teuchter
je suis teuchter
I requested that you were more specific, rather than more waffly.
What you have written could be said about any modern human settlement.
Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
What you have written could be said about any modern human settlement.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
liquidindian
Hello
Yes, speed kills, that's right.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
If you need a detailed explanation from an Urbanite as to why a 100-mile long concrete and glass city in the Arabian desert for the rich, housing a million people and built and governed by a despotic regime is not sustainable then I think you've bitten off more than you can chew by starting this thread.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
You missed the point too, I see...
liquidindian
Hello
No I understand what victim blaming is.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
No, you continue to miss the point. The argument right now was about whether most drivers are 'awful' at driving. This is blantatly bollocks, as clearly demonstrated by the very figures you and edcraw are trying to use to change the discussion to something else.
Nobody here is blaming victims. But it undisputable bullshit that 'most drivers' are awful. If most drivers were awful, the casualty figures would be tens if not hundreds of times higher. And more to the point, only an extremely small proportion of drivers are ever involved in their lifetime in such serious accidents.
I hope that you both now understand and agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving- which is what we were discussing at this point in time. But please feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise if you disagree.
Nobody here is blaming victims. But it undisputable bullshit that 'most drivers' are awful. If most drivers were awful, the casualty figures would be tens if not hundreds of times higher. And more to the point, only an extremely small proportion of drivers are ever involved in their lifetime in such serious accidents.
I hope that you both now understand and agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving- which is what we were discussing at this point in time. But please feel free to try to demonstrate otherwise if you disagree.
It’d be good to see what actually is more halmful - this or a million people living in suburbia. Not sure it’s that clear cut tbh.
Oh look - you’re talking shit. But then you’re happy with speeding, dangerous, rat-running traffic on minor urban roads.
liquidindian
Hello
It's not scientific, but I've had a handlebar camera for my bike for about a month and have already submitted two incidents that are being followed up by the police. I only commute twice a week. So if you're asking if I "agree that it is completely incorrect to suggest that most drivers are awful at driving" I would probably just switch out "most" for "too many".
Of course, if I keep doing it, just as others are, it'll get better over time. Maybe one to revisit in a while.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Ok. We can all agree that most drivers can be considered "not awful" judged against an arbitrary standard chosen by someone who wants to show that most drivers are "not awful".
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
I’m pretty sure if Kim Jong-un built a car-free nuclear weapons factory fuelled by burning the imported corpses of Chinese dissidents you’d be in favour of it because American nuclear weapons factories have car parks and are partially powered by fossil fuels.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
As expected, not willing to discuss any details or specifics.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Everything I’ve said about it has been specific and has referred to details. If you want more specifics or details, I suggest explaining why it’s such a good thing, then we can cite your support for it in future debates.
Last edited:
Great account here! AI generated people friendly streets!
Last edited:
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
Maybe what needed to be done is to knock car drivers out with some kind of targeted anaesthetic, and while they're unconscious, dig up all the roads and replace them with lovely forests.
Oh, and recycle their polluting cars with something useful.
They'd moan for a bit when they came to but would soon realise that nature is much better than a stupid polluting car.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
So you’ve recoding your journeys for a month, and you’ve noticed two serious incidents. At a wild but probably broadly accurate guess, your camera has easily recorded many hundreds of cars crossing paths with you on every single journey. But let’s just say a very conservative couple of hundred vehicles encountered on a typical 20-minute urban journey.
So you reluctantly concede that the superlative term ‘most’ is actually inaccurate when discussing how many drivers out of 36 million in this country might br awful (an admission that a few others in this thread are still refusing to admit, so credit to you there).
But you still appear to be suggesting 1 in 3,000 drivers committing a grave infraction is unacceptably high. So I just wonder, do your very strict judgement parameters apply to other traits and habits, or only those you don’t like? If even one in 3,000 people who drink alcohol in this country ever commits an alcohol-related serious offence, that would clearly be as damming an indictment of people who drink alcohol as a whole as those who drive cars, right?
Yeah, I thought so.
maomao
普費斯
I'll retract the 'most' then. I should have said 'all'.
liquidindian
Hello
Do some more of that thinking.
liquidindian
Hello
Maybe I'm going to the wrong pubs that there's not a reportable incident every couple of hours.
maomao
普費斯
And pedestrian insurance doesn't even exist as far as I can tell.
Oh look - platinumsage ’s beloved capitalism has shown us how to judge relative risk!
Time to ban cars and close the thread!
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
You need to drink more
liquidindian
Hello
Oh I see where you've gone wrong.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
The funniest thing about this particular discussion is that ultimately it’s a completely meaningless and irrelevant argument about semantics and mathematics. And crucially, one which outcome is not a matter of opinion but a pretty solid fact.
A very small percentage of a given group can’t possibly be presented as constituting ‘most’ members if such group. If one in several thousand people who drink tea has sugar with it and the other 4,999 do not, you’d have to be fucking bonkers to suggest most people like sugar with their tea. But apparently that does not apply to the awful/ not awful driver conundrum.
Fuck me, this is borderline therapy stuff…
Last edited:
