In New York and other cities where congestion pricing policies, bike infrastructure projects, and car bans have been put in place, cyclists are finding the streets more welcoming.
In an unbalanced system, rebalancing looks like “making things worse” if you’re one of the people who currently benefits from the imbalance. “If all you’ve ever known is privilege, equality feels like oppression”, as the saying goes.
The status quo is not balanced, equitable or fair. Motorists are routinely harmony pedestrians, cyclists, asthmatics, people who don’t want diabetes, people who don’t want Alzheimer’s, the climate, etc etc etc. Because our streets are currently arranged to place motorists ahead of people who don’t create danger and pollution, it’s reasonable to make things “harder” for motorists if we want a world that is safer and greener.
I mean, I don’t know about how things are over there but though for us cyclists here things are absolutely far from great (despite one of our majors having the gall to want to claim the “World capital for bicycles” for this city), for motorists it’s not the greatest thing ever. Poor roads, ever unfinished infrastructure, potholes, insecurity in all kinds of shapes you even can’t imagine…
All in all I’d say the title is poorly worded. Maybe an “make better infrastructure for cyclists” would have been more fair but, you know, shock value is what gets them clicks.
@m4m4m4m4@br3d Also “make things worse for drivers” can be things that sound bad but actually mean nothing. Closing half the lanes through a CBD has no impact on traffic, but it sounds really bad for drivers.
My point is that if you yourself are looking at it as though making things worse for others is the solution, rather than looking at solutions which make things worse for others incidentally, then you aren’t in a good head space for solving problems.
In an unbalanced system, rebalancing looks like “making things worse” if you’re one of the people who currently benefits from the imbalance. “If all you’ve ever known is privilege, equality feels like oppression”, as the saying goes.
The status quo is not balanced, equitable or fair. Motorists are routinely harmony pedestrians, cyclists, asthmatics, people who don’t want diabetes, people who don’t want Alzheimer’s, the climate, etc etc etc. Because our streets are currently arranged to place motorists ahead of people who don’t create danger and pollution, it’s reasonable to make things “harder” for motorists if we want a world that is safer and greener.
I mean, I don’t know about how things are over there but though for us cyclists here things are absolutely far from great (despite one of our majors having the gall to want to claim the “World capital for bicycles” for this city), for motorists it’s not the greatest thing ever. Poor roads, ever unfinished infrastructure, potholes, insecurity in all kinds of shapes you even can’t imagine…
All in all I’d say the title is poorly worded. Maybe an “make better infrastructure for cyclists” would have been more fair but, you know, shock value is what gets them clicks.
@m4m4m4m4 @br3d Also “make things worse for drivers” can be things that sound bad but actually mean nothing. Closing half the lanes through a CBD has no impact on traffic, but it sounds really bad for drivers.
My point is that if you yourself are looking at it as though making things worse for others is the solution, rather than looking at solutions which make things worse for others incidentally, then you aren’t in a good head space for solving problems.