It wasn’t voluntary for many of the athletes who didn’t compete, they were at the mercy of where they happened to live. Very much like how Israelis don’t live in Europe.

Entire countries have boycotted the Olympics over politics.

Sometimes I wonder how many dumbass small businesses Google Maps has kept afloat by the mere fact that they surface user photos of the menus on their business listings.

The CAFE fleet loophole, yeah. It’s less of a loophole at this point, more of an 8-lane interstate bypass. Cars have always been expensive items that not everyone can afford but you’re right, the margins between wages and car costs are wider today.

IQ is bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Ji0bU-fc8

A reminder that since it’s original establishment, through multiple changes of ownership, the mission of the NYTimes has always been to advocate for liberal centrism against any and all alternatives. Despite momentarily appearances to the contrary, NYTimes has never been and will never be a ‘progressive’ paper.

At no point have cars ever been “inexpensive”, they’ve just been more or less obtainable. Big difference, a car has always been a very large purchase.

Sup Bugsy

It’s an opinion piece written by career city planner, professor, and progressive urbanist Bill Lindeke which cites real numbers and facts that will remain a reality regardless of your feelings on the man’s rhetorical skill or unfamiliarity with modern journalism norms.

I think he’s right, by the way. Minnesota’s proposed state transit budget is dangerously regressive.

I’m just fucking around now, you’re alright OP.

Oh right, this is all ironic *wink*

Seriously though. I cannot imagine that this is what actually bothers you, right?

What probably actually bothers you is the systemic injustice of the world. Am I wrong?

What does the need to create divisive discourse around a popular leftist streamer serve to obscure about how you actually feel about the world?

Noooo I’ve been used by the devil yet again! Say it ain’t so!!

What the hell are you talking about… Asphalt is such an ideal surface for cycling that it was a national cycling club which started and led the public campaign to make it the default road surface.

Asphalt roads are literally cyclist-gotten gains. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water!

The fact of the matter is that anyone willing to pay $75K-$100K on average to climb a mountain is a prime mark for a $5K scam.

deleted by creator

Kinda feels like we’re talking in circles now, I keep putting context on your point that a helmet is always safer and you keep talking past the context and repeating that a helmet is always safer. It’s kinda silly. But one more try.

Statistically speaking it’s always better to wear a helmet no matter what you’re doing. Walking down the sidewalk with a helmet is safer than walking down the sidewalk without one. What I’ve been saying though, is that if only we build an environment that actually accommodates cyclist safety we find ourselves at a point where the benefits of wearing a helmet arguably outweigh the costs. And this isn’t just theory, the entirety of The Netherlands has been at this point for decades. They have both the highest rate of cycling and the lowest helmet use in the entire western world, both as a result of their dedication to infrastructure and culture that accommodates safe cycling. There is a Dutch person right here laughing at the “everyone should wear a helmet” truism that started this thread because they’re living my point. Of course this only applies once you actually have meaningful cycling infrastructure. I’m not saying that American cyclists shouldn’t wear a helmet most of the time. But I’m pushing back on the blanket cliché that “Everybody should wear a helmet all the time” because it’s not only untrue, when it is presented as the primary recommendation for improving cyclist safety it effectively functions to derail or minimize discussions of the things that actually make baseline everyday cycling safer: Good infrastructure. Good culture. Protection from the 40-ton trucks who’s tires will pop your skull like a watermelon regardless of if you have a helmet over it or not.

Does that make sense?

I still don’t get it, we know helmets protect, so the less cranial trauma you come across in your life the longer your life will be. It’s rather simple.

For most people a helmet’s inconvenience, discomfort, or cost is overkill for the danger presented by typical transportation cycling on good cycling infrastructure. This fact is not incompatible with your fact. Your fact is also correct.

What you are addressing here is just anti bike politics. If tomorrow everyone would agree to wear helmets, they would come up with speed restrictions for cycling. The goal is to be anti cycling. The idea they hide behind is replaceable.

That is a very strong argument for not promoting universal helmet use as a primary cycling safety concern.

There’s no faction, just statistics. When a helmet comes into play it’s overwhelmingly likely that the cyclist was either going intentionally fast or there was a car involved. But since not all cycling is for sport or alongside motor vehicles (Nor should it be!), universal helmet requirements often serve as an unnecessary obstacle to safe ubiquitous cycling and effectively function to displace blame for injuries caused by poor infrastructure or inattentive motorists onto the cyclist. Especially when universal helmet use is the first or primary suggestion brought up in discussions of bicycle safety, which is why it’s getting pushback here. Helmets have their place (I wear one as I like going fast and have to bike with cars where I live), but that place isn’t as the premiere prescription for cyclist safety.