Anonymous wrote:I wonder why it’s always about either cars or bike lines?
If we are talking about reducing car-dependency, it makes sense to truly develop sidewalks! And I’m talking about functional sidewalks, on both sides on the streets, not ones that stop suddenly in the middle of the street. When I’m in Europe, I am able to either walk everywhere or take a bus if it’s far.
Here I feel like bicyclists are another subcategory of drivers, just trendy one. And it’s OK! I just want to have a choice to have a freedom to not worry about parking either car or bike

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems pretty inconsistent (and by inconsistent I mean laughably hypocritical) to be anti-car and then take advantage of rideshare services and home delivery.

I mean, if you’re anti-car, you have to live ot 24/7/365 - not just when the weather suits you.

Do we?

(Tip - being personally car free does not mean you never use a vehicle.)

Nobody would care a whit about a person who had no car, IF the carless person who orders uber/door dash would shut up about their BS sustainable choice. Because it's not, and that's fine. Just don't blow smoke up our arses.

Whether Hamid drives your single cup of coffee to your door your you do, it really doesn't matter. And no, you're not taking "a car off the road." Your insatiable thirst for a roll of tape, RIGHT NOW INSTACART, actually induced Hamid to move here from Scranton and lease a 2023 Camry and beging working for Instacart.

Again, it's about LESS cars, not NO cars. You are throwing punches at air and you look like an idiot.

Demanding less cars will affect the group who is in the category deemed to be sacrificed to the less goal, and they do not need to be happy about it.

Sure, probably. Those who are as extremely PRO CAR as those that are ANTI CAR - in other words, those on the extreme ends of the spectrum - will probably feel like they are losing something. But there's a huge group in the middle for whom this is not the case. Building more safe bike lanes, for example, induces a lot of people to try biking who otherwise didn't want to. For those people, who still drive a car but now also sometimes bike, these changes gave them more options and were a net positive. This is a really big portion of the population, at least in DC and the surrounding suburbs, which is why you see protected bike lanes continue to get approved. It's not because of a few extreme anti-car crazies. Maybe it was at first, and they'll probably tell you that, but the real change is coming as a result of the larger population starting to shift in that direction. If the pro-car lobby (or whatever you consider yourself) wants to somehow convince that large middle population that they have something to gain from opposing bicycle infrastructure, they can by all means go ahead. Your problem is that you're on the losing side of a game of tug of war.

The bolded is a judgment that is convenient to your cause.

Again, some want to keep the status quo. They are not required to do mental gymnastics to shift their preference. It is ok to acknowledge you want to change the culture, but you should understand some don't want to. I know you don't care and will push forth your agenda, but don't pretend an opposition doesn't exists or that they are simply just stupid.

My judgement is informed by the fact that your side keeps losing, that's all.

It's funny you think I'm a bike lane zealot. I actually just recently opposed a bike lane in my neighborhood because it was going to cut off a bus stop access point. I consider myself part of this "middle" that has warmed to the idea of a bike as the infrastructure has improved, and now I feel like my life is better for it. I don't feel like I'm losing something as time goes on. It's sad that you do.

A side losing doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are literally winners and losers in politics. A side winning doesn't mean that I have to now say wow you have the right values and I don't. OK you are in the middle and are loud about it doesn't mean a lot of people agree with you or that I do. Your side is just really really vocal and politicians, not wanting to think for themselves, are happy to have others think for them.

You haven't made a single coherent argument in defense of your "side". All you've said is that you're losing something. That's not policy, that's a conservative propaganda line. If you want to talk politics, why don't you even try to convince me, a person who owns (and loves) both a car and an ebike, that we should stop building bike lanes? All you've done is lumped me in with "them" and made me into an opponent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems pretty inconsistent (and by inconsistent I mean laughably hypocritical) to be anti-car and then take advantage of rideshare services and home delivery.

I mean, if you’re anti-car, you have to live ot 24/7/365 - not just when the weather suits you.

Do we?

(Tip - being personally car free does not mean you never use a vehicle.)

Nobody would care a whit about a person who had no car, IF the carless person who orders uber/door dash would shut up about their BS sustainable choice. Because it's not, and that's fine. Just don't blow smoke up our arses.

Whether Hamid drives your single cup of coffee to your door your you do, it really doesn't matter. And no, you're not taking "a car off the road." Your insatiable thirst for a roll of tape, RIGHT NOW INSTACART, actually induced Hamid to move here from Scranton and lease a 2023 Camry and beging working for Instacart.

Again, it's about LESS cars, not NO cars. You are throwing punches at air and you look like an idiot.

Demanding less cars will affect the group who is in the category deemed to be sacrificed to the less goal, and they do not need to be happy about it.

