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

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I've noticed a pattern, all bike faggots I came across were only the kind to ride road racing bicycles with tiny thin tires, and wear lycra pants. I've never had an MTB or cross user not yield in traffic or run a red light, or be butthurt about anything, its always the middle aged men (and women) in lycra (MAMILs)
Yeah, and mountain bikers don't want highly groomed, paved "trails" to bike on. It's antithetical to what they like about mountain biking and going off road. A multi-use bike or even town bike can often handle dirt and crushed gravel roads fine. It's the "commuters" who just *have* to use racing style bikes for their 9-5 that are the issue.
 
Shit like this is bullshit because mountain bikes can handle trails easily. Hell, even fine crushed rock trails are easy to bike on and work better for multi-use trails. You don't hate bike short faggots enough.

EDA: It's so strange how these types also cannot account for their own safety. Things need to be bubble wrapped for them and impossible for scawy vehicles or bumps to possibly be an issue. It's not that you can't just use your eyes to see if there is anything blocking your way or doing something inappropriate like trying to drive on trails that aren't for car use. Nuh uh. Impossible! Everyone else from ATVs, off road bikes (w/ or w/out motors, horses, and hikers do this but for bike short fags it's unreasonable.
They want to pave the trail so riders can't use it as frequently (horses trotting on pavement too long is bad for the hooves/uncomfortable/you have to hire the farrier much sooner than usual). Like I've said previously in this thread, on multi use trails bicyclists rarely follow the rules (i.e. always yield to horseback riders)

Common multi use trail sign:

1740077943469.png


Bicyclists generally ride like those arrows are pointing in the opposite direction 🤦‍♀️ I like to think, a lot of them FAFO and get kicked in the face by horses.
 
Bicyclists generally ride like those arrows are pointing in the opposite direction 🤦‍♀️ I like to think, a lot of them FAFO and get kicked in the face by horses.
Despite the fact that a lot of association, organizations (like backcountry horsemen), and riders go out of their way to help create and maintain trails that benefit more than just riders (a lot of saddle clubs help to maintain trails at NO COST to the parks or locales), or in general are for maintaining wild areas, everyone fucking gives us the short end of the stick. They hate us on "their" trails even when multi-use and horse specific trails are pretty much endangered. And not even getting into the fact horse and mule work is how a lot of wilderness is patrolled and trails made/serviced as motorized vehicles can't disrupt them. And you have to go through a lot of work to train and keep your horses trail ready to be safe mounts, not to mention all the money you put into being able to transport them to areas where you can ride. They hate us, do not respect trail etiquette, will let their off leash dogs bark and run up to you, and generally treat you like the problem. It makes me MATI. There are camps set out in wilderness for horses that people will also camp on despite not having horses and people that go there have had to turn around and leave because there is no where else allowed to camp out for trail access, these are usually made and maintained for free for horse people by horse people to use. And the worst are the bike short fags. No one should be playing speed demon on most off road trails anyway, it's dangerous and stupid.
 
EDA: It's so strange how these types also cannot account for their own safety. Things need to be bubble wrapped for them and impossible for scawy vehicles or bumps to possibly be an issue. It's not that you can't just use your eyes to see if there is anything blocking your way or doing something inappropriate like trying to drive on trails that aren't for car use. Nuh uh. Impossible! Everyone else from ATVs, off road bikes (w/ or w/out motors, horses, and hikers do this but for bike short fags it's unreasonable.
I hike and trail ride, and a lot of the trails in my region are shared/mixed use. Cyclists are the only people I ever have issues with. There’s clear signage all over the parks showing what kind of traffic is allowed on each trail, but it’s like the second they see the bike icon they go “All for me! Good luck everybody else!” and get pissy when you don’t stand aside for them to zoom through, even though they’re meant to yield to hikers and horses.

And it’s always the ones in their gay lycra shorts and dumb little fin helmets. Every time.
 
It makes me MATI.
Same.

& the more I read this thread (and learn how much bicyclists despise horse people) the more I find myself siding with the crazy horse folks who are always advocating for the creation of more horse trails. Forget about funding bike lanes - horse trails are much more versatile!
 
Same.

& the more I read this thread (and learn how much bicyclists despise horse people) the more I find myself siding with the crazy horse folks who are always advocating for the creation of more horse trails. Forget about funding bike lanes - horse trails are much more versatile!
The most frustrating part is that I’m happy to share the trails with bikes. I try to move my horse off to the side if I can, even if I don’t have to, because his feet can manage more uneven ground better than wheels. I clean up after my animals and do my best to keep them moving on the trails so hikers and bikers don’t have to maneuver around piles of horse shit in the middle of the path. Cyclists are the most selfish motherfuckers and give you absolutely no courtesy back. It’s maddening.
 
