This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The Economist has published an article (paywalled, sorry) on the state of cyclists in New York, which dropped the day I was leaving the city. It was the first time I had visited as an adult. I came away with some respect for it (loved the food, service, and how fast everyone walked). The point of the story is supposedly that cyclists are now being treated unfairly:
I’m a cycling nut, so the issue is close to my heart. In a T2 city, I feel like our role is that of a scapegoat. People fantasize about killing cyclists pretty regularly, and none of them understand the challenges and tradeoffs we have to deal with. At this point, I've just thrown up my hands in despair at this ever being better, so I just get on the road as little as possible.
The people on two wheels in NYC are a different breed. Each of the longtime residents I asked - 100% - are now more scared of cyclists than cars. My 3 day trip felt the same to me. Every car was attentive and respectful of me as a pedestrian. The cyclists were fast, heavy, and disregarded almost every crosswalk signal or red light, despite having their own lanes. What’s the quantitative danger?
Notice the sleight of hand here. What’s included are E-Bikes, scooters, and mopeds - each of these truly motorized vehicles. The number of people killed by analog cyclists nationwide has been, for many years, single digits. This is important. E-bikes allow users to achieve speeds and momentum totally beyond their skill, and are often part of poorly maintained machines that are part of sharing programs. My mind is blown that even 8 people have been killed - that's an enormous number even in a place as dense as NYC. It probably means a huge number of serious injuries as collateral damage.
Put simply, the fixie riders racing through the city are psychotic but not dangerous to pedestrians.
As you’d expect, the lede is buried, along with the Culture War. The cyclists zipping through the city on E-bikes are exclusively yapping in a foreign language on speakerphone, with DoorDash bags on the back of their cycles. Nothing should get in the way of private taxis for burritos.
To recap how insane this is:
It’s so similar to LA, albeit with fewer vehicle fires and bricks on heads. The fix just cannot be the obvious and correct one. Instead, it’s to hop on Reddit to “map police hotspots” or refuse to stop as a way to LARP civil disobedience.
I was hoping for a reasonable discussion from this place, but nope, once again the cyclist hate is out in full force in the comments to this very reasonable and balanced top-level post. Not one actual statistic about the actual danger from cyclists to pedestrians (vs. cars), just anecdotes about the one time a cyclist was really reckless and dangerous on the road that really pissed the poster off. As you state, cars are 8x more deadly to pedestrians (and this is not including to other motorists). And cyclists are supposed to be the arrogant, crazy, and entitled ones?
And that's also missing the fact that the real problem seems to be E-bikes, as you suggest, not analog bikes. Ebikes/mopeds/etc. are fundamentally different from analog bikes because you can easily reach much higher top speeds (whereas this usual requires being pretty experienced on an analog bike), you don't have to expend enormous amounts of energy stopping and starting (because you have an electric throttle), and your vehicle weighs much more, meaning it represents a much bigger risk to pedestrians than a 10-20 pound analog bike. Lumping analog bikers in the same category as those electric motorbikes is insane.
I understand the appeal of cars. They are fast and convenient and give you a lot of independence. But as a national form of transportation, they are incredibly wasteful of resources and space, kill tons of people, and make our cities and communities dysfunctional. And in a future on the downslope of fossil fuels, they won't be possible at the scale that they are now. I wish we would consider how to reduce our car dependency when we still have the surplus energy to do so, but I don't think these kinds of issues are on many people's radars here or in the wider world, so I doubt that this will happen.
#NotAllCyclists but I will say that as a non-driver I find the worst cyclists far more aggressive than the worst of anything else, both in terms of how they move and what they say (shout). And especially doing it in places that aren’t meant to be used as highways, like public parks.
I think it’s the combination of speed and vulnerability as people have suggested. Cars who act like that get a call from the Transport Authority, and pedestrians move slowly.
To put it another way, I get why non-car Americans are impatient at car-Americans but bicycles also seem to have inherent issues that cause aggressive behaviour regardless of how else the space is being used.
Personally I’m holding out for the return of the Segway. They look ridiculous but they’re wonderful to drive.
I wonder if it's because cyclists in general hate stopping. Decelerating and accelerating again on a bike is really annoying, and being forced to do repeatedly might be the source of the annoyance. Not that makes this acceptable behavior in a pedestrian space.
As a cyclist I think most of these interactions could be avoided if the roads were made safer for none cars. I'm not going to zoom through a public park if I can use a nearby road without feeling like I'm going to die.
Re: acceleration I’d heard the theory but wondered if the rise of e-bikes had made acceleration less of a faff.
The park in a question has exits on Road A and Road B. There’s a road that connects the two but it’s further down and has traffic lights, so the park path has become a highway for delivery people on bikes who act like the pizza drivers in Snow Crash. It’s not a safety issue per se.
There’s a very simple trick to making acceleration less of a faff that was ubiquituous back in the 90s where I live: Drive slower.
It only takes a few pushes of the pedals to get back to speed that’s still much faster than walking.
Yes, of course. I’m a granny-bike person not a road warrior; I like having a basket and being able to get off easily just by swinging my legs, so I eschew high speeds by default.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link