[ SECRET POST #3588 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3588 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 62 secrets from Secret Submission Post #513.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Bike lanes in my city are on streets where there's an extra half-lane of width. If you can't pass safely with that much space, how are you going to handle the multi-lane intersections?

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

Because most cyclists in my area are entitled morons who don't use bike lanes, which in any case could be better put to use accommodating traffic and cutting down on congestion -- or at the very least, used to park vehicles.

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Again, empirically false. A long-standing paradox that we've known about since the 1950s is that adding more lanes actually increases congestion. And there's a multi-lane through street only a block away from the streets with bike lanes. Why not take those designated through streets?

And there's already a lane of parking on the bike-lane streets which is at 50% capacity three blocks out from the city center. Outside of the big tourist weekends, we don't more parking on those streets.

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

"Why not take those designated through streets?"

Oh, gee, I dunno. Probably because my city is a nightmare world of one-way streets that makes it impossible to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time as it is? The streets are super-narrow, too, so there's not enough room for vehicle traffic AND bike lanes AND parking (parking is a serious issue in my city -- it's expensive and hard to find.)

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

So, your argument is that because your city planners have problems designing for multiple transportation modes, that no city should design for multiple transportation modes?

Encouraging multiple modes (including bikes and public transportation) tends to decrease congestion in the long run. Car transportation just doesn't scale well with either commercial or residential density.

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

No. My argument is fuck cyclists. We put in a streetcar just recently and it hasn't fucked up traffic much at all. Cyclists are a danger to themselves, others, and insurance premiums.

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

My argument is fuck cyclists.

So, because you lack the common sense to use designated through streets, the ability to follow lane markers when it comes to bike routes, and the skill to pass safely where there's room to do so, (and there almost always is), other law-abiding people entitled to use the road should be "fucked?"

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

That's a pretty cool jetpack you've got. Do you use it for anything other than jumping to conclusions?

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Then explain how in the world you would come into conflict with a cyclist following the rules of the road operating on a designated bike route. The only reason a driver would come within arm's length of my bike is if they cross a white line, either through intent or negligence.

And on those parts that don't have a designated bike lane, you're not going to be cornering around narrow squares with heavy pedestrian traffic at high speed anyway.

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

I've never ever seen a cyclist follow the rules of the road. I'm sure they exist, but most of them are entitled, self-righteous douches who think doing 10mph in a 50 zone without even using hand signals is totally okay.

BTW you're doing a real good job of the self-righteous bit.

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I've never ever seen a cyclist follow the rules of the road.

Pull the other one, it has bells attached.

BTW you're doing a real good job of the self-righteous bit.

You're the one saying I should be "fucked" for using legally designated signals, right-of-way, and lane widths that in no way inhibit the ability of other people to pass at legal speeds. If that's not adequate, then you're likely a threat to pedestrians and carriage traffic as well.

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

l m f a o oh my god this is precious. You are SO ANGRY.

Re: Dumb opinions

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I love you too, dear. See ya on the road.

⁣

Sent from BlueMail

​

Re: Dumb opinions

[dethtoll]

I'd rather not -- you'd just get in my way. Might wanna see about getting your spandex untwisted.