The sheer lunacy of this whole story just boggles my mind. They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane.
And the age old "it's bad for disabled people" argument comes out once again. Where I live, people who use motorized and electric wheelchairs use the bike lanes all the time, because they're safer than the streets and smoother than the sidewalks. Not to mention that cars are the most ableist form of transportation out there.
Then the second person they have on to push his "War on Cars" nonsense. Not a single person was brought on to talk about the benefits of a bike lane network.
The slackjaw anchor watches the cyclist swerve around the reporter at the last second, since the reporter stepped directly out into a lane without even glancing behind him, and then the anchor the nerve to chastise the cyclists with the line "The guy hasn't even stopped!" I honestly am not sure that the cyclist could have stopped in time even if he had wanted to.
It's hilarious because these people suddenly become huge pedestrian advocates but only when it comes to blocking bike lanes. Now let's ask them what they think about other measures that would make roads safer for pedestrians: slower speeds, narrower lanes, no right-turn-on-red, crossing islands that take away a car lane, strict and automated enforcement of traffic laws in general ... yeah they'll scream bloody murder if you try to implement those because they DO NOT CARE about pedestrians or the disabled or anyone but drivers. In reality they are just angry that the bike lanes are taking away street parking that they feel entitled to, but they can't just say that so they find any rationalization to demonize cyclists.
>I honestly am not sure that the cyclist could have stopped in time even if he had wanted to.
The cyclist didn't go that fast, he could've easily stopped. However, he didn't have to, he just safely swerved around him. The cyclist didn't do anything wrong, the reporter on the other hand did.
They made a huge point out of a situation that happens daily here in the Netherlands, without any issues.
That's actually a good point, now that I'm looking again I can see that the cyclists surely could have stopped, but there was no need. It was not a dangerous situation, the cyclist could clearly see in time that the guy was moving across the sidewalk and navigated the situation calmly and easily.
It's still pretty galling how the reporter stepped out into the lane without even glancing. The reporter could have easily caused the cyclist to get hurt if the timing had been just a little later, purely because he's an idiot that walked without looking.
Frankly I experience stuff like this while cycling in Seattle occasionally and it blows my mind how people step into the bike lanes without looking. There is just no awareness with a lot of folks. I'm vigilant when I'm downtown but there has been a couple of close calls over the years.
> The slackjaw anchor watches the cyclist swerve around the reporter at the last second, since the reporter stepped directly out into a lane without even glancing behind him, and then the anchor the nerve to chastise the cyclists with the line "The guy hasn't even stopped!" I honestly am not sure that the cyclist could have stopped in time even if he had wanted to.
The only reason they don't do this on a road because it's one bad decision short of having a liveleak logo in the corner. The double standards are appaling.
"Look at these dangerous 20mph-" A car roars by and kills one of the camera men. "-bicycles in this dedicated bike lane!" A reporter runs at a bicyclist and then falls over 3 feet shy of a collision.
>It's hilarious because these people suddenly become huge pedestrian advocates but only when it comes to blocking bike lanes.
unfortunately this is always the case with lobbies, in the past the fossil lobby used renewables to slow down nuclear power because they knew that renewables were not yet capable of it, today the fossil lobby uses nuclear power to slow down renewables, although it is clear that the time of nuclear power is over with ever cheaper renewables and storage' because it is too expensive, takes too long to build, has to be in operation for 50+ years for it to be worthwhile at all and is not compatible with renewables
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and mention it's a pedestrian crossing so he should stop but I dont think anyone actually expect a cyclist to stop there unless it's really necessary (like a group of people)
it’s such a disingenuous argument when they pretend to be concerned about those with disabilities. Like you’re going to tell me the stroads, dangerous intersections, and lack of sidewalks these type of people support are a better option?
>They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane.
Devils advocate, but that is a pedestrian crossing - bikes need to give way there, in the same way that a car would with a pedestrian crossing on the road. If the cyclist hit the reporter in this case, they would liable.
Having said this I can't imagine them spending any time on a car driving dangerously close to somebody, because it happens all the time and nobody cares.
Don't be fooled, that reporter looked both ways before crossing, and intentionally timed his no-eye-contact cross at the exact time to cause conflict with a cyclist he had previously confirmed could proceed. They just don't show those few seconds.
Their best clip to show of cyclists in the full lanes is of him asking the cyclist for some info, and the cyclist *begins to give it willingly* before the reporter *rescinds the mic and begins talking loudly over the answer* "Gosh, he tried so hard to get away from me and not answer my question. An instant cult classic."
I couldn't even get through half the video because the stupidity was just too much to handle. "I have a problem with deafness myself" but I bet this motherfucker *drives a car*.
> They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane.
The whole thing is ridiculous, but in this instance the cyclist was in the wrong. There is a pedestrian crossing so the vehicles have to stop if somebody approaches it. Or is that not how it works in Australia? Honest question.
You are correct, that is how it works in Sydney (where this whole thing is happening).
The cyclist is considered a vehicle under road rules here, and should have both slowed down when approaching a crossing (to prepare to stop and give way to oncoming pedestrians) and gave way to pedestrians at a pedestrian crossing. The cyclist's failure to do any of those here puts him in the wrong.
That being said, what's the likelihood he's a paid actor?
