r/fuckcars / Not Just Bikes / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
I came across this strange character through YouTube recommended today, a British man in his late 50's or early 60's who goes by barbyonabike. Most of his channel just consists of small 10 - 15 second clips of him "exposing" people for passing him a bit close while he cycles, people not having the correct lights on their bicycles, people he spots parking illegally, unregistered e-bikes, and other minor traffic violations he either cycles past or actively seeks out to find for his channel where he gets 5 views per video.

Almost every short video follows the same format: He reads off their number plate, and then says that he's going to "report that to the police, so they can do nothing about it." in a soyjak voice. Aside from some occasional sperg-outs he has with other road users, his content is entirely unremarkable, but I can't help but find him really funny with how petty and vindictive he is over practically fuck-all most of the time, and the best part? He's been doing this since at least 2011. I don't get what has possesses a man to do this for so long.

Some personal favourites:
 
F40PH said:
I don't get what has possesses a man to do this for so long.
Click to expand...
He's the kind of petty tyrant that gets off on the tiniest bit of power. Give him a subreddit to mod or a HOA to lord over and he would go nuts. Give him a country and millions would die.
 
Wait is this is a whole 773 page thread on this site just of 600 lb+ commenters living in the middle of nowhere who are not able to leave their beds seething about relatively fit cyclist living in walkable cities that the commenters here will never afford or ever visit. Imagine seething at people who are just doing their own thing. lol
 
Last edited:
FPTMIU said:
And I got a nice Lupo as well
Click to expand...
Should've bought a Renault Clio 4 1.5 dCI 90 smh.
Unfortunately my gearbox has decided that it doesn't like shifting out of first half the time, which is very annoying.
 
An urbanist has come up with a new slur for us:
1763092365932.png

It wasn't well-received though:
1763092408768.png

Others suggested their own slurs:
1763092430429.png

Source (Archive)
 
Last edited:
LillWeeb said:
Wait is this is a whole 773 page thread on this site just of 600 lb+ commenters living in the middle of nowhere
Click to expand...
No, it's a thread about critiquing autistic retards who push for policy that makes life worse for everyone.
LillWeeb said:
who are not able to leave their beds seething about relatively fit cyclist living in walkable cities that the commenters here will never afford or ever visit
Click to expand...
No, I am seething about my country (Netherlands) being a shithole that braindead redditors will praise because you can use antiquated victorian toys to get places.
LillWeeb said:
Imagine seething at people who are just doing their own thing. lol
Click to expand...
If they were doing their own thing, this wouldn't even be a thread. It's about people pushing retarded bicycle infrastructure that nobody will ever use and trying to push to make driving more annoying with both this infrastructure and other policy they push. Nobody in this thread probably cares if you take a bicycle to work and aren't a faggot about it, but cyclists are the vegans of the road.
 
LillWeeb said:
Imagine seething at people who are just doing their own thing. lol
Click to expand...
Thing is they're not just doing their own thing, they actively want to make things worse for some. There's currently a debate about making my city's old town district even more restrictive for cars, basically banning any and all cars from a wide area in the center. Now personally I don't care too much since driving in the center (and more importantly, finding parking) is already shit and I'll just take the metro or the bike to get there, but yeah, it's not just doing their own thing. And there's efforts for similar restrictions in every larger city. There are urbanist thinktanks and projects about turning cities into "15 Minute Cities", but especially here practically all cities are already 15 Minute Cities. So what else do they want to do? Ban cars. That's really it, even if there's no need for it, there's a monomaniacal focus on banning cars while at the same time blabbering about how it's all just about "giving options". The options are already there, and they work, instead they want to take away options.
Urbanists looove trams for that reason. Never mind that trams are loud and a death trap for bikes, but they are a good way to take away car space, so they'll always prefer trams over subways or elevated railways, even in applications where an elevated railway would better. Recently there was a discussion about extending metro (!) lines in our capital, so heavy rail. They have subways and elevated railways, and they were thinking about building a test line with a new maglev system. Holy shit do urbanists hate maglev, no matter how principally cheap it'd be, how quiet it is, how reliable or less polluting with fine dust it'd be. They hate it because it'd be an elevated track and thus wouldn't take away space from cars. It's literally the argument, no elevated tracks because any new transit infrastructure must take away space from cars. Doesn't matter that trams do not have the same purpose as heavy rail, they'd rather have worse transit as long as it means that cars and drivers are inconvenienced.
My city is great for cycling and I have no complaints about it, I do it a lot since I like cycling and it's convenient af. But the activist types basically outright lie about the state of cycling here and claim they avoid it in the city because car traffic. It's bullshit, there are cycling lanes everywhere and barely intersect with cars. My guess is that they dislike stopping at red lights and they think traffic lights will be obsolete when cars are gone.
Personally I make fun of urbanist faggots with E-bikes, because they're gay shite when you're claiming to be an oh-so-fit cyclist. Get quads, use them.
 
