Removed by mod

Their first sentence explains their premise.

What I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that we have an established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don’t use.

They’re saying the infrastructure around vehicles has established process which doesn’t exist for cyclists. They’re positing, from my reading, that this is contributing to the disparity in how infractions are handled; that if bicycles had license plates, registration etc. similar to vehicles the current system could be equally applied.

you are asking for the impossible as they did not disclose what service do they use

So you’re applying your own personal preference and beliefs. Saying “all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust” is just you applying your preferences and beliefs to someone else’s personal decision.

especially since with every response you sound more and more hostile.

Do I? How so? You made a statement of fact (all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust) about someone else’s choice and situation without any information to directly support it (you are asking for the impossible as they did not disclose what service do they use).

Calling my questioning and pushback “hostile” seems like bad-jacketing to me. Maybe you’re getting defensive?

with that in mind, do you think they have control over their information?

It’s not about what I think, they have control over whether to share their location data with a 3rd party or not. By definition that is control. They also have control to stop sharing that data at any time.

Do you have anything to support that the specific system used by the original commenter is using that data in a manner not agreed to when they shared it or in a way that the original commenter doesn’t agree to?

Or are you applying your own personal preferences and beliefs to someone else’s situation?

Thanks for clarifying! All I know about binding is what I read on a post on Reddit years ago discussing it and my memory is not what it was.

Ah, it’s okay if you ignore the laws because everyone else is doing it too.

In that case it sounds like Darwinism on NYC streets and cyclists and motorists alike earn whatever comes their way.

Not trans so forgive me if I use terms wrong but I believe transmascs use something called a binder on their chest to help with dysphoria. Some who don’t have help/helpful resources aren’t able to get an actual purpose made binder and find ways to make their own. I’m guessing duct tape is one solution used.

On the transfer side, I’m entirely speculating here, but I’d guess it’s used similarly on the genitals to tuck/secure.

Privacy generally means the ability to control your personal information and how it’s used, as well as your freedom from intrusion and observation.

If you knowingly opt in it’s not really a breach of privacy. They’re choosing to allow a 3rd party access to that information which doesn’t fit with your preferences but it’s not really a breach of privacy or trust.

The original commenter explained they and their spouse share their location.

You said it was a breach of trust and privacy.

My question was “How? My situation is similar to the person you’re replying to and I’m curious how two consenting adults sharing their location with each other is ‘a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust’.”

I understand now that you didn’t mean that it was a breach of trust and privacy literally, obviously they’ve both opted in, but you used that to express your own preference.

at that point that difference would not matter to me

Got it. Seems like you’re applying your preference to the original commenters situation; that’s where I was getting confused.

The article doesn’t describe a “biker problem” though. It specifically is talking about e-bikes and electric scooters.

It follows actions by city officials from Paris to Honolulu to Hoboken, N.J., who are responding to residents angry about zippy vehicles with silent electric motors zooming down sidewalks and streets, often startling people, and occasionally hitting pedestrians.

A manually powered bicycle or scooter is a lot different from an electric powered version capable of 20-30mph.

Unfair treatment of one group versus another isn’t right and more cycle friendly infrastructure is needed but do you put both regular and e-bikes on that infrastructure to share it? Wouldn’t that lead to a lot of the same complaints that sharing with cars currently generates?

I do think you’re right that it’s not all of any one of these groups (cyclists or motorists) that are problematic; we just notice the ones that are problematic the most. That said, cyclists are the minority which means they need “imperfect allies” of motorists to drive the change that leads to more, better cycling infrastructure.

I don’t know the best way to go about that but ignoring the laws you’re required to follow isn’t a great way to go about it. I’d propose instead that working to change the rules for cyclists so that they aren’t bound by the “one way” and are allowed to legally proceed through a red as long as they can safely do so (no opposing traffic at the light/stop, they’ve stopped and confirmed it’s safe to proceed) and so on would be good. Then it might incentivize some motorists to ditch their car so they can get around easier as well as improve the experience for current cyclists.

All of this is assuming the traffic laws in NYC work similar to where I am.

An original production Semmerling LM4.

Two slices of cottage bread, lightly buttered on the inside with quality unsalted butter, two pieces of deli style American cheese (specifically the stuff from our local butcher but similar to Kraft Deli Select) evenly distributed in the middle.

Delicious cheese sandwich!

Maybe it’s age talking but I’m at the point where my goal is the job that pays me the most for the least amount of time spent working.

I’m much happier working my “845” (8am-4pm 5 days a week, ideally less) and then being done so I can spend as much time enjoying my life.

I get that it’s not privacy focused; so much these days isn’t, but I’m still not understanding how two adults knowingly enabling location sharing via a 3rd party service is “a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust”.

I’m gathering that your intent was more along the lines of “it’s not very privacy conscious since you have no control over how the 3rd party uses that data or any way to control it”, would that be accurate?

I would not.

all the while this is a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust.

How? My situation is similar to the person you’re replying to and I’m curious how two consenting adults sharing their location with each other is “a major breach of privacy, for both parties, and also of trust”.

Maybe if one party is unwilling or has no say/control in location sharing but specifically in the scenario at hand I don’t see it.

They don’t want a reflection of society as a whole, they want an amplifier for their echo chamber.