That’s like saying “I’m pro-life and anti-gun control”.

Oh. Wait.

Edit: Guy confirmed that he is, indeed, pro-life and anti-gun control.

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’m anti bike lane. Roads should be for bikes and pedestrians. Cars should get their own single separated lane on the occasional road.

    Bike lanes are car infrastructure. They are not needed unless you consider the entire street to be for cars by default.

    Also dave is an idiot. Maximum capacity would be a cycle and transit only street because those have the highest throughput per lane. Cars are incredibly space inefficient.

    • destructdisc@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Slight disagreement there. Streets are for pedestrians and bikes and trams and the occasional car (in a dedicated car lane). Roads (as in large arterial roads in very limited areas, meant for fast travel between faraway zones when trains are inconvenient, or highways between cities) can be considered as intended for cars, and even those should have pretty good space dedicated to bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks.

      • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Given that a car is a priviledge in most (all?) of the world, I’d argue there should be absolutely zero car-only infrastructure because it creates second class citizens for which some parts of the street are inaccesible.

        Think of it this way, would you support the creation of a sidewalk in which only people who own a 50k ring can go?

            • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Busses use car infrastructure, is my point. Almost all car infrastructure can be used to run busses. You can expand that to most utility vehicles too, postage trucks and garbage trucks need to get around too. There is no such thing as car-only infrastructure. Car-centric, sure, but not car-only.

            • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Private jets are also a privilege, should we demolish all airports? Private schools too, should we have no education-only infrastructure?

              The issue with car-centric infrastructure is that it prioritizes expensive and inefficient systems over others. It’s the priority that’s the issue, not the existence of roads at all.

              What would car-only infrastructure even look like? A highway that busses aren’t allowed on? No utility vehicles? No firefighters?

              • Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Private jets are also a privilege, should we demolish all airports? Private schools too, should we have no education-only infrastructure?

                Public airports aren’t exclusive to private jets and private schools aren’t publicly funded.

                Please be more careful next time, you’re scaring all the birds.

                What would car-only infrastructure even look like?

                Every single road where pedestrians or alternative modes of transportation aren’t allowed and isn’t part of a public bus route is car-only infrastructure.

                A highway that busses aren’t allowed on?

                These exist. You are aware these exist, right?