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

[DavidS877]

It's just in the form of airplanes.

I think about how much they could have improved air travel in California for the $100+ billion they're spending on the train to nowhere and am sad, luckily I don't live there any more.
- Fund Sustainable Aviation Fuel research/optimize production
- Quieter, more efficient planes
- Improve the airports
- Improve security screening using modern technologies and less moronic humans
- Improve public transit to the airports
- Build a big fucking airport in the middle of the state as a hub so you can run larger, and/or more frequent service there and then on to where you're going instead of having 6 flights from SF to LA airports(LAX,ONT,LGB,BUR,SAN,SBD) and the reverse for the north part of the state.
- Add more airports
- Pay the FAA to improve ATC in the region
- Pay me a couple million for my brilliant plan

 

[Atypical Dog]

I remember once an article saying that converting from fossil fuels to renewable energy in Bri’ain is less cost than a latte per Brit. Of course as we see with the energy crises and wildly fluctuating cost of energy, partially switching to renewables is a hell of a lot more than the cost of a latte but that doesn’t matter when you lie constantly.

The US also has quite a few absolutely batshit insane pubic transport attempts, but there are quite a few that are successful at least by ridership.

- Fund Sustainable Aviation Fuel research/optimize production
- Quieter, more efficient planes

Batshit idea: Nuclear-powered airplanes and trains are clearly the future. Slap a giant ramjet turbine under the wing or on the rear locomotives and get all the thrust you could ever want. Could even use traditional steam SMR's for normal train locos.

 

[TowinKarz]

Batshit idea: Nuclear-powered airplanes and trains are clearly the future. Slap a giant ramjet turbine under the wing or on the rear locomotives and get all the thrust you could ever want. Could even use traditional steam SMR's for normal train locos.

For what it's worth, that was proposed in the atom-crazy 1950's, along with nuclear merchant ships.

In all cases, it was found that conventional engines running on fuel oil were still cheaper to maintain and the amounts of shielding and water you'd need to safely operate a reactor inside a vehicle eats up a lot of potential passenger/cargo payload and increases the weight to the point you'd have to upgrade all the critical infrastructure too, like runways and bridges, to not rapidly wear out if not collapse.

The Air Force diddled around with the concept of a nuclear nuclear bomber and the only airframe large enough to accommodate the reactor, shielding, and extra technicians was a B-36 Peacemaker, the largest bomber USAF ever fielded... and they eventually decided it wasn't practical as the theoretical unlimited range would largely be wasted as there was only so much a crew, even working in shifts, could fly before they ran out of endurance. Unlike a nuclear sub, you couldn't stuff the bomber with enough bunks, food, bathrooms and enough other minimal creature comforts to change that without completely using up the space it needs to actually carry the bombs its mission called for.

 

[quaawaa]

The Air Force diddled around with the concept of a nuclear nuclear bomber and the only airframe large enough to accommodate the reactor, shielding, and extra technicians was a B-36 Peacemaker, the largest bomber USAF ever fielded... and they eventually decided it wasn't practical as the theoretical unlimited range would largely be wasted as there was only so much a crew, even working in shifts, could fly before they ran out of endurance. Unlike a nuclear sub, you couldn't stuff the bomber with enough bunks, food, bathrooms and enough other minimal creature comforts to change that without completely using up the space it needs to actually carry the bombs its mission called for

The nuclear nuclear bomber project was canceled because the newly-invented ICBM made the entire concept of an endurance bomber obsolete. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the tech.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

For what it's worth, that was proposed in the atom-crazy 1950's, along with nuclear merchant ships.

In all cases, it was found that conventional engines running on fuel oil were still cheaper to maintain and the amounts of shielding and water you'd need to safely operate a reactor inside a vehicle eats up a lot of potential passenger/cargo payload and increases the weight to the point you'd have to upgrade all the critical infrastructure too, like runways and bridges, to not rapidly wear out if not collapse.

