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.
The deaths to pedestrians from cyclists seems like a bad statistic for either side to bring up, and a bad statistic in general.
I think the risk to pedestrians seems minimal and bikes should just fully share the sidewalk with pedestrians. Bikes hitting people is most likely to ruin both people's day, but cars hitting bikes is most likely to ruin someone's life.
Every cyclist I've ever suggested this to hates it, and I think it's just because they don't like going as slow as you sometimes need to go on a sidewalk to be safe. But it is often what they are asking drivers to do: go slowly for the cyclists safety on the road. Which is when it turns into a whole political question. No one likes going slower than they can, so who has to suffer the indignity drivers or cyclists?
The answer seems obvious in my head, but I know I identify with drivers more (despite riding a bike around the neighborhood pretty often)
note that it requires wider sidewalks, and as soon as total cycling+pedestrian traffic is dense you are better of with dedicated footway and dedicated cycleway
You know, I consider myself a modest advocate in favor of better transit infrastructure, but the "induced demand! Just add another lane bro!" partisans irk me because there really are more (diffuse) benefits to more total miles traveled --- not necessarily commuting to suburbs directly, but mobility is generally good, and I'm not convinced the measures they suggest will actually improve things.
Sometimes it's been tempting to take the "just add a lane, bro" meme featuring an American freeway (often I10 in Houston) and re-render it showing an equally wide road with all these subdivided sections for things they would otherwise like:
"Just add another dedicated lane, bro. This time it'll make them take mass transit or bikes." Although I personally would like more people to do that.
Going from 0->1 lanes is a heck of a lot more impactful than going from 10->11 lanes.
Intercity rail isn't going to be on every street.
Ditto for light rail.
Sidewalks are for streets, not freeways.
In space-contrainses areas most people would absolutely sacrifice trees.
I get where you're coming from, more movement does have a benefit that's often ignored, but it's disingenuous to compare the request for a bike lane or a sidewalk to another freeway lane.
Yeah, it is a bit unfair of a comparison broadly. But sidewalks and bike lanes keep getting wider. Very old neighborhoods often have 24" sidewalks (if at all), while now they seem to be 36 or 48 inches. Bigger new roads (like your 11 lane freeway) have 6 or 8 foot sidewalks, getting closer to the width of a car lane.
I actually do like sidewalks, and I like the idea of bike lanes even if I'm unsatisfied with how they're engineered here these days: painted gutters, really? Unidirectional lanes across a road that doesn't have safe crossings? I think the ADA et al makes us avoid non-level pedestrian/bike crossings, so they just don't provide them on medium streets. Bidirectional lanes without safe crossings or ways to turn across? Do they ever sweep bike lanes?
IIRC (I don't have my books in front of me): The federal ADA requires new sidewalks to be 4 feet wide, with 5-foot-wide passing areas every few hundred feet. In areas where the sidewalk goes right up to the curb, the designer normally will make it 6 feet wide (including the 9-inch curb), to prevent trucks' side mirrors from clipping pedestrians.
AASHTO has issued different, wider guidelines for bike lanes, as well as for "shared-use paths" occupied by both pedestrians and bicyclists, but I don't recall the specifics.
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