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.
you ignore red lights??? I might go through one but it depends on how many lanes the cross street is and how low the traffic volume is and such.
this is some grade A schizoposting. see you in the obituaries!
Everytime someone in my family dies, I go on a rant about the stupidity of obituaries. They are a great resource for hackers and social engineers and offer no material benefit; certainly no benefit that is reasonable in light of the risks. So I will never be in an obituary.
quote from man no one will miss
This is really dumb. And I am an avid cyclist. Depending on where you are running those red lights, maybe it isn’t as much of a safety issue for you (maybe you’re doing this in the center of a european city with 30km/h speed limits), but it is definitely a risk you will be hit. The tesla face scanning shit is pretty tinfoil hat territory and a weird thing to worry about when you should be worrying about being run over.
The tesla face scanning shit is pretty tinfoil hat territory
Are you suggesting that Tesla’s patent on facial recognition is a hoax? Or that they don’t intend to use it?
Where do you live that has Tesla’s but not capitalism? What car maker is not willing to exploit a profit opportunity?
I don’t disagree with you. However:
- Companies often patent things they don’t use, and often even things they have no intention of using, in order to obscure the things they do.
- Tesla makes a lot of products. Aside from cars they also make a lot of solar power equipment and, more notably, robotics.
-
Sure but this is not one of those cases.
-
Plz read the thread for context. Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance. (yes, surveillance is a form of oppression). The facial rec is a trivial means to add value to the data they already collect. You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit – to believe Tesla gives the slightest shit about privacy and then to take that to the far-fetched extent of turning away profitable data.
Sure but this is not one of those cases.
Yuh-huh!
Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance.
No. It doesn’t. Literally all modern cars have cameras. They’re required by law, and have been for some time now.
You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit
Well, yes, but that’s not what’s happening. Businesses can be profitable without surveillance. They did it for thousands of years.
to believe Tesla gives the slightest shit about privacy and then to take that to the far-fetched extent of turning away profitable data.
Lots of companies care about privacy to the extent that their consumers care about privacy.
Tesla makes cars with cameras. That alone makes them oppressive agents of surveillance.
No. It doesn’t. Literally all modern cars have cameras. They’re required by law, and have been for some time now.
My statement remains true despite yours. Being required by law does not cease to make them agents of surveillance. Nor does this obviate the point I was making.
You would be foolish to assume a profit-driven corporation has no intent to profit
Well, yes, but that’s not what’s happening. Businesses can be profitable without surveillance. They did it for thousands of years.
That’s not how corporations work. Corporations have a duty to their shareholders to maximise profit. To fail to do so is to violate the constitution of the corporation.
Exceptionally, there are some corporations with good causes coded into their constitution whereby profit is either impossible or not a priority. Tesla is not one of them.
Lots of companies care about privacy
Nonsense.
to the extent that their consumers care about privacy.
Not even that. Even if you have a corporation who presents itself as privacy respecting, like DuckDuckGo, in the end it is only privacy theatre in play (amid privacy scandals by DDG). It’s about perception of privacy. And that perception only relates to the patrons, not other people. A cyclist riding past a Tesla is not a Tesla customer. It’s orthoganol to Tesla’s privacy policy, even if Musk gave a shit about cyclists (when in fact Musk is outspoken against cycling infrastructure).
I can’t prove a negative. If you have evidence of any of these claims, please share them. If you’re just presuming that they’re happening without evidence, that’s not something I can argue with.
-
No they’re suggesting you’re gonna get hit by a car. The face scanning is very much a secondary concern to the possibility of injury or death.
The tesla face scanning shit is pretty tinfoil hat territory
Are you suggesting that Tesla’s patent on facial recognition is a hoax?
No they’re suggesting you’re gonna get hit by a car.
Nonsense. Plz read what you are responding to before responding. Please study what “tinfoil hat” means.
You’re the kind of insufferable holier-than-thou cyclist that makes people hate all cyclists and reflects poorly on the rest of us who ride bikes.
