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

[Thrak]

Any road outside the city is full of them as well (In our equivalent of suburbs). Meanwhile all rural roads have at best are "suggestiestroken" which are fake bike lanes (yes, that's a bike lane, really) that are only meant to make drivers slow down (While the speed limit is still like 80KM/h, lol). Naturally nobody takes them seriously
View attachment 7506932
And otherwise the rural roads will have no markings at all. Probably because the average boomer farmer will not have any of that bullshit that people put up with in the city.

ShreddedNerd's recent video on the topic pointed out something I noticed a long time ago: American rural roads are way safer and more pedestrian and bike-friendly than European ones. Much wider, actually extant shoulders that are frequently at least half paved, no hedges or tall grass preventing drivers from seeing small animals running out into the road or preventing cyclists and pedestrians from jumping out of the way, and to top it off (very much to my chagrin) much lower speed limits (any country road that's 50 here would be at least 60 and any that's 55 would be at least 70, the Netherlands has some that are 80 despite being such a small, dense country. This is one area where I agree America is stuck in the past; it isn't car-friendly enough despite loving cars and cheap speed so much). Jason of course really doesn't talk about anything rural at all, let alone how rural roads in his favorite places compare to those in America, and Europeans on tiktok that travel to America to shit on it for engagement farming always have to include a claim that rural areas in their home countries are far safer and easier to travel along without cars while never actually explaining why. Any American who isn't a car enthusiast would think Europeans were suicidal if they saw something like this, then wonder why their rural roads have speed limits at all if this is what the Civilized World insists is "safe"

 

[quaawaa]

ShreddedNerd's recent video on the topic pointed out something I noticed a long time ago: American rural roads are way safer and more pedestrian and bike-friendly than European ones. Much wider, actually extant shoulders that are frequently at least half paved, no hedges or tall grass preventing drivers from seeing small animals running out into the road or preventing cyclists and pedestrians from jumping out of the way, and to top it off (very much to my chagrin) much lower speed limits (any country road that's 50 here would be at least 60 and any that's 55 would be at least 70, the Netherlands has some that are 80 despite being such a small, dense country. This is one area where I agree America is stuck in the past; it isn't car-friendly enough despite loving cars and cheap speed so much). Jason of course really doesn't talk about anything rural at all, let alone how rural roads in his favorite places compare to those in America, and Europeans on tiktok that travel to America to shit on it for engagement farming always have to include a claim that rural areas in their home countries are far safer and easier to travel along without cars while never actually explaining why. Any American who isn't a car enthusiast would think Europeans were suicidal if they saw something like this, then wonder why their rural roads have speed limits at all if this is what the Civilized World insists is "safe"

British country roads are absolutely insane. Twisty, single lane (not single lane per direction, single lane total), blind corners, potholes, and a speed limit of 60 mph.

 

[Beautiful Border]

What do people like Jason think of streets being pedestrianized even when they aren't "car-centric"?

This is Church Street in Liverpool. It was previously open to cars, but it also had a tram line running through it. It was then pedestrianized (as you can see in the "before and after" pictures below). Church Street is a key artery of the city center.

On paper, pedestrianizing it was an obvious win for the "New Urbanists". But in practice, it now means getting from any of the main train stations (Lime Street or Liverpool Central) to the city's waterfront is actually more inconvenient and time-consuming than it was before, even if you don't have a car. Previously, you could have taken the tram directly. Now you have to either take a bus (which will take longer because it can't take a direct route), or you have to just walk the way there.

Pedestrianizing the street, as far as I can tell, had absolutely no benefits whatsoever. It's not even safer because Deliveroo drivers on high-powered e-bikes can come from any direction and run you over (this has almost happened to me twice) and you can't mitigate the risk because there's no separation between bikes (or e-bikes) and pedestrians. As someone who prefers walking to driving/cycling/etc., I'd much sooner have that separation than have 100% of the street "technically" cater to me, but not really.

 

[TaimuRadiu]

Speaking of Korea. I was watching some videos taken in North Korea recently. I audibly kekked when I saw that NK has bicycle lanes

View attachment 7497160

Would Jason like NK, you guys feel? We gotta get him to visit Pyongyang and see the beauty of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea's infrastructure! He might like it better than the decadent and decaying capitalist car-centric hell of south korea with it's disgusting carbrained IDIOT population of western bootlicking capitalists!

