Search Results
6/19/2025, 12:41:53 AM
>>2045115
The equivalency you try to draw between bike and car in usage dispute is invariably false because of the stark assymmetry between the two.
Cars are everyhwere and their infra is well established and sometimes supported well beyond the point of reason
Bike infra takes away way less from society than car infra and usually actually even improves and adds to it once reinstated yet you try to make it seem the other way around as if it was bikes and not cars that are disturbing some implied better/more optimal state of affairs in infra/transportation
And beyond all that you whole premise of arguing against better bike infra because "hurr durr cyclists sometimes don't drive on designated bike paths" is just frankly dumb and false in the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases empirically and epistemologically.
I view this point you're trying to make as mostly rhetorical diversion.
Having bike infrastructure is good and it's better than trying to merge car traffic faster than 30Km/h with bike traffic or high throughput car traffic with bike traffic
Exact point is visualized and mentioned in this video at 3:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=208&v=Uhx-26GfCBU
(disclaimer: attached pic is just a generic example and doesn't really relate directly to anything I'm talking about in this comment - in a perfect world there'd be some sort of alternative route for cyclists altogether because they can go where cars can't but outside of cities and more dense urban zones such 1:1 parallel integrations are the more suitable concept imo)
The equivalency you try to draw between bike and car in usage dispute is invariably false because of the stark assymmetry between the two.
Cars are everyhwere and their infra is well established and sometimes supported well beyond the point of reason
Bike infra takes away way less from society than car infra and usually actually even improves and adds to it once reinstated yet you try to make it seem the other way around as if it was bikes and not cars that are disturbing some implied better/more optimal state of affairs in infra/transportation
And beyond all that you whole premise of arguing against better bike infra because "hurr durr cyclists sometimes don't drive on designated bike paths" is just frankly dumb and false in the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases empirically and epistemologically.
I view this point you're trying to make as mostly rhetorical diversion.
Having bike infrastructure is good and it's better than trying to merge car traffic faster than 30Km/h with bike traffic or high throughput car traffic with bike traffic
Exact point is visualized and mentioned in this video at 3:35
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=208&v=Uhx-26GfCBU
(disclaimer: attached pic is just a generic example and doesn't really relate directly to anything I'm talking about in this comment - in a perfect world there'd be some sort of alternative route for cyclists altogether because they can go where cars can't but outside of cities and more dense urban zones such 1:1 parallel integrations are the more suitable concept imo)
Page 1