- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Gross.
It’s “fewer.”
Less bike lanes
100% he’s going to make that happen
and cheaper parking
0% he’s going to make that happen
Free market, bitches! Prices. Only. Go. Up!
wait why would less bike lanes make anything cheaper?? it’s just sectioning off a portion of the road?
You turn the bike lane into street parking. No idea how this makes things cheaper, but I guess the argument is two extra parking spots per block is going to make all the difference.
yeah some dude paying 7 bucks an hour while he picks up taco bell (idk the hourly rate for parking im not american) is gonna break profit records
This politician isn’t American either, this is in Sydney
In free markets prices generally go down
Compare the percent of income required for seasonings and fresh fruits from around the world now vs 200 years ago.
heck compare the cost of labour 40 years ago to now
That’s probably more of a function of our switch from consumption taxes to income tax.
What’re you talking about? It’s a function of global trade lol.
You might want to actually look into the history of global trade sometime.
im aware
But he’s posing in front of a tram? Make it make sense!
It won’t make sense if there is no need to
We had some winners in my city a few years ago.
Here’s my favorite quote from that article:
“The money is in the car,” Comrie insists. “Who’s the spender? Does a bicyclist go and buy sporting goods, or furniture, or clothing? Or are they just out for a ride?”
Does this guy think cyclists are sitting naked in empty apartments wishing they had clothes and furniture? Luckily he did not win the election.
I have a lot more money to buy shit ever since i rid myself of that money pit we call a car…
OTOH it’s absolutely insane what new bicycles are costing these days - bikes can be money pits too. I bought my road bike 12 years ago for about $1800 and was kicking myself for years for spending that much. A modern road bike (with disc brakes, wi-fi controlled electronic shifters etc.) would be in the neighborhood of ten grand, more than my car cost. Meanwhile my favorite bike is the 25yo hybrid that I bought on Craigslist for $100.
Why would you ever want wifi controlled shifters‽ Maybe (ok definitely) I’m pilled on the whole anarchist bicycle repair scene, but I’ve got some decent trigger shifters that were like $30 and aside from the pain of calibration they’re great.
I was talking to a guy with an $8K bike the other day and he was proud of the fact that he could calibrate his shifters with his phone.
On one hand if it’s automatic it might be nice, but on the other hand I’d rather just have a separate tool that does that so I can share it with friends and we can all have easy shifter calibration. But also I’d dread someone being able to hack my shifters or being unable to shift when I forget to plug it in. But on the other hand my bike has probably cost me like $200-250 over the three years I’ve had it so I’m definitely not the target audience
He did say the money was in the car, he just didn’t mean to imply that a car is a hole in the road that you throw money into.
The carbrained can’t see cycling as a form of transport, only as a type of exercise. In their minds people only cycle to cycle, not to fulfil other tasks. Only cars are for going places, like shopping.
Is that guy a blatantly lying piece of shit, or just a moron?
In factual reality, cyclists buy more stuff than motorists, not less!
See also:
Why, the cyclist needs no clothes or food, for the cyclist is sub-human and is therefore an animal (what these car-brained people probably think)
Not “probably,” “certainly!” It’s proven by research: https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/more-than-half-of-motorists-view-cyclists-as-subhuman-cockroaches
Yeah, “serious” cycling — a sport where a $1k bike barely qualifies as a bike, $5k gets you something rideable, and $10k gets you a pretty decent bike — is so anti-consumer!
(I love cycling, and I’ll defend spending more on my power meter pedels than I would spend on a decent used bike. More bike lanes everywhere please!)
US here with bonus points for a conservative city in the bible belt. I see people literally just driving in circles around the block or up and down the street endlessly almost every day. Multiple times a week at least. Don’t fucking tell me drivers only do so with purpose. eyeroll.gif
No you don’t.
It is exactly what some people I know do. If there’s a lot of car enthusiasts or bored teens old enough to drive in that area I can believe seeing that kind of thing. Although I do think it’s an exaggeration.
Although I do think its an exaggeration
“Almost every day?” Maybe, depending, but not always. Which is why I fell back on multiple times a week which is depressingly not an exaggeration.
I mean, some people drive to the mailbox at the end of their fucking driveway.
Almost every day? Bullshit. Those people are driving somewhere for some purpose, this dude is just too stupid and hateful to realize it.
