- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
If your solution to anything is “make it worse for [other people]” then you probably aren’t approaching the problem from a healthy place.
Would you feel better if it said “stop heavily subsidizing driving” instead?
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.
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.
@ogmios @lebkuchen Making driving harder does lead to driving being nicer. Traffic in the Netherlands is pretty good because so many people choose the better options.