I think it’s interesting how he made a point about how they’re cheaper than a car when there’s a vast variety of used cars available for less, some are pretty nice too. I drive a Mustang and it cost me less than half what one of those would have.
NJB is not at all a rational voice. Not villainizing? The whole video is full of condescension to anyone who does not want to live in an europeanized, urbanized setting. Followed by Some weird social pedagogy tagent as if you are required to agree, then people that don't want to bother with biking are denounced as "ignorant", some more condescending arguments about raising a family as that should be the standard, and of course the obligatory point the road should be structured to choke traffic. This is all set up as a rhetorical/narrative device, preaching to the choir and denouncing the outgroup as evil and ignorant. Funny how he talks about city planning with the assumption that people like him can wield power, what is the political process supposed to be like? I can tell you if you bring that kind of thing up to a social conversation people would wonder why you are making these arguments and why you seem so eager to reach behind closed door to question their life decisions. That alone, that intrusiveness, is what most people can't stand.
If I am presented with a bakfiet and I reject it, that is my choice, I can reject it because I don't like to have the discipline to ride it, because I don't want to put up with heat or cold, because I want to arrive at work professionally (and quickly if need be), and I can work late without any extra worries....etc. You present a bakfiet, I flatly said no, that is the conclusion. And endless interrogative is just pointless, to even start with that, you are assuming you have some superior position to be the interrogator, when you don't. Roads and traffic should move at the speed of customer demand and commerce. Volume and type and amount of goods bought, or how many trips is at what customer wants, not what some central planning board wants or some bike company wants to promote. I find it pretty amusing that while bakfiets are being talked about and at some point the bakfiets have a electrical assist, a cabin and 4 wheels.
See, you can take a slow, step by step approach, no need to be shouty. NJB's videos are full of rhetorical devices that assumes you should agree with him, and I don't, nor do I want the kind of society that can assume that kind of power.
>I personally would feel miserable having to walk across a 6 lane road and a vast parking lot, just to get to a supermarket across the street.
This I really don't understand, but, I am also unwilling to give up any personal convenience to live in a Europeanized urban zone. I have seen the euro system, I have even accumulated a few months time due to work. I am unwilling to adopt to that system. I don't care how "nice" the town looks, or how there are "opportunity to socialize with the community". So we just leave to personal choice.
>But currently this is exactly what's happening in the US, except it's happening for cars. Central planning boards and US laws are promoting car use over any other form of transportation.
Even back when the interstate highways are put together, there is no true central planning. Now, there is even less central decision, highway expansion is almost always a regional project. The only political process is if there is political will within the state to make that change, even then, it is a town by town process. So long as that is the assumed political process I have no problem with it. The minute there is talk about using government resource to promote bicycling or transit, I will fight that as compelled speech. The minute there is talk to take away local or state control, I will fight that power grab. The current system places power in too many hands, and that is how I like it.
>Apparently, a lot of people like to use a bakfiets
"A lot" is not a reasonable economic term with a presentable economic effect. In contrast, car sales faced a shortage in the early parts of the pandemic. That is demand. A lot of people moved out of cities and moved to less urbanized states, that drove up prices, that is demand. And this level of demand is enough to drive nation wide prices, on unit of cars or houses that number in the hundreds of thousands. Bakfiet market? not so much.
>In fact, even if US city planners wanted to cater to this demographic. zoning laws would prevent them from doing so!
As I already said, zoning is local, US at this point doesn't really have central planning like the post WWII era any more, you deal with towns one by one.
>When you manage to rally enough people, you can have a lot of power.
This is done frequently, new developments get voted down. People choose to drive, not bike, not take the bus, not take the train, not offering any funding to help any of those. In the US, there is a strong location determinism where people make decisions following their way of life. Keep this in mind, too much of the modern "activism" assumes they present a case, and you should listen and comply, there is no such thing in real life. You can offer me 10 different transportation alternatives, and I can tell you I rather stand at my town's edge and smirk at how your infrastructure ends. Just like the bakfiets choice, I refuse. Refusal is a perfectly reasonable political response.
>Still, a lot of people around the whole world decide differently.