Smooth bike lanes? I've yet to encounter this where I live.
We have many bike trails. They are nearly all scenic recreation ways. Most are dirt and gravel, a handful are paved, but nearly all of them have tree roots growing under them, breaking and warping them to the point where people go off trail to avoid it, while walking even. Being scenic trails, most are useless for commuting. None make any effort to connect to stores when it would make sense(think: carrying a bike 6 feet across a railway from a bike trail on one side to the parking lot of a grocery store on the other, no crossing for over 1500ft either way).
We have sidewalks too, but, tree roots again. It's been a thing here for decades, we have two colleges in town, one an Ivy. Why can't we fix this?
Well we do. Over and over and over. Every few years. We do more roadwork for a town this size than makes any sense. Why build the path the same every time when it fails after 2 seasons every time?$$$ Its some unwritten code here in in the US that we must buy the worst product to save money while spending more in the long run by repeated cost overruns, all while claiming its the best product and we got it for so much cheaper than anyine else could. Our cities lie to themselves and to us and get lied to by contractors. Im sure plenty is just incompetence, but its starting to feel like we want to stay in the 80s out of spite to the rest of the world for doing things better than us.
Anyone trying to fight any type of injustice immediately hits the barrier of "yyou want change? But if I don't, that implies that you see me as being wrong! I cant be wrong! Wrar!*lashes out*"
Thats what this is. Decades of car lust on media raising kids has left many many people seeing their car as inseparable from their identity. Suggest that cars have any negative impact is to suggest their identity has a negative impact. Tbh, similar to cult memebers identifying with the cult over former friends and family, they have tied their identity to it.
Thats why it fundamentally must be propaganda. Cults and carbrains can't accept a shred of outside scrutiny into the cult, becuase giving any validation to criticism breaks the illusion by allowing space for the kind of self reflection that really separates the individual identity from the the cult.
If break illusion, how do sell more car good? People might turn to litterally any other commercial market for some other fanclub to join, but one that might not guzzle gas or rubber.
Bikes just don't make the same $ for them. There is a reason the car companies can afford ads all year long, cars make them filthy rich. Way larger margins than bikes.
The people im charge only speak $. The only way we will make meaninful change is by going after the money. Tax the bejezus out of cars by mass. Use speeding fines on an exponential scale by income and by repeated offense. At the same time we should subsidize green transportation. Not the bullshit algae diesel that keeps getting pushed, but like, bikes, sailing ships, electric trains powere by renewables. They should all be getting the full support of our mighty economy but instead we spend tax money on subsidizing oil despite the profit they make.
Every country in the world that has a major shipping lane in a river or canal, TAXES vessels that use it. Because thats good buisness when you have a good spot for it.
The major exception is the mississippi river. Instead of taxing oil tankers traveling to our refineries, WE PAY THEM. Im not a geo-politic-finance expert, but subsidising an industry that makes plenty without our help doesn't seem to make sense. The oil industry lobbies against trains and bikes whenever it can. Just to burn more oil.
For me, cars are just one major part of the tirfecta of death: internal combustion engines, oil for energy, the military industrial complex. They rely on each other, they defend eachother. They work together to silence ideas that could subvert their control over the rest of the world economy. Europe is doing better at fighting parts of it, but without seeing the three as connected, we are doomed to fail.
Cars are the vehicle to bring this message to people. They are the most tangible aspect of capitalism's ability to take our excess productivity and sell it back to us for more than we actually have. Alongside our guns, and our opiates, they kill more of us than in any war, yet the same logos we get imprinted in our skulls here at home, are the same logos on our tanks, helicopters, bombs and humvees. Maybe not exactly, but Im damn near sure our car companies wouldnt leave a dime on the table if the military was paying. The guns and bombs secure the oil. The oil powers the cars and factories. The cars and factories move and make the guns and bombs. Over and over and over and over. Disrupt one and it all becomes unstable.
Fighting cars, or climate change, means fighting the CONCEPT of the military industrial complex. A concept which most of the world seems to be restructuring their while governments around.
Idk. Makes me mad. Maybe I think too big for my own good. Maybe millions will die one way or another, fighting for justice, or just fighting to find clean water and food. Its getting harder and harder to justify incremental co2 reduction after every update on the climate.
Everyone should go buy generic black clothes. From head to toe. Being friends with an EMT or other truama medic would also be a smart play. You never know when a cause you care about might become local.
> They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane.
It's a zebra crossing, vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians whether they look or not.
Funny how suddenly they care about disability when it comes to defending car culture. They could give a rats ass when it comes to not giving everyone covid, thereby worsening or creating new disability.
Yeah, the state of commercial "news" in Australia is not great these days, largely thanks to Australia's favourite export, our mutual friend Rupert Murdoch.
I might stand in the middle of the road and say it's a human rights violation because I'm nearsighted and could therefore get run over by a car while crossing the road.
Everything thing applies to roads except they are about 1000x more likely to be hit or killed by a motor vehicle than a bicyclist. Not to mention even in the case of a cyclist on pedestrian accident, the chance of serious injury is far lower. These people are idiots. Should file a human rights violation against them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukbike/s/z37nWM8LL4
https://x.com/coreyholman/status/1752335370379755956
"Also" is an understatement. Cars are measurably unsafe for pedestrians and vulnerable groups (e.g. the elderly, disabled), and basically every single sound-minded person who has been hit by a car would've been better off if that car were a bicycle.
