this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
75 points (97.5% liked)
Videos
17985 readers
289 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Just saying the ability to have it be useful requires a lot of stuff the US doesn't have"
If that's not arguing it isn't useful then I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Or in the entire thread because every single thing you've said is about how pedestrian infrastructure isn't useful in the US!
Useful is not the same thing as practical.
The material posted and a ton of the comments are about "WHY DOESNT THE US DO THIS?!?!".
I'm simply stating why. Different locale, society, and problems. Just because it's possible in one place doesn't mean it translates everywhere, which is the naive fallacy of a lot of these comments I'm reading.
Well, then, again, I disagree and that's why we're arguing. How you describe the arguments you're making is not relevant. The point is that they're not accurate. With political will we could have the same experience as these kids in our urban centers. It's only different because we haven't changed it yet.
Okay, well if they aren't accurate then why do you think people choose cars over walking in these areas?
Because we haven't built the necessary infrastructure. Also because people don't like change. Getting around without a car is a skill that will need to be developed, and most people have little reason to develop it. That will probably resolve naturally over time, if the built environment allows people to experience cycling as a safe, convenient way to get around, and as people in your social network introduce you to urban cycling.
But I mean there are a lot of people, myself included, who do currently find it preferable. The difference is I'm willing to invest a little more time and experience some discomfort around safety. The more you chip away at those issues, the more people will cycle, which will improve safety and get more people familiar with the idea.
Yes, so how in ANY of my comments am I being inaccurate or wrong about anything, because you've got the wrong grioe, exactly?
My God.
You claimed that building better infrastructure won't solve our transportation issues because our cities were built for cars while Dutch cities weren't. None of that is true.
But I'm not sure why you want me to repeat the entire debate we just had. I've already corrected the points you made above. If you're still confused, read again and ask specific questions.
Literally NEVER said any of that 🤣🤣
My first comment was even that these systems are great if they can work where they are.
WITAF is up with people in the comments lately. Wow.
But that's the crux of the disagreement. They can work anywhere.
No, they cannot, and have not, and I gave you examples and reasons as to why they have not.
You seem to think that arguing on best intentions or whatever is going to wish all those reasons away, and it won't. You also tried to say I was saying the idea is pointless or whatever, which isn't even true. Arguing in the blindly optimistic fashion you are while ignoring facts and reason is pointless though.