303
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by frankPodmore@slrpnk.net to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

I've always argued this wasn't the case and that motoring is a worse transport mode because of the associated externalities, not because of anything inherent to the users.

But you can't argue with the science^TM^!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] StereoTrespasser@lemmy.world 52 points 2 years ago

This will turn into a car versus bikers thread unfortunately. But from my experience, commuting by bicycle has been one of the best decisions I've made.

I started out in the suburbs, commuting by car 50 minutes each way. Over the years I kept moving closer and closer to the city and my job...which is pretty much the opposite of what Americans tend to do. Eventually I ditched the car commute for public transit, and finally ditched public transit for a bike.

Being in a car sucks. You are isolated, stuck in a behemoth monster of a machine in a sea of other machines. Your isolation makes you feel anonymous, and anonymity gives you the freedom to seethe and yell at other drivers who dare to go slower than you, faster than you, or God forbid, try to get in front of you.

On a bike you are out in the open, feeling the weather and the wind and the change of seasons and daylight. You interact with people way more, and on much friendlier terms...after all, you're no longer protected behind your locked metal box. You actually have to act like a normal, decent human.

Now yes, there are the Lycra ads-on-butts boys that pretend they're in a race, but jerks abound everywhere in every activity.

[-] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago

Lycra ads-on-butts people are the BMW of bikers.

[-] CowsLookLikeMaps@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago

Maybe we shouldn't generalize the entire sport of road cycling based on a few finance d-bags who took it up.

[-] i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That's true! I have lots of friends that do competitive cycling and they're all nice people. When they train, they avoid cities.

The problematic ones are those who run red lights, who cut and curse at recreationsl cyclists in city bike laces while going 50km/h. They almost always wear skin tight shorts and an expensive-looking helmet.

That being said, I think we can agree that every generalization is bad!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago

i have never heard sports cyclists be complained about here in sweden, so this seems to be a country-specific problem and probably is to do with the culture of drivers, as it's also perfectly normal to see rural people out with their babies in strollers on the roads.

[-] natecox@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

These are some of the reasons I prefer my motorcycle.

Yes, even the “interact with others” part. Motorcyclists have an unwritten code that we acknowledge each other on the road. It’s surprisingly friendly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] aelwero@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago

Lol... "Study shows what we want it to show"

It's a comparison between drivers and riders using four cherry picked criteria that would most likely generate the predetermined narrative. It's science for hire.

Drivers run the gamut from tree huggy beetle driver to Ford f950 with the extra black smoke package and factory standard swastika paint job, and cyclists, while on a narrower scale (you'll never see mr super smoker on a Schwinn...), still have a similar scale and can absolutely be assholes.

The dissociation part is accurate, but it's not a matter of vehicle type or size, because commercial drivers are commonly on the same end of the awareness scale as motorcyclists. It's not about personality, it's about risk.

[-] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 39 points 2 years ago

So you didn't bother to read the paper, didn't you.

using four cherry picked criteria

There's a lengthy part of that paper discussing their criteria, with references to other studies.

Ford f950 with the extra black smoke package and factory standard swastika paint job

Which doesn't even remotely exist in Germany, where this study was done. Which, you know, you could have known if you'd actually read the study...

It's science for hire.

"This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors."

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago

https://www.fernuni-hagen.de/universitaet/stimmen/schuster.shtml

The lead authours stated personal goal is to increase proportion of bicycle use from 8% to 25%.

While it might not be "science for hire", the authours have a pre-existing and documented goal.

I'm not saying the results are wrong... Only that you maybe shouldn't be so quick to shit on the guy who raised his eyebrow... Because it's an extremely valid question to ask, given the facts about the relationship between the authours of the study and the clearly personal relationship they have to the subject matter.

They, in essence, did a study that "confirmed" that they themselves are better people than 92% of the population.

[-] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The lead authours stated personal goal is to increase proportion of bicycle use from 8% to 25%

Yes, scientists have opinions and agendas.

Only that you maybe shouldn't be so quick to shit on the guy who raised his eyebrow

They. Did. Not. Read. The. Study.

They, in essence, did a study that "confirmed" that they themselves are better people than 92% of the population.

Look, if you want to dismiss a study, do so, I couldn't care less. But so far you both haven't brought anything but ad hominem against the authors.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Look, if you want to dismiss a study, do so

For someone constantly accusing others of not reading, you seem to have a lot of trouble reading. I'll leave it to the exercise to the reader (not you, obviously, lol) to find the sentence where I explicitly say that this doesn't necessarily invalidate the results.

brought anything but ad hominem against the authors.

Acknowledging the biases of the people doing research isn't an ad homienem attack. Would you be clamouring to defend studies about the dangers of smoking written by people with large interests in the tobacco industry? No?

You are having an extreme an emotional reaction to the presentation of fact.

[-] GhostsAreShitty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I'm all for more cycling and getting rid of cars entirely, but this is reaserch methods 101. One of my college courses was entirely about finding flaws in research, and this is a great example of a study that has an intended purpose, and very selectively shows the data they want it to show. And with things like qualitative data that requires an opinion to show in the first place, you can throw this out as junk from the getgo. This is popular science made for click bait headlines.

