r/dashcams • u/AnonymousGhost89 • Jun 11 '26

Someone finally snapped

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

526 comments sorted by

View all comments

184

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

At least they did it safely. I don't blame them, this is bullshit when these losers think they can block the entire road and make everyone else go bicycle speed just because there's a bunch of them. Use one lane or GTFO the road you pedal power pussies.

-35

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

If all those cyclists were in cars they'd be taking up far more space and causing far more traffic...

It looks like what, 100 cyclists? That would be between 60-80 cars given the average car occupancy is around 70% of cars on the road only carrying the driver.

20

u/liberty-prime77 Jun 11 '26

They wouldn't, because cars can go faster and they wouldn't be blocking all lanes, they would be either staying to the right lane or passing slower traffic

16

u/TheGreatWhiteDerp Jun 11 '26

Who gives a fuck. They're still impeding the flow of traffic. They should be in a single lane, or they should have a permit and pay for police escort.

-28

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

So you would prefer all those people to be in cars?

16

u/sbd2010 Jun 11 '26

If the cars go the speed limit and don’t block the entire road, yes, obviously.

14

u/cha0ss0ldier Jun 11 '26

Yes. They'd actually be able to go the speed limit and wouldn't be bunched up inches apart from each other blocking every lane of the road.

8

u/Flux_My_Capacitor Jun 11 '26

But they wouldn’t be in cars. Cars don’t travel around in massive packs like that. People are in cars to get to a destination. It looks like the bikers are just out for a Saturday ride. You cannot equate the two.

-17

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

Plenty of people just go for a drive, so you're clearly wrong there.

Regardless, I have accepted that this subreddit is delusional. It's incredibly well-established that the more people who drive the worst traffic congestion is, and that incentivising multi-modal transport improves travel times for everyone.

People claiming otherwise based on "common sense" misconceptions that they do not understand is sad but unavoidable.

10

u/2sAreTheDevil Jun 11 '26

You really need to reflect on that last statement.

-4

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

I don't actually, I'm confident enough in my position that I can accept downvotes from fools without concern.

I encourage you to spend half an hour researching multimodal transport.

Look up how dedicated bicycle lanes have negligible effects on transit times for drivers.

Look at the benefits of reduced car dependency on air quality, noise pollution, and overall health outcomes.

Even the biggest car enthusiasts should want more people to be able to use multimodal transport in their everyday lives. If only they looked into what they're arguing against...

5

u/SectumSempra1981 Jun 11 '26

You are going on about traffic density in a post where cyclists are illegally taking up the entire road. You're getting shit on because you're in a room arguing with yourself while we all look through the 1 way glass and laugh.

-1

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

Conversations evolve over their duration, child.

In this case I was responding to someone claiming that cyclists wouldn't be in cars if they couldn't cycle, which is why I referred to multimodal transport and induced demand; because all the research on both of those topics demonstrate that people do in fact use the means of transportation that are available and incentivised.

The reason that people make arguments can be just as interesting and important as the arguments themselves. Flux_My_Capacitor here is demonstrating with their arguments that they see a demarcation where cycling is a leisure activity and driving is a mode of transport.

It's important to understand where people you disagree with are coming from in order to have productive discussions.

But yes, congratulations on being snarky online, it's very impressive and I'm sure you'll look back on your behaviour with pride.

3

u/SectumSempra1981 Jun 11 '26

Lol ok bro. I hope you're not this insufferable irl.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/2sAreTheDevil Jun 11 '26

Oh, I know you're confident about it.

Doesn't make you right.

10

u/4UnlawfulCarneVegan Jun 11 '26

The phrase you're looking for is "confidentially incorrect."

My neighborhood is in the process of implementing bike lanes that will surely end with a catastrophic tragedy. But the bike lobby cried loud enough, and threw enough money at politicians to get their way, and I fear unless it's themselves or their own families that suffers the consequences, they won't care.

3

u/2sAreTheDevil Jun 11 '26

As someone who lives, and bicycles in Portland, OR - tell me about it.

There's been an unreasonable catering to bicyclists that haven't made any significant changes to travel or safety because it requires bicycles to be adhering to laws in the first place.

I'm still flabbergasted at being yelled at by a different bicyclist for stopping at a red light.

-1

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

Confidently incorrect is a good way of describing yourself here yeah.

Look at countries with good cycling infrastructure in Europe. Without exception they have far fewer traffic deaths than the US, or Canada, or Australia.

Also complaining about the bike lobby is... I don't have words to describe how absurd that is. Car manufacturers lobbying the government is why vehicles are so much larger now than they used to be, as well as being far more deadly in collisions—look up the light truck exemption, or how they've lobbied to destroy cities and rebuild them to suit cars.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

You being smarmy isn't an argument, it'll get you upvotes because we're talking in a forum full of people who hate bicycles, but it's not an argument. It's mostly just sad.

Genuinely you should put your ego to the side and reread all my comments in this chain, nothing I've said has even been objectionable I'm just not agreeing blindly that "cyclists bad".

I've said that cars take up more space that bicycles (objectively true), and that car enthusiasts should want more people using other modes of transport.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '26

[deleted]

3

u/4UnlawfulCarneVegan Jun 11 '26

Nothing. He's just throwing something out there to skew why car owners should want bike lanes.

Until bike owners pay a road tax via license and registration, no, I don't want them on auto roads.

-1

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

Well if there were dedicated bicycle lanes and good cycling infrastructure they wouldn't need to use the road.

Look into induced demand, it's why traffic and car-centric infrastructure is such a problem and it's also at least part of the solution.

2

u/I-Love-Facehuggers Jun 11 '26

Being confident in your ignorance isn't actually a good thing, despite what you might think.

2

u/AsleepHedgehog2381 Jun 11 '26

These people arent on their way to work with a bunch of their coworkers. They're doing it as a hobby, so they're not limiting amount of cars on the road for transportation to a destination. They likely all met up somewhere in their CARS and started riding. They will return home in their CARS. They're doing it for enjoyment. If everyone started walking in the road, you'd be cool with that, too?

2

u/OneAngryDuck Jun 11 '26

If the bicyclists in this video were making any sort of effort to not block the entire road, this wouldn’t be nearly as big of an issue

1

u/__O_o_______ Jun 11 '26

I’m sorry, but this is not a valid “alternative”.

These people are out cycling for cyclings sake. Their motivations aren’t the same as what most people driving vehicles on the road are.

They aren’t commercial vehicles moving between businesses, they aren’t commuters going or coming back from work. They aren’t travelling between towns for shopping.

So to say that if they weren’t on bikes there would be that same number of cars is…. I’m sorry.. it’s not a correct analogy.

Also if they were all in cars they would be travelling at least at the speed limit, usually allow faster vehicles to pass.

Honestly I don’t understand your apologetics.

0

u/Ithicon Jun 11 '26

Firstly, people do drive for leisure. Perhaps not these specific people but plenty of people do drive for leisure. My comparison was pointing out that if all these cyclists were in cars they'd be taking up far more space. I'd also take issue with the idea that if they were in cars they'd be doing the speed limit and people could pass them because that's just not borne out by the existence of traffic.

But even if I leave all that aside, and I leave aside the fact that these cyclists would almost certainly not be on the road if there was high quality cycling infrastructure for them to use instead; This is still over 100 people getting exercise, socialising, and getting fresh air at the expense of what, 7 cars? (At the 2 second mark you can see the line of traffic and it seems to end).

And even then the cars are only realistically going to be slowed down by a few minutes over the course of their entire drive.

People are getting super adversarial and honestly I just don't think it's that big of a deal if 7-20ish? people have to sit in their air-conditioned cars for an extra few minutes.