Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[teuchter]

What an utterly bizarre statement. As someone who has never owned a car or had a full driving licence, but who has had a bike for getting around, I much prefer having adjustable suspension than not. In fact I will vouch that mountain bikes in general are far superior to shitty overpriced road bikes, which ride uncomfortably and have those stupid narrow wheels that transfer the force of every pothole and raised manhole cover while getting stuck in tram tracks (and of course, they are the favoured transportation of knobheads in Lycra who think they're in the Tour De France). The best ones in my experience are the ones with a hinged frame and a spring that can be adjusted by hand. A short stop and a few twists, and your bike can adapt its ride handling for smooth roads or rougher stretches.

Suspension on bikes is a great idea. Anyone who disagrees must have never had to deal with poorly-maintained roads and/or rougher unpaved paths as a cyclist. Or is a masochist who likes having their goolies pummelled while riding.

You can use the handlebars and your body weight to steer around potholes instead of going over them. Giving you this tip for free.

 

[NoXion]

You can use the handlebars and your body weight to steer around potholes instead of going over them. Giving you this tip for free.

I like to cycle on the roads, and randomly swerving around to avoid every little bump and crevice is a dangerous thing to do, both for myself and other road users. I'd have thought you of all people would be more considerate.

 

[Artaxerxes]

A lot of British roads are all pothole, same with pavements, which is why I'm surprised e-scooters are so popular.

 

[teuchter]

I like to cycle on the roads, and randomly swerving around to avoid every little bump and crevice is a dangerous thing to do, both for myself and other road users. I'd have thought you of all people would be more considerate.

If you are swerving to avoid obstacles, it's not "random".

 

[NoXion]

If you are swerving to avoid obstacles, it's not "random".

Most of the roughness of the roads are not obstacles any meaningful sense. Imperfections such as potholes and raised ironworks make roads less comfortable, instead of outright impassable. Furthermore, these kinds of things might be apparent to me, but that does not mean that they are apparent to other road users. So absent extreme cases, it makes no sense for me as a road user to make my movements less predictable by others, especially since since I'm sharing the road with motor vehicles which will have less reason to pull similar manoeuvers themselves. I do not think my comfort is sufficient justification for increasing my risks and the risk to others. Especially since I can use a bike with decent suspension to ameliorate the ride comfort issue in a safer manner.

 

[teuchter]

Moving around in the lane does not in principle increase risk because it communicates to drivers that they should not rely on you staying in one position within your lane. Instead if they are aware that you may have to move sideways within your lane, it will remind them that if they want to overtake you they have to allow a substantial margin between you and them. This is the same reason not to ride tight to the edge of the road.

If you adopt a strategy where you try and stick to a consistent line, sacrificing your own comfort in the process, then if you encounter a more major obstacle - one that you cannot ride over safely even with suspension, you will be forced to swerve, and if a following driver has been trained to think this will not happen, then you increase the risk that at that moment they are performing a too-close pass that puts them into conflict with you.

 

[teuchter]

This looks good

Speedcam Anywhere

speedcamanywhere.com

predictably, drivers have lost the plot over this. Outraged at the possibility their right to speed might be challenged.

Speed camera app developers face abuse from UK drivers

Speedcam Anywhere allows anyone to submit evidence of drivers speeding

www.theguardian.com

since it launched in March, the vitriol levied at the team is such that they are afraid of sharing their real identities. “We’re getting quite abusive emails,” said Sam, the app’s founder, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

One online review for the app said: “In East Germany, citizens were encouraged to report their neighbours to the Stasi for even the smallest societal infraction. ‘Congratulations’ on creating a modern day version of that. If you couldn’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. This app disgusts me.”

 

[T & P]

Those drivers needn't have worried...

The app cannot lead to drivers receiving speeding tickets. Since Speedcam Anywhere’s algorithm has not been vetted by the Home Office, it is not legally a speed camera, and cannot provide sufficient evidence for a police force to issue a prosecution for speeding

 

[teuchter]

 

[NoXion]

Moving around in the lane does not in principle increase risk because it communicates to drivers that they should not rely on you staying in one position within your lane.

You're assuming that's what other road users will interpret from my behaviour. I question that assumption. If they see me swerving about unnecessarily like a fuckwit, then there are any number of potential explanations they could divine from such behaviour, not all of which will have the same optimal response in terms of driving.

If you adopt a strategy where you try and stick to a consistent line, sacrificing your own comfort in the process, then if you encounter a more major obstacle - one that you cannot ride over safely even with suspension, you will be forced to swerve

Unlike how I would be forced to swerve if I decided to try and avoid every bump and dent in the road? If I see that there is some obstacle ahead that I cannot safely traverse, then of course I will try to avoid it. But that's for the sake of safety, not comfort. Were I to follow your advice, my movements would be less tractable than if I were to just only make those manoeuvrers I need to ensure my own safety and the safety of others.

 

[edcraw]

makes note not to make throw away jokes about bike suspension on the internet again

 

[Spymaster]

makes note not to make throw away jokes about bike suspension on the internet again

"It's disappointing to see ... that you haven't yet realised ... that transport mechanics are a very serious business round these parts".

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

View attachment 318317

One car and one minibus removed, plus 30 or so bicycles.

Spymaster wins this round.

 

[Artaxerxes]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Please tell me that’s a parody account

 

[T & P]

 

[petee]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

“Man proves for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all”

 

[platinumsage]

“Man proves for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all”

Presumably you think people who sleep on the streets are proving they don't need accommodation.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Presumably you think people who sleep on the streets are proving they don't need accommodation.

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[platinumsage]

False equivalence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If you say "Man proves for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all" then you'll need to support it with more than simply that statement itself, otherwise it's not a false equivalence at all. So, where's the proof?

 

[liquidindian]

So, where's the proof?

 

[farmerbarleymow]

If you say "Man proves for a year he didn’t actually need a car after all" then you'll need to support it with more than simply that statement itself, otherwise it's not a false equivalence at all. So, where's the proof?

The fact that he's coped for a year doing it suggests having a car isn't a vital thing to take his kids to school, presuming he's not taken his kids out of school in protest. Nothing in the article suggests he has a disability, and he appears to be complaining about having to use public transport due to the delay in getting the car is unfair.

 

[platinumsage]

Not sure how any of that couldn’t equally be used against someone who “copes” for a year sleeping on the streets. The only difference is a third-party’s judgement of what someone else needs, so it’s a matter of opinion and not some sort of irrefutable truth.

Its fine to say “I don’t think he needs a car”, but to claim the fact he has survived without one is proof he doesn’t need one is a bit of a stretch.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Not sure how any of that couldn’t equally be used against someone who “copes” for a year sleeping on the streets.

That's a ridiculous argument.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Walkings good for the kids, if it's wet let em walk by themselves.

Oh wait we can't do that here. If the cars don't get them something else will

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yep. Getting wet walking to school is definitely exactly the same as being homeless.

 

[platinumsage]

Yep. Getting wet walking to school is definitely exactly the same as being homeless.

FFS I'm not saying that, I'm saying that's an opinion that someone could hold, and they could support it by making the same assertion that you did: that the fact someone doesn't have something is proof they don't need it. That doesn't stack up with carless people just the same as it doesn't stack up with homeless people.

If you want to prove he doesn't need a car you'll have to do better than "he doesn't have one".

 

[platinumsage]

Walkings good for the kids, if it's wet let em walk by themselves.

How many miles do they have to walk? Oh wait, you don't know.

 

[Spymaster]

Yep. Getting wet walking to school is definitely exactly the same as being homeless.

It doesn’t need to be exactly the same thing though does it? There are many things that people don’t have to do but their lives would be significantly more difficult without.