Post #4145691

Replies (2)

• @ahltorp@mastodon.nu 2026-07-27 20:06

  @Lstn2urmama4@zeroes.ca @ned@beige.party You don't "need" your car if you are somehow unable to use it because a cyclist did something to it. The only damage a cyclist can do to a car is minor cosmetic, and that does not qualify as "need". Whereas you can make a person disabled by using your car against them. Being disabled yourself doesn't make you entitled to maim people.

  Open ##4145689

• @ned@beige.party 2026-07-26 21:36

  @Lstn2urmama4@zeroes.ca We DO all pay for the roads, equally. No, they are not paid by fuel taxes or vehicle registration (which only pays for its own administration). Road infrastructure is paid for through property taxes, and that is paid by both owners and renters through rental income. But while we all pay equally, we do not benefit equally. Unsustainable passenger automobiles account for nearly all the costs of maintenance, cycling infrastructure gets half a percent of the municipal budget, and motorists feel the entitlement to physically and dangerously force cyclists off the road. Now do you see how the argument that cyclists should pay their own way is no different than the argument that immigrants should pay for their own healthcare and education? We are all paying the same taxes, but the ones who are claiming others aren't paying, are the ones who are drawing the most benefit from the funding that we all pay. Cycling infrastructure helps everybody, not just cyclists. Motorists create all the traffic, all the danger, and all the costs. Giving motorists OPTIONS to end their dependency is the only way to sustainably grow as a municipality. While not everybody can take those options, they benefit from the decreased traffic from those who can. Dependency on the most inefficient form of transportation (passenger automobiles) also clogs up the roads and increases the costs and access of trucking and emergency services, and anybody else who "needs" to drive themselves. It also makes everything dangerous. Safe alternatives to driving never takes away from those who drive, despite bad faith arguments like those of Devin Dreeshen or Doug Ford who claim they "create gridlock", which is only created by too many cars. This isn't just about bikes, and in fact properly funded mass transit is best positioned to take the most cars off the road. Active transportation stands in solidarity with ALL options and alternatives. I don't just want a bike lane to get myself to work, I want parents to stop driving their cars a couple blocks to school in the same district to drop off their kid, so that my kids are unable to safely cross the road to walk to school! Viable transit options would reach these goals faster than more bike lanes, but more bike lanes are just as important, and life saving. I should also mention that I was a licensed driving instructor in Alberta for half a dozen years, and I observe who breaks the traffic laws and who doesn't. The rage-baits on social media claiming that "cyclists never obey the law" actually does not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Numerous studies have shown that motorists self-identify as breaking the laws at least as much as cyclists, but cyclists only break the law for the purpose of personal safety, since the laws are car-centric and do not protect them, while motorists break the laws, putting human lives (and "property") in mortal danger for no reason but IMPATIENCE, the belief that breaking laws will save them time (which it rarely does). This is when they KNOW that they are breaking traffic laws. Most of the time they are not even aware. Meanwhile, I watch motorists break traffic laws all the time, and by both listening to their excuses and hearing their interpretations, I have learned that most of the time it is occuring because they do not understand traffic laws, or they do not understand how traffic laws apply to other vehicles on the road, such as lane sharing right-of-way, the need to check all ways for smaller vehicles, cyclists going straight through from a turn lane due to other municipal bylaws which require them to "stay right", or that a bicycle is a vehicle like their own and cyclists are not required to dismount and use a crosswalk. Or that crosswalks exist at all sidewalk junctions and do not need to be marked before pedestrians have the right-of-way. Or what a hand signal even means, even though it was in their written drivers' exam. While I see some cyclists who do not know or observe the rules of the road, this is much more rare than motorists who don't, and usually comes to no harm. Motorists who don't know the rules of the road kill people. Cyclists who don't know the rules of the road just look bad. But many who drive don't even want to. They feel they HAVE to, because of the infrastructure that's hostile to others. This has been largely fueled by multi billions put into lobbying for the automotive industry, which demonizes and criminalizes those who don't drive. Just look at jaywalking laws, which are often misinterpreted in ignorance as exempting only marked crosswalks. We don't need rage-bait to continue demonizing those who don't drive. It's extremely harmful, and takes a serious mental toll on those who are simply doing the right thing. We certainly should not be putting up even more barriers. We need to be encouraging active transportation, making it safe and viable for all. #urbanism #biketooter #yegbike

  Open ##4194675