It’s not even limited to the US. In Finland it’s called “pilluralli”, “pussy-rally”, and the general associations are of 18-19-year-olds of lower socioeconomical class.
You’re awfully angry over a passing internet comment and are trying to argue an absolute because of it. Perhaps you’re the stupid and hateful one here?
They only think of cycling for sport and not cycling to a destination. That’s where the confusion lies.
Yeah because someone who never exercises, you know the type of person who only moves around the city in a car, buys sporting goods frequently. Yep.
I really hate that that’s treated as a legitimate argument as opposed to a criticism of capitalism
THANK YOU.
(Obviously this doesn’t matter. Language evolves. And no one cared about this rule until the last 200 years or so. But my parents drilled this particular correction so firmly into my brain that it bothers me when others get it wrong. “Fewer in number, less in amount.” Similarly, “farther in distance, further in degree.” And you stand on a PODIUM, you speak from behind a LECTERN.)
(I might have some lexicographical trauma. 😅)
“Fewer” since they are countable.
ETA this is basic grammar and not something you can just take exception with because you feel like it. The responses I’m receiving are very odd.
He could just make them shorter.
If there are two bike lanes merging into one, there are one, two or three bike lanes?
Water isn’t countable but lanes are.
I mean, technically water is countable
How many waters in that glass?
Depends on if you’re using water to include types of water (if, like a maniacal madman, you have mixed Evian, Buxton and Harrogate mineral water into one jug). Then ‘i mixed fewer waters’ or ‘there are fewer waters in that glass’ would be valid.
To be clear: I’m not the person you replied to, just someone who finds it quite interesting (in the same way that the plural fishes is valid if you’re talking about different species of fish).
And yes, I know prescriptivism is bad, but also it is quite fun.
Those are homonyms. Water versus waters. The second one is metaphorical.
I did enjoy your comment and you sound like you’ve had some linguistic training.
Or just atoms of water
Eh, you wouldn’t use the noun water to refer to atoms of water. ‘How many waters are there?’ to refer to atoms of water is the statement of someone deranged
I believe there are about 55.508435 moles of H2O in a liter of water at sea level (basically assuming 1 liter of water = 1kg of water)
A mole is countable. Water is not.
Atoms of water are measured in moles. Atoms are discrete units, a mole is just a certain number of them
Then count. One, two or three?
How many water in your glass?
If there are two bike lanes merging into one, there are one, two or three bike lanes?
Water isn’t countable but lanes are.
What question are you answering?
They are indeed… Where did the whole “if two bike lanes converge” question come from??
I was going to make the same joke.
“Fewer. I mean more. More bike lanes.”
Why does it matter?
Why does grammar matter?
Yes
To you it doesn’t but I’ll leave that for you to resolve on your own.
you’re right, it doesn’t to me
You’re far too toxic to be worth the effort. Have a block.
You insulted me, how is that me being toxic?
good news. car brained loser is sitting on 3.36%.
well funded campaign (assume oxford st small biz tyrants and paddington geriatrics), posters everywhere.
https://vtr.elections.nsw.gov.au/LG2401/sydney/mayoral
i wish this would be seen as a vindication for active transport… but we all know the anti bike blow hards wont miss a beat.
edit: big fucking lol. dont think they will get a single council seat.
After reading the title and seeing the black abyss in the eyes of the great-value Voldemort wannabe, I was scared for a moment that someone who was so openly hostile towards the safety of cyclists could win an election. It brings me great relief to know that is not the case.
well funded campaign (assume oxford st small biz tyrants and paddington geriatrics), posters everywhere.
love the no bullshit analysis naming the supporters specifically…
we should make politicians wear their sponsors on their suits like NASCAR drivers so folks know who they are allotting their tax money to lol
This is your brain on cars.
Hey now, they specifically added a ton of people to distract from his appearance, which was a kindness
Dickhead.
I think he doesn’t have one.
a head with functioning braincells or the dick?
Yes
*Fewer
The candidate for rich people who resent poor people.
always has been
Bike lanes might have lead to cheaper parking due to fewer cars.
Car-brains don’t do standard logic, only car-logic…
Is that a Tram in the background ?
Hahahahah ironic
What a joke, considering the message haha. May he lose!
Oh look, another old white man with stupid ideas
That just means more cyclists on the roads.
That will just make people like him angrier. Good
