Even if c/cars doesn’t get much use, I think that’s a needed offshoot for posts that deal with the tech but not urbanism. Most of the ebike posts I’d want to make don’t fit in c/urbanism. Off-site communities for them like r/ebikes are heavily astroturfed by shitty companies selling dangerous bikes to teenagers, as are most of the review sites.
You must log in or register to comment.
I think you should just post them into c/urbanism, there isn’t enough activity for our to matter very much, in my opinion. There no rule that a comm can only have posts that at directly related to the name of the comm (we aren’t reddit)
Cluttering up c/urbanism is my concern. A post like “What car should I buy?” or “Why is my engine making this noise?” doesn’t have an urbanist angle to it and doesn’t fit the theme of a sub-forum that’s about removing car infrastructure. A similarly technical post about bike maintenance or a new model of cargo bike doesn’t belong there any more than it would c/technology. Having those non-urbanist bike posts in one place just makes for more tidy browsing.
doesn’t fit the theme of a sub-forum that’s about removing car infrastructure
It seems to me that you’ve defined the theme of the comm more narrowly than you need to. I think its totally worth a meta post where all of us who browse c/urbanism can discuss and decide on policy related to e-bikes together. This decision making process, no matter the outcome, builds a stronger community.
Maybe turn Urbanism into Urbanism & Transportation if there’s really a need for labelling like this.
Agreed, we should make the coms more general instead of adding more. We’re spread too thin as it is.
I have nothing to add but that I agree with this take.
c/cars is for:
low occupancy transit
So wouldn’t bikes fit in there?
Because under communism all bikes would look like this:
Does that look low-occupancy to you?
What?!? I hate communism now.
You WILL pull the train. You WILL pedal the community bike.
