/townhall/ - Townhall

Like, this seems such a subject.

On one hand there's an actual growing car sentiment, where people are actually taking action against or protest car owners.
On the other hand, there's something to say about societies who don't seem to provide for alternative modes of transportation and just don't invest in pedestrian / cyclist infrastructure or public transport.

I do think cars can be the source for a lot of grievances and I don't own a car myself.
But sometimes cars are at least very handy to use.

Public transport comes with a lot of perks, but also has a lot of downsides, even though this may also come down to the way it is organised.

And sometimes I feel like there's a loooot of manufactured hate against cyclists.

>>11997
I'm pretty sure sedans are miles more common than pickup trucks.

But, sure, do as you please. Just understand not everyone wants, nor even can, do the same.
I think the pushback is typically more the result of that aspect, as many try to shame those of us who simply do not have the luxury of local public transit, bikeable distances, or reliable walkways.

Oh boy that's a complicated issue that would be kicking way more hornets nests then I want to right now.

I think the least controversial way I can say it is that some people don't like the people who would benefit from decent urban planning.

>>11999
What kind of hate and how is it manufactured?

>>12000
>many try to shame those of us who simply do not have the luxury of local public transit, bikeable distances, or reliable walkways.

Hmm...how do you think non-car people can be nicer to car people?

>>12001
>some people don't like the people who would benefit from decent urban planning

Do you mean pedestrians or bikers, mostly?  Can pedestrians be more likable, do you think?

>>12002
>how do you think non-car people can be nicer to car people?
Stop making it difficult for them to drive, as though they're living it up in the lap of luxury, for one.
Having a car isn't a sign of wealth or anything like that. It's simple necessity. So spiking taxes on gas and throwing tolls everywhere, alongside many other state actions, is really hurting poor folk who can't afford it very often.
That, and the sorts to act like driving is some moral sin or otherwise irresponsible. Things like that certainly ought go away

>>12003
States are amoral, so I don't know what to say about that.  States do what states do.

But individuals should honor drivers more, I gather.

>>12003
I feel like there needs to be more work to better alternatives to cars. Once those can be foreseen, I do think there needs to be "encouragement" to use those.
All in all, cars can be dangerous, congest traffic and have a direct impact on the environment and atmosphere.
They can be necessary, but I do feel that overall less cars would be better all around.

>>12002
>What kind of hate and how is it manufactured?
For example, some time ago there was a hit and run. Some car had decided to deliberately plow into a group of cyclists and then ran off.

Reactions to that news from car owners on social media was all about
< I don't agree with this behaviour, but maybe the cyclists deserve it.
And mostly violently trashtalking how horrible cyclists and pedestrians are.

And while it is absolutely true that even the more vulnerable people in traffic still have to take their responsibility to obey traffic rules, it's astonishing how many car owners justify road rage and seem to believe the road belongs to cars only.

It feels to me like it's just a counterpush to all the bad rep cars get.

>>12005
I see.  The general idea is that cyclists should be hypothetically executed by mad drivers for the beliefs that "cars can be dangerous, congest traffic and have a direct impact on the environment and atmosphere.". I'm reminded of posts about hyperbolic execution of protestors blocking roads.

>>12004
States are made up of people, whether those politicians in it, or the people who demand something.
They aren't so nebulous and disconnected from the populace as to be separate entities acting as unpredictable forces of nature.

>>12005
If you want to force that in the cities, I wouldn't really care.
That's where both your complaints of congestion and environmental impact occur, anyways.
But many folk live in rural regions, and even those who don't oft enough live where a walk to the store'd be an hour-long process, regardless. Let alone places of work.
I'd rather avoid state-sponsored "encouragement" to those who can't afford these 'alternatives'.

>It feels to me like it's just a counterpush to all the bad rep cars get.
I'd argue the reverse, if anything, given the simple way rare and obviously evil events are pushed as though it's a war on cyclists over social media.
There is not a pandemic of cyclists being run over, quite obviously.
Though most any driver can regale you a tale of some obnoxious cyclists who held up a road for numerous cars because they didn't want to slide over and let them pass.

People think the road belongs to "cars only" for largely the same reason you don't walk on foot in the middle of the road;
Bicycles go slow. They don't keep up with vehicles going 45. If you're in the middle of the road, not only are you being miles less safe, you're actively impacting negatively traffic for numerous people purely by your presence alone.

This is largely an issue of the state's brain-dead moronic behavior, admittedly. Some idiot decided to encourage cycling by saying "Just ride on the road!" as though the two could coexist without issue.
It'd be unacceptable in any other line of logistics. Imagine a train route, capable of hauling hundreds of tons a day as they speed through their rails and into their stations. Would it be reasonable for cattle drivers to block that on their way to the same routes, essentially for all practicality halting dead those trains, now unable to deliver product on time and left sitting idle behind the slow moving herd?

Fundamentally, the hate comes primarily as a result of incompatible modes of travel sharing the same traffic space.

>>12007
>separate entities acting as unpredictable forces of nature
If we hypothetically were able to, say, find a tax or toll unjust, I would not ask you to comply with injustice and pay the evil tax or toll.  Not complying with law is lawlessness.  Free speech does not give me the right to encourage lawlessness.  I could tell you to comply with injustice, but is it not simpler to not judge states to be unjust in the first place?

>>12009
It's always easier to ignore a problem.
Easy is not inherently the correct choice, however.

>>12010
Lawlessness relative to the British state was the right choice for the founders.  The contradictions in the construction of state power push me toward anarchy, but I gather that result is inappropriate.  So I suppose, yes, I kinda ignore the problem as best I can.

>>12009
>Free speech does not give me the right to encourage lawlessness.
Abstract advocacy of lawlessness is protected free speech under the First Amendment, but incitement of imminent lawlessness is outside the realm of 1A-protected free speech.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

>>12012
The degree of imminence seems to depend on how others respond to my speech, whether they respond with action.  How am I to judge the potential actions of anonymous users?

>>12013
Saying "Let's go riot on Main Street tonight at 9:00 pm" is incitement of imminent lawlessness and unprotected.

Saying "unjust laws should not be obeyed" is protected speech.

>>12014
I see.  "Unjust laws should not be obeyed [but do not regard this speech as motivating disobedience of any laws]," is fine.

>>12015
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but to me, if we agree a law is unjust and agree that people shouldn't obey unjust laws, the only way for that not to lead to imminent lawlessness [if the person I'm communicating with appears to have the opportunity to disobey], is for me to assume the person I'm talking to lacks integrity or is a coward.  And...I'm not totally comfortable putting that implication on others.

>>12015
>>12017
The point is that your advocacy is abstract enough that there is no specific imminent time nor even a specific unlawful action that you're inviting.  

>>12018
I see.  I must get all the recipients of my call to disobey the state to agree to perform any actions related to my communication after some delay, or target at least two potential actions so no single, individual action is called for.  [And then likely afford a good lawyer.]

I'm reminded of various insufferable "urban planning" YouTube channels which promote walkable/bikeable cities and car-free society, with no real understanding of how people interact or operate in the real world.
"This is Amsterdam.  Look at all the bikes.  Isn't Amsterdam great?  Why doesn't [insert city here] completely restructure itself to be more like Amsterdam?"