582

submitted 5 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/humor@lemmy.world

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Proposals like this, however, do nothing but make it look like the movement is a bunch of “fuck cars” knee-jerkers who know nothing about infrastructure and can thus be safely disregarded.

Sometimes you need an extremist position in order to make the reasonable position look reasonable. When more than half of motorists view cyclists as subhuman cockroaches, trying to start off reasonable is a whopping loser of a strategy.

Also FYI, this "fuck cars knee-jerker" happens to also be a former traffic engineer. I know more about infrastructure than you think. Pretty much all of your pearl-clutching is ass-backwards and wrong, BTW.

[-] platypode@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

OK so... demonstrate it? Explain how, with absolutely 0 maintenance for 20 years (or whatever you consider a reasonable time to bring every single road up to bicycle and pedestrian usability standards), the roads would be able to support the flow of commuters, emergency vehicles, and deliveries. You can appeal to your own authority all you want, but it's worth just about jack if you don't back it up.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The answer is, you simply upgrade the bike and pedestrian infrastructure at the same time as you do any other road work, and make it against the rules to do otherwise. So the roads that need repaving most urgently still get it, but they just get bike lanes and sidewalks urgently, too.

As for your previous pearl-clutching, which I have now found the patience to respond to:

Emergency vehicles have to be able to deal with shitty roads (including unpaved roads) already, so your first bullet point isn't a thing.
Traffic would not "increase exponentially" by having fewer usable roads. In fact, it's the opposite: that's what happens when you expand roads. What actually would happen is that people would be driven to alternatives, such as reducing trips, biking, walking, etc.
This is almost too nonsensical to address. Making roads worse is essentially traffic calming, and would increase safety.
This is too nonsensical to address. Pure hysterical bullshit.

[-] platypode@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That's most definitely not "ceasing all road construction," and actually sounds like a feasible (ignoring realities of modern politics) plan that I would get behind.

this post was submitted on 28 May 2024

582 points (98.2% liked)

Humor

7450 readers

56 users here now

"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"

Rules

`Read Full Rules Here!`

Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.

Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!

Rule 3: No spamming!

Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.

Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.

Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.

`Please report any violation of rules!`

Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

sabbah@lemmy.world

AradFort@lemmy.world

PillowTalk420@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world