Originally Posted by ironwood
(Post 16385103)
It might not be defending their cars, but rather defending what their car represents to them: status and self worth. It is a symbol of success and wealth. It could be that cyclists, because they haven't bought into this value system, are mocking them and their values. We're not playing the game.
|
Or, for some us, we just can't muster the anti-car venom, even if we are car free or car light. Some of us might even feel that it's counterproductive to fight for banning of cars in cities, especially in big US cities, when even some more bike lanes and some more thoughts as to how to integrate biking into the cities, and "equal rights" would be great and would attract more cyclists all around.
Some go that extra step and becomes fundamentalists about things, and some of us don't. That is where the fundamentalists are called "anti-car", because that is what they are. They focus less on being car free and thus pro-cycle themselves, and more about being against cars on behalf of everyone else. |
Originally Posted by SmallFront
(Post 16385130)
Or, for some us, we just can't muster the anti-car venom, even if we are car free or car light. Some of us might even feel that it's counterproductive to fight for banning of cars in cities, especially in big US cities, when even some more bike lanes and some more thoughts as to how to integrate biking into the cities, and "equal rights" would be great and would attract more cyclists all around.
Some go that extra step and becomes fundamentalists about things, and some of us don't. That is where the fundamentalists are called "anti-car", because that is what they are. They focus less on being car free and thus pro-cycle themselves, and more about being against cars on behalf of everyone else. I know that cars will eventually be banned or strictly limited in most cities before much longer, for the simple reason that they are not a practical choice in dense urban areas. I don't have to try to make that happen because it will happen. I just want to make the transition as quick and painless as possible. And the best way to do that is not to be "anti-car" but to be in favor of better infrastructure and land use that makes it possible for people other than motorists to use the public roadways. so really the only differences between you and me is that I'm more outspoken than you are, and you choose to label me with a negative term. Otherwise, our philosophies are very similar, but I'm a little snottier about it than you are. |
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16385157)
If you think you are hurting my feelings by calling me anti-car, you are very wrong. That's just an inaccurate word that you made up, and it does not describe me at all.
I know that cars will eventually be banned or strictly limited in most cities before much longer, for the simple reason that they are not a practical choice in dense urban areas. I don't have to try to make that happen because it will happen. I just want to make the transition as quick and painless as possible. And the best way to do that is not to be "anti-car" but to be in favor of better infrastructure and land use that makes it possible for people other than motorists to use the public roadways. |
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16385157)
If you think you are hurting my feelings by calling me anti-car, you are very wrong. That's just an inaccurate word that you made up, and it does not describe me at all.
I know that cars will eventually be banned or strictly limited in most cities before much longer, for the simple reason that they are not a practical choice in dense urban areas. I don't have to try to make that happen because it will happen. I just want to make the transition as quick and painless as possible. And the best way to do that is not to be "anti-car" but to be in favor of better infrastructure and land use that makes it possible for people other than motorists to use the public roadways. so really the only differences between you and me is that I'm more outspoken than you are, and you choose to label me with a negative term. When it comes to bicycles, I have no lust for a car free society. I don't care. I would love it more people would ride bikes, but it's up to them. I have chosen for myself that I don't personally want or need a car, and have bought a cargo bike, not because of political ideology but because it is easier in so many ways, it is cheaper, and I get "free" exercise. My gf has a car, because she needs one for her job, and I sometimes ride with her. Do I think she, or even our neighbour, should do without? I don't care. With that said, my neighbour asked me the other day if she could get a ride on my (cargo) bike, and I was happy to let her have a go. Perhaps she will buy one herself down the road, but she already has a bicycle, her daughter has a bicycle, but they also have a small car (a compact, I belive you guys call it). They probably use the car three days a week, and for the rest they bike around. I mostly bike (or take public transport - or both). I don't have an ideologi that says cars should not be allowed. It might be easier to ban motorised boats/yachts as a starting point. No-one depend on those things to make a living. At least not the non-charter boats. They pollute like hell, take up nice areas where we could have much more active people going about, and when that utopia is reached, we could work on getting our "stuff" delivered without a polluting aircraft, truck, or train. Yes, we still need to have all of those, as well as some taxi cabs and busses and whatnot. In short, I don't see your position (or that of ironwood) to be any different pr any less sectarian than that of motorists who thinks that bikes should not be on the road at all. Otherwise, our philosophies are very similar, but I'm a little snottier about it than you are. |
Originally Posted by SmallFront
(Post 16385189)
We differ at a fundamental level.
|
Originally Posted by Mobile 155
(Post 16385161)
Do you have a time frame? :D What will be the first Large American city?
|
I did some clean up. The ankle-biting and insults (thinly veiled or direct) need to stop, now. Anyone who continues will be asked to leave the thread.
CbadRider Forum Administrator |
Originally Posted by ironwood
(Post 16385103)
It might not be defending their cars, but rather defending what their car represents to them: status and self worth. It is a symbol of success and wealth. It could be that cyclists, because they haven't bought into this value system, are mocking them and their values. We're not playing the game.
|
Originally Posted by ironwood
(Post 16385103)
It might not be defending their cars, but rather defending what their car represents to them: status and self worth. It is a symbol of success and wealth. It could be that cyclists, because they haven't bought into this value system, are mocking them and their values. We're not playing the game.
|
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 16386212)
You haven't been into the Road Forum yet, have you. :D
|
Originally Posted by ironwood
(Post 16385103)
It might not be defending their cars, but rather defending what their car represents to them: status and self worth. It is a symbol of success and wealth. It could be that cyclists, because they haven't bought into this value system, are mocking them and their values. We're not playing the game.