The Air Force diddled around with the concept of a nuclear nuclear bomber and the only airframe large enough to accommodate the reactor, shielding, and extra technicians was a B-36 Peacemaker, the largest bomber USAF ever fielded... and they eventually decided it wasn't practical as the theoretical unlimited range would largely be wasted as there was only so much a crew, even working in shifts, could fly before they ran out of endurance. Unlike a nuclear sub, you couldn't stuff the bomber with enough bunks, food, bathrooms and enough other minimal creature comforts to change that without completely using up the space it needs to actually carry the bombs its mission called for.

The nuclear nuclear bomber project was canceled because the newly-invented ICBM made the entire concept of an endurance bomber obsolete. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the tech.

I remember discussing the idea of a space elevator with a sibling, and noted how wireless power transfer needed to be implemented to provide power to the elevator cars, he noted the possibility of adding a nuclear reactor onto the car instead.

 

[Corpun]

There are bike lanes on my route to and from work and despite being there morning and evening 5 days a week for years I have never seen a single solitary cyclist actually using the bike lane. Here's what I have seen:

• Buses stopping in the bike lane to embark/disembark passengers
• People whose houses are on the street using the bike lanes as parking spots
• Cyclists riding on the sidewalk (extremely rare)
• Cyclists using the walking/cycling trail 30 feet away from the bike lane that's been there for decades (extremely common)
• Motorists using the bike lane as a cheat lane to get around in traffic (and in one case, cut me off on a turn nearly causing an accident)
• People walking in the bike lane despite a sidewalk being right there (unprotected bike lane btw)

Luckily they didn't delete any car lanes for it, I'd hate to be a driver in Baltimore who has to deal with that shit.

I never see anyone use the bike lanes my local city put in a few streets, then again a majority of that city is a slum lived in by feral niggers shooting up fetanyl who would probably steal your bike and rob you. Years back there used to be city kids who would come out into the suburbs and steal bikes if they were left out in a shed unprotected. Not long after that everyone in the suburbs started hiding their bikes.

 

[quaawaa]

Looks like North Dakota has a WEF plant for a governor:

Source (Archive)

Why does the governor from one of the least urban states in the country sound like a NYC bugman?

 

[403]

There are bike lanes on my route to and from work and despite being there morning and evening 5 days a week for years I have never seen a single solitary cyclist actually using the bike lane. Here's what I have seen:

• Buses stopping in the bike lane to embark/disembark passengers
• People whose houses are on the street using the bike lanes as parking spots
• Cyclists riding on the sidewalk (extremely rare)
• Cyclists using the walking/cycling trail 30 feet away from the bike lane that's been there for decades (extremely common)
• Motorists using the bike lane as a cheat lane to get around in traffic (and in one case, cut me off on a turn nearly causing an accident)
• People walking in the bike lane despite a sidewalk being right there (unprotected bike lane btw)

Luckily they didn't delete any car lanes for it, I'd hate to be a driver in Baltimore who has to deal with that shit.

I can't say the same for bike lane use and misuse for the most part. Anecdotes aside, to add to this:

• Cyclists who ignore traffic signals. Some seem to think red lights don't apply to them

Food delivery cyclists are particularly bad for this. Doesn't help when you combine their general disregard for pedestrians with electric bikes that are faster and heavier than normal bikes.

 

[Corpun]

Looks like North Dakota has a WEF plant for a governor:
View attachment 5804312
View attachment 5804301
Source (Archive)

Why does the governor from one of the least urban states in the country sound like a NYC bugman?

He went to Stanford for his Masters. It's somewhere in Cali. Went to NDSU previously for his bachelor's.

Spoiler: Background

He was accepted to study business at Stanford. While there, he befriended Steve Ballmer, who became CEO of Microsoft. During his last year at Stanford, Burgum "spent the whole final quarter on a project team with Ballmer."[10] He received his MBA from Stanford University Graduate School of Business in 1980. Burgum then moved to Chicago to become a management consultant with McKinsey & Company. He later received honorary doctorates from North Dakota State[11] in 2000 and from the University of Mary in 2006.[12] In 2009, Burgum was "urged to apply" for the position of president of North Dakota State University, but in 2010 he was passed over for Dean Bresciani.[13]

 

[Aegir]

As a former urbanite who was a daily e-bicycle commuter, I can tell you exactly why bike lanes are mostly empty. As least in my large southeastern US city, most bike lanes go absolutely fucking nowhere because they were implemented because local politicians want them for optics, and no regard has ever been put into making them actually usable. Bike lanes begin and end at complete random and will probably put you in an awkward spot where you have to merge into car traffic or (more likely) ride the sidewalk for a bit. Also, bike lanes that are built are in some truly terribad locations. Recently they took out an entire lane of traffic on a large artery road into the city for a full sized bike lane, not paying any mind to the 12-15% grade of the road. It's a nice bike lane, but you'd need either an illegal ebike so oversized it might as well be an e-moto (think a sur ron), or have thighs of steel to make it up. I tried it once and decided never again as my legs were absolutely killing me at the end and it drained 40% of my SOC since I had to be on full assist to get up.

There are other reasons too, lots of pedestrians use bike lanes as dogwalking and jogging lanes and refuse to get over even if you chime at them. They also tend to fill up with road debris really quickly so you have to avoid junk and risk tyre punctures. Ultimately I found them a complete waste of time and since my e-bike was far over the legal limits I just treated it like a tiny e-moto and drove in normal traffic. When the speed limit is 35 max it could keep up no problem and outperform cagers from a dig. Combined with lane splitting I could make great time on my commute no bike lanes required. At that point tho, do what I did and give up on the bicycle and get a real scooter. $4500 will get you a fantastic 125cc equivalent e-scooter that is gonna be far more comfortable and convenient. Plus you can actually plate and insure it, so you don't need to be a menace to society, and it has ABS and traction control so you don't yeet yourself into oncoming traffic grabbing too much front brake hitting a storm cover in the rain at 35mph.

Urban mobility is a solved problem in other countries and if the bugmen decided to escape their autism for a minute and promote actually valid alternatives (and fix the US's god awful scooter licensing system) then they might get traction.

 

[Bonesjones]

a former urbanite who was a daily e-bicycle commuter, I can tell you exactly why bike lanes are mostly empty.

"As a former retard" you also don't explain why they are empty, you just justify your bike brained justification for your own entitled behavior.

As least in my large southeastern US city, most bike lanes go absolutely fucking nowhere because they were implemented because local politicians want them for optics, and no regard has ever been put into making them actually usable.

Yeah its not the heat, humidity or theft, it's those darn politicians not bending over backwards for me.

Recently they took out an entire lane of traffic on a large artery road into the city for a full sized bike lane, not paying any mind to the 12-15% grade of the road. It's a nice bike lane, but you'd need either an illegal ebike so oversized it might as well be an e-moto (think a sur ron), or have thighs of steel to make it up.

Lol how morbidly obese are you? You know actual bicycles have gears right?

There are other reasons too, lots of pedestrians use bike lanes as dogwalking and jogging lanes and refuse to get over even if you chime at them.

So slower traffic that acts like they own the space is really annoying? I wonder what that's like.

Ultimately I found them a complete waste of time and since my e-bike was far over the legal limits I just treated it like a tiny e-moto and drove in normal traffic.

Huh so your solution to bicycling not being worth it, is to break the law. Really making your own points stick here. "Cater to our outrageous demands or we will just keep breaking the law and being assholes"

Urban mobility is a solved problem in other countries and if the bugmen decided to escape their autism for a minute and promote actually valid alternatives (and fix the US's god awful scooter licensing system) then they might get traction.

Urban mobility was solved decades ago. It's called a car. The only reasons Euros pretend to hate them is because they are on average impoverished levels of wealth compared to America. It's all sour grapes. No one but urban idiots who don't have their own private space likes interacting with the extended public. Cars provide traveling forms of privacy and storage that work with nothing else. If you can't appreciate either, then it's your own broke brained fault.

 

[Aegir]

Lol how morbidly obese are you? You know actual bicycles have gears right?

this is so retarded I don't even know how to respond. Yes, it had gears, no that doesn't magically remove any and all effort required to pedal a bicycle. Gearing does not magically remove the work you need to put in to climb a hill. No it is not impossible to climb a grade (well, below a certain angle), but most people aren't going to put up with it.

So slower traffic that acts like they own the space is really annoying? I wonder what that's like.

my 72w ebike accelerated significantly faster than pretty much any car, but aight. Honestly throttle only it drove basically like a motorcycle. Which is why imo it's silly for urbanists to get mad when people want to force them to be licensed.

Huh so your solution to bicycling not being worth it, is to break the law. Really making your own points stick here. "Cater to our outrageous demands or we will just keep breaking the law and being assholes"

Nowhere did I say I think unregulated high power ebikes are a good idea, just by the end i found that using them as a shitty motorcycle worked far better than as an overpowered bicycle. Honestly I think high powered ebikes like my old one are a huge saftey concern for both riders and pedestrians since they are stupidly quick and really twitchy at speed (bicycle tyres were really not designed to go over 30mph). My argument here is that if you wanna commute on two wheels you should ditch the ebike and by a motorcycle or scooter instead, but keep putting words in my mouth.

Also I followed all traffic rules for bicycles (and then some). I also had installed better brake lights and indicators to it to make it flow better in traffic. The only thing illegal about my setup is that it didn't have a speed cap and had a throttle, which violated the county rules at that time which mandated 25mph and no throttle. I have never run a stoplight in my life (other than when they don't change because I don't weigh enough, in which case it's legal to treat it as a stop sign as long as you assume liability (TN traffic code T.C.A. § 55-8-110).

Urban mobility was solved decades ago. It's called a car. The only reasons Euros pretend to hate them is because they are on average impoverished levels of wealth compared to America. It's all sour grapes. No one but urban idiots who don't have their own private space likes interacting with the extended public. Cars provide traveling forms of privacy and storage that work with nothing else. If you can't appreciate either, then it's your own broke brained fault.

I own three cars, three motorcycles, a 400cc equivalent e-dirt bike, and a couple high end mountain bikes. I am certainly not "poor". Just when I'm driving downtown, I'm taking one of the motorcycles. Splitting lanes and easy parking are amazing and I don't sacrifice much utility by doing so. I don't think anything will replace the car, and I obviously use my car all the time because there's shit you just can't do on two wheels. But I also think motos are a solid alternative (not replacement) to the cage for solo trips in dense areas and will promote them as such.

Also I haven't taken public transit in my life so idk who you're mistaking me for. No way I'm getting shanked by Tyrone on the bus.

 

[Bonesjones]

this is so retarded I don't even know how to respond. Yes, it had gears, no that doesn't magically remove any and all effort required to pedal a bicycle. Gearing does not magically remove the work you need to put in to climb a hill. No it is not impossible to climb a grade (well, below a certain angle), but most people aren't going to put up with it.

Except you were arguing the opposite, because you are either too stupid to keep coherent thoughts or a coward who back peddles at the slightest push back. I thought the only reason people didn't bike was lack of facilities and not everything else? Or do you not know what you say?

my 72w ebike accelerated significantly faster than pretty much any car, but aight. Honestly throttle only it drove basically like a motorcycle. Which is why imo it's silly for urbanists to get mad when people want to force them to be licensed.

They don't want them licensed because they want all the current benefits with no down side.

Nowhere did I say I think unregulated high power ebikes are a good idea, just by the end i found that using them as a shitty motorcycle worked far better than as an overpowered bicycle.

