News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by rayiner on Thursday April 11, 2019 @01:12PM (#19636794)
I'm suggesting that it's not right to inconvenience the majority (drivers), for the sake of a relatively privileged minority (folks who can afford to live within cycling distance of their jobs downtown).
Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by wool_gather on Thursday April 11, 2019 @01:41PM (#19637137)
Before going too far down the road with this argument, you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible. The majority is not necessarily the majority by choice in this case.
Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by wozniacki on Thursday April 11, 2019 @02:56PM (#19637969)
It also is useful to bear in mind how small a slice of the larger society people who frequent HN represent.

It is easy to get carried away with these hyper arguments in favor of public transit, bicycling everywhere and for everyone, high density living and removing parking wherever possible.

It is helpful to bear in mind that just because a small canal-ridden city of 800,000 people ( Amsterdam has an area of 85 square miles while even NYC is 302 and Chicago is 234 ) has a high density of cyclists doesn't mean we shape policy for much of the Western world based on that small city of homogeneous people with homogeneous values and neighborhoods.

Re:Cambridge's Ambitious Protected Bike Lane Law by u801e on Thursday April 11, 2019 @09:12PM (#19640998)
> you also need to figure out how many of those drivers would use something other than a car if it were feasible.

The one thing that debunks that argument is the fact that people aren't replacing their cars with motorcycles.