I mean, there's reasons why the South is called Hell Joseon...

 

[FPTMIU]

Pedestrianizing the street, as far as I can tell, had absolutely no benefits whatsoever. It's not even safer because Deliveroo drivers on high-powered e-bikes can come from any direction and run you over (this has almost happened to me twice) and you can't mitigate the risk because there's no separation between bikes (or e-bikes) and pedestrians. As someone who prefers walking to driving/cycling/etc., I'd much sooner have that separation than have 100% of the street "technically" cater to me, but not really.

Because "pedestrianizing" historical cities, ironically, destroys their historical character. Look at this street from the 1800s

Or this photo of Amsterdam

Generally, streets weren't made for walking before or after cars. They were made for vehicles first. Which was the horse carriage at one point, then tram, for a few years the bicycle too and the car now. Most urbanists are historically illiterate retard leftists and believe the car was the first device on wheels that roamed the streets and think that street design simply continuing the philosophy it had for centuries was caused by evil car companies. Like every single left wing policy, it's based on cock and balls and it ruins everything that it can possible touch.

 

[Lovely Kin]

British country roads are absolutely insane. Twisty, single lane (not single lane per direction, single lane total), blind corners, potholes, and a speed limit of 60 mph.

My great uncle mentioned when he drove on English roads even back then, they were giving him heart attacks with the amount of potholes and the amount of blind corners were out there. He enjoys visiting the English countryside still, but he was pretty much like "never again."

Pedestrianizing the street, as far as I can tell, had absolutely no benefits whatsoever. It's not even safer because Deliveroo drivers on high-powered e-bikes can come from any direction and run you over (this has almost happened to me twice) and you can't mitigate the risk because there's no separation between bikes (or e-bikes) and pedestrians. As someone who prefers walking to driving/cycling/etc., I'd much sooner have that separation than have 100% of the street "technically" cater to me, but not really.

They slow everything down as well, especially if you work nearby that said street and now you cannot take a shortcut, or you have to park elsewhere. It's a pain in the ass to deal with, and gets infested by the same annoying tourists that they always bitch about for driving everywhere.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

ShreddedNerd's recent video on the topic pointed out something I noticed a long time ago: American rural roads are way safer and more pedestrian and bike-friendly than European ones. Much wider, actually extant shoulders that are frequently at least half paved, no hedges or tall grass preventing drivers from seeing small animals running out into the road or preventing cyclists and pedestrians from jumping out of the way, and to top it off (very much to my chagrin) much lower speed limits (any country road that's 50 here would be at least 60 and any that's 55 would be at least 70, the Netherlands has some that are 80 despite being such a small, dense country. This is one area where I agree America is stuck in the past; it isn't car-friendly enough despite loving cars and cheap speed so much). Jason of course really doesn't talk about anything rural at all, let alone how rural roads in his favorite places compare to those in America, and Europeans on tiktok that travel to America to shit on it for engagement farming always have to include a claim that rural areas in their home countries are far safer and easier to travel along without cars while never actually explaining why. Any American who isn't a car enthusiast would think Europeans were suicidal if they saw something like this, then wonder why their rural roads have speed limits at all if this is what the Civilized World insists is "safe"

Kind of related to that—most of American roads have a strip of land between the road and everything else, the "right of way" (not related to traffic, just a strip of land owned by whichever authority maintains the roads) and often comes in the form of power line/utility access (worst case scenario is open ditches, but even then there's some wiggle to room to move out of the way for emergencies) either through ditches, power line/utility access, This is even the case in unpaved roads out in the middle of nowhere.

Not only in Britain do fences come up right up to the (narrow) rural road; I think this has been talked about before, but the "narrow streets" Jason idolizes aren't fun for anybody. Amsterdam-Centrum has a narrow lane and if you aren't using it there's not too much room for error before your bike sinks into watery depths. Japanese alleyways are the same way, get ready to hug the wall.

I think the problem is that Jason thinks that these are "polite" societies and will wait for you while you take up space like an asshole.

Because "pedestrianizing" historical cities, ironically, destroys their historical character. Look at this street from the 1800s

Or this photo of Amsterdam

Generally, streets weren't made for walking before or after cars. They were made for vehicles first. Which was the horse carriage at one point, then tram, for a few years the bicycle too and the car now. Most urbanists are historically illiterate retard leftists and believe the car was the first device on wheels that roamed the streets and think that street design simply continuing the philosophy it had for centuries was caused by evil car companies. Like every single left wing policy, it's based on cock and balls and it ruins everything that it can possible touch.

