This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think the main argument against this is that it transfers the risk from the cyclists to the pedestrians. Bikes on the road have to be careful to avoid being hit by cars. Put the bikes on sidewalks, and it's mostly pedestrians who have to be careful to avoid being hit by bikes. (Collisions with pedestrians can also hurt the cyclist, but the main danger is to the pedestrians.) And pedestrians would include children, old people, handicapped people, etc.
Realistically, cyclists on sidewalks would probably be at least as, if not more, contemptuous of pedestrian safety as drivers are of cyclist safety.
Entities travelling at variable speeds is going to cause someone some risk somewhere.
I don't pretend that the risk goes away.
Still, I think the best way to split up travelling entities is based on the existence of a motor.
Motors generally behave the same. They are good for constant speed. They can quickly and repeatedly reach their maximum speed. They perform at the same level until they are out fuel.
Human powered transport generally behaves the same. Momentum is important, so stopping is bad. They cannot quickly and repeatedly reach a maximum speed from a stopped position (unless they are world class athletes). They are not good at maintaining a constant speed, except very very low speed.
I don't think it is hard for bikes and pedestrians to share space. There is a paved nature trail near my house it's commonly just bikes and people walking/running. They get along fine. I've been both a walker and bike rider on the trail. Neither have been a problem. Even when it gets pretty crowded.
My experience with Bikers on hiking trails hasn't been pleasant. The bikers "claimed" a hiking route in a park near me (ie they put up a handmade sign indiciating that one of the parallel paths were for bikers only). This was in spite of signage placed at the entrance to the park indicating the paths were shared and that bikers had to yield to hikers.
I ran into one on the "bikers" path and I thought we were going to have a fist fight when he got uppity about me being in his way. He was threatening and stated it was for my own good that I stay off this route.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
New law: A bicyclist is permitted to ride on sidewalks, but must dismount whenever a pedestrian is within a certain distance in front of him. (I don't know what a good distance would be. Maybe twenty feet (six meters).)
At least under current Austin law, "Riding a bicycle or micromobility device on a sidewalk is allowed, in a reasonable and prudent manner", so long as it does "not impede or obstruct pedestrian traffic on sidewalk paths."
This is fairly critical in a city with some nice bike paths that can in some cases be only accessed via 45mph roads, because too many car drivers can't be trusted with safety.
This sounds like it would be a great law, except that too many bicycle riders can't be trusted with safety (particularly the ones who you'd need to follow the law), and enforcement wouldn't fix that because too many police departments can't be trusted with safety.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link