So they aren't a good idea and you don't support it, but you do it anyway. Hmm.

My argument here is that if you wanna commute on two wheels you should ditch the ebike and by a motorcycle or scooter instead, but keep putting words in my mouth.

You don't have an arguement, you just say words with no attachment to anything else at this point. Also you mentioned lane splitting, which is also illegal in TN. You can't tell what you want to be, are you sure you aren't a tranny?

I own three cars, three motorcycles, a 400cc equivalent e-dirt bike, and a couple high end mountain bikes. I am certainly not "poor". Just when I'm driving downtown, I'm taking one of the motorcycles.

No one cares. Nor is anyone impressed.

 

[Aegir]

This isn't mass debates nor is this reddit, noone is impressed by your debate bro shit.

My argument is pretty simple. Noone uses bike lanes because none of the people who promote this shit actually ride a bike, so it's just wasted infrastructure that is mostly half assed or illogical. We'd be better off removing all of it for additional car lanes, and promoting the single track vehicles that can take advantage of the same infrastructure as cars. Even better, they can use the additional space cars leave in between lanes. Doing so means less traffic for everyone. But that is an actually feasible solution that doesn't ban cars and promote autistic shit like trains and busses so urbanists will never mention it.

If you're accusing me of being a Moto Bro, guilty as charged. Not an urbanist tho.

 

[Seymour Duncan]

autistic screeching

Yeah, how can someone DARE to OWN and USE a BIKE???? This must be shut down immediately because BIKES are for GAYS and immediately invalidates any thread relevant anecdotes the user might've had to add to the thread.

 

[Bonesjones]

This isn't mass debates nor is this reddit, noone is impressed by your debate bro shit.

My argument is pretty simple. Noone uses bike lanes because none of the people who promote this shit actually ride a bike, so it's just wasted infrastructure that is mostly half assed or illogical. We'd be better off removing all of it for additional car lanes, and promoting the single track vehicles that can take advantage of the same infrastructure as cars. Even better, they can use the additional space cars leave in between lanes. Doing so means less traffic for everyone. But that is an actually feasible solution that doesn't ban cars and promote autistic shit like trains and busses so urbanists will never mention it.

If you're accusing me of being a Moto Bro, guilty as charged. Not an urbanist tho.

Just another future skid mark on the road. All the entitlement of a bicyclist with none of the brains to stay away from 4000 lb battering rams. Tell us more about how cool you are. The only correct thing you've said is not giving them any infrastructure, beyond that you've got the same dumb opinions. Lane splitting is dumb because bikers always do it too fast and it leaves you no room to maneuver, so you get knocked down and then cry like a bitch.

Yeah, how can someone DARE to OWN and USE a BIKE???? This must be shut down immediately because BIKES are for GAYS and immediately invalidates any thread relevant anecdotes the user might've had to add to the thread.

In your case I guess the proof is in the posting.

 

[Individualism Incarnate]

We would need the reliability of a modern day jet to make flying cars mainstream.

Flying cars by Boeing!
Guaranteed to get into the air at least once!

 

[WelperHelper99]

Flying cars by Boeing!
Guaranteed to get into the air at least once!

I will say it's sad what's happened to Boeing. They used to innovate and take risks like with the 727 trijet. Now it's full of union workers and diversity hires fucking everything up.

 

[JJLiautaud]

Lol how morbidly obese are you? You know actual bicycles have gears right?

you do know those infamous Tour De France climbs are like 7%-9% grade right?

 

[WelperHelper99]

The nuclear nuclear bomber project was canceled because the newly-invented ICBM made the entire concept of an endurance bomber obsolete. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the tech.

Well there was two things. 1. Heavy lead shielding. There was a shit ton to prevent the pilots from turning into glow worms. 2. The fallout if the plane crashed. If one got shot down or just had technical issues, that's a ecological nightmare waiting to happen.