Sure, probably. Those who are as extremely PRO CAR as those that are ANTI CAR - in other words, those on the extreme ends of the spectrum - will probably feel like they are losing something. But there's a huge group in the middle for whom this is not the case. Building more safe bike lanes, for example, induces a lot of people to try biking who otherwise didn't want to. For those people, who still drive a car but now also sometimes bike, these changes gave them more options and were a net positive. This is a really big portion of the population, at least in DC and the surrounding suburbs, which is why you see protected bike lanes continue to get approved. It's not because of a few extreme anti-car crazies. Maybe it was at first, and they'll probably tell you that, but the real change is coming as a result of the larger population starting to shift in that direction. If the pro-car lobby (or whatever you consider yourself) wants to somehow convince that large middle population that they have something to gain from opposing bicycle infrastructure, they can by all means go ahead. Your problem is that you're on the losing side of a game of tug of war.

The bolded is a judgment that is convenient to your cause.

Again, some want to keep the status quo. They are not required to do mental gymnastics to shift their preference. It is ok to acknowledge you want to change the culture, but you should understand some don't want to. I know you don't care and will push forth your agenda, but don't pretend an opposition doesn't exists or that they are simply just stupid.

My judgement is informed by the fact that your side keeps losing, that's all.

It's funny you think I'm a bike lane zealot. I actually just recently opposed a bike lane in my neighborhood because it was going to cut off a bus stop access point. I consider myself part of this "middle" that has warmed to the idea of a bike as the infrastructure has improved, and now I feel like my life is better for it. I don't feel like I'm losing something as time goes on. It's sad that you do.

A side losing doesn't mean that it is wrong. There are literally winners and losers in politics. A side winning doesn't mean that I have to now say wow you have the right values and I don't. OK you are in the middle and are loud about it doesn't mean a lot of people agree with you or that I do. Your side is just really really vocal and politicians, not wanting to think for themselves, are happy to have others think for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems pretty inconsistent (and by inconsistent I mean laughably hypocritical) to be anti-car and then take advantage of rideshare services and home delivery.

I mean, if you’re anti-car, you have to live ot 24/7/365 - not just when the weather suits you.

Do we?

(Tip - being personally car free does not mean you never use a vehicle.)

Nobody would care a whit about a person who had no car, IF the carless person who orders uber/door dash would shut up about their BS sustainable choice. Because it's not, and that's fine. Just don't blow smoke up our arses.

Whether Hamid drives your single cup of coffee to your door your you do, it really doesn't matter. And no, you're not taking "a car off the road." Your insatiable thirst for a roll of tape, RIGHT NOW INSTACART, actually induced Hamid to move here from Scranton and lease a 2023 Camry and beging working for Instacart.

Again, it's about LESS cars, not NO cars. You are throwing punches at air and you look like an idiot.

Demanding less cars will affect the group who is in the category deemed to be sacrificed to the less goal, and they do not need to be happy about it.

Sure, probably. Those who are as extremely PRO CAR as those that are ANTI CAR - in other words, those on the extreme ends of the spectrum - will probably feel like they are losing something. But there's a huge group in the middle for whom this is not the case. Building more safe bike lanes, for example, induces a lot of people to try biking who otherwise didn't want to. For those people, who still drive a car but now also sometimes bike, these changes gave them more options and were a net positive. This is a really big portion of the population, at least in DC and the surrounding suburbs, which is why you see protected bike lanes continue to get approved. It's not because of a few extreme anti-car crazies. Maybe it was at first, and they'll probably tell you that, but the real change is coming as a result of the larger population starting to shift in that direction. If the pro-car lobby (or whatever you consider yourself) wants to somehow convince that large middle population that they have something to gain from opposing bicycle infrastructure, they can by all means go ahead. Your problem is that you're on the losing side of a game of tug of war.

The bolded is a judgment that is convenient to your cause.

Again, some want to keep the status quo. They are not required to do mental gymnastics to shift their preference. It is ok to acknowledge you want to change the culture, but you should understand some don't want to. I know you don't care and will push forth your agenda, but don't pretend an opposition doesn't exists or that they are simply just stupid.

My judgement is informed by the fact that your side keeps losing, that's all.

It's funny you think I'm a bike lane zealot. I actually just recently opposed a bike lane in my neighborhood because it was going to cut off a bus stop access point. I consider myself part of this "middle" that has warmed to the idea of a bike as the infrastructure has improved, and now I feel like my life is better for it. I don't feel like I'm losing something as time goes on. It's sad that you do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems pretty inconsistent (and by inconsistent I mean laughably hypocritical) to be anti-car and then take advantage of rideshare services and home delivery.

I mean, if you’re anti-car, you have to live ot 24/7/365 - not just when the weather suits you.

Do we?

(Tip - being personally car free does not mean you never use a vehicle.)

Nobody would care a whit about a person who had no car, IF the carless person who orders uber/door dash would shut up about their BS sustainable choice. Because it's not, and that's fine. Just don't blow smoke up our arses.

Whether Hamid drives your single cup of coffee to your door your you do, it really doesn't matter. And no, you're not taking "a car off the road." Your insatiable thirst for a roll of tape, RIGHT NOW INSTACART, actually induced Hamid to move here from Scranton and lease a 2023 Camry and beging working for Instacart.

Again, it's about LESS cars, not NO cars. You are throwing punches at air and you look like an idiot.

Demanding less cars will affect the group who is in the category deemed to be sacrificed to the less goal, and they do not need to be happy about it.

Sure, probably. Those who are as extremely PRO CAR as those that are ANTI CAR - in other words, those on the extreme ends of the spectrum - will probably feel like they are losing something. But there's a huge group in the middle for whom this is not the case. Building more safe bike lanes, for example, induces a lot of people to try biking who otherwise didn't want to. For those people, who still drive a car but now also sometimes bike, these changes gave them more options and were a net positive. This is a really big portion of the population, at least in DC and the surrounding suburbs, which is why you see protected bike lanes continue to get approved. It's not because of a few extreme anti-car crazies. Maybe it was at first, and they'll probably tell you that, but the real change is coming as a result of the larger population starting to shift in that direction. If the pro-car lobby (or whatever you consider yourself) wants to somehow convince that large middle population that they have something to gain from opposing bicycle infrastructure, they can by all means go ahead. Your problem is that you're on the losing side of a game of tug of war.

The bolded is a judgment that is convenient to your cause.

Again, some want to keep the status quo. They are not required to do mental gymnastics to shift their preference. It is ok to acknowledge you want to change the culture, but you should understand some don't want to. I know you don't care and will push forth your agenda, but don't pretend an opposition doesn't exists or that they are simply just stupid.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know if I would say I’m “anti-car” - we don’t have a car, don’t want a car, and in general, I think this country should be less car friendly and more walking/biking/public transit friendly for people’s mental and physical health, the environment, and the health and vibrancy of our communities. But I recognize as my kids get older (currently 5, 3, baby) we might need one car for farther away activities - that wouldn’t be a failure or anything, and I don’t judge or hate people who have cars.

Anyway, heat doesn’t bother me much. I’ve been doing my usual 45 min circuit (pushing the stroller!) to take all the kids to camps/childcare, and then again to pick up at the end of the day, half the days (husband does the other half). And I work hybrid, been walking (about 40 mins) to and from the office 2x a week. I wear lightweight clothing and stay really well hydrated and come home sweaty. It’s really not that big of a deal.

I will say the physical labor outside (like your unloading all the groceries example) is, for me, way worse than walking. Just walking isn’t strenuous at all for me, so it doesn’t really feel much differently than just sitting by the pool (especially cause we have a really good stroller).

Biggest difference is that on weekends, we’re only doing water based activities outside, the pool or the splash pad. No regular playgrounds, it’s too hot.

Anonymous wrote:They deliver you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems pretty inconsistent (and by inconsistent I mean laughably hypocritical) to be anti-car and then take advantage of rideshare services and home delivery.

I mean, if you’re anti-car, you have to live ot 24/7/365 - not just when the weather suits you.

Do we?

(Tip - being personally car free does not mean you never use a vehicle.)

dp.. then you are not anti-car, so the comment doesn't apply to you.

NP - Do you really think there are "anti-car" people who are against all cars? That seems pretty rare.

Yes, there are, and they are prominent voices in progressive circles (and Democrats follow what progressives do these days). They think cars are inherently murderous and highways are racists and that suburbs are unpatriotic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems pretty inconsistent (and by inconsistent I mean laughably hypocritical) to be anti-car and then take advantage of rideshare services and home delivery.

I mean, if you’re anti-car, you have to live ot 24/7/365 - not just when the weather suits you.

Do we?

(Tip - being personally car free does not mean you never use a vehicle.)

Nobody would care a whit about a person who had no car, IF the carless person who orders uber/door dash would shut up about their BS sustainable choice. Because it's not, and that's fine. Just don't blow smoke up our arses.

Whether Hamid drives your single cup of coffee to your door your you do, it really doesn't matter. And no, you're not taking "a car off the road." Your insatiable thirst for a roll of tape, RIGHT NOW INSTACART, actually induced Hamid to move here from Scranton and lease a 2023 Camry and beging working for Instacart.

Again, it's about LESS cars, not NO cars. You are throwing punches at air and you look like an idiot.

Demanding less cars will affect the group who is in the category deemed to be sacrificed to the less goal, and they do not need to be happy about it.

Sure, probably. Those who are as extremely PRO CAR as those that are ANTI CAR - in other words, those on the extreme ends of the spectrum - will probably feel like they are losing something. But there's a huge group in the middle for whom this is not the case. Building more safe bike lanes, for example, induces a lot of people to try biking who otherwise didn't want to. For those people, who still drive a car but now also sometimes bike, these changes gave them more options and were a net positive. This is a really big portion of the population, at least in DC and the surrounding suburbs, which is why you see protected bike lanes continue to get approved. It's not because of a few extreme anti-car crazies. Maybe it was at first, and they'll probably tell you that, but the real change is coming as a result of the larger population starting to shift in that direction. If the pro-car lobby (or whatever you consider yourself) wants to somehow convince that large middle population that they have something to gain from opposing bicycle infrastructure, they can by all means go ahead. Your problem is that you're on the losing side of a game of tug of war.