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

[Baraka Obama]

Wow, they memory holed that one real quick.
Archived today: https://archive.ph/n6r4S
Just a few hours later, 404: https://archive.ph/qiTsi

Not the nutter but imagine this being the best photo of you available to share with your new employer.

 

[indomitable snowman]

There just isn’t that much demand for a low-floor SUV that can’t tow.

Isn't that basically the crossover? They seem lower to the ground than full SUVs.

For doors, there's always the gull-wing. The model X tesla (their SUV/crossover thing) has them on the rear. I don't know of any other non sports car that has them though.

 

[Car Won't Crank]

Isn't that basically the crossover? They seem lower to the ground than full SUVs.

For doors, there's always the gull-wing. The model X tesla (their SUV/crossover thing) has them on the rear. I don't know of any other non sports car that has them though.

Crossovers can't tow much either, but the smidge of extra ride height they have over a minivan and sedan give them that slight edge.

 

[Sexy Potoo]

How does the act of setting yourself on fire solve the complex problem of Israel/Palestine?

"my childhood town"
"in Long Island, New York"

 

[Markass the Worst]

Final update on the Max Azzerello situation: The New York Post is now reporting that Max has died from his injuries.

Well, shit. I'll tag this thread with suicide.

 

[BulkForceFive]

god just IMAGINE if Burning Man had run screaming and flailing onto the street and been run over by a pickup truck.

American trucks balloned in size because of the emissons regulations put in place by Obama. People miss the old rangers and s10's because they LITERALLY dont make them like they used to. They were small, fuel efficient and utilitarian and Obama came in and ass raped them into oblivion. The new ranger is as big as the f150 used to be in to 90's and early 2000's. I dont need or want a gigantic modern f150 thats made of 90% plastic including critical engine components. People also need to stop treating trucks like theyre luxury vehicles theyre NOT they were made to do WORK. Tbh i dont even consider 4x2 trucks to be true trucks. Theyre basiclly just lifted el Caminos.

Call me a boomer all you want i dont care

They weren't fuel efficient. That was part of what restricted sales in the first place, price and economy were too close to a full-size truck with a six-cylinder.

 

[Mellisuga Helenae]

The minivan killed the station wagon dead (along with crash regulations, I suspect). And it's kind of sad now, the minivan itself is somewhat on life-support as the number of companies making them is dwindling.

Kinda off-topic, but you can still find used mini vans in great condition at auctions for pocket change. I know farmers that have fields full of the fucking things. Practical fleets of minivans parked in the middle of nowhere. They aren't going anywhere any time soon.

I'm tempted to actually get one for commuting even though I'll look like (even more of) a faggot driving it. The absurdly cheap parts and fuel economy are tempting despite the ugly aesthetics.

 

[TheBearMan]

god just IMAGINE if Burning Man had run screaming and flailing onto the street and been run over by a pickup truck.

They weren't fuel efficient. That was part of what restricted sales in the first place, price and economy were too close to a full-size truck with a six-cylinder.

The 1997 Ford Ranger got 23 mpg city and 27 highway mpg, while the f150 from the same year, got less than 17/22 mpg respectively.

Are you stupid or are you just bad at math?

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

See the inherent superiority of the car? Had this faggot self immolated in an SUV he could have done a much bigger fireball.

 

[User names must be unique]

See the inherent superiority of the car? Had this faggot self immolated in an SUV he could have done a much bigger fireball.

The inherent superiority of gasoline, had this fucker tried to use pedal power none of us would be talking about him.

 

[Lemon-Lime Turpentine]

Had to include this for the wall of text:

Link / Archive

---

Link / Archive
The moral quandary of pedestrian traffic lights.
The gist: traffic signals are immoral because 1. if cars didn't exist, traffic control wouldn't be needed, and 2. cars only cross the same intersection once, but pedestrians sometimes have to cross twice.

Spoiler: Full OP Post

Problem 1​

Think about it: pedestrians didn't make traffic lights necessary But they still have to wait before being allowed to cross a road. If you ask me, walking should be a right with no limits like those. Fuck anyone who says "don't jaywalk!"
Imagine that every vehicle on a road was a pedestrian moving at walking speed. Then you could always safely cross the road, no matter how crowded. So I think the solution should be this:

• Remove all pedestrian traffic lights, let them walk freely.
• Give pedestrians right of way so they can always cross. If car drivers are too much slowed down by that, good! Another reason to get out of their car and join the pedestrian or cyclist team. If you choose to drive a big vehicle, you get the consequence of being unable to quickly pass through crowded areas. Not the pedestrian's fault.
• Apply appropriate speed limits so that vehicles will have enough time to stop/slow if a pedestrian is gonna cross.

Problem 2​

Pedestrians who want to cross an intersection diagnonally have to wait TWO times. They are not allowed to cross diagonally. One of the intersections that I frequently bike commute on, pedestrians get THREE pedestrian lights if they want to cross diagonally.
Car drivers made traffic lights necessary. So why should pedestrians, the innocent ones, have to suffer more of the downsides than the car drivers? This seems morally very wrong to me.

So what do you guys think​

Is legally forcing pedestrians to wait morally wrong? is it morally neutral? Is it the right thing?
And what about pedestrians having to wait twice just to cross one intersection, while the cars, that made the lights necessary, only have to wait once?
I personally think that if banning cars from the city is not an option, then the city's infrastructure should atleast made fair. But right now, the road authorities are discriminating against pedestrians and cyclists. Yes, even cyclists sometimes get more traffic lights than cars, on the same route.
I live in the Netherlands, the bike paths and sidewalks are the best of the world, but if you properly pay attention you can see how many places are still secretly built around cars. At multiple parts of my commute do cars get less traffic lights than me on my bike.
I can accept, respect and follow some laws - for example giving right of way to anyone who comes from the right. These laws are okay. But I'm not gonna allow the road authorities to discriminate against us pedestrians and cyclists in favor of car drivers. I think everyone should stop following wrong laws, because if every pedestrian is gonna keep waiting twice to cross one intersection, then nothing is gonna change.

This user has posted about crossing twice being pedestrian discrimination more than once:

Link / Archive

---

Cars exist. Gays most affected.

Link / Archive
Seems specious. Luckily, someone came to correct the record:

Cars exist. Gays Blacks most affected.

The jaxsonthefurry guy was also posted in the reddit thread before.

---

A tranny explains why libertarians should prefer bikes to cars.

Direct comment link / Thread link / Archive

 

[Markass the Worst]

Had to include this for the wall of text:

A typical leftist meme. Not even a funny joke and it's a wall of text.

The moral quandary of pedestrian traffic lights.
The gist: traffic signals are immoral because 1. if cars didn't exist, traffic control wouldn't be needed, and 2. cars only cross the same intersection once, but pedestrians sometimes have to cross twice.

They can make intersections with diagonal crossing paths but urbanists will still screech about cars being there (see Jason Slaughter and his comments on the Shibuya crossing).

 

[Xarpho's Return]

The moral quandary of pedestrian traffic lights.
The gist: traffic signals are immoral because 1. if cars didn't exist, traffic control wouldn't be needed, and 2. cars only cross the same intersection once, but pedestrians sometimes have to cross twice.

If I have to wait two light cycles to go through an intersection, while a pedestrian can go through one, am I being discriminated against? How do you even justify that without sounding like a shithead?

 

[TheBearMan]

When the "drivers are trying to murder me" and "everyone should ride transit" ideas collide:
View attachment 5921094
archive / thread

Not only THAT! But because everything will need to be within walking distance or near public transit centers, they will be forced to live next to you in what will probably be a revival of soviet brutalist architecture. Idk about you guys, but the idea of anywhere from half to 3 dozen people living (aka pissing shitting and jacking off) within 30 feet of you AT ALL TIMES!!! These morons dont think about this shit. Real people dont want to be packed into soviet brutalist apartment complexes like sardines.

 

[User names must be unique]

Not only THAT! But because everything will need to be within walking distance or near public transit centers, they will be forced to live next to you in what will probably be a revival of soviet brutalist architecture. Idk about you guys, but the idea of anywhere from half to 3 dozen people living (aka pissing shitting and jacking off) within 30 feet of you AT ALL TIMES!!! These morons dont think about this shit. Real people dont want to be packed into soviet brutalist apartment complexes like sardines.

I think people would make those sacrifices and live in the sky ghettos if the rent was cheap, but it never is.

 

[indomitable snowman]

libertarians should prefer bikes to cars.

I agree. A lot of the money and taxes and vehicle use fees for my car seem to be used to subsidize all of the public transportation. I think users of a particular mode of transportation should incur all the actual costs, and not subsidize someone else mode of transportation.

 

[Lemon-Lime Turpentine]

Forgot to include this one in my previous post. Comes from this downdooted post / archive.
Full thread / Archive

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Forgot to include this one in my previous post. Comes from this downdooted post / archive.
Full thread / Archive

View attachment 5924312

lmao none of those disprove anything.

 

[quaawaa]

I agree. A lot of the money and taxes and vehicle use fees for my car seem to be used to subsidize all of the public transportation. I think users of a particular mode of transportation should incur all the actual costs, and not subsidize someone else mode of transportation.

Urbanists love to talk about making suburbanites and drivers pay the “real cost” of their lifestyle, but if they did, they’d get a massive refund while transit tickets would be several times more expensive and bike lanes would have tolls that make NYC’s congestion charge look affordable.

All you have to do is look at how cities and large companies with large commercial real estate portfolios have reacted to the work-from-home movement for proof as to who is subsidizing who.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

I think people would make those sacrifices and live in the sky ghettos if the rent was cheap, but it never is.

Kowloon Walled City gets brought up a lot, but I don't think they really consider what it entails. A lot of people just think "$5 a month for a broom closet, hell yeah" without realizing it doesn't come with anything, like drainage, trash pickup, or even a bathroom. Their "hip community" comes complete with unlicensed dentists and barbecued dogs.

Even without the extremes of KWC, this idea that we just need to keep building apartments until the demand is saturated and prices can go down. While there is truth to that, the reality is you get something like Houston in the mid-to-late 1980s. First, they stop building because it's not profitable and there's a floor to rents. (Otherwise it just gets demolished). The low rents are often supplanted with ridiculous fees--an apartment might be renting at $200/month (usually filled with illegal immigrants, drug dealers, etc.) but then charge you $20 for leaving a bike chained up outside, big money when that's close to the grocery bill for the week.

And the places that are cheap are never going to be the desirable ones. Even though the Inner Loop was quite affordable, that's not where the cheap apartments were, it was the areas that were considered "suburban" 15-20 years prior but not so much anymore, some 8+ miles out from downtown. (Read: car-centric.)