|
|
#41 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Belgium
Age: 32
Posts: 306
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
afro: No one is saying that cars shouldn't exist, or that bicycles can transport large quantities of goods. Although, to answer your question, when I had a bicycle, I did indeed use it to go to work, and at one summer job I had, it was faster than taking public transit, which was my only other option. (Of course, that speaks more about the public tranportation system in the city I was in than how fast it was to bike.) I did groceries on it too, either that or walked. I did not own a car. Myself, I personally still don't own a car, and I still can't afford one either. As far as picking up larger things, honestly, how often do you actually transport larger items? Are there times when you've used a car when you could have walked, taken public transport, or biked instead? How much money would you save if you didn't have to own and use a car to get places constantly? But really, this is besides the point of the discussion, which is that bicyclists should have their own bike paths.
lord carbo: I'm a she, firstly. Secondly, I did not anywhere claim or imply that every car should be replaced with a bike. I've already said this though. Thirdly, do you honestly think I didn't lock up my bike? True, I did not decide to buy an uber lock that was more expensive than my bike itself, because to do so is ridiculous. Fourthly, widening sidewalks, as Devonin said, is not a good solution. Cars are more expensive and take up more room than bicycles, and in those 2 regards, they are NOT better. But, again, I am NOT SAYING that cars aren't useful. Furthermore, If I wanted to get into a discussion about how to reduce traffic, it would involve trying to get rid of suburbs and totally changing the urban landscape of cities so that there would not be the need to travel long distances. It's stupid that much of north american has been designed so that cars are as necessary as they are. I should note that I do not bicycle and will not bike in some urban city streets. Like in Toronto, I would not bike down younge st, sidewalk or street. Also, biking and walking places is about the only excersise I get. It makes sense for me to walk somewhere and take an extra 20 minutes than to spend money on a car or a bus to get there, and then spend money with a gym membership so I can go on a treadmill and walk/run in place for a half hour, and then take a bus back home from the gym. I should say that the only other 2 people who've had bicycle accidents with a car that I know about, it wasn't their fault either. One of them was hit by someone who didn't stop at a stop sign, and the other person was hit because the motorist decided to take a right hand turn into her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | |||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have a bike anymore though. Or rather, I do, but it's a piece of junk and rusted to hell and the pedals fall off from normal use. Either way, it'd still be tough for me a lot of the time to use a good bicycle for some of the relatively short distance travel I do. Not like it's that easy to go up to 7-Eleven, grab some snacks, a couple 2 liters, and a slurpee. Quote:
BUT. The point that automobiles are more expensive than biking doesn't matter. The additional investment is made up for. If I had to ride a bike 10 miles to work and 10 miles back, I'd be saving a small amount of money in gas, but I'd be paying for it by using a lot more time, AND a large amount more of physical pain through the exertion necessary after completing the work for the day. Paying like a dollar's worth of gas is totally worth it to save a lot of time and a lot of pain. Quote:
Basically the system works so that stores and such are further apart, because that's the only way it is profitable for them to remain in business. If there was a restaurant and a grocery store on every street corner, they wouldn't be sustainable.
__________________
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
My brother and I both had our vehicles stolen once during university. Mine cost 200.00 to replace, his cost 2500.00 to replace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | |||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now while cars make spread-out suburbs possible, the reasons they actually exist are that America has a whole bunch of useless land between the coasts so that it's extremely easy to build things spaced out without paying much more... and people prefer (preferred?) it; people wouldn't buy what they don't want especially with so many choices in America. So in effect, by criticizing that America has been designed so that cars are necessary, you're criticizing the personal preferences of those who continue to buy what they want according to their own self-interests. Yeah, except it doesn't make sense for most Americans, especially in un-congested suburbs where the opportunity costs of driving a car are diminutive. In other words, it's a lot worse to walk somewhere in a suburb where you can drive 35 down the main road to get when you can just drive without stopping for traffic.
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 10-1-2008 at 07:10 PM.. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Old-School Player
|
I have no problem with cyclists. I have a problem with people drivng SUV's and Hummers on suburban roads, clearly never doing anything work-intensive with them, acting like they own the road and even honking at me while I'm on the sidewalk in attempts to freak me out.
The law has found that roads are to be shared, as long as we're not talking something insane like a highway. Bikes exist, they will share the road as is their legal right. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
FFR Player
|
i regularly use bike for every single movement when in town. even though i am from italy and this could imply a different situation, i strongly reccomend using bikes when in 4-5 miles range. it's not only faster than car or public transport, but it's very cheap, and the more bikes there are, the less chaos there is. bikes are quiet, small and agile, and they do not cause any pollution. the incident rate of bikes is theoretically lower than cars, since bikes travel at a lower speed and due to the reduced weight can brake in very small sections. a bike hitting a pedestrian is infinitely less probable than a car hitting a pedestrian. the rate of car vs bike crash is influenced by the education of both drivers so it's highly subjective. i strongly disagree from afrobean, it seems like you're holding a grudge against bikers for some reason. you're not being subjective and your only explanation for your viewpoints is "cars have the right to be on the road while bikes don't"
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 | ||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ps have you guys seen that ad where they had tons of cargo being pulled by bikes? I think it was for one of those oil companies that are trying to be like "hey look at us we like the environment too!"
__________________
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | ||||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
1) you don't know how to fucen ride a bike so i understand if you use your car for every minimal travel - you say you don't want to walk either so you're just being lazy and your reasons are mere justifications for your weaknesses. 2) your bike is old or broken, or you're so weak that you can't even face such a short and little fatigue. for the sake of the record, i ride my bike usually around 15-20 mph without struggling, and 20 to 25 mph if i'm in a hurry. Quote:
Quote:
about the rest of the paragraph, i'll just say that bikes are made for transporting a single person so what's the point of comparing them with vehicles that were built in order to carry goods or people? all you can bring on a bike is yourself and a bag. this is still enough to carry foods for your meals, books for your university, and almost anything you would buy, though. i never said cars are useless, nay, they're wonderful tools, but you should admit it when you're overusing them. i personally think that everytime a car isn't stricly necessary, it shouldn't be used. sadly, people like you don't seem to get this point and keep finding naive justifications for their waste of resources and space.
__________________
Last edited by Necros140606; 10-7-2008 at 09:19 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#50 | ||||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe it was a bit of an exaggeration though. Would 45 minutes be more accurate? Maybe 30? Either way, the general idea that an automobile would get there faster is the underlying principle I was trying to get at, and you pointing out a mistake such as that doesn't make my argument invalid. Quote:
Quote:
Then realize that many people commute even greater distances to and from work every day. Quote:
Quote:
And I don't know about you, but all of the time and effort I save is TOTALLY worth the investment I've made in my vehicle. Couple thousand initial cost and around 100$ insurance per month is worth it by far for the trouble it saves me. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think what you were meaning was that a bicycle is ample for YOU. Next time just say "This is enough to carry foods for my meals, books for my university, and almost everything I would buy", and use that as a point to say that I should be able to be like you. Don't make assumptions about me. Incidentally, I am unable to, as I put it above, "be like you" in those respects. When I go to the store, I will almost always get more things than I could fit in a knapsack, be it groceries or otherwise. Books are a reasonable argument, but I haven't needed to carry books with me for quite some time now, and I doubt if most typical adults would either. Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#51 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Belgium
Age: 32
Posts: 306
|
Roads aren't designed specifically for cars. They're designed to facilitate transport for every kind of vehicle in the most efficient way, i.e. so that any vehicle with wheels could use them. It's true that most roads have been changed so that they could also support a high load of car traffic, this doesn't mean that cars have the only rights to that road, or that they're specifically designed for them.
Also, 5 miles takes 20 minutes maximum when using a bike. Counting traffic lights is retarded because you also encounter those when using a car. Further, in a busy city, in a car you're braking and accellerating all the time, when biking you can maintain a good speed. Your argument about standing up for 8 hours straight and not feeling like walking home is trying to convince people that it's actually bad. I stand up for 8.5 hours each workday and cycle home after that, you don't see me complaining. Lastly, I notice that the only reason you hate bikes is that you are apparently unable to use them, and that while you drive your car they seem to irritate you. Guess what, people like you who drive in a car and think the road is designed solely for them irritate bikers. I assume they should complain as well? I wonder if some biker has accidentally hit your car when it was new and that you now hold a grudge against that kind of transportation.
