Lemdro.id

2 points

9 months ago

You missed the salient point in your knee jerk reaction about ‘carbrain feels’

if you want to spend political capital Is this fight worth it more than getting cycle lanes or pedestrian zones?

Or phrased differently, unless you’re the road dictator who defines policy in a vacuum, you will have to get buy-in or agreement from the primary roads users - drivers. Which will involve compromise on your goals.

Right on red does provide (limited) ecological and congestion benefit by limiting idling at otherwise clear intersections. Inattentive drivers are not a new problem, but I would much rather have cycle lanes physically segregated from vehicles as a priority for road reform

report

[ - ]

drkt@feddit.dk

1 point

9 months ago

I think you’ll find that the amount of emissions saved from idling at these intersections would be paid for a hundred-fold by just leaving the car at home for one short trip once a year. It essentially doesn’t exist. Additionally, fuck your congestion, I don’t care. You chose the car, you get to be stuck in traffic in it. I won’t accept any risk to my body because you can’t wait an extra minute.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

Ahhhh. You didn’t miss the point about ‘an okay compromise today, instead of utopia never’ you willingly ignored it

It’s incredibly ableist and ageist to demean drivers as a whole. Public transport is not a 100% coverage map, let alone timetables. Telling a wheelchair user/someone living with cerebral palsy/etc to move themselves three km start-and-finish to a bus stop to do their bi-weekly shopping is not a solution. Get real, or everyone else will see you for an extremist and ignore you.

report

[ - ]

drkt@feddit.dk

1 point

9 months ago

Please explain to my low attention-span millennial avocado-brain how implementing a safer-for-all traffic intersection forces disabled people out of their cars, because that strangely doesn’t seem to be a problem in my municipality. Disabled people who are car-bound has, if I may be so bold, seemingly benefited from the safer intersections on account of pedestrians and bicyclists fearing less for their lives in traffic and thus encouraging them to walk or bike instead of drive, leading to less cars on the road meaning less congestion for the disabled car-bound people.

Also: Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands has shown us that disabled people get around on bicycle infrastructure just fine. I find it insulting that you pretend to champion disabled people but don’t actually understand how they use the infrastructure available… almost like you don’t actually care, but just wanted to make a dumb argument because it sounded good in your head.

I get it bro you like the wroom wroom but go to your local track on sunday and leave the rest of the city out of it thanks

report

[ - ]

1 point

9 months ago

I guess disagreeing with even a shred of your stance immediately makes me a carbrain boomer, who uses marginalized groups as a prop to justify the status quo huh? Are you even willing to examine an outside argument or use case that challenges your views?

‘Right on red’ is a very US-centric scenario. Telling an elderly or disabled person in America to “just use the bus, it’s better for everyone” isn’t a solution, it’s dogma. You are not operating in reality to tell someone for whom moving their own body takes a large physical toll, to take the bus or cycle. Get over yourself and your ideology and see that there are people who genuinely need independent mobility, and that public transport is not a viable solution for everyone.

Yes it can be better, yes there needs to be change, but fuck dude. Not everyone subscribes to your ideological purity test, and all you’ve done is alienate people who may be sympathetic. I want protected, hardened bicycle routes because I too have had too many close calls with cars and trucks. I want better pedestrian infrastructure and walkable cities. I want light rail and better bus service. All I’ve gotten from you is ad-hominem and hostility. Do better, or you’ll find yourself alone voting for “car free utopia or nothing” law because you flip to insults at the first use case you couldn’t dismiss.

report

[ - ]

drkt@feddit.dk

1 point

9 months ago

I guess disagreeing with even a shred of your stance immediately makes me a carbrain boomer

I didn’t call you a boomer but thanks for telling on yourself

who uses marginalized groups as a prop to justify the status quo

Yes, because that’s what you did, and are still doing.

Are you even willing to examine an outside argument or use case that challenges your views?

If they present sound logic. Right-On-Red kills people, that’s why it’s primarily a US thing because nobody else is that insanely car-brained.

Telling an elderly or disabled person in America to “just use the bus, it’s better for everyone” isn’t a solution, it’s dogma. You are not operating in reality to tell someone for whom moving their own body takes a large physical toll, to take the bus or cycle. Get over yourself and your ideology and see that there are people who genuinely need independent mobility, and that public transport is not a viable solution for everyone.

I did not once tell any disabled person to get out of their personal vehicle. You are pretending that I did because you just want to argue but you have no points and you don’t believe in anything. You could’ve had a point about pragmatic politics but I’m not gonna make your argument for you. You’re old enough to do that yourself.

Yes it can be better, yes there needs to be change,

Glad we’re on the same page. I can’t understand why you are arguing against repealing Right-On-Red, then. A change that would literally save lives and require zero infrastructural investment.

Not everyone subscribes to your ideological purity test, and all you’ve done is alienate people who may be sympathetic.

Nothing I’ve said is particularly exclusionary. I haven’t said all cars must go. I haven’t said all disabled people must walk. I said car-owners feelings are once again taking precedence over actual human lives. You are also still ignoring that disabled people seem to be getting around just fine, generally speaking, in countries that deprioritize cars.

I too have had too many close calls with cars and trucks.

So lets minimize that and get rid of Right-On-Red instead of telling me I’m a fucking puritan idealist for suggesting as much.

Do better, or you’ll find yourself alone voting for “car free utopia or nothing” law because you flip to insults at the first use case you couldn’t dismiss.

That’s funny, because my lefty extreme no-car utopia party is up in recent polling. They even control a district in inner Copenhagen. Denmark doesn’t have a pants-on-head retarded 2-party first-past-the-post system, by the way, so voting for what you believe in actually does work over here. I’m sorry you have to deal with your god awful system.

There is no conceivable universe in which you pull this shit out of your ass in good faith because I have dismissed your disabled-people use case like 4 times now. You’re just ignoring it because you don’t believe in anything and would rather pretend that you’re some holy centrist whose views of the world are infinitely nuanced and beyond the reach of idealists like myself because it’s apparently utopic to not wanna spend your last minutes on earth being dragged underneath an SUV.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

Accuses me of using disabled people as a political prop

Uses “pants-on-head retarded” as a slur

You casually drop ableist slurs and personal insults when challenged. I think I’ve heard all I need to from you, but I genuinely hope you figure out whatever spawns this aggression towards someone who has openly stated to be pro-alternative transport. Do better friend, or at a minimum consider being quiet and leaving space for those who are actually working with local government for change 👍

report