Originally Posted by ironwood
(Post 16386259)
I've looked at it, but I'm too old and am allergic to spandex, or I became allergic to it when I found it was owned by the Koch brothers.
Or perhaps even better, check out the Tandem Forum. N+1!! :D |
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 16386276)
Nevermind the spandex, go back into the Road Forum and have a look at all the symbols of success and wealth ... or in other words ... the bicycles. :)
Or perhaps even better, check out the Tandem Forum. |
I'm proud to be anti-car!
I've worked to limit their access to the city center in my town, which has reduced accidents, improved the air quality, reduced the emission of greenhouse gases and made our town more livable. If this makes me a "fundamentalist" in the eyes of some, I respect their opinions. I realize that my ideas are not in line with the majority of people's, but I strongly believe that minority opinions should be allowed in a sub-forum such as this one. |
Originally Posted by Bluish Green
(Post 16384695)
I suspect that the title of the sub-forum, "Living Car Free", specifically attracts some people who are either paid employees of auto or oil industry groups...
|
Originally Posted by memebag
(Post 16386703)
Really? Does anyone here actually believe the auto or oil industries would pay someone to post on this sub forum?
|
Originally Posted by Ekdog
(Post 16386716)
There's no doubt that people are paid to troll online.
|
Originally Posted by Ekdog
(Post 16386716)
There's no doubt that people are paid to troll online.
At the same time, the LCF is such a tiny and nearly invisible sub-forum that I can't believe it's worth anyone's time to assign a writer or writers to come and harry us. |
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16385271)
I would guess 40 to 50 years, but it will be a gradual and sporadic process. The first large carfree city will probably be Washington, DC. Anything else, I will answer on the thread about predictions, where it's more relevant.
I wouldn't be surprised if automotive traffic was restricted in some parts of Boston and Cambidge; A lot of motorists wouldn't object because it is next to impossible to drive there. I don't know about DC, I've never really enjoyed walking there. |
Originally Posted by memebag
(Post 16386732)
Really? I doubt any oil or car company would pay people to post here. What evidence is there of it? What possible benefit could it produce? I know they all have PR and social media departments. Editing their Wikipedia pages, sure, they do that. But stirring up poop with a handful of bicyclists? That just sounds like a paranoid delusion.
|
Originally Posted by ironwood
(Post 16385103)
It might not be defending their cars, but rather defending what their car represents to them: status and self worth. It is a symbol of success and wealth. It could be that cyclists, because they haven't bought into this value system, are mocking them and their values. We're not playing the game.
|
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16385157)
...I know that cars will eventually be banned or strictly limited in most cities before much longer, for the simple reason that they are not a practical choice in dense urban areas...
Originally Posted by Mobile 155
(Post 16385161)
Do you have a time frame? :D What will be the first Large American city?
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16385271)
I would guess 40 to 50 years, but it will be a gradual and sporadic process...
As they say, it's a start.
Originally Posted by NY Times
...And, with a weekend storm dumping more snow and ice in Indiana and Illinois, the mayor of Indianapolis banned driving.
|
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16381471)
I do know the historical reasons for why Utility broke off from LCF, because I was peripherally involved in the process. It was because some people did not want to be exposed to what they called "political" discussions on LCF. They wanted a subforum that dealt only with questions about bikes, gear, and riding techniques. I said that a Utility forum would be unpopular, and I was right. Those topics get boring pretty quickly for frequent users of BF. It's really hard to have a lively ongoing discussion about handlebar baskets, although the information is valuable if you actually want to purchase a basket.
Ironically, LCF itself was formed by Koffee Brown in order to get "political" discussions out of the Commuting forum. The current mods aren't aware of this fact, so they always want to lock "political" threads or (worse yet) banish them to P&R. Some time later (after I left the mods for my own reasons), Utility Cycling was created, presumably so that people could have sensible discussions on the practicalities of doing things with your bike without all the flame wars. Of course, UC had very few posts, while the same flame wars that characterised LCF continued unabated. Proving once again, that most people really wanted the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they wanted a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals. The question here is whether we really need a third proof that most people really want the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they want a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals. |
Originally Posted by Chris L
(Post 16430906)
That isn't entirely true. I was actually one of the mods when LCF was originally set up, and it was actually derived from the A & S forum. In fact, LCF started life as a sub-forum of A & S. Basically, A & S at the time was full of flame wars between people who were car free and those who weren't, and it was thought that giving the car free people their own forum would put a stop to it. Of course, that didn't happen for two reasons. Firstly, people in LCF continued flaming each other about the same topics that were being debated on A & S previously, and the A & S people simply started flaming each other about Vehicular Cycling -- proving that most people really wanted the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they wanted a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals.
Some time later (after I left the mods for my own reasons), Utility Cycling was created, presumably so that people could have sensible discussions on the practicalities of doing things with your bike without all the flame wars. Of course, UC had very few posts, while the same flame wars that characterised LCF continued unabated. Proving once again, that most people really wanted the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they wanted a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals. The question here is whether we really need a third proof that most people really want the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they want a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals. |
Originally Posted by Roody
(Post 16430915)
I'm sure your memory is better than mine. I'm just glad the forum has been here all these years, providing lively and mostly civil conversations and conveying much useful information. I love this place!
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.