Study Finds Cyclists Are Better People Than Drivers
jalopnik.com
The results show drivers are less interested in the common good than cyclists.

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!

    • psud@aussie.zone
      171·
      1 year ago

      They used:

      • political participation,
      • social participation,
      • neighborhood solidarity and
      • neighborly helpfulness

      To define “better”.

      • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.world
        33·
        1 year ago

        As an individual who walks to most of my destinations, I am a shutin, and by these metrics, a literal monster.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          51·
          1 year ago

          I think you, and the users of public transport, are not at all represented in the study

    • frankPodmore@slrpnk.netOPEnglish
      93·
      1 year ago

      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!

        • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          123·
          1 year ago

          Well 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

            • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
              92·
              1 year ago

              You 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?

            • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              82·
              1 year ago

              I’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.