I’ve always argued this wasn’t the case and that motoring is a worse transport mode because of the associated externalities, not because of anything inherent to the users.
But you can’t argue with the scienceTM!
lameJake ( @lameJake@feddit.de ) 18•8 months agoI always felt it but now I know it. I just am a better person than all these drivers.
- shiveyarbles ( @shiveyarbles@beehaw.org ) 15•8 months ago
Driving turns mild mannered people into raging assholes.
mondoman712 ( @mondoman712@lemmy.ml ) 11•8 months agoLmao at the number of downvotes on this one
Rentlar ( @Rentlar@lemmy.ca ) 9•8 months agoI mean, just ask any cyclist for directions to a nearby place. Generally if they know they will be willing to help you out with it.
People in cars are too busy, scared, frustrated, unaware of the areas they drive through outside the main road/whatever that they’re in my experience less willing to stop and help others out.
Further thoughts: This reminded me of something I read a while back about assuming that people who have one virtue also have all the others. Like, why should we assume that someone who is (e.g.) honest is also generous?
I think that has some applications here. Okay, so cyclists are, it seems, more community-minded. Does that mean they possess all the other virtues? Are cyclists also less likely to steal or to cheat on their partners? We don’t know and this study doesn’t tell us.
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 7•8 months agoCirclejerk much? Jesus…
What about people that are both?
Who decides what a “better person” is?
psud ( @psud@aussie.zone ) 13•8 months agoThey used:
- political participation,
- social participation,
- neighborhood solidarity and
- neighborly helpfulness
To define “better”.
They go exactly in the middle, of course. Straight to Purgatory.
It explains in the article what the criteria used were. You’re welcome to critique that, of course, and I have done elsewhere, but you should read the article, if only so you can critique it properly!
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 2•8 months agoI’ve no interest in reading or driving clicks to an article with such an absurd title. My question was obviously rhetorical.
xor ( @xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English11•8 months agoWell then why bother asking? If you’re not going to read it, and you don’t care about what it’s saying, then you’ve just come here to get pissy
Malfeasant ( @Malfeasant@lemm.ee ) 8•8 months agoAs drivers are wont to do…
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 1•8 months agoWell then why bother asking?
Do you really not understand the concept of a rhetorical question?
rbesfe ( @rbesfe@lemmy.ca ) 8•8 months agoYou asked 2 questions that are actually highly relevant to a discussion about this article, and they weren’t attached to any argument. Do YOU know what a rhetorical question is?
Malfeasant ( @Malfeasant@lemm.ee ) 2•8 months agoYes, but why male models?
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 1•8 months agoRhetorical questions usually are relevant. Give it a Google if you need some help.
xor ( @xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English8•8 months agoI’m well aware of the concept - but the whole point of them is to suggest other perspectives to view a concept from to gain a different understanding of the issue at hand
What you did is just asking questions that were answered in the article, thinking “haha, I’ve got them!” Then you got defensive and pretended they were all rhetorical when everyone pointed out you’d know the answer if you just read the damn article.
For example, let’s imagine we’re discussing an article about a court fining someone for violating a gag order.
A good format for a rhetorical question might be “would the judge have given this sentence to him if he was …?”
Note how this isn’t something that would be covered in article, because it covers a theoretical scenario.
A bad rhetorical question might be “how much was the fine?” This is because you could just read the damn story.
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 1•8 months agobut the whole point of them is to suggest other perspectives
The point is simply to make the reader think critically. Especially when such critical thinking is fairly obvious.
What you did is just asking questions that were answered in the article, thinking “haha, I’ve got them!”
No, what I did was to point out how stupid is the entire idea of the article itself.
Then you got defensive and pretended they were all rhetorical
LOL I don’t need to pretend anything. You don’t even know who I am, I have nothing to defend here except logic and reason.
xor ( @xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English4•8 months agoIf the critical thinking is obvious, and explicitly answered in the content being discussed, then you have added nothing to the conversation
Okay, pal. Stay angry and ignorant.
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 1•8 months agoLOL one could only become more ignorant by reading an article like that
Armok: God of Blood ( @ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) 2•8 months agoI don’t know, the people riding bicycles over the 3 foot wide sidewalk on the bridge (which has a bike lane going each way) in my city come across as selfish assholes.
elfpie ( @elfpie@beehaw.org ) 3•8 months agoThey probably are. That said, it’s always a good idea to ask the question: “why would people use the worse alternative?”
Aopen ( @Aopen@discuss.tchncs.de ) 2•8 months agoThis finding wont fix anything and will only make car-brained vs commie-bikers flame war worse
Damn, the scientists at the lab for reducing flame wars are gonna be pretty sheepish when they find out.
mondoman712 ( @mondoman712@lemmy.ml ) 4•8 months agoFlame wars are a significant contributor to global warming
Good point, we should use the steam rising off these dudes to power turbines for clean electricity, instead of letting it leak wastefully into the atmosphere.
cousinDanny ( @cousinDanny@mastodon.social ) 2•8 months ago@frankPodmore the facts are in! Drivers are big mad!