Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic. This is why they often have a massively higher rate of fatalities, including in localities with good bike infrastructure.
> Expecting bike riders to follow traffic laws is also unrealistic.
Can you cite the research to back up your claim? Because I have the research claiming the opposite the cyclists are more compliant with traffic rules than cars [0]. Including in US [1]
Victims are not the ones running red lights, cutting across pedestrian sidewalks/pavements at 20+ mph, going down one-way-streets the wrong way, screaming at pedestrians to get out the way so they don't have to slow down when pedestrians are crossing on a green man etc etc etc.
At least in London the cyclists are absolutely lawless. Yes a lot are injured and some sadly die, but many many many totally ignore the rules (assuming they've even bothered to find out what the rules actually are).
It's only got worse with ebike hire (Lime at al) as people will hop on after drinking, or have never even got a driving license etc so have no actual idea on the rules that car drivers have to prove etc before they're let behind the wheel at all. And when they're done with their lime bike they literally just dump them wherever they're done with it, blocking sidewalks/pavements for everyone.
This antisocial cycling social-ill is very much at a "scourge" stage in London and is getting a lot of press.
Same behavior in Tucson and Denver. I hate cyclists. They're threatening, break the law, and self entitled. Drivers and walkers seem to get along fine for the most part. The one courtesy cyclists extend to the rest of us is that they self-identify by wearing spandex branded with logos from companies that don't sponsor them - some weird role-play poser fetish I guess.
But be honest - you don't really care about evidence.
Please don't do this on HN. It's against the guidelines to post “internet tropes”, and the purpose of HN is for curious conversation, whereas a link to this kind of URL is low-effort snark.
Also, your comment upthread breaks several guidelines; particularly the lines “some weird role-play poser fetish I guess” and “But be honest - you don't really care about evidence”.
Please make an effort to observe the guidelines if you want to participate here.
The actual trope in this conversation is "citation needed". That's a phrase which pretty much everyone here, yourself included, knows is the superficially civil (politely hostile) way of saying "you're full of shit".
Telling someone they're sealioning is just using a recently coined word. You also know that person wasn't sincerely asking for evidence - they were sealioning, and very hostile about it.
As for mocking cyclist fashion, that's just a case of falling on the wrong side of the fence. It's completely acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups and not others. In any given conversation, snark is allowed so long as it points in the agreed direction. And it's self-reinforcing, because anyone who goes against the grain is weeded out - as in your moderation here.
Anyways, I'm not sure what you could do differently. The alternative chat forums do seem consistently worse, so maybe this is as good as it gets.
> As for mocking cyclist fashion, that's just a case of falling on the wrong side of the fence. It's completely acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups and not others. In any given conversation, snark is allowed so long as it points in the agreed direction. And it's self-reinforcing, because anyone who goes against the grain is weeded out - as in your moderation here.
People who have conviction about issues with moderation include links to demonstrate what they mean. When people make vague insinuations like this without links, it's an indication that they just want to spray a little poison into the atmosphere, and evade accountability for their own conduct or examination of their claims.
If you have evidence of what you mean, please share links or quotes in the comments or email us (hn@ycombinator.com).
Either way, the guidelines apply to everyone equally, and it is never “acceptable here, encouraged even, to mock certain groups”.
> People who have conviction about issues with moderation include links to demonstrate what they mean.
Yes, I see you're using extra words to say "citation required". It's borderline clever, and fits the obvious intention of telling me I'm full of shit, except you're making a strong statement that also needs bolstering. How would you know if the alienated people just quietly go away or silence their opinions to fit in?
Regardless, it's acceptable here to mock climate deniers, capitalists (landlords, CEOs, Billionaires), SUV or truck drivers, religious fundamentalists, various flavors of conservatives, fans of "AI slop" (music or art), etc... You've got better search tools than I do to find the links.
I don't particularly want to defend any of those groups. I just wish we could add cyclists to the approved set, because they're frequently self-righteous hypocrites. I can see I'm unlikely to succeed in this endeavor.
> it's an indication that they just want to spray a little poison into the atmosphere
That seems a more than a bit uncharitable. Do you have any evidence to back it up? :-)
> evade accountability for their own conduct or examination of their claims.
I contradicted a jerk in defense/support of someone who said something I agree with. When the jerk doubled down and became truly belligerent, I bowed out of the conversation and let them have the last word before it turned into an actual flame war.
You came in 12 hours later with an "I don't care who started it" approach, looking for a reason to chastise both of us, and the worst crimes you could come up for me was some weird thing about troping and making fun of cyclist fashion.
Is that accountable enough? Am I supposed to feign penitence like the belligerent kid did?
> Regardless, it's acceptable here to mock climate deniers, capitalists (CEOs, Billionaires), SUV or truck drivers, religious fundamentalists, various flavors of conservatives, fans of "AI slop" (music or art)
No, it’s not acceptable to mock any of these categories. Never has been in the years I’ve been doing this job. Yes, people do it, in breach of the guidelines, and the community flags them and the moderators warn them then penalize or ban them. This has been consistent for years. What’s also consistent is that people who are strongly partisan towards one position are convinced we are biased towards the opposite of that position.
This isn't an example of that. You claimed something in your initial comment. You did not back it up.
I'm asking you to back up your initial claim. If you had addressed it you'd have a point, and that would be a correct example of sealioning.
But you haven't, so don't accuse me of sealioning.
This isn't me arguing in bad faith. This is me asking you to back up the claim you made in your first comment. That's arguing in good faith, if you only you are willing to provide the other side of the argument.
The “sealion” link and the abusive parts of their earlier comment are unacceptable and I've replied to their comment to make that known. However, these lines in your comment are also clear breaches:
> Back up your fucking claim.
> Really? Do you actually want to argue your point or is negative attention your fetish?
> ^this kind of argument is not fucking productive.
> So CITE YOUR SOURCES.
Please don't fulminate or post flamebait on HN, or use capitalization for emphasis. The entire purpose of HN is to engage in curious conversation about topics we find interesting, and to avoid furious battle like this.
Apologies, and noted. I wasn't my usual self, which is honestly what prompted me to give in to replying to them. I usually try to do better, and will do in future.
