Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

đŸŽ¶ Those boots were made for mockin’ đŸŽ”

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Within six months Twitter will be fully self-driving.

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

The revolution will be supervised.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Everybody saw this coming.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

I wonder if trump will be tried as an adult.

I’m sure you banged some questionable people yourself.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

You are here: Home / Economics / Show Us on the Doll Where the Invisible Hand Touched You / Late Night Open Thread: Elon Musk Is SAD!

Late Night Open Thread: Elon Musk Is SAD!

by | 185 Comments

This post is in: , ,

First, the good news, for those of us who found twitter useful till the Apartheid Princeling Bitchboy got his sweaty little palms on it — the Possum Every Hour-style accounts seem to be safe, for the moment:

New Musk revenue initiative!…

(Explainer)

Reader Interactions

185Comments

  1. 1.

    Alison Rose

    It’s like a kid taking apart a clock radio* to see how it works, then trying to put it back together with bubble gum and twist-ties and realizing they have half a dozen pieces left when they’re done. And then bragging about how much better the non-functioning clock is now.

    (*I may be a Spring chicken around these parts, but I’m still Old in the big picture. My brother took apart his clock radio when he was in middle school, and put it back together successfully.)

  3. 3.

    James E Powell

    @Alison Rose:

    It’s like a kid taking apart a clock radio* to see how it works, then trying to put it back together with bubble gum and twist-ties and realizing they have half a dozen pieces left when they’re done

    I did something like that with my first amp. It still worked, but it had all kinds of issues.

  5. 5.

    ColoradoGuy

    Wouldn’t know what an algorithm is if it bit him on the ass. He was never a coder, and like many CEOs, is incapable of learning.

  6. 6.

    Martin

    The Overton window on car ownership and transit spending is slowly shifting. A decade ago the concern was on how to transition to EVs to address climate change, but in the last few months at least, talking about disinvesting in car infrastructure and drawing attention to the larger problems of cars in terms of public safety, spending, etc. has been hitting the mainstream.

    These pieces still receive some pretty strong backlash in the comments, which is fine. People are really invested in their cars. It took me 2 years to get my head in the space to see mine was more of a liability than a benefit.

    The goal isn’t to abolish cars but to better contextualize their benefits and costs in comparison to other modes of transit, and forms of public spending. Mockery may be involved.

    One of the things that I discovered when I switched to a bike is people now talk to me. Cars signal that you are antisocial because you close yourself off from others. But a bike is inviting – people walk up to me and chat me up. It’s pretty nice.

    I suspect there will be greater pushes toward transit as part of public policy as we seem to be slowly unwinding our blind spots to the real costs of cars – 40,000 US deaths per year, traffic stops being the preferred way now for police to murder black people, and as greater accounting on EVs show while they are environmentally better, they aren’t environmentally sufficient. Fewer cars seems to be necessary. Land use is another issue. California has repealed all parking minimum within half a mile of transit statewide – so developers don’t need to reserve 50% to 70% of their land use for free parking, and can redevelop that land 100% for housing. This has the benefit of getting developers in support of transit because any state funded transit creates new opportunity for significant increases in land utility, which is good for developers. We’re seeing parking minimums being removed across the country. That was unthinkable 5 years ago.

    I suspect that the auto industry overreached. They’ve moved aggressively away from affordable vehicles, mostly as a byproduct of trying to chase EVs. That’s squeezed a lot of people out of the auto market and are turning to other options, mostly out of necessity. Since the current federal minimum wage was first established in 2009, average new car price has gone from $28K to $48K. Even used cars are out of reach of those workers as average used car prices today are higher than new car prices were in 2009. With no real affordable options, lower wage workers are demanding alternatives. This is especially true among young people who see car ownership as seriously undermining their opportunity to buying a home, which they feel is otherwise completely out of reach. But transit oriented urban centers are quite appealing.

    Something to watch.

  8. 8.

    Martin

    @ColoradoGuy: I mean, he’s a smart guy in technical sense, but emotionally he’s a child like Trump. So knowledge comes to him but wisdom doesn’t.

    Any fool can know. The point is to understand.

  11. 11.

    Central Planning

    @Martin: I’m in Amsterdam and am amazed by the number of bikes. I believe they charge car owners extra for the privilege of driving in the city. Also the transit system – one pass for bus/team/train/subway and the apps for finding a route for you are easy and accurate.

    I think the only downside is being aware of where you walk so you don’t step into a bike lane.

    I could easily see myself living in a city like this.

  12. 12.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Amir Khalid: No. It’s not just you. I thought that from the very first time I saw his ludicrous promo for meta. He is like a 21st century Dorian Gray. He’s a dangerous, clueless man child who lucked into a culture and economy that permits absolute eff wits to do what they like, how they like to everyone, no matter how destructive and anti social. I hate him, Musk and the rest of them with the heat of a thousand suns.

  13. 13.

    Martin

    @Amir Khalid: I mean, I saw a video of him walking a few days ago. I assume those were real legs. I mean, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

  14. 14.

    Martin

    @Central Planning: Bikes operate at human speeds. Even stepping into a bike lane likely leaves adequate opportunity to avoid a collision, and said collision is unlikely to murder either party since me on my bike weigh about 220 lbs, while my wife in my Prius is 3500 lbs.

  15. 15.

    Central Planning

    @Martin: I agree with you 100%. It’s probably worse for visitors than the locals. People do move right along and I have yet to see anyone get clipped, although I have seen plenty of close calls of bikes and cars.

    I need to research how they got to this kind of mass transit. I can’t believe there was this much space on the roads 100 years ago. Did they demolish thousands of buildings to get this, or were the urban planners that long ago a bunch of geniuses?

  17. 17.

    bjacques

    @Central Planning: I do live in this city. It’s great being able to get around by bike or tram, and only need to rent or borrow a car occasionally.

    Souped up thuggish e-bikes are the big worry now, hacked to to 35 or 40 km/h in bike lanes for the market that love scooters but hate helmets, but there’s a crackdown on the way.

  19. 19.

    opiejeanne

    @bjacques: I loved visiting Amsterdam. From our second floor (third floor in Europe) we watched people taking their kids to school, either in those barrow-bike things or riding alongside their kids. My only issue was when the bike lane was crowded and some of the cyclists rode over onto the walkways. They startled us more than once.

  20. 20.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Martin: Sure cars are expensive, and I support more public transit and bike friendly cities. But if the eco friendly left thinks that suburban mums and dads who have to pick up and drop off children to and from school and day care as well as get themselves to work and shopping kilometres from their homes, are going to take up bike riding as opposed to using affordable EVs, you are dreaming. Also unrealistic.

  21. 21.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Aussie Sheila: Just to add. I live in the largest, most suburban city in Australia. Where I actually live there are plenty of bike lanes and good urban transit services. But I live 4 Ks from the cbd. People in this city must commute 40 kilometres sometimes to and from their work. If anyone thinks cars can be eschewed in favour of bike lanes and buses, you are not in touch with how people must live and work in urban conglomerates. EVs that are affordable for the masses are a quicker and better solution than hoping everyone can bike to work, or that financially pressed city and state government can provide train and bus services to every fringe suburban development that people, for whatever godforsaken reason like to live in. The left needs to get a handle on how people actually live their lives, not hassle about the choices they make.

  22. 22.

    Martin

    @Central Planning: There wasn’t. Amsterdam is a pretty interesting story. As recently as the 70s it was all cars.  The story as I heard it (from a former mayor of the city) differs from the article. He said that it was much less aspirational. Basically in the 70s the city was flat broke. They simply couldn’t afford to continue to maintain and build out the car infrastructure, but they could afford to build bike, and there was at least some demand for that, so that’s what they built. For a few years they squeezed car owners with shitty infrastructure putting their spending on bike. Bike infrastructure is WAY cheaper to build because in addition to just being much smaller physically, you don’t need to support so much weight. Bridges, base for roads, all cheaper. You don’t need traffic management – lights, sensors. You can park a dozen bikes where one car fits so during growth you can just cannibalize car parking for bike for no real cost.

    With time the public embraced it more and more. The city found other benefits – less health care spending, less funding to get kids to school, etc. Right of way for transit got easier if you could put trams in the space freed up by a road diet. A decade in they were seeing that bike infrastructure actually made money – they saved more from improved health outcomes and reduced spending there that the bike infrastructure was free. That wouldn’t apply nearly as much here in the US since that spending happens at a different level of government even when the government is paying.

    Merchants were really opposed to things like removing street parking and turning streets into pedestrian spaces. So much so that there were death threats and violence. But once they started rolling it out, merchants discovered that the pedestrian spaces increased the number of shoppers. Hard to window shop – pop in for an impulse buy when you’re in a car. Revenues roughly doubled. Housing got easier to build, businesses did better. Over time it turned into a positive feedback loop.

    I don’t think it was ever really smooth sailing. Change is hard everywhere, but you see your neighbors do it, and it gets easier. I try to be pretty visible on my bike. Show people it’s not scary. I mostly get people approaching me at the grocery store. The idea I can buy a weeks groceries on my bike is kind of amazing to them. They’ve so deeply internalized that they must have a car to do these things. In my city I have 6 different brand grocery stores backing up to the dedicated bike path near my house. With about 3 blocks of shared riding with cars in the bike lane I can add 3 Targets, 2 more grocery stores, a Costco and a Walmart.

    Over the last year the number of other folks out on bikes running errands has gone up substantially.

  24. 24.

    Amir Khalid

    @Aussie Sheila:

    It was cars that made suburban living — and rush-hour traffic, and foul city air, and scarce city space wasted on parking lots and garages — possible. And it is living at a distance from where we work/play/shop/etc. that makes us need cars. To phase cars out of modern life, or at least to significantly reduce dependence so they don’t wind up consuming more and more resources, I believe suburbs need to be made obsolete, or at least turned into more distributed cities.

  25. 25.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Martin: All that is undoubtably true. It still doesn’t deal with the problem of US and Australian cities with their wasteful urban planning decisions locked in for the last fifty years. People simply cannot, and will not, bike their children and groceries kilometres to and from home. End of story. By all means improve bike paths and access and public transit. But cheaper and better EVs will be a quicker and more palatable solution for a long time, until people are  able to either work from home, or people who must work in the real outside world are willing and able to afford homes closer to their work.

    Until then stop with the commute shaming, and start with affordable EVs.

  26. 26.

    Martin

    @Aussie Sheila: So yeah. The shift comes in conjunction with changes to planning. In established communities you’re right – it doesn’t really work. Communities are planned for cars, at car distances.

    But that’s part of the shift. You see it in a lot of places here in the US – Seattle, Portland, Long Beach. So a place like Long Beach which has transit can redevelop areas, yank out all the parking, and have a community move in who are okay with walking/biking and using the transit (Blue Line to LA). That’s not going to be everyone but with a shortage of 3 million housing units in the state, populations that can’t drive (folks with disabilities, for instance) and people that honestly can’t afford a car, they shouldn’t have much trouble filling that housing. You establish that community and slowly it builds out to equilibrium. Even if you remove half the cars, you’ve pretty much met the climate goals. No need to remove them all.

    In my case, we removed one car and kept one. Same thing – goal met. If half the household can get their needs met by bike and the other half by car, you save a LOT of money. So you do see households with 1 car and 2 bikes. You always favor the bike when you can, then fall back to the car when you can’t. I did my switch when I was working, just before Covid hit. I could bike to work. My wife could have the car all day. In the evening more often than not we were traveling together, and when we weren’t we just had to schedule a bit.

  28. 28.

    frosty

    @Martin: As a former transit planner (two careers ago) I heartily agree with the type of development you’re describing. Two points: Amsterdam is flat which made bike transport much more feasible. To a large extent e-bikes have ameliorated that. Second point: cold weather, freezing rain, and snow. No way am I commuting or shopping in winter weather. Same goes for Arizona in the summer, I expect.

  29. 29.

    Martin

    @Aussie Sheila: you are not in touch with how people must live and work in urban conglomerates

    Come on. I live in Orange County. My urban conglomerate has more people than your country. Hell, my suburban city would be like the 9th largest city in Australia. Of course I’m in touch with it.

    Willing to bet Sydney gets there. Ebikes solve the problem of hills pretty nicely.

    But the US is as famously car-addicted as Australia is, and I’m not predicting a major shift, but 6 months ago you pretty much didn’t see any discussion of any of this, and suddenly there’s a decent amount of it. That alone is very promising. We’ll see where it goes.

    But the US ebike market is about $2B, and unit sales are higher than for EVs, and growing at about double the rate. One of the key markets here are kids too young to drive – middle/high school. See, you don’t have to convince mom and dad to give up the car to drive the kid to school if the kid wants to take their own bike. But the big uptick in kids biking to school has the city scrambling a bit to adjust the infrastructure. The city can expect me to share the road with cars, but that’s not really acceptable for kids. They’re the ones driving the shift in spending, which in a way the city doesn’t mind because the parents driving kids to school is a massive traffic problem. Now they don’t need to solve it.

  30. 30.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Amir Khalid: Yes. Urban planning has been a disaster all over the world where polities have had the money and urban space to push people out to the fringes. I hope that these decisions are being rethought in the face of one of the current existential crises facing the planet. Public housing close to jobs and recreational amenities is also a must, along with cheaper EVs.

    I note that the EU is whinging  about the Inflation Reduction Act. I agree that it subsidises US EV manufacture. Good. Now let us see the EU and every other vehicle manufacturer do the same. Good on Biden.

  31. 31.

    Geminid

    @Aussie Sheila: I think there will be more and better bus service going forward. The Infrastrucure bill passed in November, 2021 had a lot of money for mass transit, $10 billion for New York’s MTA alone. That’s on top of $60 billion for investments in AMTRAK service. Private inter-city bus service is increasing in the US as well after decades of decline..

    More needs to be done, which is one more reason Democrats need to keep the White House and regain a House majority in 2024. Then we can build on the investments in the Infrastructure bill. Democratic  state governments will be doing a lot in this area as well.

  32. 32.

    Michael Bersin

    @frosty:

    Only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun…

    In Arizona in the summer one can bike early in the day or later at night. There are other variables in that season, though. Urban heat sink. And the dreaded “record high low temperature”.

    Also, repeating the phrase “but it’s a dry heat” adds a little positive reinforcement.

  33. 33.

    Martin

    @frosty: Summer isn’t as bad as you think. Ebikes really do change things more than I think even you expect. Even when it’s 100 out, with the bike doing most of the work, it cools you down a lot. Not as dry here as Phoenix though. But last August I was riding around when it was 108 and it was fine.

    Winter depends a LOT on your city. Oulu is the model for that. 1000 of the schools 1200 kids ride to school. It’s -15C.  The city prioritizes bikes over cars. They plow bike lanes hourly (as needed). The city uses projectors to shine markings onto the pavement/snow so they’re always visible.

    But it seems like success at this is a combination of not mixing bikes with cars so that car slush doesn’t make things impossible for bikes, and more frequent plowing that you would do for cars to keep things passable. The temperature doesn’t really seem to be an issue.

    I know there’s this perception that weather and whatnot are impediments but they don’t seem to be. The impediment is safety. If you can isolate bikes from cars and still be able to get where they need to go, with new things like ebikes and cargo bikes to address hills, and some shift in the culture from early adopters like me being visible, people will adopt it. Safety also allows helmets to be ditched. Nobody likes helmets.

  34. 34.

    Geminid

    @Martin: I think there has been a trend towards less car ownership among younger people for some years now. I remember reading about before the pandemic. It may be related to a related trend of younger people choosing to live in cities.

    Your area of Southern California was a leader in automobile related suburban sprawl, and it will likely be a leader on the shift away from personal vehicle transport. Are you seeing any increased use of buses yet. Electric buses?

  35. 35.

    Martin

    @Aussie Sheila: The US and EU don’t really even compete in that space (apart from Tesla). The US (maybe also Aus) are unique in that our EV market is focused on bigger/heavier vehicles. Every other market is smaller/lighter.

    Here’s the best selling car in the EU vs the US. 

    Every time the US increased fuel economy, people just bought bigger cars. Despite all the whining about gas prices, average fuel economy for actual purchased vehicles in the US is unchanged over 30 years. We replaced 30 MPG hatchbacks with 30 MPG SUVs and pickups.

    I mean, nobody in Europe is going to be driving a 6,100lb F-150 Lightning. It weighs 3x as much as that Fiat. A lot of the more interesting EU EVs like from VW aren’t even available in the US – too small.

  36. 36.

    NotMax

    @Martin

    a bike is inviting – people walk up to me and chat me up

    If ever there was an argument for not biking….

    /curmudgeon

  37. 37.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Geminid: I agree with you. There is nothing more important in the next 31 months than a resounding Democratic Party victory in both the Presidential and Senate elections. The health and safety of the world depends on it. And that is terrible in itself.

    I wish the US had a different constitution, but it doesn’t as I keep saying to friends here in Oz.
    There. Is. No. Alternative.

    None.

  39. 39.

    Amir Khalid

    @Martin:

    Safety also allows helmets to be ditched. Nobody likes helmets.

    Um, I don’t think it works that way. Cyclists will still need to wear bicycle helmets; they can still sustain a serious head injury just by falling off their own bike.

  42. 42.

    Aussie Sheila

    @mrmoshpotato: Our EV market is barely alive. We are waiting for cheaper US or Japanese alternatives to Tesla. Our car manufacturing industry was deliberately killed by the worst, most reactionary prime minister we have ever had. One Tony Abbott.
    However I am confident once reasonably cheap EVs become available, they will be very popular here. No one likes the oil companies, and everyone will like the combination of getting something cheaper together with the moral superiority of sticking it to the oil companies. Win Win!

    Oh and re helmets. Anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet when cycling is a moron.

  43. 43.

    mrmoshpotato

    @Aussie Sheila: ​
     

    I wish the US had a different constitution, but it doesn’t as I keep saying to friends here in Oz.

    So that we could do what?

  48. 48.

    Central Planning

    @NotMax: I believe that is correct. The redevelopment that has happened there has been positive and no real impact on traffic. I also think some more housing was built there, but I don’t know if that’s subsidized or what.

  50. 50.

    Martin

    @Geminid: I think the young people simply can’t afford the cars, TBH. My son is up in an outskirt of Santa Cruz and doesn’t drive. Car ownership costs in the US averages about $1/mile or about $36/hr of driving. It’s WAY more than people realize, but the costs are so spread out you don’t really realize it. To him, he has a choice of driving a car or maybe being able to buy a house. He’s opting the latter. Even with his 6 figure salary he doesn’t see a way to do both. Maybe if housing prices come down.

    The university I worked at was a leader on the adoption of electric buses – first in the US. They broke a lot of misconceptions. The first was that the buses would be too expensive compared to diesel, and yes, the acquisition cost were a lot higher but the operational costs covered that within 2 years. Operating a bus service is goddamn expensive to keep on top of preventative maintenance, fuel, etc. $200K per bus more seems like too much to make up, but it turns out it’s really not. And this is free bus service so no fare box revenue. The bus service is student operated, and they did the math and figured out it would pay off. The other surprise was how much usage went up. This surprised even the students. Turns out a lot of people don’t like the sensations of being in a bus, mainly the combination of diesel fumes and the jerkiness of a standard bus transmission. Electric bus solves both of those. Continuous transmission is much smoother to ride on, and no fumes. Ridership doubled. If you don’t like buses, you might like an electric one. I certainly shifted from the former to the latter – and I used to ride buses in NY all the time.

    In my city we don’t see a shift. There’s probably a few reasons for that but the first one precludes testing the others. The transit here is run at the county level – which had been republican controlled, like, forever. Dems got the majority last election. We’ll see where that goes. The city runs a much smaller service that is really targeted to older riders, and folks that can’t drive. When looking at transit options, the bus ran hourly, and took 50 minutes to go the 4 miles to my office due to having to go in the wrong direction and then transfer. I could walk it in about 70 minutes. I can bike it in 15. I couldn’t even drive it in 15 – closer to 25.

    My city is considering doing something more, but the money going to the county, building a new system, etc. Ideally, the county would do this investment, even with increased buy-in from the cities. That might be possible now with the county under Democratic control. We’ll see.

    School buses will come first. The city did try to do light rail about 15 years ago and it was narrowly voted down. I suggested the city run a survey and see if it might pass a 2nd effort. I think it’d pass now. A neighboring city is doing some light rail, but there’s larger effort to run a light rail down from LA to near here, so do we try and integrate with that effort? It’s hard. A lot of different efforts all  with their own goals, mostly being coordinated from the bottom up.

  51. 51.

    Nukular Biskits

    The ONLY reason I have a Twitter (and Facebook) account is to interact w/ my elected officials (who, I know, never apparently read their Twitter feed and have staffers blurt stuff out into the ether) and to criticize our supposedly “librul” local media.

    A couple (?) of weeks ago, something changed where my feed was flooded with a craptacular load of rightwing bullshit; i.e., Twitter sending me “recommended” tweets of accounts followed by the people I followed (which is a very small list).  I changed a couple of privacy settings and then finally noticed that my account had defaulted to “For you” instead of “Following”.

    In any case, I’m reminded of the adage that when the product is free, you’re the product.

  53. 53.

    Martin

    @Amir Khalid: The dutch don’t wear helmets. Helmets aren’t really for cyclist safety. They’re really for transferal of liability. If you mow down a cyclist and they aren’t wearing a helmet, you can blame the cyclist. And that’s precisely what happens. You’re much more likely on a per passenger mile basis to suffer a head injury in a car than on a bike. Yet nobody wears a helmet in a car. But not wearing helmets make people much more likely to ride a bike. In a perverted way, if not wearing a helmet is the thing that results in you riding a bike than riding a car, you’re less likely to get a head injury just by not being in the car.

    It seems counterintuitive, but that’s what it is. Don’t get me wrong – wearing a helmet both in a car and on a bike would be better than not, but if you are okay with the risk in a car, then you’re automatically okay with the risk on a bike. And everyone is okay with the risk in a car – other than racecar drivers.

  56. 56.

    Aussie Sheila

    @mrmoshpotato: Actually institute ‘one vote, one value’ that’s what.

    Your Constitution was fabulously modern in the late 18th century. It is now a danger to the democratic world. Rigid, beset by reactionary idiots that make it either the word of God or the wisdom of the ages that only 18th century landholders could intuit. An electorate college  that permits the loser of the majority vote to win the most powerful position in the world.  It is to laugh. Then to cry.

    Except the US is powerful and its people are mad with either US exceptionalism or with reactionary garbage that in any other polity that is remotely democratic would not be remotely plausible. But with the electoral college and outrageous gerrymandering and voter suppression permitted by the ‘greatest democracy in the world’ we are all held hostage to 30% of the US electorate that are a testament to the lack of mental health support in that country.
    I have a great deal of respect for Usians that I have worked with in the past, but you guys are out of your minds if you think that the traditional ‘soft power’ beloved of your elites still exists for most of the democratic world. Trump put paid to that, and the longer he is not able to be brought to account simply underlies the travesty of it all.

  58. 58.

    Martin

    @NotMax: Worse, in terms of passenger mile, walking has a higher incident of head injuries than biking. That’s probably due to pedestrians being hit by cars, though. About 20% of all road fatalities in the US are pedestrians. That’s going up as cars get bigger.

  61. 61.

    Baud

    A group of neurologists and trauma surgeons drawn from some of the leading hospitals in the Netherlands are calling on people to wear helmets while cycling, saying it will lead to a reduction in deaths resulting from brain injuries.
    United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury

  63. 63.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Baud: Is anyone seriously suggesting that wearing bike helmets should not be compulsory? Christ, it’s like ‘wearing seatbelts is a danger if I got into a car accident and couldn’t get out of my car’.

    Grow. The . Fuck. Up.

  64. 64.

    Betty Cracker

    @Aussie Sheila: I agree the dumb tradition of regarding the U.S. Constitution as holy writ is a tremendous — and perhaps insurmountable — obstacle to progress. The country’s founders were forward-thinking enough to build in a mechanism to enact change, but their insistence on investing great power in land masses rather than people has welded shut that safety valve.

    PS: Why do you call us “Usians”?

  65. 65.

    Gvg

    @Martin: Safety is always helmets. You are so wrong in wanting to ditch them. Too bad that you don’t like them. Wear one anyway. The medical facts are clear. You need them when doing all kinds of things in your own driveway, heads are precious and so is your brain. Florida repealed it’s motorcycle helmet law just to prove how stupid we can be and I have a short fuse on this subject ever since.

  69. 69.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @Betty Cracker: In any debate about the constitution, the first words are just window dressing, simply ignored:

    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”

    Meaning, it isn’t perfect and probably never will be.

  71. 71.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @Betty Cracker: ​I know that some residents of Central and South America take umbrage at our usurpation of the term “Americans.” After all, they are Americans too.

  73. 73.

    Baud

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    I always thought that complaint was a little silly. How common is it for people to identify with their hemispheric continents? Is there a real world usage of “American” that leads to confusion?

    ETA: Maybe the Organization for American States?

  77. 77.

    NotMax

    @OzarkHillbilly

    Also an acknowledgement that the Articles of Confederation which preceded it (What’s the technical term? Ah, got it.) kind of sucked donkey balls.
    ;)

  79. 79.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Aussie Sheila:

    People simply cannot, and will not, bike their children and groceries kilometres to and from home. End of story.

    Well sure, but it’s not an all-or-nothing sort of thing.

    It’s like the whole business of trying to build more dense housing within cities, and people yelp, “the libs are trying to force everyone to move back into the cities.”  Hell no, but we’d like to make it possible for everyone who wants to live in the city, to live in the city.

    And same with mass transit and bike lanes.  If they’re not there, nobody can choose to use them.  But if they are there, a lot of people might.  Doesn’t have to be everybody to make a big difference.

    And if you get all three going – abundant in-city housing, mass transit, and bike lanes – car-free living is suddenly possible for a whole lot of people.  And again, it doesn’t have to be everybody to make a big difference.

  81. 81.

    Gvg

    Bikes are not going to be much of our transportation solution in the USA. They are going to help in places as appropriate and fitting certain circumstances mostly adding on to things after we solve other bigger issues. California just doesn’t have the extreme weather of much of the rest of the country too. Plus the whole country has a lot of different situations so no one local experience works everywhere. We need a bunch of things done all at once and not saying do this one thing not all these other ideas. Fighting over which idea is the only best idea derails anything getting done and I think sometimes the fight is instigated by the reactionaries who don’t want anything done. So bikes and ebikes will be a part of it, but not the big leader part.

    In my area, bucking my state trend, buses had been getting more and more useful for the last 20 years. The University funded them. Students rode free the whole city with student ID. The local community college didn’t join in for one semester and found out their students complained too much and so they bought in. Later, the local county school system bought in so regular school kids could ride to magnet programs and I guess even libraries or home after sports when the buses weren’t running.  It expanded slowly, more regular people bought passes, more routes for poor and middle working class but it was pretty useful. The pandemic really hurt it and it hasn’t bounced back. Worker shortages, people not as open to buses, road building projects started during the shutdown has made campus buses less useful. A whole bunch of things. I think the driver shortage may be permanent because of the demographic shift ending the excess of workers. People are now doing scooters (mini motorcycles) instead of buses which is a step backwards IMO but also a lot of electric scooter thing which is like a skateboard with a handle-called a scooter also but not the same thing at all. They are not as good for distance from home to school or work but useful on a big campus.

    Buses would help Floridas cities a lot. Most of them were increasing them before the pandemic, quietly year by year. They have to be grown with steady support. Trains could help but a lot of the lines have been dug up and given back to be jogging trails. Frustrates me no end, shortsighted years ago. So we need busses. Can’t do subways, the water table is just below ground.

    people don’t concentrate in areas with cheap land because it costs more to build higher with stronger support of weight than to build on the ground when land is cheap. So in empty places like the middle of the country you cannot get them to see the point of spending so much more money to require building concentrated and having urban type transit. In California and the big cities where land is expensive the cost equation is different and so are the transit choices. Same East coast. My area is kind of mixed with pressures both ways which makes choice confusing and easy to argue endlessly. So you have to plan for all the scenarios including one that starts one way and is going to change to the other in a few decades.

  82. 82.

    Aussie Sheila

    @OzarkHillbilly: Indeed. The Americans span the peoples living from the tip of South America (Tierra delFuego) to the Arctic Circle encompassing Canada and Alaska (US).

    It is like using the term ‘Asian’ to describe people living anywhere between the Indian sub continent  and North Korea.

    Simply ludicrous, but people need shortcuts and there you go.

  84. 84.

    Baud

    White people have flocked back to city centers — and transformed them

    In the past decade, the White population increased significantly in urban cores across the country, bringing changes both sweeping and intimate

  87. 87.

    Soprano2

    @Martin: I’d take public transit if we had anything but a bus where it takes an hour to get to my job that’s 3 miles from my house. It’s not safe to ride a bike to work here, and I’m not taking my clothes to work to change every day, and I’m definitely not riding to work in the rain or snow. Everything you say about this is good, but not practical for a lot of people.

    Getting rid of parking minimums is good, parking lots are rarely full.

  88. 88.

    NotMax

    Didn’t we have a “call people what they ask to be called” thread recently? Seems like only yesterday.
    :)

  90. 90.

    Aussie Sheila

    @NotMax: Happy to oblige. What do US citizens ask to be called?

    Make sure you are inclusive and don’t make me embarrassed when I follow your lead.

  92. 92.

    Princess

    Getting rid of the blue verified accounts is going to radically improve Twitter because now it’s cumbersome to figure out who pays for blue and who is actually a notable person. Once blue verified is gone, you can just block everyone with a blue check mark and radically improve your feed.

  93. 93.

    OzarkHillbilly

    WTF is going on here today? This is the 2nd time this AM I have made a comment only to have it disappear into the ether, this time a reply to @Aussie Sheila: and I really don’t feel like going to the trouble of recomposing it again.

    and now the comment box is eating things when I copy my comment for safe keeping

  96. 96.

    Birdie

    @Aussie Sheila: fyi I’m now one of those people living out on the fringe in Australia’s largest city. Actually I think most people live here because they can afford it, the inner city is too expensive. No need to look down on the “choices” of people in the outer suburbs.

  97. 97.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Martin:

    The US and EU don’t really even compete in that space (apart from Tesla). The US (maybe also Aus) are unique in that our EV market is focused on bigger/heavier vehicles. Every other market is smaller/lighter.

    Here’s the best selling car in the EU vs the US. 

    Jeez, my wife would buy a Fiat Panda just because of the name – she’s rather panda-obsessed.

    But you’d think there’d be enough people in the US to be a market for a small, light car like that.  Especially as part of a switch to EVs: less weight to have to push around should mean greater range.  Or same range, smaller battery, faster charging time.

  99. 99.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @Baud: ​I am totally mystified. It has never happened to me before. While this site is a little buggy at times, it has never done anything I would complain about. The 1st time I thought I had just… I don’t know, screwed up somehow or other. This time I know I didn’t. So now, before I hit the post button I am copying everything for later pasting if necessary.

  100. 100.

    Aussie Sheila

    @Baud: Ha yes I remember from when I travelled in Asia in the ‘70s and in Europe 20 years later. But I don’t care what people want to be called, happy to oblige. I just care that people understand that their power and their politics effects everyone on planet earth and that not everyone thinks that their system and their own self conception is shared by everyone else, especially and in particular by polities that share some of your characteristics, but not those that foreclose democratic control of the most powerful and violent country on earth.

  101. 101.