[-] yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And another ad hominem. Bye.

Edit: and if you cannot see a difference between a scientist advocating for bikes and someone advocating for a known hazardous drug you are completely lost.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Climate scientists often have the goal of cleaning up emissions/passing effective regulation to curb climate change. Is that a problem too?

Who just “does science for science’s sake”? This is just a nonsense talking point because you don’t like what they’re saying. You’re arbitrarily deciding this matters when it’s not a standard anywhere.

Critique their work. Try to duplicate it. But assess the work. That’s what matters. You’re functionally saying that nobody can “do science“ if they have an opinion on the thing they are studying.

[-] Turun@feddit.de 4 points 2 years ago

Did they have a preconceived goal and then did the research to match it, or did they do the research and then formed a goal to match it?

These are two different things. And while the former is bad, the latter is not. In fact, forming a political opinion after in-depth study of a topic is something we should all do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MuhammadJesusGaySex@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

So I’m not the person you replied to. I also admit upfront that I didn’t read the article because I don’t want to. Everything I’m about to say is purely my opinion, and based off of your comment. So, take it for what it’s worth which is literally nothing.

I have scanned a bunch of these comments. You are the first person to mention that the study was done in Germany that I’ve seen. Now, I’m not saying you’re wrong. What I am saying is that it seems like there is a good possibility that this is a cultural thing, and an inconclusive study at best.

Now, like I said, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m simply pointing out that it’s weird that a study used a very specific subset of cyclists and didn’t tell us that in the title, but also probably isn’t representative of the cycling community at large.

It would be like if I posted a headline that said 99% of the people that died of heart related issues are black. So you read my article and find out I did the study in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

So, even if the science is correct. It seems like information that isn’t very relevant outside of the small area where it was conducted. I guess it would depend on where the other studies that they linked to were done. Which I really don’t want to read unless I have to.

This was just an observation based on your comment, and I’m a bored internet stranger taking a poop.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 years ago

Obvious bad journalism. "Study shows XYZ are bad people" is never not gonna be a clickbait headline since scientific studies would never claim to show something so subjective.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lemann@lemmy.one 5 points 2 years ago

you'll never see mr super smoker on a Schwinn

😂 This made me laugh out loud

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] aeharding@lemmy.world 27 points 2 years ago

I mean, really the problem is people that exclusively drive.

Fixed headline:

Study Finds People Who Drive and Cycle Are Better People than Those Who Exclusively Drive

[-] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Some people don't drive at all. And some never have.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lameJake@feddit.de 24 points 2 years ago

I always felt it but now I know it. I just am a better person than all these drivers.

[-] shiveyarbles@beehaw.org 16 points 2 years ago

Driving turns mild mannered people into raging assholes.

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 16 points 2 years ago

Circlejerk much? Jesus...

What about people that are both?

Who decides what a "better person" is?

[-] psud@aussie.zone 17 points 2 years ago

They used:

  • political participation,
  • social participation,
  • neighborhood solidarity and
  • neighborly helpfulness

To define "better".

[-] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

As an individual who walks to most of my destinations, I am a shutin, and by these metrics, a literal monster.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 2 years ago

I think you, and the users of public transport, are not at all represented in the study

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 9 points 2 years ago

They go exactly in the middle, of course. Straight to Purgatory.

It explains in the article what the criteria used were. You're welcome to critique that, of course, and I have done elsewhere, but you should read the article, if only so you can critique it properly!

[-] helenslunch@feddit.nl 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I've no interest in reading or driving clicks to an article with such an absurd title. My question was obviously rhetorical.

[-] xor 11 points 2 years ago

Well then why bother asking? If you're not going to read it, and you don't care about what it's saying, then you've just come here to get pissy

[-] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

As drivers are wont to do...

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 8 points 2 years ago

Okay, pal. Stay angry and ignorant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago

Lmao at the number of downvotes on this one

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Further thoughts: This reminded me of something I read a while back about assuming that people who have one virtue also have all the others. Like, why should we assume that someone who is (e.g.) honest is also generous?

I think that has some applications here. Okay, so cyclists are, it seems, more community-minded. Does that mean they possess all the other virtues? Are cyclists also less likely to steal or to cheat on their partners? We don't know and this study doesn't tell us.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

Like, why should we assume that someone who is (e.g.) honest is also generous?

We should not.

Source: am honest, but not particularly generous.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 years ago

I mean, just ask any cyclist for directions to a nearby place. Generally if they know they will be willing to help you out with it.

People in cars are too busy, scared, frustrated, unaware of the areas they drive through outside the main road/whatever that they're in my experience less willing to stop and help others out.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Coreidan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

What if you’re a cyclist that drives?

I bet they cancel out.

[-] cousinDanny@mastodon.social 4 points 2 years ago

@frankPodmore the facts are in! Drivers are big mad!

[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago

I don't know, the people riding bicycles over the 3 foot wide sidewalk on the bridge (which has a bike lane going each way) in my city come across as selfish assholes.

[-] elfpie@beehaw.org 3 points 2 years ago

They probably are. That said, it's always a good idea to ask the question: "why would people use the worse alternative?"

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
303 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

11206 readers
42 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS