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

/r/fuckcars blames their obesity on suburbs:
View attachment 6010515

Buying in bulk makes you fat:
View attachment 6010519
Today in opposite world:
View attachment 6010524
I wonder how healthy he thinks ramen and katsu are:
View attachment 6010569
Urbanists demonstrating their ability to have original thoughts:
View attachment 6010528
View attachment 6010567
No, it's because you're a tourist. Europeans don't walk as much because they have things to do besides wandering around town:
View attachment 6010572
Having a pantry is bad. Living on top of a grocery store and restaurant is good:
View attachment 6010532
View attachment 6010533
View attachment 6010600

The thing that they never seem to realize is in the suburbs, walking to the store may burn a "significant" amount of calories (though not really as walking a mile only burns ~100 calories), but if they moved to a "walkable" neighborhood where the store is physically closer, the amount of energy burned will be a rounding error.

View attachment 6010573
I wouldn't call 57.7% of people "no one":
View attachment 6010582
Source (Archive)

There are some comments disagreeing with OP:
View attachment 6010551
View attachment 6010555
View attachment 6010563
View attachment 6010564
Source (Archive)
There’s some evidence to back up the basic idea that suburbs discourage exercise, but it has far more to do with factors like physical distances to parks/gyms, not fucking boredom
OP deflects personal blame for his shit lifestyle on the environment, if he grew up in Amsterdam or some other “walkable” city he’d still probably be a fatass if he was stuck inside playing video games and eating shit all day. Everyone in the suburbs isn’t a fatass and everyone in cities isn’t lean, black-or-white thinking seems to be an urbanist’s best friend
 
Vast numbers of Americas actually do prefer McDonalds to a restaurant burger. You can argue about why that's the case and should it be the case, but it IS the case.
A McDonald's burger is better than most hipster burger places which serve smashburgers with random mismatched toppings.

Smashburgers are the worst type of burger. It makes sense why fast food places make them because they're cheap and easy to cook at scale, but if you're charging $15-$20 for a burger it better be an actually patty cooked to a proper temperature, not a paper-thin well-done meat slice.
OP deflects personal blame for his shit lifestyle on the environment, if he grew up in Amsterdam or some other “walkable” city he’d still probably be a fatass if he was stuck inside playing video games and eating shit all day.
That's why I shared the statistics that show that 58% of New Yorkers are fat despite living in one the densest cities in the first world.
 
The funny part is half the replies are talking about restaurants. You'd think they never shop or cook for themselves.
Don't socialists or communists have a disproportionate representation on r/fuckcars?

This is something I find funny because in a socialist system, I doubt many would have many options for a third place or newer restaurants.
 
No, because the meme was never true to begin with. Restaurants can have really good food, and really bad food, and where they end up is usually happenstance. Urbanists like to flex that the "best food" comes from the ratholes anyway (convenience stores, taco trucks, the ghetto), so it should be obvious that the "best food" could come from the strip malls of suburbia, too.
The reason most small hole in the wall places have better food is that they don't turnover their cooking staff constantly. The reasons good restaurants turn shitty is they won't give their staff raises so they leave. Passion for the job and how good foot taste is a 1 to 1 corelation.
Vast numbers of Americas actually do prefer McDonalds to a restaurant burger. You can argue about why that's the case and should it be the case, but it IS the case.
Its not that fast food is better, it's that the price to effort to taste ratio works out for fast food most of the time. If you are busy running errands and don't want to spend an hour and 50 bucks to get food, fast food can be eaten on the move for half the price.
 
The reasons good restaurants turn shitty is they won't give their staff raises so they leave. Passion for the job and how good foot taste is a 1 to 1 correlation.
It's totally true - even at chains (besides the microwave options you find there). The best pancake breakfast I ever did have was at a Denny's in the middle of nowhere, probably because oil funds were sloshing around and the cook was probably making $40k a year.

Fast food is often better than restaurant, because they have spent years making it possible for absolute literal morons to prepare it. So they've already trained for moron employees, and restaurants after Covid are just learning how to deal with it. Some have quality that has just gone into the shitter, others are doing fine or even better.
 
I don't get bragging about restaurants, learn to fucking cook.

You know what's nice about a big suburb house? Almost all of them have great kitchens. And you're closer to farmland to get food direct from the source.

Why would I want to spend $30 a plate for food that's worse than what I can make myself with terrible table service, plus 18% tip minimum now, plus taxes?
 
I don't get bragging about restaurants, learn to fucking cook.

You know what's nice about a big suburb house? Almost all of them have great kitchens. And you're closer to farmland to get food direct from the source.

Why would I want to spend $30 a plate for food that's worse than what I can make myself with terrible table service, plus 18% tip minimum now, plus taxes?
They'd say "entertainment/being with people" but that ignores that the vast majority of actual suburban houses have kitchens that are used by families to cook, feed, and entertain guests.

They really do think the suburbs are filled with empty houses with one or two people living in them, who never cook or eat at home. Such people do exist, but it's pretty rare, and they usually do not have kids.