When it comes to planned cities (and by planned cities, had a general idea of where they were going with their grid, so all cities in the West after 1800 or so), they were built with wider streets to accommodate horse traffic. The only exception is when it comes to medieval streets, which were neither planned or made to accommodate much of anything and was just the result of slamming buildings together.

As for pedestrianizing streets, almost every example from Europe (or America) I've seen paraded out is obviously meant for tourism or shopping, yet urbanists will insist that's the way cities are supposed to be. It's not as retarded as the college campus example but it's still extremely common.

 

[quaawaa]

When it comes to planned cities (and by planned cities, had a general idea of where they were going with their grid, so all cities in the West after 1800 or so), they were built with wider streets to accommodate horse traffic. The only exception is when it comes to medieval streets, which were neither planned or made to accommodate much of anything and was just the result of slamming buildings together.

Salt Lake City infamously has very wide streets in order to allow a team of oxen to make a u-turn.

 

[SoleniyKraut]

Deliveroo drivers on high-powered e-bikes can come from any direction and run you over

I don't know if you'd be surprised by that, but it also happens when the road is accomodating for the vehicles properly, unlike in the example photos of the old streets reconstruction years later. In my country's second capital - Almaty, those scooters and quad bikes are quiet infamous for the fact that the delivery workers ride on pedesrtian causeways. Literally can't hide from them - what makes it worse is that the driving culture in that city is abysmal in the first place, so a car can hit you on your way to your morning commute too. I personally was almost ran over by the delivery guys twice while I was there. They don't even listen if you scream at them, like drones doing what they were programmed to.

On the thread namesake's topic - we also have awful bike lane implementation. I skimmed through the thread to understand that urbanists and bike enthusiasts have a general sentiment of rejecting cars and making everything accesible vis walkways and bike lanes. My country has recently started introducing bike lanes, that go parallel with sidewalks. The reason of the bad implementation is how late it was started, and the people's idiocy. As it turns out, bikers regularly ride on the pedestrian walkways, and pedestrians walk on the bike lane almost constantly. And I have a suspicion this would at some point or another occur in the ideal world the urbanist's want.

The bike lanes will also become a problem, and they'd probably suggest getting rid of them too. Ad absurdum until they cut off trains and planes and their citizens are limited to walking. I believe everyone already figured it's a bad idea.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

When it comes to planned cities (and by planned cities, had a general idea of where they were going with their grid, so all cities in the West after 1800 or so), they were built with wider streets to accommodate horse traffic. The only exception is when it comes to medieval streets, which were neither planned or made to accommodate much of anything and was just the result of slamming buildings together.

I suspect width of streets in the "olden days" has more to do with people passing a point per hour (on foot) than with much else - because how many people a road can handle is a function of width and speed - and walking/horses are all about the same speed, so the only way you can accomodate more traffic is to go wider.

 

[Itchy Hemorrhoids]

Link / Archive

The forests of residential high-rises in East Asian cities have a simple consequence for the future: across Asia and elsewhere, high-rise apartment buildings are strongly correlated with plummeting birth rates, though scholars continue to debate the reasons.

“High rise apartment towers (as they are usually built these days) are catastrophic for birth rates, and the causes are clear: there is no yard for kids to play in; kids bother the neighbors; and most apartments are too small for families,” he writes.

In suburbs, populations can be relatively dense, but birth rates are much higher, Hess says.

“Consider Sydney and Perth in Australia, where the TFR [total fertility rate] is a healthy 2.0 in the expensive but family-friendly suburbs but is an ultra-low 1.0 in the apartment-centric core.”

True if huge. This is raw data more or less showing that the bugmen are the self-hating nihilsts I've always argued they are. I'm kind of misanthropic enough to be at least agnostic on the birth rate issue, but it just goes to show that all of these things that are supposedly grounded in a healthy environment and thriving people are really just heading in the direction of social suicide.

 

[Lovely Kin]

Link / Archive


True if huge. This is raw data more or less showing that the bugmen are the self-hating nihilsts I've always argued they are. I'm kind of misanthropic enough to be at least agnostic on the birth rate issue, but it just goes to show that all of these things that are supposedly grounded in a healthy environment and thriving people are really just heading in the direction of social suicide.

