If you really really need that carlike range, which most people, even in amerikkka, don't, get a motorcycle. Otherwise, get a bike or one of the dozens of different kinds of electric contraptions which don't involve bringing thousands of pounds of metal everywhere you go. Defending the use of cars should be treated here exactly the same as defending carnism.
Defending the use of cars should be treated here exactly the same as defending carnism.
I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining why people use cars. It's important to understand the "whys" of an issue in order to deal with it. People do not use cars because they are bad or evil or hate other commuters. They use the car because it is the most convenient mode of transportation. Going "DESTROY ALL CARS" does nothing to address the underlying issues that make people use cars. It's also a poor trick to turn the discussion from "don't do donuts on a dirtbike in a place where a bunch of people are living, you are annoying" to a discussion of "you have fundamentally misunderstood basic urban planning principles."
If you wish to discuss urban planning instead of common decency, educate yourself on urban planning. Good urban planning is not "You should be allowed to ride a dirtbike everywhere at all times, and any impedement to this is bad."
If you really really need that carlike range, which most people, even in amerikkka, don't, get a motorcycle.
People have a need to transport themselves. This need is not fulfilled by a motorcycle if you also need to do things such as: Transport children, transport groceries, transport furniture or other large items, travel without being subjected to the elements.
A motorcycle is a good mode of transportation for some, but not all. However a motorcycle has a lot of the same underlying issues that a car has. When people are against car-centric infrastructure, they are not arguing that the infrastructure should still exist, but just be for motorcycles, they are arguing against a society that structures itself around individual motorized vehicles as the common mode of transport.
3 months a year the roads here are deadly icy most days. So to go 20 miles to my workplace down the icy motorway (no bike path) should I crash and die on a motorbike or get crushed on a bicycle?
Not to mention that the cheapest used motorbike I can buy here is about 3x the cost of the cheapest used car, I quite literally couldn't afford one.
A motorcycle striking a pedestrian at 50mph is practically just as deadly as a car doing the same thing.
Cars are not inherently dangerous modes of transport. Poor road design e.g. stroads, lack of separate bike lanes, and super wide lanes without traffic calming measures, are all more important factors than the actual vehicle being used for transport.
A bus would easily kill a pedestrian, but per passenger (assuming moderate occupancy) is far more efficient and better for the environment compared with each person riding a motorcycle. This doesn’t even consider why someone might ride a bus, for example disability, which prevents them from riding a motorcycle or a bicycle.
Many many European cities have very low risk of injury or death to cars because the cities are designed much better. Cars are second class citizens in urban centers. This is what you should be fighting for, not focusing arbitrarily on a particular vehicle which is a symptom of a deeper issue.
: https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1800249657018458443
If you really really need that carlike range, which most people, even in amerikkka, don't, get a motorcycle. Otherwise, get a bike or one of the dozens of different kinds of electric contraptions which don't involve bringing thousands of pounds of metal everywhere you go. Defending the use of cars should be treated here exactly the same as defending carnism.
I'm not defending anything, I'm explaining why people use cars. It's important to understand the "whys" of an issue in order to deal with it. People do not use cars because they are bad or evil or hate other commuters. They use the car because it is the most convenient mode of transportation. Going "DESTROY ALL CARS" does nothing to address the underlying issues that make people use cars. It's also a poor trick to turn the discussion from "don't do donuts on a dirtbike in a place where a bunch of people are living, you are annoying" to a discussion of "you have fundamentally misunderstood basic urban planning principles."
If you wish to discuss urban planning instead of common decency, educate yourself on urban planning. Good urban planning is not "You should be allowed to ride a dirtbike everywhere at all times, and any impedement to this is bad."
People have a need to transport themselves. This need is not fulfilled by a motorcycle if you also need to do things such as: Transport children, transport groceries, transport furniture or other large items, travel without being subjected to the elements.
A motorcycle is a good mode of transportation for some, but not all. However a motorcycle has a lot of the same underlying issues that a car has. When people are against car-centric infrastructure, they are not arguing that the infrastructure should still exist, but just be for motorcycles, they are arguing against a society that structures itself around individual motorized vehicles as the common mode of transport.
3 months a year the roads here are deadly icy most days. So to go 20 miles to my workplace down the icy motorway (no bike path) should I crash and die on a motorbike or get crushed on a bicycle?
Not to mention that the cheapest used motorbike I can buy here is about 3x the cost of the cheapest used car, I quite literally couldn't afford one.
Removed by mod
A motorcycle striking a pedestrian at 50mph is practically just as deadly as a car doing the same thing.
Cars are not inherently dangerous modes of transport. Poor road design e.g. stroads, lack of separate bike lanes, and super wide lanes without traffic calming measures, are all more important factors than the actual vehicle being used for transport.
A bus would easily kill a pedestrian, but per passenger (assuming moderate occupancy) is far more efficient and better for the environment compared with each person riding a motorcycle. This doesn’t even consider why someone might ride a bus, for example disability, which prevents them from riding a motorcycle or a bicycle.
Many many European cities have very low risk of injury or death to cars because the cities are designed much better. Cars are second class citizens in urban centers. This is what you should be fighting for, not focusing arbitrarily on a particular vehicle which is a symptom of a deeper issue.
Not just that but assuming everyone can just ride a motorcycle is ableist as fuck.
And I say this as someone that grew up riding motorcycles.
You are completely out of touch. Not one person I know lives within biking distance of their workplace.