[WreckVenom]

I am not interested. I've heard many of these arguments before and I made up my mind years ago.

I know very well that commuting by bicycle in urban areas is often better. I often was quicker through the traffic on my bike than anything else. However it doesn't mean it is better for society. People have different wants and/or needs.

Cycling isn't for everyone and it has some significant downsides. e.g.

- I've been injured as a result of a hit and run and I as a result I have a permanent weakness in my right shoulder.

- I've had my bicycles stolen and/or vandalised.

- I've had to endure very harsh conditions to get home e.g Once I was so cold I thought I was going to threw up, I had appropriate clothing on but I was a little ill and that and the cold almost caused me to faint (I was ~25 at the time).

As for public transport. I generally dislike public transport. In the UK the public transport is often late, crowded, dirty (sometimes extremely dirty), potentially dangerous (I've been assaulted and have been witness to them). I spent a good 15 years using public transport and passing my driving license and getting a car was a godsend.

> He's not a recreational cyclist (light road bike, lycra - sports/racing), he's a utility cyclist (big heavy upright bike, regular clothes - take kids to school, commute, do grocery runs).

There is no problem with recreational cyclists as they do it because they enjoy it. I am one.

I have an issue with many of the political/activist cyclists that are very obnoxious about their dislike of cars. I don't want anything to do with them.

I also don't like "utility cyclists", because it makes it sound like cycling is a chore when it is quite enjoyable, cheap and relatively safe activity that almost anyone can enjoy.

[oblio]

> However it doesn't mean it is better for society. People have different wants and/or needs.

Are we talking about society or about individuals? Cars are the ultimate expression of individuality, so yes, "People have different wants and/or needs."

But for urban areas large amounts of cars are massively detrimental to society. Go watch his videos.

Cars have 2 fundamental problems:

1. Physics - you can only fit so many 10sqm rectangles on busy urban roads and densely inhabited areas. At some point those rectangles overflow. Which amusingly in terms of the violence you mentioned for public transportation, frequently leads to road rage.

2. Externalities - cars generate a lot crash victims (inside and especially outside of them), noise pollution, light pollution, particulates (even EVs generate them) and they require a lot of resources to build, maintain, operate, store, dispose of.

Both issues can't really be solved, because physics is hard.

And it's not for lack of trying to beat back the laws of physics, because politics around the world for the past 80 years have greatly favored cars and car infrastructure.

On the other hand, if you've made up your mind years ago, you are truly lost to this debate. I can't change your mind, his videos can't change your mind, this entire discussion is hopeless.

[WreckVenom]

> Are we talking about society or about individuals? Cars are the ultimate expression of individuality, so yes, "People have different wants and/or needs."

Society is made up of individuals. They are not separate things.

> 1. Physics - you can only fit so many 10sqm rectangles on busy urban roads and densely inhabited areas. At some point those rectangles overflow. Which amusingly in terms of the violence you mentioned, frequently leads to road rage.

There is nothing amusing about being locked in with a group of anti-social yobs on a train and/or bus when you want to get home.

Why do people try to twist what was said about the issues with public transport? Do you think you are being clever? This sort of fancy pants rhetorical technique that you are employing is obnoxious.

Also I've seen plenty of rage on public transport (I used public transport for 20 years). Far more than any Road Rage which often equates honking and some hand gestures.

> On the other hand, if you've made up your mind years ago, you are truly lost to this debate. I can't change your mind, his videos can't change your mind, this entire discussion is hopeless.

When I say "I've made up my mind". I specifically mean is "If you want to cycle to work, do so. If you want to take public transport do so". There is nothing stopping you in Europe from doing either.

You don't even understand what I am trying to say to you. What I am saying is that I am well aware what the discussion points are, what the arguments are. I am bored of hearing about it. It goes nowhere.

I like cycling, motorcycling and driving. I don't have to drive anywhere and I will be taking my 4x4 out on the trail this evening because it is fun. On Sunday I will be taking the Mountain bike out for a spin.

BTW, Trams aren't that great BTW. There was a reason they were largely phased out in the UK for Buses.

> In which case there is a reason we don't live forever. I'm sure that many of my opinions are detrimental to society, so thankfully I'll make way for others with fresher and hopefully better opinions.

People were having many of the same arguments about the same issues back in Ancient Rome as people are making today. So I wouldn't count on that.

[oblio]

> People were having many of the same arguments about the (political) issues back in Ancient Rome. So I wouldn't count on that.

People in Ancient Rome didn't have electric bikes :-)

The reason that many cyclists hate drivers is that because drivers are a political force that makes their lives worse.

You had an accident - did you fall over? How? Due to missing, badly maintained or badly designed cycling infrastructure? Were you hit by a car, due to lack of cycling infrastructure (protected intersections, protected bike lanes, pedestrian and cycling bridges and overpasses, etc)?