But everyone who lives in the suburbs knows the difference between "family houses" and "rich wine wife houses" where you might find the instruction manual still taped inside the ten year old oven.
 
/r/fuckcars user shares an article that says that Texan drivers pay 83% of TxDOT's budget:
1716411255485.png
Article (Archive)

1716411377492.png

"Federal Funds" are from the Highway Trust Fund, which is funded by the federal gas tax. Contrary to what urbanists say, it is solvent excluding transfers to fund public transit.

"State Highway Fund" is funded by vehicle registration fees and the gas tax.

"Proposition 1" is a tax on oil and gas refining, not a "rainy day fund" (sounds like a user fee to me...).
1716412803263.png
Source (Archive)

Only "Proposition 7" is not a direct tax on drivers as it is a sales tax, but since 94.7% of Texans own cars and 99.9% of Texans who pay any significant amount of sales tax, drivers are still paying. Prop 7 also includes an excise tax on motor vehicle sales and rentals.
1716412818027.png
Source (Archive)

83% is still a far higher percentage of costs paid for by the users than any transit system in the US.

One thing that the heavily biased article does not mention is that a quarter of Texas' gas tax revenue is diverted to the schools:
1716411744214.png

Source (Archive)
1716412904632.png
Source (Archive)

Remove the school diversion and the sales tax isn't necessary.

Also, a lot of Texan highways are toll roads that are entirely paid for with tolls.

It's pretty funny that OP posted an article that shows that drivers pay their fair share without realizing it.

Now for the comments, starting off with someone who didn't read the article:
1716412450267.png
1716412093297.png
1716412110964.png
1716412122978.png
1716412144133.png
1716412164684.png
1716412181091.png
Texas already has toll roads that take zero tax money:
1716412217250.png
1716412413770.png
What percentage of federal taxes do Texans pay:
1716412539992.png
1716412554762.png
1716412571546.png
Hoops like showing ID?
1716412584740.png
Source (Archive)
 
I think it should be clear to everyone that there is only one group in the world that is capable of building a California HSR, the Chinese. A blank check, no quality control, and a chance to flex on Americans in their home turf would see that HSR get finished in no time.
This feels like the set up to the Monorail episode of the Simpsons.

Buying in bulk makes you fat:
1716391293730.png
They seriously don't understand that you don't have to eat all of it at once like some sort of human goldfish.

Don't socialists or communists have a disproportionate representation on r/fuckcars?
Yes, though I don't find it particularly surprising the same people who expect the state to fully take care of them would be into this sort of thing.

That middle paragraph gives me a headache. Do these people seriously buy enough for just one or two plates?

What if they want seconds? Gym Of Life™ to the local bodega to buy one or two potatoes and 200 grams of whatever meat they're having?
They're either lying or they only prepare food once per week as a novelty but only eat take out the rest of the time. Taking a daily trip to the store is a waste of time even if it is a block away.
 
83% is still a far higher percentage of costs paid for by the users than any transit system in the US.
No kidding. If actual riders paid 80% of the cost, a simple trip would be at least $50.

That said, if they REALLY wanted to help transit ticket prices, they'd drop the subsidies, poorfags BTFO.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Markass the Worst
No kidding. If actual riders paid 80% of the cost, a simple trip would be at least $50.

That said, if they REALLY wanted to help transit ticket prices, they'd drop the subsidies, poorfags BTFO.
Here's Trimet's(Portland Oregon's stabby transit) numbers:
About 91% of funding for FY25 operating resources comes from three sources: payroll tax revenues, passenger revenues and federal funds. For FY25, TriMet expects to receive about $540 million in payroll taxes; $62 million in passenger fares; and about $139 million from federal operating grants.
Current price is $2.80 per ride.
Current budget would be $815 million total.
So 80% means $62 million becomes $652 million.
So, $29.40 per ride.

This seems fair to me.
 
Here's Trimet's(Portland Oregon's stabby transit) numbers:

Current price is $2.80 per ride.
Current budget would be $815 million total.
So 80% means $62 million becomes $652 million.
So, $29.40 per ride.

This seems fair to me.
How the fuck can it be so bad? Oh god don't go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#United_States and sort by ratio holy shit. Portland's at 18% and there are tons worse. If transit was required to be 100% farebox in the USA, nobody bar nobody would ride it. that's quite bad.

Props to Amtrak being at 95%, the little bastards. Lol at Japan milking the riders for 245% recovery ahaha eat it nips.
 
Why would I want to spend $30 a plate for food that's worse than what I can make myself with terrible table service, plus 18% tip minimum now, plus taxes?
$30 is REALLY expensive for crap food. Even at Current Year prices, I can go to a Brazilian steakhouse in town and engorge myself in the salad bar with candied bacon, ceviche, bread, fruit, and vegetables for that price (way, way better than any buffet). But I'm not going to spend a huge percentage of my paycheck towards food, and the whole process of just going out is so cumbersome. That's why people order food delivery to begin with.
 
Back