__________________
Best AAA: Diamond Heart (FFR edit) Best sightread AAA: Ninjitsu (I know, I suck )![]()
Last edited by Magewout; 10-7-2008 at 10:02 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#52 | ||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Imagine a world without automobiles, where only bicycles existed. Would the roads be the same as they are? Imagine a world without bicycles, where only motor vehicles existed. Would the roads be the same as they are? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I wouldn't even be physically able to manage it, to be honest. On bad nights I can barely even stand by the end of the night. The worst part is that my joints didn't used to be this bad either, they've gotten to be like this over time. I'm sure that if I put additional stain on them, they'd deteriorate much faster even. Quote:
Quote:
The only argument in favor of bicycles are that they don't add pollution like most automobiles do. You know what else doesn't? Walking, skateboarding, inline skating, scooter, running, etc. Should these things be allowed on the road with automobiles as well? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
FFR Player
|
last time i checked, public works are made out of taxes payed by everyone, not only from those who have cars. i understand your point because roads in america are probably a bit less filled with vehicles, but if you lived in a city like mine, bikes are always faster than any means of transportation, except during night or when the roads are completely free. our traffic is so chaotic just because there's so much people like you who don't want to waste his/her precious sweat that the roads are completely filled with cars going at a walking man's speed. that's why bikes will aways be infinitely better than cars as long as there isn't an education.
also, my average speeds are calculated since stops and traffic lights are no longer a problem with a bike. i haven't crashed in years though i use my bike everyday in the mid of the traffic and on top of that i can bypass any road sign without putting people in danger. a scooter works too, since it doesn't pollute as much as a car and it's rather fast. the only problem is a scooter isn't free, while a bike is.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
So, I know I'm just reiterating about the cost of cars, but they're damned expensive. I suppose if I bought a ****heap I could pay only a few thousand for it, or even less. However, I'd probably have to spend as much money repairing it over its lifespan than I would if I had bought something quality to begin with, plus there's a major hassle in having to repair it. (Although, that said, if cars needed as much tuning up as bikes did, they'd never be bought. At least it's fairly easy to learn for oneself how to adjust break-tension, spokes, etc.) I've known a (usually) smart person who lived a 20-30 min. walk from campus, a 5min bus ride which cost her nothing because her tuition got her a bus pass on a bus that ran minimum every 15 minutes during the day on weekdays where the bus stop was literally right outside her door, spend so much money on her car that she just had to have, that she couldn't afford a winter coat. I also lived with someone who was going to school part-time who had a used car that she needed for work, who ended up putting all the money she made back into the car for repairs.
I don't know the distance it was for me to bike to work that one summer, but it took me ~45min. to get there, a little longer to get back since there was lots of uphill. I've also walked 45min. to get to another job I had. Lord carbo: I don't bike on sidewalks because I don't feel safe on them because I've had an accident on them. I know this is absolutely partially due to me just being human and not being totally rational about it, but I do think it true that motorists don't pay nearly enough attention when they cross sidewalks, and this problem is made serious when you throw a cyclist moving almost as fast as a car on the sidewalk. Furthermore, if I bike on the sidewalk, I'm expected to follow sidewalk rules. That means getting off my bike at intersections, which is a total pain. I've been yelled at by a motorist who was turning left, telling me to get off my ****ing bike, because they had to stop and wait for me because I was just a little bit faster than a pedestrian at the crosswalk, and he couldn't scoot in front of me. I wish I could've yelled back at him, but he was right. I've also walked with someone who, embarassingly to me, refused to move aside for a cyclist to pass, all because they're not supposed to be on the sidewalk. As a cyclist, you just can't seem to win. Bike lanes seem to be the easiest and safest 'solution'. I'm sure any planner would cringe at you calling urban development simply 'cramming more people together'. Also, your description about having traffic jams in cities is, uhhh, not exactly proof that people shouldn't live together. It can totally be construed as the opposite in fact. That there's terrible traffic in major cities is in fact largely due to the number of people commuting into those cities for their work, from the suburbs. People who live in large cities, if they've got any head on their shoulders and if tax money's being used wisely towards even just a half-assed public transportation system, would not use a car for everyday needs like going to work. So even if you were to solely 'jam more people into large cities', one could expect that traffic jams during rush hour to in fact decrease because the number of people commuting and needing cars, would