I hate bike lanes. I hate casual cyclists. I hate fat e-bikers. Public transit is for fat, poor losers.I am on the side of the cagers I roll with every day. When I get home, I have an open air fire to compensate for my small carbon footprint. Cars are based and that's the end of it. The only reason I don't commute with either of my 2 cars is because cycling in traffic is even more based than driving.Why do you want to turn cycling into a casual, fat mode of normie transportation instead of leaving it as a fringe lifestyle full of suffering? Every cyclist I know is based yet /n/ is full of NPCs. Why? How many of you people are actually cyclists and not just NPCs?
>>1885193Bro chill, nobody gives a fuck
>>1885193See yourself as "one of the cagers", when they see you as nothing more than a rolling obstacle that can't afford a car, tragic
Cycling and lane splitting past traffic is euphoric.
>>1885215>>1885193This. I hate bike lanes because they're so boring and if there's some faggot middle aged mom with her bastard in front you have to go at like 10km/h.There's nothing better than zipping past boomers in their 60k cars while on a bike
>>1885244>getting btfo by a child on a bicycle
>>1885215Yeah, Bro... or drafting semis and buses.Cycling is an antisocial activity and nobody can convince me otherwise. I'm tired of casuals and fatties shitting it up. They'll never understand the beauty of attaining perfect flow and managing energy on the edge of exhaustion and safety. This board has always been a disappointment.
You know what? I'm going to start a cycling club. It's happening this spring... just bought the domain. Requirements will be announced in April.
>>1885193Okay psycho.Some of us actually just want to get around in an efficient manner without a lifestyle full of suffering.And jokes on you, an open air fire is fine for the environment. If you cut down a tree, burn it, and a new tree grows in its place, that's net 0 carbon emissions. It's only a problem when you burn shit that was sequestered underground. Like coal and oil.
>>1885193>I love ca-ACK
>>1885334This is wrong. The 'cycle' does not simply work like this. Also making inefficient use of firewood makes a solution that doesnt even scale to meet the problem to begin with scale even worse.Personally I do heat everything I need to heat with firewood. Being able to do so is partly a priviledge which is why I dont look down on others who don't. But doing so is not carbon neutral and does not scale, as such its not a complete solution to the problem. Especially if the population remains or grows.
>>1885193>The only reason I don't commute with either of my 2 cars is because cycling in traffic is even more based than driving.Why? Imagine being this gaslit by automobiles. It's not enough vehicles are dominant, car autists have to shut down every other form of transportation entirely. You are nothing, vehicle owners would mow you down in the street if they had the chance. Just take your car if you truly dont care.
>>1885193I don't love cars, but I feel like cycling would be improved a lot with more people like you and fewer unraced batavophile bike lane apartheid apologist morons. Vehicular cycling is the only answer and bike lanes are antibike
>>1885193>I have an open air fire to compensate for my small carbon footprint.Wood fires are carbon neutral.
>>1885295Based. Weird how you'll see other irreverent antisocials go all pearl clutch around road cycling specifically. Bunch of sheepish meek faggots.
>>1885376The scenario you have outlined is not. Timber is a valid substitute to fossil fuels. Also its availability is severely limited which is why fossil fuels are widely used for heat and power. (AFAIK theres about 400 trees per person, I might be wrong on that. At my rate of firewood consumption the planet would be deforested in no timey, in other words regeneration by far does not meet demand).Your scenario speaks of wasting the firewood. All use of lumber shortens supply. Most choices of fuel are made through purely economic assesment. So as long as fossil fuels are being used and especially as long there doesnt even exist enough renewable fuel any wasting of alternative fuel is not carbon neutral because it wouls otherwise, through the mechanism known as market, replace fossil fuel elsewhere.In other words: If you piled up ALL lumber and burnt it use of fossil fuel would go up without utility being increased.Now your idea of regeneration of forests and wood seems to be lacking but I wont go into that.Also while not specifically the topic youre producing other emissions besides CO2 to the same effect. I know a forestry official who refuses to heat his home at all for exactly those reasons.
>>1885334>coal and oilBut that's literally stored solar energy.