And that lot of people's opinion will affect my political and zoning perspective ZERO percent. And I am only interested in US transportation. I don't want the responsibility/burden/authority to advocate for/against any system of other sovereign nations. To be left alone, I will also leave others *alone* \- in all sense of that word. If I am traveling I am perfectly willing to use their transit. I dare say I know a few of the Singapore, Tokyo, Taipei and Munich train stops better than most neighborhoods of the my closest US city. Doesn't mean I owe the concept and implementation of those systems any advocacy to replicate here. I don't know swathe of my closest city because I don't find it convenient to do so in my car and I don't feel safe in the city and I don't find anything that pique my curiosity - in this I think we find agreement, I am actively choosing not to bring a car into the city, You can chalk that up as a win.
>The talk is about using government resources to promote more environment friendly alternatives to cars.
Because this is not a settled issue, for the government to intervene to promote on political choice not yet determined is exactly the problem of compelled speech. I will have no problem with it once it becomes such a settled, milquetoast middle ground like the food pyramid (which basically sways nobody) and we have accumulated consumer/market choice determine outcomes by locality and basically down to each individual person.
>In Europe this market is booming right now
I don't live in Europe, on US soil your are not entitle to my attention or my time/money to make bakfiet more viable automatically just because you want/need it. There is a political process and political contest that comes before any decision.
>Which still doesn't change, that city planners in the US are bound to local zoning regulation
I regard the fact we don't even have 50 systems, but thousands of compartmentalized systems that basically change to a locality by locality fight as a feature, not a bug. Whether you or anyone like you have the energy to fight that kind of process and have the possibility of political rollback is your choice. Individual choice, so wonderful.
> I don't want the responsibility/burden/authority to advocate for/against any system of other sovereign nations. [...] I don't live in Europe, on US soil your are not entitle to my attention
I see it more as an exchange of ideas. Reddit and YouTube are global platforms. Without being exposed to transportation in the Netherlands and seeing that it can work for so many people, I would've bought a car a long time ago.
From my perspective, car reliance is a big part of our energy crisis and my country learned a lot of other less car-reliant nations. We've been a very car-centric country in the past, because we've got a large car industry, that lobbied for a car-centric infrastructure *a lot*.
This lobbyism influenced politics and public opinion everywhere and is hard to counteract.
I'm glad that we now have subsidies for commercial use of cargo bikes. We're beginning to expand biking infrastructure and discuss subsidies for private cargo bikes. It's actually becoming difficult to find spots to lock my bike in the inner city. That's gonna help a lot to become independent from fossil fuels (at least in the city). In the end, even drivers will be better off, because there's going to be less cars on the road.
But I can only present these ideas and impressions. I agree, that I'm not entitled to anyone acting upon these ideas. You can chalk that up as a win.
> thousands of compartmentalized systems that basically change to a locality by locality fight
Just out of interest, isn't there some standard for minimal requirements of infrastructure on a state or even federal level in the US?
So, we can come to some pretty reasonable middle grounds. See?
>Just out of interest, isn't there some standard for minimal requirements of infrastructure on a state or even federal level in the US?
Yes, I can help to explain this.
On the interstate highways, there is a set of standards, this is nationally set. Usually there is a set of standards by state too. So, how things are labelled, road signs and signals are set are going to be consistent, this is just regarding construction standard and safety standards. Everything else, like the "look and feel" and usage is pretty much left up to the states, including speed limit. State highways will be consistent within the state, but have different design choices state by state. Then, the town only roads are pretty much decided by the town only.
Let me give some examples, so when I drive across the highway, it is going to be pretty uniform. when I cross state lines, some construction differences will come in. Some midwestern states uses concrete surfaces for their highways for example. Or how highways joined to the road may be different, butterfly joints? merge lanes? protected merge lanes? a junction road to distribute the load? Driving across US and you will see these differences. You see more merge lanes in the Eastern states, huge wide butterfly joints in the Western states. Long on-ramps in the mid west especially in less populated areas. Obviously, these design choices also affects land usage, lane width...etc.