decrease. I totally agree with afrobean and lord carbo with what they said about commerce and about being so widespread in North America. That is why I mentioned urbanization as a solution. Also, when I said 'it's sad that this is the way things are' seems very true at this point in time. North America pollutes hugely, and whatever the reasons, it's sad! However, its true I am also critizing what people want. I'm allowed, am I not? Particularly when it has an impact on the entire world's environment. If I were to own slaves because I wanted them to do all my work, and if everyone else in North American were to do the same, would you not think it fair to critize them? North America as a whole is basically a rich jackass in terms of the environment, so to speak. But I suppose that's simply human nature. Having cars that are less polluting only solves carbon emissions. Definitely a good thing. But it doesn't solve traffic problems, parking problems (ever tried to park in a major city in the downtown? 5$/hour is good?? Yikes!) or the problem that cars are still damned expensive, yet they're being forced to be a necessity for many people. Last edited by Cavernio; 10-7-2008 at 11:37 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 | |||||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But I think you missed the point I was trying to make. These things are not safe on roadways because they cannot keep up with automobiles. A bicycle cannot keep up, a skateboard cannot keep up, a person running cannot keep up. This is a major safety issue, aside from the basic fact that a person on the road using one of these has basically zero protection, but I'll let that slide because motorcycles also have minimal protection yet are able to maintain safe speeds alongside cars. ______________________ Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think a perfectly reasonable solution would be to make sidewalks a bit wider wherever necessary to maintain reasonable safety for both bicyclist's and pedestrians. Quote:
__________________
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
sunshine and rainbows
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 38
Posts: 1,987
|
Food, water, electricity, clothes, and if you really want, shelter, are all individually cheaper than owning a car. (Exceptions apply, obviously, but for the purposes of necessity, they are cheaper.) Furthermore, except for electricity, are necessary by nature, not man-made necessity. If I were American, I'd also be supporting public healthcare, and as such it wouldn't be nearly as expensive. However, even if the entirety of your point were true, it is not valid as an argument. You can't simply point out how life is expensive and expect that to be a counter argument for one particular aspect of life being expensive. Its irrelevant, at least the way you've used it, which is basically "that's how things work", particularly when things don't have to work that way.
Only in extreme cases of people living crammed together would there be congestion from pedestrians. Cars take up way more room than people or cyclists, even car pooled cars. Also, we can assume that if the number of pedestrians increased drastically, there'd be more room alloted for them, so that whatever the maximum number of pedestrians that there's room for now would be increased. I understand your point about my friend choosing what's important to her, however her choice of having a car has a far reaching, if not large, negative impact on others. For one year, no, that's not much of an impact in terms of gas. But over 4 or 5 years, that's a lot of pollution. It's also room that is taken up in parking lots that people who live much farther away from campus, who have a much better reason to drive, didn't have. Parking space was certainly an issue at the university, at least parking space that would have gotten her closer than a 10 minute walk to where most classes were held. Someone who decides to bike on the road, for the most part, only have a negative impact on themselves. You're right, I don't like how cyclists don't fit into the world right now. Currently, the law is that they must be on the streets, and fitting with that law, bike lanes are put on some streets. Having bike lanes is better than having no bike lanes, and is still IMO better than having a larger sidewalk. Sidewalks can't have the visibility that roads do, since they're right beside buildings (at least ubran areas). This lack of visibility is why, even if you're careful, accidents can still happen. To put the cyclists on the outside edge of a sidewalk (the side closest to the street), I can see. But of course, since there are things like street lights, stop signs, telephone poles in the way, they're just a little bit further over on the street. I suppose if sidewalks were widened enough to accomodate a cyclist in a designated lane next to the road, I'd like that a lot. Other fast moving non-motorized people could go there too maybe, like roller bladers and skaeboarders. That'd also be hard to do in downtowns though, with all the limited space. Also, just to note, some cities actually have bike paths which are dedicated to them, separate from sidewalks and roads. I believe Ottawa has quite a few. They also have a great public transportation system, so I've been told, which has lanes dedicated purely to buses. It's also sprawlingly large for its population :-\ |
|
|
|
|
|
#57 | |
|
Old-School Player
|
Afrobean seems to have some issues with the idea that the law and general populous feel that the road should be shared since it is a zone open to the public.
Quote:
Oh wait, I do have that legal right, I do live in the real world, and Afrobean seems to live in some magical fantasy land where bikes are illegal to use on the road and everyone is required to purchase a fine automotive and motor around like every true American should, damn it! You go ahead and live in that world, but as soon as you start trying to take away the rights I have in the real one, I'm going to be angry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Belgium
Age: 32
Posts: 306
|
Quote:
Sorry, but freeways are not everywhere. If you need to move something to 2 streets away, you won't be using a freeway. In any kind of traffic jam, cars have to drive directly behind each other, so when the first stops the second has to stop as well. Bikes are small enough to fit between the narrow space between the sidewalk and the car so they can keep going. Your suggestion, putting bikes on the sidewalk would cause even more accidents because they'd constantly be hindered by pedestrians. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#59 | |
|
Sectional Moderator
|
Quote:
Safety of the bicyclists is a bigger issue than safety of the cars. Bicyclists don't contribute significantly to congestion as far as I'm aware so it's a personal safety choice question that is solely on their part. Roads are public and should be kept that way for all vehicles capable of following the rules of the road. I would prefer something other than anecdotal evidence if you're going to tell me that bicyclists shouldn't be allowed because they can't observe the rules of the road on most of the roadways that are used by bicyclists. (Typically neighborhood type roads.) Afro I am just wondering if your argument is based on principle, if it is based on defending a claim made to the end, if it is based on personal frustrations, or a combination of the three? Not trying to be antagonistic because I think all three are justified, I'm just curious. Also to the cyclists: bicycling will not solve the climate crisis if you believe there to be one. I just want to make sure you understand this. If you are riding a bike to reduce emissions please remember that this should be about your personal integrity and a symbol of your desire of a new direction for society, because it isn't solving anything. That is a macro issue which can only be solved by macro solutions, unfortunately.
__________________
Last edited by Vendetta21; 10-12-2008 at 09:37 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 | ||||||||
|
Admiral in the Red Army
|
Quote:
RIGHTS. Try and exercise your right to public space by walking out onto the interstate. See how far that gets you. _______________________ Quote:
Quote:
Not to mention that walking on a sidewalk is safer for me than riding a bicyle in the street, and it's also safer for fellow pedestrians compared to cycling on the sidewalk. Quote:
Yeah, sure, put bicycles on the road, but don't make them follow traffic laws. Great idea! Quote:
____________________ Quote:
How about this: minimum speed limit in addition to the traditional max. If a vehicle can't keep maintain a reasonably safe speed, it has no place on the road. And no, 10 MPH in a 35MPH zone is not a reasonably safe speed, Mr. early-morning-bicyclist-get-the-****-off-the-road-you-are-going-to-get-****ing-smashed-to-bits. Quote:
But yeah, I guess a combination of all 3 sounds good. I especially don't like the bastards that ride at unsafe slow speeds on roads when there isn't even a single pedestrian on the sidewalk. Why are you endangering yourself and making me have to change lanes to pass you when you could just as easily keep yourself safe without endangering others and also not cause a burden on the drivers of the road (of whom I still remain solid in the stance that roads are what they are because of motor vehicles and bicycles being put on them is a matter of happenstance in that it's silly to include special paths or lanes in most areas specifically for these cyclists). And yeah, when I get set in a way, I push it as far as it'll go. Quote:
Burning oil is unavoidable in the current society. It's silly to so heatedly avoid it, when in fact, EVERYTHING is touched by oil. The solution, like vendetta said, is not to avoid personally using oil on a micro level, it's to be able to move beyond it on a macro level. You can stop using all the oil you like and ride your bicycle 10+ miles to work every day and back, but you're not going to stop the wheels of the machine from turning. Until we can get cheap electricity from a source other than oil, until motor vehicles can drive without a bit of oil, until freight trucks can drive hundreds of miles without a drop of oil, you riding your bicycle won't do jack **** to make a positive change, nor will you driving an automobile for convenience make a notable negative change.
__________________
|
||||||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|