    Princess

    @Aussie Sheila:

    Quite apart from the commuting distances,  weather is another issue. You’re never going to be able to use a bike as primary mode of transport year round in the northern quarter of the country and that means you’re going to have to pay for two full systems and you won’t get the cost savings Martin is talking about. Besides, the Netherlands is the size of a postage stamp. My sister has lived there for 30 years. Raised two kids, never owned a car. It’s great! So I know it very well, which is why I know what Martin describes is not realistic for the most part for here. And I can promise you, no one is chatting with cyclists in Amsterdam. Those guys will drive over you as soon as look at you. More bikes=good! More public transport is a far better solution to our problems though.

  102. 102.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Birdie:

    fyi I’m now one of those people living out on the fringe in Australia’s largest city. Actually I think most people live here because they can afford it, the inner city is too expensive. No need to look down on the “choices” of people in the outer suburbs.

    That’s certainly true in much of the U.S.  Even close-in suburban housing prices are stratospheric here in the DC area, which is why my wife and I are out here in the exurbs of Calvert County.  The cities that still have affordable housing in the city tend to be the cities where the jobs went somewhere else.

  107. 107.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Gvg:

    Trains could help but a lot of the lines have been dug up and given back to be jogging trails. Frustrates me no end, shortsighted years ago.

    The theory at the time was that if trains ever came back, the routes would still be there and could be converted back from jogging and bike trails to train rights-of-way. But of course once you’ve got a lot of people using the jogging trails, there’s going to be resistance to converting them back to trains.

  108. 108.

    OzarkHillbilly

    @NotMax: ​I did that yesterday and I can’t help thinking that is the source of my problems. Or at the very least it is a contributing factor.

  111. 111.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Martin:

     About 20% of all road fatalities in the US are pedestrians. That’s going up as cars get bigger.

    And from what I have read, bigger cars with more vertical front ends are a big part of the problem.  If the car is your (increasingly less) typical sedan, a low-speed car-person collision in a crosswalk will wind up with the pedestrian on the car’s hood.  If the front end of the car is basically a chest-high wall relative to the walker, that’s not going to happen, so the pedestrian is going to be knocked to the asphalt, and asphalt > skull.

  112. 112.

    marklar

    When I was 6 years old (back in the Nixon years), I came up with a plan that all sidewalks should be replaced with conveyor belts. That could eliminate the need for so many pesky cars.  Heck, we wouldn’t even need to wear helmets. Toss in some heaters and a rain-cover (for people who live in a world where temperatures are variable and there is this thing called precipitation), and you’d have something even more practical!

    Sounds impractical, you say? The goal isn’t to abolish cars but to better contextualize their benefits and costs in comparison to other modes of transit, and forms of public spending. Mockery may be involved.

  114. 114.

    BellyCat

    @Amir Khalid: Cars made suburbs. Air conditioning made summer traffic jams tolerable (and sealed police inside closed cars). Just ban air conditioning from cars to kickstart some profound change.

  117. 117.

    Ken

    @Michael Bersin: Also, repeating the phrase “but it’s a dry heat” adds a little positive reinforcement.

    Unless you follow up with “Like an oven. Or a crematorium.”

  118. 118.

    Barry

    @Martin: “I mean, he’s a smart guy in technical sense, but emotionally he’s a child like Trump. So knowledge comes to him but wisdom doesn’t.”

     

    The word is that at PayPal, he was the ‘guy whose father owns an emerald mine’.  At SpaceX, they put actual competent people in charge, and insulated the company from him.  Same at Tesla.

  119. 119.

    Ken

    While recognizing that social media often has weird definitions (mandatory XKCD), I just don’t see how the last (Musk) tweet up there “to test whether you see my private tweets more than my public ones” can make any sense at all.  “Private” is the same as “public” except you’re shown more of a person’s private tweets?

    Is it just a marketing term now? “Our new PRIVATEℱ brand tweets guarantee you UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of your IMPORTANT Information, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS!”

  120. 120.

    Denali5

    @Martin,

    I was truly shocked to read your stand on bike helmets. I don’t like seat belts, but I wear them. It’s for safety. I don’t like shots, but I got them. They reduce the risk. There is enough risk in life; why not do the safe thing when you have the option?

  121. 121.

    barbequebob

    @lowtechcyclist: FWIW, for most of the rail trails I am familiar with in the Northeast USA, the original railroad right of way is 100 feet wide, and the trail about 15. So physically there may be room, but converting the vegetated corridor that runs along the rail trail to add back the tracks would alter the experience on the trail. It may be worth it, but this is something to consider.

  123. 123.

    Bupalos

    @Geminid: a helmet would still reduce head injuries further, and you’re still at higher risk for head injury in your car.

    I’m being a little flippant, but trying to performatively match the oversimplification of the bike helmet scolds. It’s actually a complicated issue.

    What’s not complicated is that by far the greatest bike safety issue is simply the behavior and prevalance of cars. As martin aluded, the bike helmet scolding is a way of transfering responsibility to the person already making the more broadly responsible social choice.

  124. 124.

    trnc

    @Alison Rose: It’s like a kid taking apart a clock radio* to see how it works

    Exactly! Wait, what’s a clock? Is that that thing I’ve heard about that dials numbers?

    I kid! I took apart clocks AND, get this, boom boxes. Did I just blow your mind?

  125. 125.

    trnc

    @James E Powell: I did something like that with my first amp. It still worked, but it had all kinds of issues.

    I’ve done that with success for very simple things like soldering a jack connection, but I learned my limits. Sadly, there’s only one guy in the area I trust anymore to actually fix an amp and, as you can imagine, his wait list is months.

  127. 127.

    Baud

    @Bupalos: Here’s what Martin said.

    The impediment is safety. If you can isolate bikes from cars and still be able to get where they need to go, with new things like ebikes and cargo bikes to address hills, and some shift in the culture from early adopters like me being visible, people will adopt it. Safety also allows helmets to be ditched.

    That’s simply no basis for the conclusion that the purported increase in safety justifies ditching helmets, and it’s not scolding to point that out.  There’s still a policy question of whether it should be mandatory or the biker’s choice, as there is with any safety measure, but it’s not as if helmets only protect against collisions with cars.

  128. 128.

    Betty Cracker

    @Barry: Yep. The Twitter debacle exploded the myth of Musk’s alleged business genius and produced copious evidence that his technical savvy is less robust than advertised too.

    Turns out he is a born-rich white man who found himself in the right place at the right time. Funny how often that happens in his demographic!

  129. 129.

    Baud

    An estimated 20 percent of fatal pedalcyclist crashes had a
    pedalcyclist fatality with a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher.
    ■ An estimated 12 percent of fatal pedalcyclist crashes had a
    driver involved with a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher. (Note: It
    is illegal in every State to drive with a BAC of .08 g/dL or
    higher. However, Utah set a lower threshold of .05 g/dL or
    higher that went into effect on December 30, 2018.)
    ■ An estimated 3 percent of fatal pedalcyclist crashes had
    both a pedalcyclist and a driver involved with BACs of .08
    g/dL or higher.

    https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813197

  131. 131.

    artem1s

    so balloon hysteria is over…so I guess we’re back to paying attention to attention whores

  132. 132.

    Geminid

    @Bupalos: I figured you were being flippant. But “scold” is a very loaded word to use for “advocate.” I think the merits of wearing bike helmets are so obvious it’s understandable that people would react as emphatically  as they did to a contrary view.

  133. 133.

    Stacib

    @Denali5: There are times when Martin’s post are not written towards the reality of the masses. Aussie Sheila is my hero today for clearly pointing out why cars will forever and always be necessary.

  134. 134.

    Bupalos

    @Baud:

    The scolding was “Anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet when cycling is a moron.” Not your post. And not limited to this forum.

    However, it really is a complex issue and there really is some point at which improving the surrounding bicycle safety environment does indeed make the choice of a helmet quite marginal. In the absence of cars, it’s often simply not any more dangerous than a vast array of activities we’ve always done without extra protection. I’m really only trying to call attention to the way paying particular attention to the helmet issue and simplifying it this way is often a kind of derailing.

  135. 135.

    Baud

    @Bupalos:

    In the absence of cars, it’s often simply not any more dangerous than a vast array of activities we’ve always done without extra protection.

    I have no idea.  I looked for stats and info on the subject, which I’ve posted, and I haven’t seen anyone else put up information about how dangerous bikes are in the absence of cars, either in absolute terms or in relation to other comparable activities

    ETA: Of course, assessing the level of danger is only the first step.  Each activity needs to be considered on its own terms in deciding what type of protective gear is warranted.

  137. 137.

    Bupalos

    @Geminid:

    I think the merits of wearing bike helmets are so obvious it’s understandable that people would react as emphatically  as they did to a contrary view.

    Except this reaction is coming in a hypothetical about a future with vastly improved bike infrastructure and environmental where the merits are not so obvious. Or else we have to say the Dutch are “morons.” I don’t think so. I think they actually generally know what they are doing and making a rational choice that is being judged from another (generally inferior) culture. I think that judgement comes from a world of cars where the advantages of biking are not actually understood or accepted.

  138. 138.

    Baud

    @Bupalos:

    I think they actually generally know what they are doing and making a rational choice that is being judged from another (generally inferior) culture.

    I don’t know why we assume that the Dutch’s choice is rational, rather than a subjective preference.  And I have no problem judging other cultures, just as other cultures have no problem judging ours, regardless of ones own view of superiority or inferiority

    ETA: As I’ve pointed out above, a bunch of Dutch doctors don’t think it’s so rational.

  140. 140.

    Ken

    @trnc: I took apart clocks AND, get this, boom boxes.

    From MASH: Charles Winchester says “I dissected frogs as a child,” Hawkeye Pierce says “Lots of kids did that,”, Winchester responds “Ah, but I could put them back together.”

    Nowadays kids don’t have these challenges, since once you open the thing up it’s a single-chip circuit board with wires running to the buttons and displays.

  141. 141.

    Bupalos

    @Baud: Well, subjective isn’t the opposite of rational. What I mean to say is that they are making a maximizing choice within their subjective value system, and one that makes a lot of sense to me. It isn’t going to make sense to anyone without at least a bit of the Dutch sensibility.

  142. 142.

    Baud

    @Bupalos: Sure.  That’s always the case with safety requirements or practices.  You see the same thing here with motorcycle helmets.

  143. 143.

    Bupalos

    @Geminid: Well, yes, that’s actually the point. We’re in car world, where riding in cars has already been rendered about as safe as it’s reasonable to render it without meaningfully infringing on the activity. Tacking a helmet on that I think we’d all consider ridiculous, not because it doesn’t create an additional level of safety that on it’s own is obviously preferable. But because COME ON I’M LIVING MY CAR LIFE HERE!!!

    We’re unwilling to extend the same consideration to bike-world because we don’t live there or accept that there is anything to consider in bike world beyond safety.

  144. 144.

    NotMax

    @Baud

    Plus, being the European country with the tallest average height, they have further to fall and sustain injury on impact.
    ;)

  145. 145.

    Anne Laurie

    @Betty Cracker: Turns out he is a born-rich white man who found himself in the right place at the right time. Funny how often that happens in his demographic!

    When I was growing up, it was said of such people, He was standing outside with a bucket when it started raining soup.

  146. 146.

    Geminid

    @Bupalos:Give me a brake! That’s just a straw herring.

    There are good reasons to advocate for bicycle helmets but no one’s doing it as a vindication of automotive transport..

  147. 147.

    Elizabelle

    @Baud:

    When we travel abroad, we like to be called Canadians.

    Just had to see that again.  LOL.  Not a bad strategy.

  148. 148.

    TerryC

    @Baud: That’s simply no basis for the conclusion that the purported increase in safety justifies ditching helmets, and it’s not scolding to point that out.  There’s still a policy question of whether it should be mandatory or the biker’s choice, as there is with any safety measure, but it’s not as if helmets only protect against collisions with cars.

    Actually, helmet use is something I got Andrew Sullivan to change his mind about! After I told him the story of watching a young bicyclist with a crushed skull die in my arms in the 1980s, and described my own years of PTSD that resulted from watching the trauma up close, he agreed with me on helmet usage.

    Had the young man, a Coast Guard Academy graduate, a parachutist and a SCUBA diver, been wearing a helmet he may have still been alive today.

  149. 149.

    Bupalos

    @Baud: Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, the Dutch have a biking fatality rate that is 4 times lower than the US with a helmet usage rate close to zero.

    Just to make sure “Dutch sensibility” isn’t intended as “increased appetite for risk.”

  150. 150.

    Baud

    @Bupalos: I don’t see how that’s relevant.  If our fatality rate is lower than India’s or China’s (and I don’t know), does that mean we shouldn’t use safety measures?

  151. 151.

    Bupalos

    @Geminid: It comes as a package. The FOCUS on bike helmets as any kind of main point in bike safety – when it’s actually a very marginal last line of defense – comes from a place where we aren’t going to question the supremacy of cars. It’s not a conscious thing.

    The Dutch questioned that and got to a much better place for everyone. None of which is to say that we can neccesarily do the same. But I think it is good to see Martin’s original point about transferring liability. Biking is dangerous because of cars and their behavior.

  152. 152.

    Bupalos

    @TerryC: I assume a car was involved? This conversation began with changing infrastructure to make biking more prevalent and safer, which would save many more lives than helmets ever could.

    And just to clarify my position, I almost always wear a helmet because I am almost always biking in a sub-optimal biking environment, that includes cars that don’t seem to accept my valid presence on the road. I also don’t kid myself that the helmet keeps me safe, it doesn’t, it marginally reduces my odds of death.

  153. 153.

    Bupalos

    @Baud: In no place am I arguing for reduced safety measures. I’m arguing focusing on increasing helmets is more or less a substitute for actual safety improvements.

  154. 154.

    different-church-lady

    Twitter, like much social media, works on gratification & adrenaline interwoven w/ ~group dynamics~. We want to see things that interest us. We also want to see things that interest our friends. We want to see things that anger us. And we want to see things that anger our friends procrastinate.

  155. 155.

    Baud

    @Bupalos: Who’s “focusing” on helmets? The only reason this came up is that Martin tried to say that better safety in other areas allows helmets to be “ditched.”  That’s not accurate because (1) people can choose to ditch helmets even if safety isn’t improved and (2) better safety doesn’t answer the policy question of whether the additional safety provided by helmets is worth the tradeoff.

  156. 156.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Bupalos: I don’t recall anyone arguing about increasing helmet usage.  Just arguing that Martin’s comment about ditching helmets was problematic.  That is, there is a case to be made for helmets even in the absence of cars.

  157. 157.

    different-church-lady

    @Ken: You ever seen the inside of a smart phone? There’s plenty of stuff you can disconnect from other stuff.

  158. 158.

    different-church-lady

    @lowtechcyclist: Some rail trails are “railbanked”, others aren’t.

    The real hard part are the ones where  parts of the right of way have already been built over.

  160. 160.

    different-church-lady

    You want the real solution to the car problem? Eliminate 90% of the population at random.

  163. 163.

    Bupalos

    @Baud:

    We aren’t really disagreeing here, but I don’t really wanna “meta” argue about what was meant or what the conversation is. I want to make the point that helmets are a very thin last line of defense that, as Martin suggest, can be rendered marginal rather than critical with other more important changes that can yield benefits to all. I think there is a general focus in the United States on helmets as a big part of bike safety, and that that focus comes from a place of not being willing to question the complete and natural supremacy of cars.

  167. 167.

    kalakal

    @bjacques:

    Souped up thuggish e-bikes are the big worry now, hacked to to 35 or 40 km/h in bike lanes

    I lived in the Netherlands in the late 70s & 80s and this problem predates e-bikes. The Dutch & I love Bromfiets which in those days were light mopeds, basically a heavy bike frame with an up to 50cc IC engine. They differed from classic italian mopeds, being much more like regular bikes, you had to be able to pedal them etc etc. They used the bike lanes and in theory you couldn’t go more than 25 km/h. Age 16 and above you didn’t need a licence. They could easily do 40 so of course 16 year olds did. A few years earlier I remember wimbling around in Normandy on an autovelo which was the same thing. Loved it

  168. 168.