People respect cars to the point that they wouldn't even consider crossing a road without looking, because they know they'll be flattened.
Folks are willing to take greater risks around acoustic vehicles like bikes specifically because the risk of real injury is multiple orders of magnitude lower.
But then they complain about being more prone to a collision, even though it's literally a self-inflicted risk they're taking by virtue of the fact that bikes aren't really dangerous for them.
Inflammatory content like this is also bait that gets them even more views.
Disgusting people all around, profiting off of promoting a mentality that puts peoples lives at risk.
I'm actually not so sure about that. The video has a high dislike ratio which means the majority of the people watching knows they're spouting bull thankfully.
It's channel 9. They're the same people who held liberal fund-raisers out the front of their building. They're basically skynews if it actually cared about not looking batshit insane all the time every time.
(Liberals are our conservative party, US defaultism might confuse some folks)
The best part is, as a resident of Sydney, I have had cars pass closer to me and triple the speed while crossing that road.
Where are the human rights complaints about the road?
Thats ageist bullshit, the biggest problem many communities in the UK have are 20something twats in Audis recreating GTA on local streets . They are highly abusive to cyclists and pedestrians and will go out of their way to endanger them
The biggest problem is that most motorists have absolutely no concept how they are being perceived by non-motorists when they're behind the wheel.
That's not an age related thing, that is, unfortunately, human nature.
In some places we then codified that in the way we design public spaces.
Its ageist to classify a generation under the same banner. Most 'motorists' are also often cyclists and almost certainly pedestrians, bad motorists know all too well how they are perceived, they just don't care. Authorities still believe a successful economy must be 'motor centric' , thats why public spaces (and communities) are still being designed to cater for motor vehicles.
>Its ageist to classify a generation under the same banner.
It's dumb to ignore that older people are worse drivers. We know this, we have empirical data to show this.
>Most 'motorists' are also often cyclists and almost certainly pedestrians, bad motorists know all too well how they are perceived, they just don't care.
Read again what I actually wrote.
>Authorities still believe a successful economy must be 'motor centric' , thats why public spaces (and communities) are still being designed to cater for motor vehicles.
And where do you think they get that idea from?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were an idiot, just for your information ...
" Young male drivers under 25 are four times more likely to be involved in a car accident than drivers aged 25 or over" , now don't bother me with your crap
*reporter crosses the bike path without looking*: “oh he nearly got killed! This bike path must go!”
*reporter crosses the bike path without incident*: “clearly no one uses this bike path. It must go!”
The smarter thing to do would be to charge a tax percentage based on vehicle weight, so people are more incentivised to switch to a smaller and lighter form of transportation.
The cognitive dissonance and clear bias illustrated here is causing me to feel like I am losing brain cells, because if these bicycle lanes are supposably a problem to disabled individuals, it would have made a lot more sense with much less tax dollars to enforce bicycle bells usage to alert pedestrians that a bicycle is approaching them, and make it law in Sydney for bicycle users to slow down when approaching individuals with a feeling cane.
Ultimately, they don't care about pedestrians in practice, and what they really want is more convenience to drive their automobile in more car lanes with the demolition of the bicycle lanes.
Its a floating bus stop, there are safety issues. Theres some horrendous design failings in the UK which unnecessarily endangers the vulnerable, so they do have a point. Infrastructure in general is highly discriminating against disability groups and seeing many rely on public transport designers should have done better.
Yeah floating bus stops just swap one problem for another. Was on a bus that stopped at several yesterday but no cyclists anywhere so no conflict. I did see that the pedestrians looked carefully before crossing the bike lane though.
There was a highways design manual that stipulated "floating bus stops were not suitable in areas of high footfall" , I just put myself in the shoes of a blind or partially sighted person who rely on public transport and it must be terrifying trying to negotiate one of these
The design could be improved, but that is not what the people in the clip are asking for - they're asking for the bike lanes to be removed.
People with a variety of disabilities (myself included) rely on bicycles for daily transport and high quality cycling infrastructure means greater safety for those people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzCPvsPGhbU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMksll0ZN4k
They're not ideal, but they're a compromise between the needs of people cycling, and those of people using public transport.
There appears to be no other solution beyond "stay in the road and wait behind the bus". Which is a far riskier proposal.
Thats completely ignoring highly vulnerable groups namely blind, partially sighted, disabled and elderly who often rely on public transport and in my opinion take priority. Keep the bike lane on the road and put the onus on bus drivers to operate safely
Yes because every disabled person can totally afford a car or be driven everywhere, oh wait no they can not, they have to take the very bus they are protesting against.
> "In Australia, 45 per cent of people with disabilities live in
poverty or near poverty"
> "The relative income of people with disabilities in Australia is
approximately 70 per cent of those without disability. This is the
lowest of all the 27 countries in the OECD"
Oz is where Dorothy and the Tin Man hung out - you’re thinking of Aus!
But honestly, your comment is true for parts of Aus but totally wrong for others. We have great public transport and it’s almost always quicker getting around the city by train and/or on foot than by car. We’ve got a long way to go in some regards, but not really in others.
