“How the industrial revolution colonised our thinking”
>When we block traffic from a street, like for a sports event or a street party, we say that the street is “closed”.
Most people I know would say the road is closed, not the street. It’s why the sign says “road closure”
>Why are roads you can’t live next to, cycle on, or walk along called main roads?
Because it differentiates them from minor roads which carry less traffic and move more slowly?
>Why do we speak of “segregated” or “separate” cycle paths, when it’s actually motorists who’ve been given a separate space of their own?
Because it segregates or seperates cyclists from motor vehicles?
>Kager thinks traffic language stops us really seeing what’s happening in our streets. “Why do we talk about traffic accidents?
Again, most people I know would say car accident.
I shouldn’t take the piss. The author is getting paid for writing this drivel, whereas I’m not getting paid to roll my eyes at it, so who’s the real winner here
We say the road is closed because the road is for cars. The pavement isn’t closed or it would say the pavement is closed.
People (except the author of this shite) understand that a “road closure” means no access for cars.
And what is that drivel about roads being open for everyone before cars took it over?
Many people died on a regular basis from being trampled by horses because they wandered all over the roads.
Segregating cars and pedestrians by road and pavement is an improvement.
Important to note when discussing this piece that it’s a translation (presumably from Dutch).
People here malding over the obvious fact that our city centres should be more pedestrianised. Cars obviously aren’t going away and are necessary for some long distance travel (excluding trains etc), but we need to not let our love of cars and car culture make us miss the best solutions.
This is the most ‘Guardian’, Guardian article I’ve ever read…
This is like porn for cyclists. People actually get paid to write this utter drivel?
Oh fuck off with the “cars are evil” posts.
Nothings going to change regardless of the price of fuel and insurance. Buses and trains are still a much worse option.
Another day, another anti-car screed from a guardian writer who has never left islington. FFS the whole world is not central london.
Very interesting article gets you thinking, which is always good.
More of the usual idiotic anti car wank from the Guardian.
Any chance we can give it a fucking rest with the anti car stories? It’s like one a day at this rate.
Holy shit the absolute lack of understanding in this thread.
All these fucking carbrains making literally the exact point the article was making, except without a hint of irony and no clue as to why they’re wrong.
Almost every reply is salty about people not liking cars, calm the fuck down and accept that plenty of people don’t like your pollution machine. You want to not only drive everywhere but also you want me to pretend to like it too?
I thought this was an excellent article, and it’s point is being proven again and again in this thread.
There’s no such thing as “car culture”.
I commute to work on a bike and lot of people tell me that cycling in the road is dangerous and I tend to agree with their sentiment. But the road itself poses very little danger, the cars and the people driving them are what makes my commute so dangerous.
15 comments
“How the industrial revolution colonised our thinking”
>When we block traffic from a street, like for a sports event or a street party, we say that the street is “closed”.
Most people I know would say the road is closed, not the street. It’s why the sign says “road closure”
>Why are roads you can’t live next to, cycle on, or walk along called main roads?
Because it differentiates them from minor roads which carry less traffic and move more slowly?
>Why do we speak of “segregated” or “separate” cycle paths, when it’s actually motorists who’ve been given a separate space of their own?
Because it segregates or seperates cyclists from motor vehicles?
>Kager thinks traffic language stops us really seeing what’s happening in our streets. “Why do we talk about traffic accidents?
Again, most people I know would say car accident.
I shouldn’t take the piss. The author is getting paid for writing this drivel, whereas I’m not getting paid to roll my eyes at it, so who’s the real winner here
We say the road is closed because the road is for cars. The pavement isn’t closed or it would say the pavement is closed.
People (except the author of this shite) understand that a “road closure” means no access for cars.
And what is that drivel about roads being open for everyone before cars took it over?
Many people died on a regular basis from being trampled by horses because they wandered all over the roads.
Segregating cars and pedestrians by road and pavement is an improvement.
Important to note when discussing this piece that it’s a translation (presumably from Dutch).
People here malding over the obvious fact that our city centres should be more pedestrianised. Cars obviously aren’t going away and are necessary for some long distance travel (excluding trains etc), but we need to not let our love of cars and car culture make us miss the best solutions.
This is the most ‘Guardian’, Guardian article I’ve ever read…
This is like porn for cyclists. People actually get paid to write this utter drivel?
Oh fuck off with the “cars are evil” posts.
Nothings going to change regardless of the price of fuel and insurance. Buses and trains are still a much worse option.
Another day, another anti-car screed from a guardian writer who has never left islington. FFS the whole world is not central london.
Very interesting article gets you thinking, which is always good.
More of the usual idiotic anti car wank from the Guardian.
Any chance we can give it a fucking rest with the anti car stories? It’s like one a day at this rate.
Holy shit the absolute lack of understanding in this thread.
All these fucking carbrains making literally the exact point the article was making, except without a hint of irony and no clue as to why they’re wrong.
Almost every reply is salty about people not liking cars, calm the fuck down and accept that plenty of people don’t like your pollution machine. You want to not only drive everywhere but also you want me to pretend to like it too?
I thought this was an excellent article, and it’s point is being proven again and again in this thread.
There’s no such thing as “car culture”.
I commute to work on a bike and lot of people tell me that cycling in the road is dangerous and I tend to agree with their sentiment. But the road itself poses very little danger, the cars and the people driving them are what makes my commute so dangerous.