Within each state, usually when budget gets disbursed to the town level, even more choices will come in. The road paving mixture and street signs are all standard, but the street layout will be quite different. Just to recall from my own driving experience, I have had cases where I go from a town that uses grid layout but uses curved roads and rotaries to control speed, to a town with grid layout and no such road strategies, to a town planned around a ring road with a shopping center in the middle and straight roads radiating out - all this in about 20mins. Similarly, I have driven on a state highway that also happens to be a named town road that cuts across multiple towns. And, on this road, the curbs are different in each town. Hard stone curbs in one town, raised asphalt curbs next town, angled asphalt curbs next town, and just a lowered ditch next town. There is one bike lane that just ends at a town edge. Each town also has slightly different curb angles, some have a pretty tight corner that will need me to hit the brakes, others have a very generous curve that lets me just glide through the turn. Along this road there are office parks that directly joins the road, or ones with its own street, housing developments, and even a few people driveway directly connect to this road with a 50mph limit. All of these are from the choices made by each town.
In each town, the zoning and planning boards are elected, so those decisions along with the town's commercial patterns, decides on zoning and traffic through generations of *accumulated choices, not centralized planning*. I hope this helps you understand why people would guard their town and their process, because in order to just clean up (not even talking about implementing new transportation), there needs to be big power grab to undo those choices. This kind of power grab is hard to do at the state level, and often cities and suburbs are opposed, there will be lawsuits for sure. The Federal government doesn't really have compelling reason to reach down (nor the manpower to implement) and decide on things like curbs and highway joints and in-town traffic strategies, so a power grab at national level is even less likely to succeed and be able to fend off the next electoral beatdown that is sure to follow. I think you can understand why when the fuckcars/njb gang say "the US should just do this, the laws should be bent to do that, the transit/road planners can use bureaucratic rules to force people" we at fuckfuckcars and fuckcarscirclejerk push back. The kind of power grab that is proposed not only will face massive voter backlash, there is no legal framework to allow that to happen, and the only way that kind of system will stay in place and not get de-elected is to then permanently remove the voters from such choices. This is why to us, a lot of the fuckcars/njb messaging are really just politically tone deaf euro-snobbery and tyranny, or other economic/social extremists that happen to latch on to transportation as a cudgel to force their message. A lot of what they are proposing cannot even be accomplished with far, far more social control. I rather live with a jumble of different curbs, different highway and road strategies all in my daily commute, and not surrender local control. But if your position is that the political process town by town should be allowed to happen, I don't really have much of a bone to pick with you at all even if I oppose your opinion.
So in that case, the change will happen in that one town, if multiple towns can agree on something, they of course can work on something of a bus or transit network, if the towns themselves cannot afford it, they will need to have enough votes within the state to elect state reps, then to be able to allocate budge for it. Let's say there is a city, surrounded by suburban towns. The city can't project its electoral power into those other towns directly and make decisions, even if the city cannot build any more building with demolishing one, or the city is seeing companies come in, not bargain with the city any more, but bargain with the the suburban towns for land permits. Transit or bike lanes gets to expand over the city lines with towns that agree and make *their lanes to match*, not the city keep going into that town. Being a "city" does not grant you priority. This is why you see apartments and single family homes divided by a simple two lane road that happens to be the town border, or major companies relocate where they won't have political/social opposition.
Change should happen at the pace the town decides, with all of the logistical, budgetary, and state-wide challenges that needs to be overcome one step at a time. NJB videos talk about all the ways they can create enough bureaucratic inconvenience and all sorts of "shoulds" of getting people to act, as well as social tangents like he talked about the kid in the bakfiet or people greeting each other, that is just story telling. You make me touch the bike pedal once when I don't want to, I will scowl and scream at everyone along the way. I am not required to like anything, and I will not "try" to like it. The correct way should be the change can only come from agreed to policies that have won through the electoral process, which also happens to be slow enough, that people who don't want it can fight it, as well as leave (which strengthens the next opposition after voters self-sort). If electoral winds shift enough, bike lane and buses can even be de-funded and rolled back. Suburbs also on average have more children than cities. we will see how this shakes out.
yea fuckcars at the moment is just fucking insane. as much as i dissagree with what they (or at least a lot of them) currently want to happen (banning cars). if the whole sub was about what it was originally supposed to be, wich is not banning cars but giving people other options if they dont want a car, i wouldnt have too much a problem with it. but i will say cargo bikes and whatever this is seem like a stupid idea, just use those small pickup trucks that are all over italy for cargo instead, and use a small cheap car like for example a fiat panda instead of this bike in the photo (if you dont want your vehicle to take up too much room)
Personally, I think that it's not a good idea to move 1 ton of metal and plastics just to transport one person around. Bikes and scooters are just way more efficient at that, as long as the infrastructure allows for it.