Your bike was damaged/stolen? How? Where? Was it because of a lack of safe bike parking infrastructure? Because of a lack of a bike frame serial number database and a lack of interest from the police to reduce bike theft, because they have to focus on more pressing issues like preventing and reducing car theft?

A lot of the stuff you listed is close to zero sum.

Cars get hundreds of billion of euros worldwide, and bike, which could move massive amounts of people in many circumstances, probably get 1-2 billion, again, worldwide.

Similar story with public transportation. Car drivers protest and kill installing traffic filters, building dedicated bus lanes, building tram and metro and train lines (because they would disrupt roads, reduce parking capacity, whatever).

*Everyone should use whatever they want.And the only way to do that is to have viable alternatives to driving everywhere.*

Which - if you would actually watch his videos - IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SAYING!

[WreckVenom]

> The reason that many cyclists hate drivers is that because drivers are a political force that makes their lives worse.

No the reason that some cyclists "hate" drivers is because they are extremists and it crosses over politically with other things such as environmentalism, veganism etc. I have met these people and at one time I would have been inside this group (even though I was more moderate).

The vast majority of cyclists even if they would like better infra do not hate drivers. Mainly because they are not activists/extremists.

You are talking to someone that used to believe all this talking points that you are regurgitating. I no longer believe it.

> You had an accident - did you fall over? How? Due to missing, badly maintained or badly designed cycling infrastructure? Were you hit by a car, due to lack of cycling infrastructure (protected intersections, protected bike lanes, pedestrian and cycling bridges and overpasses, etc)?

It had nothing to do with whatever solution you've been told is beneficial to push.

I actually don't like cycling infrastructure because it makes bikes less numerous on the road and drivers less aware that there maybe cyclists.

> Your bike was damaged/stolen? How? Where? Was it because of a lack of safe bike parking infrastructure? Because of a lack of a bike frame serial number database and a lack of interest from the police to reduce bike theft, because they have to focus on more pressing issues like preventing and reducing car theft?

In the UK a lot of the anti-theft infra exists. A lot of bicycles are recovered. It got stolen because somebody was a thieving shit and there were plenty of them in that area. Simple as that.

It the same for cars, phones, laptops whatever. If you are in a high crime area (normally city), you will be a victim of crime. I employ the "beater bicycle" technique by riding a bike that isn't worth much and thus isn't worth stealing. I don't leave my nice bikes unattended. Zero thefts as a result of my techniques which is basically not leave anything in public that is worth stealing if is a built area.

Also I don't talk to the police.

> Which - if you would actually watch his videos - IS EXACTLY WHAT HE IS SAYING!

I am aware of all the arguments. I've heard them all before. Nothing you have mentioned is new. Nothing what they will say is new.

[oblio]

> I actually don't like cycling infrastructure because it makes bikes less numerous on the road and drivers less aware that there maybe cyclists.

Have you ever been to the Netherlands or other places where utility cycling is actually encourages?

One of his latest videos debunks vehicular cycling, which I very much agree with.

In places were people who are easily frightened by cars cycle, modal share for bikes is huge. In place where they don't cycle, modal share is pitiful.

It makes a ton of sense, and as someone who doesn't actually ride bikes for sports/fitness/fun, it's something I definitely agree with based on personal experience.

> I am aware of all the arguments. I've heard them all before. Nothing you have mentioned is new. Nothing what they will say is new.

I didn't realize I'm arguing with God, over here. As we all know there was no progress since the Romans, including the fact that these days people still pray to Roman Gods, this discussion is over.

[WreckVenom]

> Have you ever been to the Netherlands or other places where utility cycling is actually encourages?

Yes.

> One of his latest videos debunks vehicular cycling, which I very much agree with.

> In places were people who are easily frightened by cars cycle, modal share for bikes is huge. In place where they don't cycle, modal share is pitiful.

> It makes a ton of sense, and as someone who doesn't actually ride bikes for sports/fitness/fun, it's something I definitely agree with based on personal experience.

"It has been debooked™ because YouTuber said so!" /sarcasm

Can you stop regurgitating stuff a YouTuber has told you? I've formed my opinion after 20 years of cycle commuting and cycling in multiple countries, going to protests and meeting people.

BTW I am pretty sure I've seen these videos before after quickly skimming the titles and thumbnails.

> I didn't realize I'm arguing with God, over here.

The point I am trying to make is that I've heard all the arguments before. They don't change that much. That is because the fundamental disagreement hasn't changed.

I don't have this opinion due to arrogance. I have this opinion because I've heard these arguments you are making before. I told you why I am not convinced, I've listed the reasons why and your response has been "but this Youtuber said X".

Saying that someone has a video which has the same argument that I wasn't convinced by before, isn't going to change my mind.

> As we all know there was no progress since the Romans,

The point I was trying to make is that because the Human condition is something that is not going to go away and almost all conflict is almost always over resources, People generally have similar issues, similar conversations about those issues. Taking jabs at me where you take the worst interpretation of my intent isn't conducive to any discussion.