this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
1098 points (97.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

11935 readers
795 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Definitely has his grip on reality, this one

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're looking at what is obviously a conceptual diagram and acting as if it's some kind of literal blueprint. IMO it's something closer to a Sankey diagram showing the overall flow and moda share of traffic into the city than a plan sketch of an individual road. I don't think it's even reasonable to conclude that it's actually suggesting using the same alignment for cars, bikes, and pedestrians at all, let alone strawmanning it as "a bike lane on a highway."

Frankly, I'm found it to be a tough call deciding whether you genuinely didn't understand that or if you were commenting in bad faith (which violates rule 1), and the only thing that made me give you the benefit of the doubt was your later comment talking about the cement barrier (i.e. a somewhat constructive comment about how to make it better) instead of continuing to flatly reject it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you had looked at my replies to other people who replied to me, you would see I wasn't antibike lanes in general. The diagram looks far closer to a city street than a highway.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you had looked at my replies to other people who replied to me, you would see I wasn't antibike lanes in general.

I did, hence my reference to "your later comment talking about the cement barrier."

The diagram looks far closer to a city street than a highway.

The right side of it does, sure, because that's what it's depicting the highway transitioning to.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I was referring to other comments. Ones the people I blocked could have checked before attacking me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Nobody "attacked" you until you attacked them first. That's why your comments were removed for being uncivil and theirs weren't.