Last edited:
Meriasek said:
I have no complaints about it, I do it a lot since I like cycling and it's convenient af.
Click to expand...
Granted, my ass had to cycle 17 km on a ebike with a dead battery the other day, so i personally beg to differ. But that's moreso me being forced to cycle for unreasonable distances due to shit policy.
 
LillWeeb said:
Wait is this is a whole 773 page thread on this site just of 600 lb+ commenters living in the middle of nowhere who are not able to leave their beds seething about relatively fit cyclist living in walkable cities that the commenters here will never afford or ever visit. Imagine seething at people who are just doing their own thing. lol
Click to expand...
Wait, is this just a fictional scenario you cooked up in your head?
 
quaawaa said:
Others suggested their own slurs:
1763092430429.png
Click to expand...
That comment about bubbles is ironic considering a lot of them want walkable, 15 minute cities that end up being bubbles themselves. So really, if anyone lives in one of those cities, we get to call them bubbleheads?
If I heard "sub-urbanite" I would think they meant "someone who lives in a suburban area" and not "slur you should be offended by, carbrain" lol
 
Yamamura said:
They are unable to create a slur that works because for a slur to work it something to be rooted in something that matters. That's why all the ones the come up with are inoffensive and dumb, because they can never risk offending anyone.
Click to expand...
Slurs are usually based on a word or phrase that was associated with the ethnic group in question. "Nigger" being a corruption of "negro" ("black" in several languages), "kike" being a corruption of "kaykl" ("circle" in Yiddish) that Jews would circle the box instead of an "X", "gook" is believed to be a misunderstanding of "miguk" as "me gook", and so forth.

As forced and dumb as "burbarian" is, even attempts like that are sabotaged because someone doesn't like the "colonialist tones" in the word. (That being said, I do have to give the same Redditor credit for correctly recognizing that it's still dumb anyway).

TheOtherOne said:
If I heard "sub-urbanite" I would think they meant "someone who lives in a suburban area" and not "slur you should be offended by, carbrain" lol
Click to expand...
When it's written out like that it sounds like someone who's not completely on board with the English language. Also it has be able to be said. "You sub-urbanite" is not really effective compared to "nigger", "wop", "jeet", etc.

Meriasek said:
the same time blabbering about how it's all just about "giving options". The options are already there, and they work, instead they want to take away options.
Click to expand...
The easiest way to dismantle the "muh options" argument is to point out that their favorite European cities do not have a comprehensive American-style freeway network.
 
Xarpho's Return said:
The easiest way to dismantle the "muh options" argument is to point out that their favorite European cities do not have a comprehensive American-style freeway network.
Click to expand...
Some of them do have fairly large highway networks and in many cases, have more highways per square mile than American cities. What European cities lack is an arterial network to take pressure off of the highways and to reduce last-mile transit time. Urbanists decry them as "stroads" but they're critical for an efficient road system; there's a reason why every young Asian city built them.

A lot of European highways are also woefully undersized; for example, most of Paris' are two lanes wide which is what you'd expect in a rural area, not in a metro of 13 million people.
 
In regard to urbanists arguing whether or not a car is "true" freedom I started thinking about it in a more philosophical sense. Now I'm no academic with this sort of thing, so you'll have to excuse me if I mess up some terms.

I believe what they're arguing is Legal/Institutional Authority versus Natural Power. Their argument is always regarding the legal aspect ex: you can ride a bike without a license; however you need a license to drive a car.

The license is issued and controlled by the state which would be power conferred by law. The thing stopping you here would be Institutionalized authority granted by social/legal structures i.e a legal authority revokes your right to drive a car.

But that doesn't cover natural power. Ability arising from one's physical capability. A car is a tool that would enable you to travel across states (or countries if you're European) more easily. A bike or walking would hinder you in this sense where the limitation is your own body going against the elements trying to resist you from going further. The thing holding you back is the natural world itself.

I suppose they could try to argue that a train is a tool that allows you to travel across states, however it runs into the same problem again where your ability to keep riding the train is contingent on the operators not exercising their authority to kick you off of the train or revoke your access to ride it. Whereas with a car (I'm not advocating anyone do this) you could theoretically drive illegally, which some people seem to do these days.


FPTMIU said:
I PASSED MY DRIVERS TEST BROS

And I got a nice Lupo as well so i can drive as soon as i got my license in the mail. I can finally say goodbye to this fucking gay ass nigger bike
Click to expand...
Oh nice, did you get a diesel Lupo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom