- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
Don’t ever drive a minivan, the practicality will blow you away. Fucking sliding doors how do they work‽!
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
- Thread starter Markass the Worst
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
One of Jason's fans asks him why the Netherlands has more cycling deaths per capita than countries with "worse" infrastructure like Germany. Jason says its because old people bike in the Netherlands while only young and fit people bike in Germany:
Source (Archive)
The correct response would be to point out that the numbers aren't normalized by vehicle miles traveled, but Jason doesn't want to do that because if he does people might start normalizing American car deaths by VMT which makes them look a lot better.
The correct response would be to point out that the numbers aren't normalized by vehicle miles traveled, but Jason doesn't want to do that because if he does people might start normalizing American car deaths by VMT which makes them look a lot better.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2015
over the weekend I went down south to visit some family, and on entering the town I saw this (the car share sign) with a message that's very unlikely to make friends or influence people; if the copy wasn't written by an actual regular poster on /r/fuckcars, it was done by someone with a very similar mindset
by contrast, this is a sign for a similar scheme in a town where I used to work - notice how the copywriter has mastered the subtle art of advertising the scheme without making the organisers look like sanctimonious fucking pricks
by contrast, this is a sign for a similar scheme in a town where I used to work - notice how the copywriter has mastered the subtle art of advertising the scheme without making the organisers look like sanctimonious fucking pricks
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2022
Good to know. It keeps showing up as an option and my instincts tell me to not bother trying it. A local place makes its own veggie burger that is delicious but it's not trying to be meat. It just a bunch of beans and grains halfway pressed together. They should probably just call it something else.
Anyway with all this talk about urbanization - I'm just not meant to live in a city. I did for awhile but with increasing density I just can't deal with people's extremely poor behavior in addition to whatever is going on with homeless people. So yesterday I got sent a throw away article from one of my financial institutions trying to interest me in a home loan. The article itself was about the increasing demand for more larger homes in suburban areas. One of the reasons cited for this increase in demand had to do with people seeking refuge and privacy as part of mental health. So, for these urbanists, are they just blind to this need?
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2021
They are blind to all needs outside of their own, yes.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2021
Even normalizing doesn't help much, it really is the helmets stupid.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2022
Huh, so that's another way wherein climate scientists fudge their data....
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
While a great deal of development and demand in cities IS manipulated (though mostly in favor of urbanists, contrary to their belief), things are built because people want them. People like living in houses, so houses are built. Some people just want to find a place that's affordable and not a dump, so new apartments are built. Most of these are built because they're still profitable, suburban developments have a better return on investment, while it's near-impossible to build a new development in the city that's not billed as "luxury living".
You can see this in some cities like Houston, of course, because the city builds around the edges and as these move out there's an onion effect of older development as you move into the city, and what things were in demand at the time. There's lots of 1970s-1980s era where lots and lots of mid-rise office buildings were built, which over time stopped being built because of recession and ultimately the irrelevance of office buildings. Another example, enclosed malls. There's new retail development in the outermost suburbs, of course, but a new enclosed mall even in the suburbs haven't been built since the late 1990s because development dried up for them. Long before Sears started closing their stores they had stopped building the 150,000 square foot boxes attached to malls, because they simply stopped being demanded.
It goes in reverse, too—the "Inner Loop" didn't have much in the way of chain restaurants surrounded by parking lots prior to the 1990s, because that demand came later.
What the urbanists do not understand is that these are natural reactions to trends and wealth level. There was no grand conspiracy by "the oil industry" to cause people to leave behind development where apartments were above stores, all buildings went straight up to the street, and any single family homes were inadequate. The ultra-wealthy retreated to exclaves that would be eventually surrounded by city but still allowed for large lots to be rebuilt in the future, along with ironclad deeds and other restrictions that kept neighborhood integrity. The middle class moved out to new houses in the suburbs (or what were suburbs in the mid-20th century), and the poor moved to the spaces that were vacated by the previous two. The inner city mansions of old were converted to smaller apartments, commercial use, or knocked down.
This theme repeated itself in cities across the country. Sometimes it was just the desire to move up, sometimes it was the desire to escape the corruption of city leadership, and sometimes it was because crime had gotten high enough that anyone with money wanted to get out.
You can question some of the bigger reasons of this reshuffling like "how did we become a low-trust society" and "were, perhaps, the original downtowns overbuilt to begin with" and try to resolve issues there. What you can't do is try to force your vision while trying to convince everyone that this is way people should live and would like to live if it wasn't for "muh propaganda", which is why we see so many articles about humans only "need" a coffin-sized apartment (figurative or literal), nor is assuming the worst in people.
Have you noticed, for instance, that there's the "people moved to the suburbs because racism" argument, yet they give the benefit of the doubt to every other group? If people moved to the suburbs because they hated black people, are black neighborhoods shit because black people are inherently a violent and uncivilized race? Urbanists and liberals don't realize the cognitive dissonance that both are blanket statements that assume the worst in people, and it's unfair if you only apply it to one group.
Maybe white people moved because it was better than what they had and they could afford it. Maybe black neighborhoods suck because it's more the result of a culture of drugs and single parent households.
By assuming the worst of people, you misinterpret what their actual intentions were and the exact situation was, leading to resentment and how they must be punished for imagined crimes of the past. This is why urbanists are so focused on ruining single-family subdivisions rather than looking at more practical solutions for housing, like rehabilitating brownfield sites into new housing (which can and has been done successfully within budget). They can't just understand that people can and still want large single family homes.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2022
The few black families in my current neighborhood seem very nice. Good on them for escaping too.
I also enjoyed reading everything else you said. I think a lot of people have a really hard time understanding perspectives unique to a place and time.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
Lol it's even worse, sometimes these monitoring stations have sensors right next to a runway. You know, where jet aircraft take off and land. With jet engines. Which belch out really hot air.
No really, I think it was last year when a bunch of media outlets reported that OMFG THE PLANET IS ON FIRE, LOOK AT THESE READINGS FROM THE UK! The readings turned out to be a couple of RAF fighter jets landing just as the reading was taken. In science, those readings would be immediately discarded as obvious outliers and the monitoring station would be moved. In Climate Science, it's proof we need to return to feudalism with climate scientists and their sponsors living like God-Kings ruling over among unwashed peasants with no rights.
I hate soyentists so much it's unreal.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2015
Don't ask me why, but, while reading this, I got a horrible horrible vision of a future where the elites have decreed your car must be made out of Beyond Meat, and instead of parking it when you arrive at your destination, you simply eat it.
SUSTAINABILITY!!!!
They've found a few installed in the middle of other artificial heat sources too, haven't they?
Like on an asphalt rolled rooftop that's gonna get hotter than the rest of the building on any given day?
Or in the path of the exhaust stack for the building's boiler system?
I seem to recall that too.
You always get 20 to 30 degrees more on the pavement than in the ambient air because it retains heat. It's just that in winter? You barely notice the road being 35 when the ambient air is 28.
But in summer? You DEFINATELY know the road is 112 when the air is 88.
Remember when PETA was unique as the one lefty group that openly antagonized and insulted those it was trying to "convert"?
Why did everyone copy that approach when it never worked in the first place?
Last edited:
Found on twitter/x
OP also refuses to get employment and only wants to collect social security
OP also refuses to get employment and only wants to collect social security
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2021
In the kindest way possible: we really need a 'what the fuck buddy are you doin' okay' sticker.
jesus now I'm imagining it too FUCK
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2015
My insurance bill for a whole month, for three cars (1 Daily driver plus 1 winter beater plus 1 project/fun car) doesn't even come to $300 a month. Let alone a week. Where are they getting that number from? (I know where, it was just rhetorical)
EDIT - I know not being US-based has a lot to do with it, the US is very car-friendly compared to the taxes/regulations of other continents, but, that's an argument against government policy, not the fundamental technology of the private ICE vehicle.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2020
the more I read this the more it sounds like an advertisement against consoomerism.
Lobster Cult High Priest
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2021
I would rather have a car than a Nintendo switch and Only Fans subscriptions
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
The Switch/Funkos/Onlyfans/iPhone combo makes me think it's a troll, but even if it is, he has 124 upvotes...
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
This sounds like one of those "30 minutes to the grocery store" figures. I did a bit of research though, the average insurance cost for a car in Australia ("Maccas" instantly clocks him as Australian) is around $100, probably less if you don't live in a big city and have wrecks every other year. Zoomers also spend more on gas in Australia for some reason so you can make it $250 a month and then throw in another $500 for car maintenance per year. That comes out to maybe $400 a month total, or $100 a week.
So yes, that number is pulled out of his ass. You'd think that /r/fuckcars wanted to be more credible and be "right" they'd be excising retards who spouted out nonsense like that, but they don't because they actually BELIEVE that shit.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
So does "Centrelink", which is the name of an Australian welfare agency.