    StringOnAStick

    @Baud: I’ve been a mountain biker for just over 30 years and in that culture, not wearing a helmet signals “I’m an idiot” so my habit is that I never ride even my “townie bike” without one.  It keeps the sun out my eyes most of the time and keeps sun off it.  There’s nothing quite like sunburning where you part your hair; the fun of brushing the burn, the attractive peeling phase.  Oh, and we had a friend hit by a car, a woman putting on make-up in the relatives mirror mowed him down in the bike lane at 45 mph.  He wasn’t wearing his helmet (he became a RW reactionary so he had the you’re not the boss of me tendency); it took 6 months for him to learn how to read again and while he was able to work again as a programmer amazingly enough, he went from near genius to pretty good; physically he was never the same.

    Helmets are important.  I cringe when I see the local 13 year olds absolutely flying on which powered ebikes, weaving in and out of traffic, with no helmet.

  169. 169.

    pinacacci

    @Anne Laurie:  I am always late to the morning coffee but please can you tell me if this saying is a regional thing because I love it and I’m curious.

    I love colloquialisms.  One of my favorites was chicken eggs = ‘cackleberries.’  I learned that one from an old man in N. FL about 20 years ago; he was around 80 at the time.

  170. 170.

    Bill Arnold

    @Aussie Sheila:

    But cheaper and better EVs will be a quicker and more palatable solution for a long time, until people are able to either work from home, or people who must work in the real outside world are willing and able to afford homes closer to their work.

    [probably rehashing some things already covered in the thread.]
    There is also no serious reason an EV needs to be as large as typical American vehicles, excepting for multiple passengers. And an enclosed vehicle (typically 4 wheels) provides more protection than a 2 wheeled vehicle, from the elements and from some at least some accidents. (Collisions with 3 ton SUVs are best avoided.) Smaller parking spaces could then be made a norm, like in Europe.
    For arid regions like parts of California, electric (or assisted) bikes or scooters/motorcycles can also be a game changer., particularly if there are large changes in elevation even for short trips. One advantage of not enough water. :-)

  171. 171.

    Origuy

    I was seventeen back in the days when there were no bicycle helmets. I was cycling home from town and got my wheel caught in a railroad track that was at a oblique angle to the road. I went over the handlebars and hit my head on the pavement (presumably, I don’t remember.) I was knocked out lying on the tracks. Although it was not a busy track, trains still ran on it. Fortunately, someone put me and the bike in the back of his truck and took me to the hospital. I woke up with a concussion and thirteen stiches in my upper lip. If I had been wearing a helmet. I probably would have walked away, probably still requiring a visit to the ER. I started wearing a helmet as soon as they became available.

    Cars have seat belts and airbags.

  172. 172.

    Bill Arnold

    @Princess:
    I’ve been using the “Eight Dollars” firefox plugin to distinguish between paid verified (block on sight, mostly) and legacy-real-verified.
    Musk’s whim, whether it will continue to work on February 9 when some of the twitter APIs are disabled.

  173. 173.

    azlib

    I live in AZ in Scottsdale and I do bike (for exercise) in the summer very early in the morning. It is really not that bad. Also, Scottsdale was an extensive bike infrastructure which includes dedicated paths and bike lanes. The irrigation canal system helps where many of the paths are along the canals. From where I live I can bike to downtown Scottsdale in about 30 minutes entirely on a dedicated path.

    As for the bike helmet debate I am glad I wear one, since I fell off my bike and the impact would have been directly on my forhead if I was not wearing a helmet. I am sure I woudl have been concussed without one. Helmet wearing is just not a big deal.

    I am also a big believer in multimodal transportation systems where people can have meaningful choices as to what mode of transportation makes the most sense. We (here in the US) need to do a much better job of integrating our transportation systems. I was quite impressed with Portland’s system. I was able to fly into Portland and catch the trolley at the airport which dropped me off at my hotel/convention center without the hassle of renting a car or using an expensive taxi.

  174. 174.

    TomV

    @frosty:

    >Second point: cold weather, freezing rain, and snow. No way am I commuting or shopping in winter weather.

    Saw a biker on black-ice and cobblestones in Prague a few weeks ago.  We were having trouble walking…..

  175. 175.

    Martin

    @lowtechcyclist: They’ve tried. Americans went from 80% light passenger to 80% truck/SUV in 20 years. You can’t sell a small car in the US because people (understandably) believe that they will get absolutely eviscerated by that 6100lb F-150. At least bikes have the opportunity to not be around that F-150 – a Fiat Panda doesn’t.

    Car buying in the US is a kind of mutually assured destruction.

  176. 176.

    Martin

    @Barry: He didn’t even last long enough at PayPal to be there when it was called PayPal. They fired him for cause before the name change. But he still owned a share of the company.

  177. 177.

    J R in WV

    I have a friend who lives primarily in NYC on the upper west side of Manhattan. Very smart person, formerly an industrial designer. Rides a bike in Central Park strenuously for exercise. Was coming down a hill on a bike path one day and woke up in the ER. A raptor stooped on a squirrel beside the bike path, and hit his front wheel, fatal accident for the bird, he went over the handle bars, seriously concussed and broke several bones including his neck.

    Fortunately John made a complete recovery after considerable rehab. No cars were involved in the accident. Had he not been wearing a helmet he would have been killed, or perhaps (worse) wound up a brain-dead nursing home prisoner for 30 years. Anyone riding a bike without a helmet should be detained for examination, too stupid or deluded for words — sorry Martin, this means YOU.

    Also worked with a brilliant person, software developer for scientific data collection and analysis. Their sister was in a terrible accident which she only survived because she wasn’t wearing a seat-belt and wound up on the floor of her vehicle while it slid under a tractor-trailer, which removed the top of the vehicle and would have chopped her in two had she not fallen onto the floor just in time. My coworker never used the seat-belts unless compelled because her mom made her promise not to use seatbelts, which condition saved the sister’s life.  A nearly unique circumstance not at all common in serious accidents. I always wear a seat-belt. Anecdata is not scientific information subject to statistical analysis, but it is still valuable information.

  178. 178.

    Martin

    @Denali5: I was truly shocked to read your stand on bike helmets. I don’t like seat belts, but I wear them. It’s for safety. I don’t like shots, but I got them. They reduce the risk. There is enough risk in life; why not do the safe thing when you have the option?

    So now that you know that you’re more likely to suffer a head injury in your car than I am on my bike, I assume you’ll start wearing a helmet in the car, correct? I mean “There is enough risk in life; why not do the safe thing when you have the option?” Also too when walking down the sidewalk.

    So, this is one of the things I ‘do’ in my retirement, I’m spending a lot of my mental cycles on philosophy –  a subject I enjoyed in college.

    Humans absolutely suck at assessing risk. Like, catastrophically bad at it, if the Chinese balloon incident didn’t make clear enough, and how the Covid situation played out. I’m a data guy, and if the data says that x is safer than y, I’m pretty good at getting my emotional brain to internalize that information. (My wife *really* is not).

    People take different risks. Yeah, I’m the weirdo that rides to the grocery store without a helmet and still puts on a mask to go in the store. I have a pretty good internal meter for the *relative* risk of those two activities. But neither is really influenced by that – both are largely acts of social disobedience. I wear the mask in the store because I think it is courteous to others, but also in no small part because I talk to a lot of people who have said they think they should be wearing masks but they don’t due to social pressure. I’m the asshole that doesn’t care what you think of me, so I’ll flip the tables on that social pressure. I’ll reinforce that it’s still okay to wear a mask. And in my community, mask wearing is still pretty common. Hopefully I’m helping maintain that. And I don’t mind wearing it. Putting on a mask doesn’t make me not want to go to the grocery store.