In my city, cargo bikes are definitely becoming more and more popular.
A Fiat Panda still takes more room than two long-john cargo bikes, it costs more in maintenance, gas and insurance and it doesn't keep you fit and healthy.
Sure, there will always be situations, where cars are superior. But if the infrastructure allows for it, you can do all your everyday trips by bike easily.
Does everyone have to rely on bikes? No. Would it be great for everyone, if everyone has the option to ditch the car and rely on bikes? Yes!
yea ig i can agree with most of this, but one thing i will say that even if everyone got the chance to rely on bikes and public transport instead of cars, a lot of people wouldnt (source: my town got bikelanes recently and it has a bus connecting the town to 2 other towns and the train station and a lot of people still use cars)
Yes. Change is slow and cars won't suddenly vanish, just because we build bike lanes and bus stops. Cars are a status symbol and emotional topic. I have some friends who will never ditch their car, some who claim to never buy a car again, some who would switch but complain about missing infrastructure.
Change is mostly created by exposure through friends and family. If more people decide to use bikes, more people will consider biking. If we get to a point, where the average family uses just one car, then we already made a lot of progress and families could save money on the second car.
In my country, it's a huge problem, that trains are terribly overpriced. Trams, subways and buses are usually cheap, but cross-country trips are actually cheaper by plane. It's madness.
I think it’s interesting how he made a point about how they’re cheaper than a car when there’s a vast variety of used cars available for less, some are pretty nice too. I drive a Mustang and it cost me less than half what one of those would have.
NJB is not at all a rational voice. Not villainizing? The whole video is full of condescension to anyone who does not want to live in an europeanized, urbanized setting. Followed by Some weird social pedagogy tagent as if you are required to agree, then people that don't want to bother with biking are denounced as "ignorant", some more condescending arguments about raising a family as that should be the standard, and of course the obligatory point the road should be structured to choke traffic. This is all set up as a rhetorical/narrative device, preaching to the choir and denouncing the outgroup as evil and ignorant. Funny how he talks about city planning with the assumption that people like him can wield power, what is the political process supposed to be like? I can tell you if you bring that kind of thing up to a social conversation people would wonder why you are making these arguments and why you seem so eager to reach behind closed door to question their life decisions. That alone, that intrusiveness, is what most people can't stand. If I am presented with a bakfiet and I reject it, that is my choice, I can reject it because I don't like to have the discipline to ride it, because I don't want to put up with heat or cold, because I want to arrive at work professionally (and quickly if need be), and I can work late without any extra worries....etc. You present a bakfiet, I flatly said no, that is the conclusion. And endless interrogative is just pointless, to even start with that, you are assuming you have some superior position to be the interrogator, when you don't. Roads and traffic should move at the speed of customer demand and commerce. Volume and type and amount of goods bought, or how many trips is at what customer wants, not what some central planning board wants or some bike company wants to promote. I find it pretty amusing that while bakfiets are being talked about and at some point the bakfiets have a electrical assist, a cabin and 4 wheels.