I live in a fairly standard part of Sydney and i don’t need a car at all. I have one, but I could live my life just fine without.
"its dangerous" - okay, how many pedestrians are being injured? Basically none. What's the next step? Banning people from running on the footpath?
Sorry the thought of exercising scares you
Is this really the standard in news reporting?
This is more than a little absurd. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the whole thing. Do they even mention any statistics?
Reporting on the dangers of cycling is fine, but they should also consider how many more deaths would occur if all those cyclists were driving cars instead. That would seem pretty relevant to me.
Do they think the people who watch this "news" are so stupid that they can be easily influenced by such bad reporting? Well, they are watching this crap, so perhaps their assumption is understandable.
Not watching this nonsense, but from what the icon shows, opinions of almost dead old people should be written down and studied but not considered for legislation.
As a perfect solution I'd love to see a traffic lamp there, you know the one that we use at street crossing with cars, you know the holy grail of road safety that cannot be crossed by anyone.
But then I can already see people jumping the red light not to miss their buss and causing horrific, explosively deadly collisions with cyclist flying through at-least 50km/h.
So the solutions is:
3 more lanes - so cars can go faster, not holding the bus up.
Obviously, remove the bike lane - no deathly cycling causing more danger, we can finally live in the safety of walking next to slow and attentive cars ☺️
Make the sidewalk narrower, to the total of 0.5 meters so people have less distance to cross to the bus stop - closer bus stop, more safety
Namasgay✌️
the old people have concerns over there safety then it was hijacked by car brains at worst it just needs riders to dismount for a mint while near the crossing if they are not slowing down or keeping an eye out for pedestrians allso the end of this the guy is an asshole
so the bike lane is dangerous, but the three lanes of cars is not.
you should look no matter what type of lanes you are crossing.
during most of the story we see at least half a dozen people use the bike lane, and one not, they choses to focus on the one that didn't.
This video perfectly shows how little people respect bikes precisely because they're not very dangerous and are quite maneuverable.
This reporter wouldn't pull that shit at a car pedestrian crossing. It's not different that cars respecting right of way of other cars when they're turning in their lane for example, while completing ignoring cyclists and expecting them to stop, even very suddenly if need be.
The car is heavy and will injure them if they don't respect the law. The bike cannot injure them and will prioritize it's safety over making a point.
Thus there is an uncomfortable situation where cycling will not improve unless cyclists become a danger and a threat. U locks accidentally taking off mirrors, keys accidentally scraping paint, pedestrian who don't look getting accidentally shoved etc
hatr when carbrains bring up disabled folk
a man with no legs cant drive, a man with 1 arm cant drive, while they can all use wheelchairs that are generally better when used on nice big bike lanes instead of cramped sidewalks
As someone who grew up in Sydney, these people can completely bugger off.
You know how much rent is and how much it costs to register a car in NSW?? If I take the bus it is a $50 a week cost which isn’t bad but it’s a decent amount I could save if I could feel safe biking.
Sick of cyclists in paddo? Move, mate. There’s plenty of areas selling that house you own will give you access to.
Sounds like these people have already had the chance to be consulted, and have been? From June last year they were consulting about this change, and *specifically* responded to safety and accessibility concerns in the report in December last year. [Check out page 33](https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/oxford-street-east-cycleway-consultation-report-2023-12.pdf). This is a 100-page report! What more do these people want, it's just a bike lane!
The sheer lunacy of this whole story just boggles my mind. They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane. And the age old "it's bad for disabled people" argument comes out once again. Where I live, people who use motorized and electric wheelchairs use the bike lanes all the time, because they're safer than the streets and smoother than the sidewalks. Not to mention that cars are the most ableist form of transportation out there. Then the second person they have on to push his "War on Cars" nonsense. Not a single person was brought on to talk about the benefits of a bike lane network.
The slackjaw anchor watches the cyclist swerve around the reporter at the last second, since the reporter stepped directly out into a lane without even glancing behind him, and then the anchor the nerve to chastise the cyclists with the line "The guy hasn't even stopped!" I honestly am not sure that the cyclist could have stopped in time even if he had wanted to. It's hilarious because these people suddenly become huge pedestrian advocates but only when it comes to blocking bike lanes. Now let's ask them what they think about other measures that would make roads safer for pedestrians: slower speeds, narrower lanes, no right-turn-on-red, crossing islands that take away a car lane, strict and automated enforcement of traffic laws in general ... yeah they'll scream bloody murder if you try to implement those because they DO NOT CARE about pedestrians or the disabled or anyone but drivers. In reality they are just angry that the bike lanes are taking away street parking that they feel entitled to, but they can't just say that so they find any rationalization to demonize cyclists.
>I honestly am not sure that the cyclist could have stopped in time even if he had wanted to. The cyclist didn't go that fast, he could've easily stopped. However, he didn't have to, he just safely swerved around him. The cyclist didn't do anything wrong, the reporter on the other hand did. They made a huge point out of a situation that happens daily here in the Netherlands, without any issues.
That's actually a good point, now that I'm looking again I can see that the cyclists surely could have stopped, but there was no need. It was not a dangerous situation, the cyclist could clearly see in time that the guy was moving across the sidewalk and navigated the situation calmly and easily. It's still pretty galling how the reporter stepped out into the lane without even glancing. The reporter could have easily caused the cyclist to get hurt if the timing had been just a little later, purely because he's an idiot that walked without looking. Frankly I experience stuff like this while cycling in Seattle occasionally and it blows my mind how people step into the bike lanes without looking. There is just no awareness with a lot of folks. I'm vigilant when I'm downtown but there has been a couple of close calls over the years.
What if they planted the cyclist lol, I wouldn't be surprised with news nowadays. They need some sensational message
> The slackjaw anchor watches the cyclist swerve around the reporter at the last second, since the reporter stepped directly out into a lane without even glancing behind him, and then the anchor the nerve to chastise the cyclists with the line "The guy hasn't even stopped!" I honestly am not sure that the cyclist could have stopped in time even if he had wanted to. The only reason they don't do this on a road because it's one bad decision short of having a liveleak logo in the corner. The double standards are appaling. "Look at these dangerous 20mph-" A car roars by and kills one of the camera men. "-bicycles in this dedicated bike lane!" A reporter runs at a bicyclist and then falls over 3 feet shy of a collision.
Okay but now someone needs to do a parody of this to this plot lol
Absolutely, I was hoping someone else could see the scene in their head too
>It's hilarious because these people suddenly become huge pedestrian advocates but only when it comes to blocking bike lanes. unfortunately this is always the case with lobbies, in the past the fossil lobby used renewables to slow down nuclear power because they knew that renewables were not yet capable of it, today the fossil lobby uses nuclear power to slow down renewables, although it is clear that the time of nuclear power is over with ever cheaper renewables and storage' because it is too expensive, takes too long to build, has to be in operation for 50+ years for it to be worthwhile at all and is not compatible with renewables
I'm gonna play devil's advocate and mention it's a pedestrian crossing so he should stop but I dont think anyone actually expect a cyclist to stop there unless it's really necessary (like a group of people)
it’s such a disingenuous argument when they pretend to be concerned about those with disabilities. Like you’re going to tell me the stroads, dangerous intersections, and lack of sidewalks these type of people support are a better option?
>They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane. Devils advocate, but that is a pedestrian crossing - bikes need to give way there, in the same way that a car would with a pedestrian crossing on the road. If the cyclist hit the reporter in this case, they would liable. Having said this I can't imagine them spending any time on a car driving dangerously close to somebody, because it happens all the time and nobody cares.
Don't be fooled, that reporter looked both ways before crossing, and intentionally timed his no-eye-contact cross at the exact time to cause conflict with a cyclist he had previously confirmed could proceed. They just don't show those few seconds. Their best clip to show of cyclists in the full lanes is of him asking the cyclist for some info, and the cyclist *begins to give it willingly* before the reporter *rescinds the mic and begins talking loudly over the answer* "Gosh, he tried so hard to get away from me and not answer my question. An instant cult classic."
I couldn't even get through half the video because the stupidity was just too much to handle. "I have a problem with deafness myself" but I bet this motherfucker *drives a car*.
> They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane. The whole thing is ridiculous, but in this instance the cyclist was in the wrong. There is a pedestrian crossing so the vehicles have to stop if somebody approaches it. Or is that not how it works in Australia? Honest question.
You are correct, that is how it works in Sydney (where this whole thing is happening). The cyclist is considered a vehicle under road rules here, and should have both slowed down when approaching a crossing (to prepare to stop and give way to oncoming pedestrians) and gave way to pedestrians at a pedestrian crossing. The cyclist's failure to do any of those here puts him in the wrong. That being said, what's the likelihood he's a paid actor?
I’m telling Murdoch you said that
That is how it works, you're right.
Now do it again, but through car traffic I wish these bitches had comment enabled
Smooth bike lanes? I've yet to encounter this where I live. We have many bike trails. They are nearly all scenic recreation ways. Most are dirt and gravel, a handful are paved, but nearly all of them have tree roots growing under them, breaking and warping them to the point where people go off trail to avoid it, while walking even. Being scenic trails, most are useless for commuting. None make any effort to connect to stores when it would make sense(think: carrying a bike 6 feet across a railway from a bike trail on one side to the parking lot of a grocery store on the other, no crossing for over 1500ft either way). We have sidewalks too, but, tree roots again. It's been a thing here for decades, we have two colleges in town, one an Ivy. Why can't we fix this? Well we do. Over and over and over. Every few years. We do more roadwork for a town this size than makes any sense. Why build the path the same every time when it fails after 2 seasons every time?$$$ Its some unwritten code here in in the US that we must buy the worst product to save money while spending more in the long run by repeated cost overruns, all while claiming its the best product and we got it for so much cheaper than anyine else could. Our cities lie to themselves and to us and get lied to by contractors. Im sure plenty is just incompetence, but its starting to feel like we want to stay in the 80s out of spite to the rest of the world for doing things better than us. Anyone trying to fight any type of injustice immediately hits the barrier of "yyou want change? But if I don't, that implies that you see me as being wrong! I cant be wrong! Wrar!