    Helmets are a different kind of signaling, that bikes are not inherently dangerous. The act of wearing a helmet internalizes that you are doing a dangerous thing. But driving is *more dangerous*. And if you decide the bike is too dangerous, what are you going to do – drive. Which is *more dangerous*. Yes, in the local context to just bikes, helmets are a net good. But in the system where bikes and cars interaction and each user has a choice of which to use, helmets are a net *bad*. They cause you to make worse decisions. They are bad public policy. Now, if the US were to *really* lean into a Vision Zero that would change. But we pay lip service to that. Countries that are making real progress toward have found one weird trick to achieve it – slow cars down. The speed limit in Paris is 25 km/h – 16 MPH. I don’t think there’s a single section of road in my city which is under 25MPH – even when kids are present walking to school. Hell, the arterials in my city, with unprotected bike lanes on the side are 60MPH – and littered with ghost bikes. My bike has a speed limiter – but cars don’t. If you murder a pedestrian with your car in the United States, so long as you aren’t drunk, you won’t go to prison. Not one person on this board thinks that if you are walking through your neighborhood with a gun, safety off, finger on the trigger and ‘accidentally’ shoot someone that you shouldn’t go to prison for that. But that happens 100 times a day with cars and drivers.

    Now, if you change these policies to make driving behavior different – accountable for injury/death, slower because it saves lives, etc. then you have an argument for bike helmet laws because you’ve done the policy work to swing that risk back toward riding a bike. Again, the helmet laws don’t exist to make cyclists safe. You could do that *better* with protected bike infrastructure, better maintenance of that infrastructure, etc. Those laws exist as a reason to not hold motorists accountable. I saw that first hand in reporting on a cyclist killed on my route to work who got pulled under the back of a large dump truck, as if 12 ounces of foam and plastic would protect his head from a 30 ton truck. Iron Man would have died in that incident. Not reported in the article was that the dump truck drifted into the bike lane and the cyclist had no where to go against a merging 30 foot long truck. The 2 year old who was riding her scooter on the sidewalk a block from my house a few months ago who got flattened by an SUV – she was wearing a helmet. She was on the sidewalk. She was two years old. No charges for the driver. You cannot isolate helmet laws from that larger system of policy because they only exist as part of that larger system of policy.

    So yeah, I generally don’t wear a helmet. Just like anyone else who want to jump in their car and run to the store, I want to do the same, and not have to figure out how to not have my helmet stolen when I get to the store, carry it with me through the store, wear it through the store, etc. If you don’t have to do that despite driving being dangerous, I should have the same right. And it is not my responsibility to mitigate the risk from drivers, just like it’s not kids responsibility to wear bulletproof vests to school.

    Sometimes you have to push back against the system. Understand, I’m fully aware that ‘Cause of Death’ will most likely have ‘collision with motor vehicle’ written next to it, but that’s the other side of the calculation. Not only are cars an individual risk, they are social one. Climate change demand we drive less. All of us. It’s gonna be fucking hard, don’t get me wrong. I’m here to say zooming along on an ebike is fun. It’s literally the most fun thing I do. It’s like being a kid again. And every other cyclist I meet out there – many of whom are my age (mid 50s) say the same thing. And it’s good – for all of us that we do that. Apart from our drives up to see my son, I drive about 20 miles a month.

    Put it this way – 60% of all car trips in the US are 3 miles or less. If those 60% were walking or biking or taking a bus or whatever, that alone would meet a substantial fraction of our needed climate reduction. You still drive to buy plywood. You still drive to visit the kids. Just convert the short trips. No need to relocate commerce or move everyone into high rises. Might need some dedicated pedestrian infrastructure built. But you could probably convert a shit-ton of parking land into housing (or more commerce) by shifting that car parking demand at the destination. You still live where you do. You still go where you go. But for short trips, you go differently. That’s all.

    Food for thought.

  179. 179.

    Martin

    @Baud: Right. I don’t take it as scolding, btw. None of this is intuitive to people any more, and most of it never was. Contextualizing risk is really, really hard. It’s almost impossible to convince a gun owner they’re safer not having a gun in the house than having one, for example. But the inflection point on climate change that drove things to crisis wasn’t the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century, it was the emergence of car culture in the 1950s. Note it was the oil companies, and not the coal companies that spotted the consequence. It was the folks making cars go, not the folks keeping our lights on, and they attributed the blame primarily to making the cars go.

    Climate change is a very different kind of risk, but I, like I think most parents, would say that they would take a bullet for their kids. For me, the risk of ongoing climate change is a greater risk to the people I care about (literally everyone) than not wearing a helmet is to me. If not wearing a helmet helps keep me out of a car, it’s a risk worth taking.

    People say they care about climate change. I ask, how much do you care? Enough to walk to the store? Ride a bike? Take a bus? Most of us here won’t really have to face that consequence. I’ll be 82 in 2050. Actuarially it’s a coin flip for someone my age. (Social Security says on average I’m good for 26 more). My kids, though, almost certainly will still be here dealing with the mess we are still creating, every day.

    At the very least I want to say I did my best. It’s not my best, I can do better, but I’m trying really damn hard. And if I could maybe bring a couple of you or my neighbors along? <chefs kiss>.

  180. 180.

    Martin

    BTW, that so many people felt the need to grab my offhand remark on helmet wearing and run with it is sort of indicative of the problem. My point that cars kill 40,000 people a year and are terrible for the environment (even EVs aren’t really good enough) and make the housing problem so much worse because car parking occupies more land area than housing does, and is really discriminatory to people with disabilities who need transit options (I wasn’t really even advocating for people to choose bikes as their alternate modal – buses, trolleys, trains, walking – all valid options. Transit actually being better than bikes.)

    But people decide to talk about helmets rather than talk about the real issue. So wear a helmet. Yeah, it’s safer. Not arguing that at all. Lot of people here eat bacon and drink soda. You know it’s terrible for you. You know it’s contributing to dying earlier. Nobody shaming you for eating/drinking it. FWIW I stopped drinking soda a decade ago and cut out bacon 3 years ago.

    Calculated risks – we all do it. But don’t let helmet policy be a distraction from the larger issue.

  181. 181.

    Martin

    @Geminid: There are good reasons to advocate for bicycle helmets but no one’s doing it as a vindication of automotive transport.

    At the policy level, oh hell yes they do. Not one bike helmet law was implemented when some kid wiped out and hit a curb. They all were implemented after a Buick wiped out a kid and people were outraged. They demanded something be doneℱ and bike helmet laws showed up. They aren’t implemented to protect cyclists, but to indemnify motorists. That they *happen* to protect cyclists is just a byproduct.

    Jaywalking is the same. It’s a license to run over pedestrians. The pedestrian was in the wrong place and deserved to die. It was explicitly implemented as a policy to protect drivers, not pedestrians. We know this. This is also why states are repealing them – it’s part of my observation above that the discussion is shifting. It’s a recognition that the roads do not or should not exclusively belong to cars. That perhaps accountability for car culture will start showing up. (Not holding my breath, but it’s a notable change).

    We know the history of these things and these are not unique examples, you find them all over the legal landscape. More likely they target minority groups to protect whites than a group like pedestrians to protect motorists. What do you think ‘voter ID’ laws are? They sure as shit aren’t there to protect the vote. We all know this.

  182. 182.

    StringOnAStick

    @Origuy: I once came across a woman who had crashed the same way you did; I saw the car get to close to her, she went down hard and they sped away.  Honestly, I thought she was dead.  She was wearing a helmet and the brain swelling rendered her less and less coherent by the minute once she woke up but if she hadn’t been wearing that now broken helmet, I think the impact would have been fatal.  Helmets save lives.

  183. 183.

    Anne Laurie

    @pinacacci: I picked it up while growing up in a blue-collar Irish-Catholic Bronx neighborhood in the 1960s.  That’s all I can attest!

  185. 185.

    Paul in KY

    @Martin: OK. Will state now that if you are in a serious bike accident that would have been less serious if you had been wearing a helmet, you are going to get a big steaming dish of ‘I told you so’. You will eat that dish without complaining.

Comments are closed.