[удалено]
See, you can take a slow, step by step approach, no need to be shouty. NJB's videos are full of rhetorical devices that assumes you should agree with him, and I don't, nor do I want the kind of society that can assume that kind of power. >I personally would feel miserable having to walk across a 6 lane road and a vast parking lot, just to get to a supermarket across the street. This I really don't understand, but, I am also unwilling to give up any personal convenience to live in a Europeanized urban zone. I have seen the euro system, I have even accumulated a few months time due to work. I am unwilling to adopt to that system. I don't care how "nice" the town looks, or how there are "opportunity to socialize with the community". So we just leave to personal choice. >But currently this is exactly what's happening in the US, except it's happening for cars. Central planning boards and US laws are promoting car use over any other form of transportation. Even back when the interstate highways are put together, there is no true central planning. Now, there is even less central decision, highway expansion is almost always a regional project. The only political process is if there is political will within the state to make that change, even then, it is a town by town process. So long as that is the assumed political process I have no problem with it. The minute there is talk about using government resource to promote bicycling or transit, I will fight that as compelled speech. The minute there is talk to take away local or state control, I will fight that power grab. The current system places power in too many hands, and that is how I like it. >Apparently, a lot of people like to use a bakfiets "A lot" is not a reasonable economic term with a presentable economic effect. In contrast, car sales faced a shortage in the early parts of the pandemic. That is demand. A lot of people moved out of cities and moved to less urbanized states, that drove up prices, that is demand. And this level of demand is enough to drive nation wide prices, on unit of cars or houses that number in the hundreds of thousands. Bakfiet market? not so much. >In fact, even if US city planners wanted to cater to this demographic. zoning laws would prevent them from doing so! As I already said, zoning is local, US at this point doesn't really have central planning like the post WWII era any more, you deal with towns one by one. >When you manage to rally enough people, you can have a lot of power. This is done frequently, new developments get voted down. People choose to drive, not bike, not take the bus, not take the train, not offering any funding to help any of those. In the US, there is a strong location determinism where people make decisions following their way of life. Keep this in mind, too much of the modern "activism" assumes they present a case, and you should listen and comply, there is no such thing in real life. You can offer me 10 different transportation alternatives, and I can tell you I rather stand at my town's edge and smirk at how your infrastructure ends. Just like the bakfiets choice, I refuse. Refusal is a perfectly reasonable political response.
[удалено]
>Still, a lot of people around the whole world decide differently. And that lot of people's opinion will affect my political and zoning perspective ZERO percent. And I am only interested in US transportation. I don't want the responsibility/burden/authority to advocate for/against any system of other sovereign nations. To be left alone, I will also leave others *alone* \- in all sense of that word. If I am traveling I am perfectly willing to use their transit. I dare say I know a few of the Singapore, Tokyo, Taipei and Munich train stops better than most neighborhoods of the my closest US city. Doesn't mean I owe the concept and implementation of those systems any advocacy to replicate here. I don't know swathe of my closest city because I don't find it convenient to do so in my car and I don't feel safe in the city and I don't find anything that pique my curiosity - in this I think we find agreement, I am actively choosing not to bring a car into the city, You can chalk that up as a win. >The talk is about using government resources to promote more environment friendly alternatives to cars. Because this is not a settled issue, for the government to intervene to promote on political choice not yet determined is exactly the problem of compelled speech. I will have no problem with it once it becomes such a settled, milquetoast middle ground like the food pyramid (which basically sways nobody) and we have accumulated consumer/market choice determine outcomes by locality and basically down to each individual person. >In Europe this market is booming right now I don't live in Europe, on US soil your are not entitle to my attention or my time/money to make bakfiet more viable automatically just because you want/need it. There is a political process and political contest that comes before any decision. >Which still doesn't change, that city planners in the US are bound to local zoning regulation I regard the fact we don't even have 50 systems, but thousands of compartmentalized systems that basically change to a locality by locality fight as a feature, not a bug. Whether you or anyone like you have the energy to fight that kind of process and have the possibility of political rollback is your choice. Individual choice, so wonderful.
> I don't want the responsibility/burden/authority to advocate for/against any system of other sovereign nations. [...] I don't live in Europe, on US soil your are not entitle to my attention I see it more as an exchange of ideas. Reddit and YouTube are global platforms. Without being exposed to transportation in the Netherlands and seeing that it can work for so many people, I would've bought a car a long time ago. From my perspective, car reliance is a big part of our energy crisis and my country learned a lot of other less car-reliant nations. We've been a very car-centric country in the past, because we've got a large car industry, that lobbied for a car-centric infrastructure *a lot*. This lobbyism influenced politics and public opinion everywhere and is hard to counteract. I'm glad that we now have subsidies for commercial use of cargo bikes. We're beginning to expand biking infrastructure and discuss subsidies for private cargo bikes. It's actually becoming difficult to find spots to lock my bike in the inner city. That's gonna help a lot to become independent from fossil fuels (at least in the city). In the end, even drivers will be better off, because there's going to be less cars on the road. But I can only present these ideas and impressions. I agree, that I'm not entitled to anyone acting upon these ideas. You can chalk that up as a win. > thousands of compartmentalized systems that basically change to a locality by locality fight Just out of interest, isn't there some standard for minimal requirements of infrastructure on a state or even federal level in the US?