What did you think you were going to accomplish by posting this little narcissistic rant here? If you can’t handle following basic traffic laws, then you shouldn’t be on the road, full stop.
Many many moons ago, i saw a bumper sticker:
Pedestrians hate drivers; drivers hate pedestrians. EVERYONE hates cyclists.
It’s attitudes like the one OP has that made it this way. I bike plenty of places and follow the damn rules, it’s not hard.
There are plenty of idiot drivers who endanger me anyway, but at least I’m not the problem in those situations.
It’s attitudes like the one OP has that made it this way. I bike plenty of places and follow the damn rules, it’s not hard.
Not all cyclists are conformist boot-lickers who don’t give a shit about privacy. Some of us are cyclists for the privacy it offers.
There are plenty of idiot drivers who endanger me anyway, but at least I’m not the problem in those situations.
At least you are only a problem in terms of having respect for privacy.
Not all cyclists are conformist boot-lickers who don’t give a shit about privacy. Some of us are cyclists for the privacy it offers.
Well you are providing the incentive to remove that privacy! People are sick and tired off assholes on bikes just breaking traffic laws without any accountability.
Well you are providing the incentive to remove that privacy! People are sick and tired off assholes on bikes just breaking traffic laws without any accountability.
Sorry to say that while cars harm cyclists, the reverse is not only untrue but in fact cyclists benefit cars. Every person who switches from a car to a bike reduces the cause of traffic jams. Motorists who are foolish enough to hate cyclists are not buying dashcams to rat out cyclists. Your crazy theory isn’t convincing.
(edit)
Right-wing nutters (like Victor Orban) have enough hate for cyclists that they lobby against their own interest by lobbing against cycling paths (cutting their nose off to spite their face). Right-wing nutters aside, car lobbies and cycling lobbies are actually mutually aligned in the call for more cycling infra because motorists also want less car traffic.I don’t care what benefits car, I don’t drive, I just don’t like assholes that think that traffic law doesn’t apply to them and almost all of those seem to be on bikes. So by all means, keep doing what you do but I’ll be cheering when you get isekaied.
I just don’t like assholes that think that traffic law doesn’t apply to them and almost all of those seem to be on bikes.
This is a matter of fact. The law is clear. I don’t think you will find a cyclist who believes the law “does not apply” to them. OTOH, the law often does not get applied (enforced) on cyclists because cops have enough sense to understand the risks, the consequences, and the worth of their labor. Rightfully so. I would like to think cops also have enough humanity to consider the injustice cyclists face, but that’s perhaps overly optimistic.
And laws adapt because of this. It used to be illegal for anyone to turn right on red. Cyclists broke that law so regularly that lawmakers decided to revisit the law, and made the wise decision to remove the right-on-red prohibition on cyclists.
You don’t know shit about me if you think I don’t value privacy.
You claim to care about your privacy, but you’re out here trading in conspiracy theories while there are real problems like Flock cameras and other ALPRs that are causing tangible damage right now.
Narcissists like you are a blight on every movement you join because you don’t actually care about real problems, only things that inconvenience you directly. You immediately claim to speak for everyone, as if it’s impossible to consider that maybe you don’t know jack about shit, as evidenced by your dumb fucking rant in the first place.
If it werent for cars you would never have to stop? So, no stopping for pedestrians or other cyclists? This is some major tunnel vision right here.
So, no stopping for pedestrians
Try cycling sometime. It’s easy to cycle behind crossing pedestrians when you’re not hogging ½ the road.
or other cyclists?
I sometimes have to coast and let my speed drop a bit, but indeed stopping for other cyclists is not a thing. But if it were, it would only be when needed as a consequence of laws of physics and only for as long as needed, not artificially imposed regardless of the existence of competing traffic due to traffic lights that are needed for cars.
For real? You never have cyclist or pedestrian cross traffic? Your environment must be far different than mine.
As someone who bikes a lot for both commuting and fitness: you’re the sort of cyclist who gives us a bad name.
“I have every right a car has! You have to obey traffic laws!”
Runs red lights
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.
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.
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.
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
roadsbike 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.
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.