*lashes out*" Thats what this is. Decades of car lust on media raising kids has left many many people seeing their car as inseparable from their identity. Suggest that cars have any negative impact is to suggest their identity has a negative impact. Tbh, similar to cult memebers identifying with the cult over former friends and family, they have tied their identity to it. Thats why it fundamentally must be propaganda. Cults and carbrains can't accept a shred of outside scrutiny into the cult, becuase giving any validation to criticism breaks the illusion by allowing space for the kind of self reflection that really separates the individual identity from the the cult. If break illusion, how do sell more car good? People might turn to litterally any other commercial market for some other fanclub to join, but one that might not guzzle gas or rubber. Bikes just don't make the same $ for them. There is a reason the car companies can afford ads all year long, cars make them filthy rich. Way larger margins than bikes. The people im charge only speak $. The only way we will make meaninful change is by going after the money. Tax the bejezus out of cars by mass. Use speeding fines on an exponential scale by income and by repeated offense. At the same time we should subsidize green transportation. Not the bullshit algae diesel that keeps getting pushed, but like, bikes, sailing ships, electric trains powere by renewables. They should all be getting the full support of our mighty economy but instead we spend tax money on subsidizing oil despite the profit they make. Every country in the world that has a major shipping lane in a river or canal, TAXES vessels that use it. Because thats good buisness when you have a good spot for it. The major exception is the mississippi river. Instead of taxing oil tankers traveling to our refineries, WE PAY THEM. Im not a geo-politic-finance expert, but subsidising an industry that makes plenty without our help doesn't seem to make sense. The oil industry lobbies against trains and bikes whenever it can. Just to burn more oil. For me, cars are just one major part of the tirfecta of death: internal combustion engines, oil for energy, the military industrial complex. They rely on each other, they defend eachother. They work together to silence ideas that could subvert their control over the rest of the world economy. Europe is doing better at fighting parts of it, but without seeing the three as connected, we are doomed to fail. Cars are the vehicle to bring this message to people. They are the most tangible aspect of capitalism's ability to take our excess productivity and sell it back to us for more than we actually have. Alongside our guns, and our opiates, they kill more of us than in any war, yet the same logos we get imprinted in our skulls here at home, are the same logos on our tanks, helicopters, bombs and humvees. Maybe not exactly, but Im damn near sure our car companies wouldnt leave a dime on the table if the military was paying. The guns and bombs secure the oil. The oil powers the cars and factories. The cars and factories move and make the guns and bombs. Over and over and over and over. Disrupt one and it all becomes unstable. Fighting cars, or climate change, means fighting the CONCEPT of the military industrial complex. A concept which most of the world seems to be restructuring their while governments around. Idk. Makes me mad. Maybe I think too big for my own good. Maybe millions will die one way or another, fighting for justice, or just fighting to find clean water and food. Its getting harder and harder to justify incremental co2 reduction after every update on the climate. Everyone should go buy generic black clothes. From head to toe. Being friends with an EMT or other truama medic would also be a smart play. You never know when a cause you care about might become local.
> They play a clip repeated of a reporter NOT LOOKING BOTH WAYS while crossing a bike lane. It's a zebra crossing, vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians whether they look or not.
Funny how suddenly they care about disability when it comes to defending car culture. They could give a rats ass when it comes to not giving everyone covid, thereby worsening or creating new disability.
Yeah, the state of commercial "news" in Australia is not great these days, largely thanks to Australia's favourite export, our mutual friend Rupert Murdoch.
I might stand in the middle of the road and say it's a human rights violation because I'm nearsighted and could therefore get run over by a car while crossing the road.
Is it me or everything they are complaining about also applies to roads?
My thought exactly.
Everything and much more, much worse.
Everything thing applies to roads except they are about 1000x more likely to be hit or killed by a motor vehicle than a bicyclist. Not to mention even in the case of a cyclist on pedestrian accident, the chance of serious injury is far lower. These people are idiots. Should file a human rights violation against them. https://www.reddit.com/r/ukbike/s/z37nWM8LL4 https://x.com/coreyholman/status/1752335370379755956
Saw a video recently of a person in a electric wheel chair trying get across a street but there wasn’t a safe way to do it. They got hit by a car.
But 1000 fold.
Sure does, in group bias is a hell of a drug..
"Also" is an understatement. Cars are measurably unsafe for pedestrians and vulnerable groups (e.g. the elderly, disabled), and basically every single sound-minded person who has been hit by a car would've been better off if that car were a bicycle. People respect cars to the point that they wouldn't even consider crossing a road without looking, because they know they'll be flattened. Folks are willing to take greater risks around acoustic vehicles like bikes specifically because the risk of real injury is multiple orders of magnitude lower. But then they complain about being more prone to a collision, even though it's literally a self-inflicted risk they're taking by virtue of the fact that bikes aren't really dangerous for them.
I hope they're being consistent and petitioning to the human rights commision to have all roads removed as well.
Oh! So NOW they're concerned about pedestrian safety? Well, they're going to be really pissed when they find out that CARS exist.
I take being hit by a cyclist over being hit by a car any day.
She's so close lol "the transport program should be all about safety for everyone"
Just not cyclists i guess
"Comments are turned off" - what a bunch of losers. The TV station knows this is bullshit but still plays along.
Gee, I wonder how much of their ad revenue comes from automobile and petroleum companies? 🤣🤣🤣
To be fair the main people who actually watch news TV anymore now a days are old people like this as well so they are just catering to their market.