I'm leaning towards true. Many of those strange antinatalist and childfree types are drawn to cities.

 

[Thrak]

Because "pedestrianizing" historical cities, ironically, destroys their historical character. Look at this street from the 1800s
View attachment 7511276
Or this photo of Amsterdam
View attachment 7511279

Generally, streets weren't made for walking before or after cars. They were made for vehicles first. Which was the horse carriage at one point, then tram, for a few years the bicycle too and the car now. Most urbanists are historically illiterate retard leftists and believe the car was the first device on wheels that roamed the streets and think that street design simply continuing the philosophy it had for centuries was caused by evil car companies. Like every single left wing policy, it's based on cock and balls and it ruins everything that it can possible touch.

The predecessors of private cars are what chiefly defined Indo-European culture and the civilizations they built and conquered, let alone the cities they created largely to be playgrounds for them. You were a loser destined to be eradicated or enslaved if you didn't have a fast-enough horse and chariot, let alone one at all. It's literally in every White man's genes to want to drive your Mustang flat-out across the plain during the day and retire in the evening to cruising around the city your ancestors built in your magnificent chariot. Cars infamously were initially touted as something that would save urbanism because they didn't shit everywhere and didn't smell anywhere near as bad

Not only in Britain do fences come up right up to the (narrow) rural road; I think this has been talked about before, but the "narrow streets" Jason idolizes aren't fun for anybody. Amsterdam-Centrum has a narrow lane and if you aren't using it there's not too much room for error before your bike sinks into watery depths. Japanese alleyways are the same way, get ready to hug the wall.

I believe his stroad video was one of the first he made and it very adequately explained something I'd been trying to for years. It kept me intrigued until his first video where he preached this. This was my first thought upon hearing him assert that this is a good idea

It doesn't matter if the speed limit is 5mph, let alone 20 which he still acts like is too fast (any speed in a car is too fast for him, really); Europe has reduced their stopping distances to zero. It is literally impossible for this to be safer than what I can personally attest already results in tons of roadkill in his hometown and America's much wider and more open roads generally. I call complete bullshit on any "statistics" shoved down my throat by the demons in Western governments and their useful idiots on the matter. I know it never drops below freezing in northwestern Europe, but even without people slipping and sliding down their front porches and driveways, animals, autistic kids, runaway wheelchairs (handicap accessibility is notoriously bad in Europe and famously good in America; zer can be nein untermenschen in glorivs Evropa), runaway cars and anything else that could potentially not see or not stop is going to be hit in this narrow of a space. This law might have changed recently and Google gives me nothing, but in Germany you are legally required to hit an animal that has run out in front of you if panic stopping would result in a car behind you crashing into you, which probably means they're aware that this is the case.

If America tried to do this, these same people would accurately claim they're just trying to kill more kids, animals and disabled people. They'd say the same about America lowering curbs and sidewalks so emergency vehicles can drive up on them to get around traffic which they would praise any other country on earth for adopting from Europe.

Regarding the proposed speed limit itself which would double your travel time, you'd also double your fuel consumption and the amount of pollutants you're spewing right into peoples faces and their homes. As with everything, it isn't about being safe or more environmentally friendly; it's about making things harder for people that aren't the ruling class who have all the time in the world to cruise around in their fancy cars bought with your money. It's that much more time they get to cuck you

 

[Xarpho's Return]

I believe his stroad video was one of the first he made and it very adequately explained something I'd been trying to for years. It kept me intrigued until his first video where he preached this. This was my first thought upon hearing him assert that this is a good idea

Urbanists hate set-backs for some reason. I'm not sure what the idea is...aesthetics? Space conservation? Even if you take away the car from the picture, I sure wouldn't want to step outside and immediately be run down by a cyclist, or as a cyclist, getting doored by an actual door. (Residential doors tend to open inwards, but commercial establishments open outwards, usually due to fire code).

If America tried to do this, these same people would accurately claim they're just trying to kill more kids, animals and disabled people. They'd say the same about America lowering curbs and sidewalks so emergency vehicles can drive up on them to get around traffic which they would praise any other country on earth for adopting from Europe.

I'm pretty sure he did cover the lower curbs in Europe, and either forgot that it's the new de facto way of building suburban American streets these days (including being cheaper to not build curb cuts) but of course didn't mention that. In fact, he'd probably turn around and say that the low curbs make it easier to kill pedestrians (but only in America).

Regarding the proposed speed limit itself which would double your travel time, you'd also double your fuel consumption and the amount of pollutants you're spewing right into peoples faces and their homes. As with everything, it isn't about being safe or more environmentally friendly; it's about making things harder for people that aren't the ruling class who have all the time in the world to cruise around in their fancy cars bought with your money. It's that much more time they get to cuck you

The "muh pollution" is a go-to when they don't have any other arguments pre-loaded, but they do cheer every opportunity for cars to continue to be on more often--whether idling at a light because right on red isn't allowed, or going dead slow, or circling around looking for a parking spot.

I suspect width of streets in the "olden days" has more to do with people passing a point per hour (on foot) than with much else - because how many people a road can handle is a function of width and speed - and walking/horses are all about the same speed, so the only way you can accomodate more traffic is to go wider.

I wonder if in the past retards squealing about wider streets because that just meant "more horses".

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I'm pretty sure he did cover the lower curbs in Europe, and either forgot that it's the new de facto way of building suburban American streets these days (including being cheaper to not build curb cuts) but of course didn't mention that. In fact, he'd probably turn around and say that the low curbs make it easier to kill pedestrians (but only in America).

I doubt these people realize just how much of modern road design has NOTHING to do with the vehicles and EVERYTHING to do with the weather.

Cars and trucks don't kill roads, rain does. Curbs were literally ancient-Rome era drainage control, and modern techniques allow them to be bypassed.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

I doubt these people realize just how much of modern road design has NOTHING to do with the vehicles and EVERYTHING to do with the weather.

Cars and trucks don't kill roads, rain does. Curbs were literally ancient-Rome era drainage control, and modern techniques allow them to be bypassed.

There is an art to paving roads. In third-world countries paved roads will flood after the most minor of rainfall because there's zero engineering to them, you have to make them slightly curved so water falls off.

And you reminded me of something else. The common thread is that they "stole" street space from pedestrians, but in old streets, there were no sidewalks, the "street" was just the space between the buildings, and pedestrians naturally gravitated to the side because they were slower than the faster, larger horses. Even before streets were paved, someone had the idea of putting raised walkways (wooden at first) closest to the buildings to provide a better surface for pedestrians. So in a way, pedestrians already "stole" the space closest to the buildings before anyone came up with the idea for motor vehicles.

 

[Grapefruit Soda]

And you reminded me of something else. The common thread is that they "stole" street space from pedestrians, but in old streets, there were no sidewalks, the "street" was just the space between the buildings, and pedestrians naturally gravitated to the side because they were slower than the faster, larger horses. Even before streets were paved, someone had the idea of putting raised walkways (wooden at first) closest to the buildings to provide a better surface for pedestrians. So in a way, pedestrians already "stole" the space closest to the buildings before anyone came up with the idea for motor vehicles.

To be fair, pedestrian infrastructure long predates horses, it comes from ease of access to battlements and having to guard territory quickly, which is why old euro cities are so shitty to navigate and drive in. Urbanists are europhilic retards who latch onto old, horrible to live in cities as a motte bailey for cars bad. The average urbanist doesnt even touch grass, let alone walk through a downtown region and interact with businesses.

 

[quaawaa]

The average urbanist doesnt even touch grass, let alone walk through a downtown region and interact with businesses.

It’s curious how delivery services like DoorDash are most popular in “walkable” areas. In the suburbs, most people prefer to pick up their own food or dine in. If it’s truly so convenient to walk to restaurants in dense cities, why would anyone ever order delivery and pay its high fees?

 

[Itchy Hemorrhoids]

If it’s truly so convenient to walk to restaurants in dense cities, why would anyone ever order delivery and pay its high fees?

I know this is a rhetorical question, or at least I think it is, but the answer is, as always, niggers.

 

[Jhonson the Two]

To be fair, pedestrian infrastructure long predates horses, it comes from ease of access to battlements and having to guard territory quickly, which is why old euro cities are so shitty to navigate and drive in. Urbanists are europhilic retards who latch onto old, horrible to live in cities as a motte bailey for cars bad. The average urbanist doesnt even touch grass, let alone walk through a downtown region and interact with businesses.

It's the dumb tourist mindset, as always. When they talk about european cities they think of clean intimate little streets nice for a stroll.
Nothing wrong about nice places to relax when you're on vacations but why do they think everywhere is like that too?