this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
794 points (85.5% liked)
Fuck Cars
9655 readers
553 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Depends on your country. Here in the UK roads are maintained using funds from the general tax pool, so the cyclists are actually subsidising the motorists, who proportionally do a lot more damage to the road surface.
If they are subsidizing they are paying a portion. If they are then they should be but they should also not be acting like it was entirely built entirely by cyclists for cyclists who have equal use of the road as if they are the same as a car with the same intentions as a car or transit or emergency vehicle. Yes they can have their lane but acting like they can act as wide as a car for an argument to act like an entitled asshole on the road even on a ‘subsidy’ is an inane comparison.
If you are saying that you support the construction of comprehensive segregated cycle paths then I am very much on your side.
It would be nice if motorists also kept to their lane, then. Too often I find my cycle lanes blocked by drivers who feel that the road was"entirely built entirely by motorists for motorists". I would also be happy to keep to my lane if it always existed. As it is, a lot of the time I'm left with no other choice but to join with the motor traffic as the cycle lanes just stop existing. In the UK it's illegal to ride on the pavement, and I'm sure you wouldn't want me to become another cyclist who just ignores the law for his own benefit?
It's also important to note here that the UK now has the Hierarchy of Road Users, which explicitly states that the more vulnerable the road user, the more priority they should be given. Pedestrians have top priority, followed by horses, followed by cyclists, and then with motorised traffic at the bottom. It's a very new development, and one that I don't think has been tested in law yet, but it's there in our Highway Code.
emergency vehicles and transit are motorized as well which hold vulnerable people(if not the most vulnerable). That should be taken into account.
As a cyclist I don’t do this as it’s my decision. so you don’t speak for all cyclists. Don’t hold me hostage with your behaviour decisions as I’m not holding you hostage with mine. You can Manage your own behaviour like a responsible person without making threats as a bad faith argument. It’s beneath all of us to act this way and undermining legitimate arguments at best.