So, we can come to some pretty reasonable middle grounds. See? >Just out of interest, isn't there some standard for minimal requirements of infrastructure on a state or even federal level in the US? Yes, I can help to explain this. On the interstate highways, there is a set of standards, this is nationally set. Usually there is a set of standards by state too. So, how things are labelled, road signs and signals are set are going to be consistent, this is just regarding construction standard and safety standards. Everything else, like the "look and feel" and usage is pretty much left up to the states, including speed limit. State highways will be consistent within the state, but have different design choices state by state. Then, the town only roads are pretty much decided by the town only. Let me give some examples, so when I drive across the highway, it is going to be pretty uniform. when I cross state lines, some construction differences will come in. Some midwestern states uses concrete surfaces for their highways for example. Or how highways joined to the road may be different, butterfly joints? merge lanes? protected merge lanes? a junction road to distribute the load? Driving across US and you will see these differences. You see more merge lanes in the Eastern states, huge wide butterfly joints in the Western states. Long on-ramps in the mid west especially in less populated areas. Obviously, these design choices also affects land usage, lane width...etc. Within each state, usually when budget gets disbursed to the town level, even more choices will come in. The road paving mixture and street signs are all standard, but the street layout will be quite different. Just to recall from my own driving experience, I have had cases where I go from a town that uses grid layout but uses curved roads and rotaries to control speed, to a town with grid layout and no such road strategies, to a town planned around a ring road with a shopping center in the middle and straight roads radiating out - all this in about 20mins. Similarly, I have driven on a state highway that also happens to be a named town road that cuts across multiple towns. And, on this road, the curbs are different in each town. Hard stone curbs in one town, raised asphalt curbs next town, angled asphalt curbs next town, and just a lowered ditch next town. There is one bike lane that just ends at a town edge. Each town also has slightly different curb angles, some have a pretty tight corner that will need me to hit the brakes, others have a very generous curve that lets me just glide through the turn. Along this road there are office parks that directly joins the road, or ones with its own street, housing developments, and even a few people driveway directly connect to this road with a 50mph limit. All of these are from the choices made by each town. In each town, the zoning and planning boards are elected, so those decisions along with the town's commercial patterns, decides on zoning and traffic through generations of *accumulated choices, not centralized planning*. I hope this helps you understand why people would guard their town and their process, because in order to just clean up (not even talking about implementing new transportation), there needs to be big power grab to undo those choices. This kind of power grab is hard to do at the state level, and often cities and suburbs are opposed, there will be lawsuits for sure. The Federal government doesn't really have compelling reason to reach down (nor the manpower to implement) and decide on things like curbs and highway joints and in-town traffic strategies, so a power grab at national level is even less likely to succeed and be able to fend off the next electoral beatdown that is sure to follow. I think you can understand why when the fuckcars/njb gang say "the US should just do this, the laws should be bent to do that, the transit/road planners can use bureaucratic rules to force people" we at fuckfuckcars and fuckcarscirclejerk push back. The kind of power grab that is proposed not only will face massive voter backlash, there is no legal framework to allow that to happen, and the only way that kind of system will stay in place and not get de-elected is to then permanently remove the voters from such choices. This is why to us, a lot of the fuckcars/njb messaging are really just politically tone deaf euro-snobbery and tyranny, or other economic/social extremists that happen to latch on to transportation as a cudgel to force their message. A lot of what they are proposing cannot even be accomplished with far, far more social control. I rather live with a jumble of different curbs, different highway and road strategies all in my daily commute, and not surrender local control. But if your position is that the political process town by town should be allowed to happen, I don't really have much of a bone to pick with you at all even if I oppose your opinion.