Saw a cyclist get hit today. Dumb motherfucker was cycling middle of the road in a 50 area. Just casually taking up the whole thing, he comes around a corner towards me as I'm waiting to pull out and a car comes around the corner behind him. Car slams the breaks, but because it's wet and he's doing like 45, hits the dipshit right up the ass and rolls him over the bonnet, roof and right onto the floor.

Zero sympathy. Cyclists on the road are a danger and should be limited to 30mph zones maximum. Didn't stick around for the ambulance
 
I agree that direct fees to use a street in a city you live in is completely immoral but what would Trump's alternative to reducing traffic in NYC be, since driving there is already nearly impossible and the alternatives look like an indian slum? Afaik the europoors do congestion pricing and have found at least some success with it in Norway so it's not entirely meritless despite the fact that it's basically a reinstitution of literally having to pay to enter a city like the medieval ages (which most of EU is stuck in).
Why does he have to provide an alternative? There is no Constitutional right to no traffic congestion.

This idea that the government MUST address every issue that affects more than 5 people, no matter how minor, and develop a plan to fix it?

Or can't remove regulations and just let people do what they want if no plan of their seems to be the solution?

It's just not feasible, but worse. For everyone.

It is what led to our bloated administrative state in the first place, and made it so appealing for petty tyrants to move into every office in the land. What 30 years ago would've been left totally alone as "not a government issue" is now seen as a perfectly valid reason for your life to be pried open, your taxes wasted and your behaviors "fixed" through coercive force.

The solution is "drive as much as you like, but deal with the consequences on your own" - I.E. - Freedom.
 
Last edited:
I agree that direct fees to use a street in a city you live in is completely immoral but what would Trump's alternative to reducing traffic in NYC be, since driving there is already nearly impossible and the alternatives look like an indian slum? Afaik the europoors do congestion pricing and have found at least some success with it in Norway so it's not entirely meritless despite the fact that it's basically a reinstitution of literally having to pay to enter a city like the medieval ages (which most of EU is stuck in).
The same thing everyone else has to do, make the alternatives better, people don't complain the subway exists, they complain it's too dangerous to use, when we had a much milder concern here the state govt responded by putting the cops that protect politicians(PSO's) at all suburban station at night, with additional roaming patrols on the trains.
That helped make the trains more reliable(can look after a medical emergency patients while the train leaves until ambos arrive)
Reduced crime around the station including car B&E and thefts, as well as on the system itself.
And by being visible they increased off-peak traveller numbers, meaning they felt safer even if you didn't see a PSO on your train itself.

All a congestion charge does is force the poor with the least options away from cities or onto the worse alternative, while those that are rich enough to have multiple options(i.e. the people you should want to move to alternatives) are basically unaffected.
Per the Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Trump is launching an investigation into the California HSR and will be conducting a through audit:
From what I've seen the issues are Californians being their usual hypocritical selves and repeatedly suing and dragging the project into court to try and block them buying or building on the land the route is meant to take, if Trump's Admin can fix that more power to them lol
 
Cyclists are a race:
Racism is about (wrongly) thinking that just someone is Mexican, black, or white they're inherently dumb or evil or worse than you. When people talk about Hitler blaming the Jews for everything that was wrong with Germany (and by extension, the world) it hinges on the idea that they actually weren't guilty.

If Jews were 100% guilty of what Hitler accused them of and 100% guilty of all the expulsions over the years, then was the Final Solution really such a bad thing? Probably not. Same thing here—if cyclists were a race, they're either all guilty and must be exterminated, or it's just not true. Unfortunately, unlike most cultures, there's no punishment for bad behavior. Being a scofflaw, vandal, and a general subhuman is encouraged behavior.
 
An honest question I've had about many of the younger anti car crowd, how much of it is sour grapes? For well over a decade at this point the price of a car has gotten obscene while the youngins have gotten poorer. Gas, insurance, repairs (and many modern cars being difficult to repair yourself), the car itself. All far more expensive now. This is ignoring in the US many states have made it a bastard for teens to get licensed, regulations vary by state but in mine it made me appreciate Franz Kafka's works.
Throw in youngins having to move to cities frequently for whatever jobs they can scrounge up where cars are at a disadvantage compared to bike/transit. The environmentalist argument fits conveniently when car ownership is far above your subsistence living.
This is ignoring the petty leftist crowd aka redditors who are content to hold a cudgel against anyone who has more than them and the disgusting overlap between anti car and reddit.
 
The residents of Strong Towns' "Strongest Town in America" want to recall the mayor and six out of seven city council members for a disastrous road diet on the city's primary north-south road:
This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.
Source (Archive)

Map of the area (road diet in blue):
1740105486534.png
Google Maps

It should be obvious why dieting this road is a terrible idea.