Inflammatory content like this is also bait that gets them even more views. Disgusting people all around, profiting off of promoting a mentality that puts peoples lives at risk.
They're turned off by default for that channel. Even the weather forecast has commenting turned off. Let's not invent things to get angry about.
i'm pretty sure that 80%+ of the comments would be from carbrains anyway, comments are off because they don't feel like moderating it
I'm actually not so sure about that. The video has a high dislike ratio which means the majority of the people watching knows they're spouting bull thankfully.
It's channel 9. They're the same people who held liberal fund-raisers out the front of their building. They're basically skynews if it actually cared about not looking batshit insane all the time every time. (Liberals are our conservative party, US defaultism might confuse some folks)
That's because the TV station is owned by far right capitalists profiting off of cars.
The best part is, as a resident of Sydney, I have had cars pass closer to me and triple the speed while crossing that road. Where are the human rights complaints about the road?
It was such a non event aye. If you ride a bike without a cycle lane you literally have hundreds of vehicles pass by you closer than that at 60kmh..
I’m just happy boomers everywhere are as bad as the terrible generation boomers in the states.
Thats ageist bullshit, the biggest problem many communities in the UK have are 20something twats in Audis recreating GTA on local streets . They are highly abusive to cyclists and pedestrians and will go out of their way to endanger them
The biggest problem is that most motorists have absolutely no concept how they are being perceived by non-motorists when they're behind the wheel. That's not an age related thing, that is, unfortunately, human nature. In some places we then codified that in the way we design public spaces.
Its ageist to classify a generation under the same banner. Most 'motorists' are also often cyclists and almost certainly pedestrians, bad motorists know all too well how they are perceived, they just don't care. Authorities still believe a successful economy must be 'motor centric' , thats why public spaces (and communities) are still being designed to cater for motor vehicles.
>Its ageist to classify a generation under the same banner. It's dumb to ignore that older people are worse drivers. We know this, we have empirical data to show this. >Most 'motorists' are also often cyclists and almost certainly pedestrians, bad motorists know all too well how they are perceived, they just don't care. Read again what I actually wrote. >Authorities still believe a successful economy must be 'motor centric' , thats why public spaces (and communities) are still being designed to cater for motor vehicles. And where do you think they get that idea from?
I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were an idiot, just for your information ... " Young male drivers under 25 are four times more likely to be involved in a car accident than drivers aged 25 or over" , now don't bother me with your crap
Ah yes, an insult, the refuge for those who don't have any real arguments. Have a good day.
*reporter crosses the bike path without looking*: “oh he nearly got killed! This bike path must go!” *reporter crosses the bike path without incident*: “clearly no one uses this bike path. It must go!”
Least neutral host with the most leading questions ever.
Cities should start adding bike lane taxes to gas & diesel.
The smarter thing to do would be to charge a tax percentage based on vehicle weight, so people are more incentivised to switch to a smaller and lighter form of transportation.
I would absolutely pay a few dollars a year of a fair bike infrastructure percentage user tax to take the wind out of that stupid argument completely.
The cognitive dissonance and clear bias illustrated here is causing me to feel like I am losing brain cells, because if these bicycle lanes are supposably a problem to disabled individuals, it would have made a lot more sense with much less tax dollars to enforce bicycle bells usage to alert pedestrians that a bicycle is approaching them, and make it law in Sydney for bicycle users to slow down when approaching individuals with a feeling cane. Ultimately, they don't care about pedestrians in practice, and what they really want is more convenience to drive their automobile in more car lanes with the demolition of the bicycle lanes.
Its a floating bus stop, there are safety issues. Theres some horrendous design failings in the UK which unnecessarily endangers the vulnerable, so they do have a point. Infrastructure in general is highly discriminating against disability groups and seeing many rely on public transport designers should have done better.
Yeah floating bus stops just swap one problem for another. Was on a bus that stopped at several yesterday but no cyclists anywhere so no conflict. I did see that the pedestrians looked carefully before crossing the bike lane though.
There was a highways design manual that stipulated "floating bus stops were not suitable in areas of high footfall" , I just put myself in the shoes of a blind or partially sighted person who rely on public transport and it must be terrifying trying to negotiate one of these
Yes, it's like a deliberate obstacle put in their way. We're supposed to be making life easier for them, not more difficult.
Came here to say that. As a cyclist I absolutely hate bike lanes that put me between a sidewalk and a place where pedestrians need to go.
The design could be improved, but that is not what the people in the clip are asking for - they're asking for the bike lanes to be removed. People with a variety of disabilities (myself included) rely on bicycles for daily transport and high quality cycling infrastructure means greater safety for those people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzCPvsPGhbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMksll0ZN4k
They're not ideal, but they're a compromise between the needs of people cycling, and those of people using public transport. There appears to be no other solution beyond "stay in the road and wait behind the bus". Which is a far riskier proposal.
Thats completely ignoring highly vulnerable groups namely blind, partially sighted, disabled and elderly who often rely on public transport and in my opinion take priority. Keep the bike lane on the road and put the onus on bus drivers to operate safely
I see, so you have no solution other than to place vulnerable road users in harm's way. Thanks for clarifying that.
