site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Why was stopping, walking the bike around the dumpster, and then getting back on not an option? The picture is posted below, and clearly this was an option, and would have been the safest option in this situation.

However, blockages in bike lanes, whether due to construction, parking violations, or poorly maintained lanes means that cyclists encounter obstacles like this extremely frequently. Getting on and off a bicycle, losing all momentum is enough of a pain in the ass that basically nobody does it, preferring to take the small, yet significant risk of merging into traffic to save time and effort. It's similar to the risk that basically all drivers take on when they speed slightly, or roll through stop signs.

The difference is that in the cyclists case, the risk is almost entirely taken on personally, as bikes are fragile. When motorists take on those risks, it often disproportionally endangers the pedestrians and cyclists nearby.

Maybe the cyclist made a mistake, maybe they didn't. But everybody on the road makes mistakes, and road design should take this into account. Cycling advocates want to improve road design so that mistakes are much less deadly for cyclists, and in many cases these design changes don't significantly impact motorized vehicle traffic.

As for "where does this dumpster go":

  • the dumpster was there illegally already - the company ended up being fined (a trivial amount, but still it was illegal)
  • the sidewalk perhaps, slowing pedestrian traffic
  • the current location, but with temporary barriers protecting the bike lane
  • the current location, but with signs instructing cyclists to merge, and motorists to "share the lane" (common practice in Toronto)

the dumpster was there illegally already - the company ended up being fined (a trivial amount, but still it was illegal)

Ok, so the dumpster was brought to the site by the construction company? This makes more sense given what I see in the picture. Looks like they needed to get a street occupation permit.

My opinion on who is in the wrong here depends both on the details of the nature and urgency of the construction work being done, and on whether to permitting authority is capable of processing applications in a timely and reasonable manner.

I don't see how the permit makes any difference in the bicycle fatality. It was an enormous dumpster, clearly visible and marked with cones. If there had been a permit, the bicyclist would have had to go around it just the same.