From the Strong Towns article (archive) where they gave out the award:

How Maumee leaders engage with the public and listen to them:​

Unfortunately, many residents do not fully understand why these changes are being undertaken in our community. That is not to say we lack supporters. The more we educate on Strong Towns constructs, the more buy-in we experience. The mayor, city council, city administrator, as well as many others in our community continually explain the concepts we now embrace. Every speech or presentation we give within our community mentions our willingness to embrace concepts that were once absent in our daily dialogue with others. Explaining, in detail, concepts such as induced demand, "infrastructure efficiency," and "vertical edge friction" and how these and other concepts afford further understanding for small groups increase the spread of this message.
The smugness is off the charts.

Strong Towns also made a video (PreserveTube) about the town.

The city spent millions on the road diet while neglecting the sewer system:
While the administrator was promoting this ordinance, critics of Maumee’s city government allege, he was neglecting the city’s sewer system, which was in desperate need of upgrading as it was dumping hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw sewage into the Maumee River each year. When the city finally got around to addressing the issue, instead of spreading the costs of the upgrade to everyone, it tried to impose a disproportionate share on people who were selling their homes. All of these things have outraged residents who are ready for a new city council and city administrator.
A "strong town" is a town without a working sewer system.

Let's take a look at what some residents think (commenting on Strong Towns' Facebook page (archive)):
1740106102154.png

A "strong town" is one where local businesses go out of business:
1740106125432.png

Couldn't have said it any better myself:
1740106141560.png

Urbanists are so polite:
1740106158846.png
(Randal O'Toole is the author of the article above)
 
Trump's alternative to reducing traffic in NYC be, since driving there is already nearly impossible and the alternatives look like an indian slum? Afaik the europoors do congestion pricing
1000004083.png
1000004084.jpg

It's no coincidence that traffic speeds dropped dramatically after Vision Zero and traffic calming was instituted.

What is traffic calming:
Traffic calming measures like road diets, speed bumps, and even street art help improve road safety by reducing vehicle speeds and inducing less risky driving.

It's quite sinister on what they are doing. As you see below, the average speed in 2012 was about 9.4 MPH but then they implemented traffic calming.

The result (along with other factors) is a reduced speed and subsequent congestion. Now here comes the government again and pushes congestion pricing as the solution.

The goal is to nudge people out of cars and onto public transit by making it too expensive or purposely creating more traffic.

The reward is being able to fund the always cash strapped MTA

FYI, what is nudging:
“Nudge theory” is a behavioral science concept that proposes people’s decisions and behaviors can be influenced in predictable ways by small changes in how choices are presented.
It's just like the COVID shots.

I think they were great for the elderly or those with compromised immune systems but then Biden tried to push OSHA (US Workplace Health And Safety) to mandate a vaccine or weekly test policy.

As to solutions on reducing congestion?

"Quality of life" crimes need to be enforced to make public transit more palatable.

NYC Subways need to be renovated.

The transit system and it's employees need to be audited.
 
The residents of Strong Towns' "Strongest Town in America" want to recall the mayor and six out of seven city council members for a disastrous road diet on the city's primary north-south road:
Remember, the basis for the "suburbs are financially unfeasible" was based on a budget for Ferguson, Mo. and claimed the opposite of what it said. Marohn lied or didn't understand the debt was for redeveloping something else.
 
That chart is missing the BLM bump:
View attachment 7007012
Source (Archive)

"Traffic calming" statistically does nothing for safety.
I have a feeling it would be more effective if you actually calmed the traffic. But pulling over black people for speeding is like rayciss n sheeeit so better not do that. In fact just let them wreak havoc over all forms of transport and rather than arresting them, arrest the people who defend themselves from them.
 
It's no coincidence that traffic speeds dropped dramatically after Vision Zero and traffic calming was instituted.
Really? I found a stat from nyc.gov that stated it was only 7.8mph in 2000 indicating it's always been stagnant. I think it doesn't help that their roads have always been severely over capacity and regardless of who has run NYC since the 1980s they have done very little to keep up with automotive demand or providing and maintaining high quality multi-modal connections to alleviate that demand. Ideally a lot of this could be solved if they actually invested in an expressway like Robert Moses wanted, at least having 1 that goes thru Manhattan to Brooklyn from NJ would alleviate a lot of unnecessary trips on low-capacity city streets.
 
A typical New York City block, particularly in Manhattan, is roughly 264 feet long (north-south) and 900 feet wide (east-west),

You'll never get high speed street travel in NYC just because you are racing from stop light to stop light, depending on car density. You've also got the whole island thing working against you, limiting your connections to a handful.
 
I think NYC is one of the few specific cases where traffic needs to be slow, just because of the sheer volume.
However the volume creates hazards as it magnifies all aspects of drivers by having more of them. So clearly the option is to spread these people out.
Or, alternatively, remove all vehicles from manhattan and only allow train travel, with one very large line orbiting the city, and a wall to keep people off of the tracks.
Also no deliveries, electric, or water in since those things harm the environment and cities are self sufficient anyways.
 
Back