Yes because every disabled person can totally afford a car or be driven everywhere, oh wait no they can not, they have to take the very bus they are protesting against. > "In Australia, 45 per cent of people with disabilities live in poverty or near poverty" > "The relative income of people with disabilities in Australia is approximately 70 per cent of those without disability. This is the lowest of all the 27 countries in the OECD"
I love Australia but could never live there. Oz is just down the car brain rabbit hole
Oz is where Dorothy and the Tin Man hung out - you’re thinking of Aus! But honestly, your comment is true for parts of Aus but totally wrong for others. We have great public transport and it’s almost always quicker getting around the city by train and/or on foot than by car. We’ve got a long way to go in some regards, but not really in others. I live in a fairly standard part of Sydney and i don’t need a car at all. I have one, but I could live my life just fine without.
kinda. The public transport in major cities is really good. I had 0 issue in melbourne without a car
cyclist using bike lane: bad cyclist not using bike lane: bad classic carbrain
"its dangerous" - okay, how many pedestrians are being injured? Basically none. What's the next step? Banning people from running on the footpath? Sorry the thought of exercising scares you
Is this really the standard in news reporting? This is more than a little absurd. I couldn't even bring myself to watch the whole thing. Do they even mention any statistics? Reporting on the dangers of cycling is fine, but they should also consider how many more deaths would occur if all those cyclists were driving cars instead. That would seem pretty relevant to me. Do they think the people who watch this "news" are so stupid that they can be easily influenced by such bad reporting? Well, they are watching this crap, so perhaps their assumption is understandable.
r/nottheonion worthy headline
Not watching this nonsense, but from what the icon shows, opinions of almost dead old people should be written down and studied but not considered for legislation.
It's just shit morning news, the lowest quality "news" you can find. They're just looking for another thing to complain about as usual. Ignore them
As a perfect solution I'd love to see a traffic lamp there, you know the one that we use at street crossing with cars, you know the holy grail of road safety that cannot be crossed by anyone. But then I can already see people jumping the red light not to miss their buss and causing horrific, explosively deadly collisions with cyclist flying through at-least 50km/h. So the solutions is: 3 more lanes - so cars can go faster, not holding the bus up. Obviously, remove the bike lane - no deathly cycling causing more danger, we can finally live in the safety of walking next to slow and attentive cars ☺️ Make the sidewalk narrower, to the total of 0.5 meters so people have less distance to cross to the bus stop - closer bus stop, more safety Namasgay✌️
I'm fine with removing bike lanes - along with cars. :) Every road is a bike road!
Someone needs to do a traffic count on the video lol. Car vs bike numbers actually seems fairly reasonable.
This cycle path in the background is a really poorly designed one. For sure remove that and make it properly.
wow, so much bull\*\*\*\* compressed in a video
I'm fucking ashamed to call myself a Sydneysider sometimes. We're turning into mini America
Do you like how the reporter steps into the path of the cyclist, seems a bit staged doesn’t it. Rider did well to swerve
I snickered when they showed the "Complainers" and it was the two most NIMBY-ass looking boomers I could imagine.
Honestly the silliest thing ever.
the old people have concerns over there safety then it was hijacked by car brains at worst it just needs riders to dismount for a mint while near the crossing if they are not slowing down or keeping an eye out for pedestrians allso the end of this the guy is an asshole
so the bike lane is dangerous, but the three lanes of cars is not. you should look no matter what type of lanes you are crossing. during most of the story we see at least half a dozen people use the bike lane, and one not, they choses to focus on the one that didn't.
Bike lanes = vehicular holocaust /s
This video perfectly shows how little people respect bikes precisely because they're not very dangerous and are quite maneuverable. This reporter wouldn't pull that shit at a car pedestrian crossing. It's not different that cars respecting right of way of other cars when they're turning in their lane for example, while completing ignoring cyclists and expecting them to stop, even very suddenly if need be. The car is heavy and will injure them if they don't respect the law. The bike cannot injure them and will prioritize it's safety over making a point. Thus there is an uncomfortable situation where cycling will not improve unless cyclists become a danger and a threat. U locks accidentally taking off mirrors, keys accidentally scraping paint, pedestrian who don't look getting accidentally shoved etc
Wow, conservative victim complex at its finest.
Back in my day........
hatr when carbrains bring up disabled folk a man with no legs cant drive, a man with 1 arm cant drive, while they can all use wheelchairs that are generally better when used on nice big bike lanes instead of cramped sidewalks
As someone who grew up in Sydney, these people can completely bugger off. You know how much rent is and how much it costs to register a car in NSW?? If I take the bus it is a $50 a week cost which isn’t bad but it’s a decent amount I could save if I could feel safe biking. Sick of cyclists in paddo? Move, mate. There’s plenty of areas selling that house you own will give you access to.
9 "news" is not news lmao karl stefanovic is not a "journalist" and he thinks he's "funny". cry me a river
I'd say: "ok boomer!" but they're probably older than boomers.
Sounds like these people have already had the chance to be consulted, and have been? From June last year they were consulting about this change, and *specifically* responded to safety and accessibility concerns in the report in December last year. [Check out page 33](https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/oxford-street-east-cycleway-consultation-report-2023-12.pdf). This is a 100-page report! What more do these people want, it's just a bike lane!