cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/54045255

I have adopted the habit of ignoring red lights.

Rationale: If cars did not exist, cyclists would never have to stop. Every time I must stop at a traffic signal it is to cator for motorists who are mostly a self-serving detriment to public health and safety. #FuckCars.

I used to obey all the traffic rules but after coming to the realisation that much of my time is wasted and my journey is downgraded so copious lazy people can exploit a luxury (some demographics aside). Fuck that. I now run red lights like crazy.

Now I must consider that Tesla may fuck up my lifestyle because Tesla is a moving point of unchecked uncontrolled surveillance. Theoretically, Tesla could be grabbing the faces of cyclists. It could offer to report cyclists who run reds. It could sell that info to law enforcement. Am I overthinking this or is this a problem to watch out for?

OTOH, I am somewhat looking forward to a day when I can spot when a car is self-driving and (if I can ever gain confidence that they won’t mistake me for a tumbleweed) I would happily take liberties – to cut-off the car and force it to slow down and give way. I hope that tactic can go from dream world to real world.

  • evenwichtOP
    13·
    2 days ago

    Cyclists stopping for cars is an injustice because it’s the car’s existence that imposes this on cyclists – along with Alzheimers-linked pollution risks that cyclists are exposed to (while evidence shows motorists avoid the detriment of their own cause).

    So while cyclists must stop in order to cater for motorists who are self-entitled to luxury power-assisted travel, cyclists also must take a health hit for which the risks increase while they wait.

    Running red lights is just a start at offsetting the injustice but it’s still not enough justice. Not even close.

    • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
      11·
      3 days ago

      What the fuck are you talking about. The whole “share the road” mantra is that bikes and cars should use the roads equally. Are you suggesting that roads should only be for bikes and that cars should be banned? Bear in mind that the only reason the roads exist in the first place is because of cars. That’s why they’re the size they are. Bike paths exist and they’re bicycle-sized.

      it’s the car’s existence that imposes this on cyclists.

      You could say the exact same thing from the other perspective.

      • evenwichtOP
        12·
        2 days ago

        What the fuck are you talking about. The whole “share the road” mantra is that bikes and cars should use the roads equally.

        “Equally” is not possible unless you make all cars the size of bicycles with the same speed constraints.

        Are you suggesting that roads should only be for bikes and that cars should be banned?

        I didn’t say that. Stop trying to make a strawman. But indeed, more roads should be pedestrianised. More cycling paths should be made. Public parking is an abuse of public money and should be eliminated. Less money should be wasted on cars and car infra. Personal cars plague cities due to the tyranny (and addiction) to convenience. So anything that makes cars less convenient is a good start.

        Bear in mind that the only reason the roads exist in the first place is because of cars. That’s why they’re the size they are. Bike paths exist and they’re bicycle-sized.

        And? Good things happen for bad reasons. It doesn’t matter why roads exist.

        You could say the exact same thing from the other perspective.

        Nonsense. Eliminate cyclists, and cars still must have traffic stops. But the reverse is not true: eliminate cars, and cyclists need not have traffic stops.

        • baggachipz@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          2 days ago

          I can’t even tell if you’re trolling or not.

          “Equally” is not possible unless you make all cars the size of bicycles with the same speed constraints.

          Ok so make your bike faster. Maybe put a motor on your cycle. I wonder what that would be called? Or, alternatively, make the car slower. That would defeat the entire purpose of the car, unless you’re Fred Flintstone.

          I didn’t say that. Stop trying to make a strawman. But indeed, more roads should be pedestrianised.

          No, but yes!

          More cycling paths should be made.

          Agreed, but I never made an assertion otherwise.

          Public parking is an abuse of public money and should be eliminated.

          So says you. If I don’t have kids, should I pay for public schools? Because it benefits people other than myself.

          Good things happen for bad reasons. It doesn’t matter why roads exist.

          Yes it does, they weren’t put there by god on the 7th day. They were put there for cars. The fact that bikes can use them is nice and even lawful. But to pretend that the origin doesn’t matter is willfully ignorant. That’s like saying “I don’t care why this sewer was put here, it shouldn’t be used for sewage. Instead we should use it as a clean tunnel system for walking our pets. I don’t care where your sewage goes, you shouldn’t be pooping in the first place.”

          Eliminate cyclists, and cars still must have traffic stops. But the reverse is not true: eliminate cars, and cyclists need not have traffic stops.

          Sure, if you want absolute chaos and injuries. What do you do when two roads bike paths intersect? Just barrel through at full speed, and the biggest bike wins?

          Look, you can run all the red lights you want, but expect to get killed. Claiming that the danger shouldn’t exist is selfish and conflicts with reality. If I drive my car onto a bike path and complain about bikes being too slow, who’s the asshole?

          I’m done here, this is a dead thread anyway.

          • evenwichtOP
            12·
            2 days ago

            Ok so make your bike faster. Maybe put a motor on your cycle. I wonder what that would be called? Or, alternatively, make the car slower. That would defeat the entire purpose of the car, unless you’re Fred Flintstone.

            Bingo. You’re starting to figure out the flaw in your own thinking.

            Yes it does, they weren’t put there by god on the 7th day. They were put there for cars.

            Nonsense. They were put there for horses. They evolved as needed for cars. Then evolved more again for trucks. Some cities have been smart enough to continue evolving but more progressively, like a Dutch city where they retroactively realised the damage done by having a huge car infrastructure - so they converted a road back to a canal for boats.

            But to pretend that the origin doesn’t matter is willfully ignorant. That’s like saying “I don’t care why this sewer was put here, it shouldn’t be used for sewage. Instead we should use it as a clean tunnel system for walking our pets. I don’t care where your sewage goes, you shouldn’t be pooping in the first place.”

            If you could make a good case for repurposing sewer systems for dog walking, it would still be ignorant to say it matters what history brought the sewer system. Motorists don’t get brownie points for ruining cities.

            Sure, if you want absolute chaos and injuries. What do you do when two roads bike paths intersect? Just barrel through at full speed, and the biggest bike wins?

            Do you think cyclists have only 2 speeds: zero and 35 km/h? That we don’t have our choice of speeds? That yielding to the right by varying speed is not a thing?

            Look, you can run all the red lights you want, but expect to get killed.

            Different people have different levels of skill and proficiency. Perhaps you might expect to get killed if you doubt your ability to see and avoid cars.

            Claiming that the danger shouldn’t exist is selfish and conflicts with reality.

            Nonsense. The danger is a man-made creation. It can be mitigated by competent governments and civil engineers.

            If I drive my car onto a bike path and complain about bikes being too slow, who’s the asshole?

            Again, the car driver is the asshole, of course. And so obviously so that a cop would not hesitate to enforce such a situation where an asshole motorist is endangering others more than themself.