; I know a few of my colleagues that carry their welding gear on motorcycles, due to being able to fit pretty well all the standard kit into a large backpack. I would never imagine them using an electric though, especially in the climate I live in, which is currently at freeze your nuts off temperatures. That and they might get laughed at with a bit of hazing. Electrics are looked down upon in heavy industry like mine to put it mildly.