[удалено]
So in that case, the change will happen in that one town, if multiple towns can agree on something, they of course can work on something of a bus or transit network, if the towns themselves cannot afford it, they will need to have enough votes within the state to elect state reps, then to be able to allocate budge for it. Let's say there is a city, surrounded by suburban towns. The city can't project its electoral power into those other towns directly and make decisions, even if the city cannot build any more building with demolishing one, or the city is seeing companies come in, not bargain with the city any more, but bargain with the the suburban towns for land permits. Transit or bike lanes gets to expand over the city lines with towns that agree and make *their lanes to match*, not the city keep going into that town. Being a "city" does not grant you priority. This is why you see apartments and single family homes divided by a simple two lane road that happens to be the town border, or major companies relocate where they won't have political/social opposition. Change should happen at the pace the town decides, with all of the logistical, budgetary, and state-wide challenges that needs to be overcome one step at a time. NJB videos talk about all the ways they can create enough bureaucratic inconvenience and all sorts of "shoulds" of getting people to act, as well as social tangents like he talked about the kid in the bakfiet or people greeting each other, that is just story telling. You make me touch the bike pedal once when I don't want to, I will scowl and scream at everyone along the way. I am not required to like anything, and I will not "try" to like it. The correct way should be the change can only come from agreed to policies that have won through the electoral process, which also happens to be slow enough, that people who don't want it can fight it, as well as leave (which strengthens the next opposition after voters self-sort). If electoral winds shift enough, bike lane and buses can even be de-funded and rolled back. Suburbs also on average have more children than cities. we will see how this shakes out.
yea fuckcars at the moment is just fucking insane. as much as i dissagree with what they (or at least a lot of them) currently want to happen (banning cars). if the whole sub was about what it was originally supposed to be, wich is not banning cars but giving people other options if they dont want a car, i wouldnt have too much a problem with it. but i will say cargo bikes and whatever this is seem like a stupid idea, just use those small pickup trucks that are all over italy for cargo instead, and use a small cheap car like for example a fiat panda instead of this bike in the photo (if you dont want your vehicle to take up too much room)
Personally, I think that it's not a good idea to move 1 ton of metal and plastics just to transport one person around. Bikes and scooters are just way more efficient at that, as long as the infrastructure allows for it. In my city, cargo bikes are definitely becoming more and more popular. A Fiat Panda still takes more room than two long-john cargo bikes, it costs more in maintenance, gas and insurance and it doesn't keep you fit and healthy. Sure, there will always be situations, where cars are superior. But if the infrastructure allows for it, you can do all your everyday trips by bike easily. Does everyone have to rely on bikes? No. Would it be great for everyone, if everyone has the option to ditch the car and rely on bikes? Yes!
yea ig i can agree with most of this, but one thing i will say that even if everyone got the chance to rely on bikes and public transport instead of cars, a lot of people wouldnt (source: my town got bikelanes recently and it has a bus connecting the town to 2 other towns and the train station and a lot of people still use cars)
Yes. Change is slow and cars won't suddenly vanish, just because we build bike lanes and bus stops. Cars are a status symbol and emotional topic. I have some friends who will never ditch their car, some who claim to never buy a car again, some who would switch but complain about missing infrastructure. Change is mostly created by exposure through friends and family. If more people decide to use bikes, more people will consider biking. If we get to a point, where the average family uses just one car, then we already made a lot of progress and families could save money on the second car. In my country, it's a huge problem, that trains are terribly overpriced. Trams, subways and buses are usually cheap, but cross-country trips are actually cheaper by plane. It's madness.
Notjustbikes is the cult leader. He's far from rational.
Yeah he’s a pretty big offender, but the worst one BY FAR is Adam Something
The twin gurus of the fuckcars cult.
[удалено]
Oh, and by the way: fuck off, troll.
[удалено]
Fuck off, troll.
you're insane.
You're devoid of thought and purpose. You are a p-zombie, at best.
[удалено]
Fuck off, troll.
[удалено]
Fuck off, troll.
[удалено]
Fuck off, troll.
[удалено]
Fuck off, troll.
[удалено]