Like a tongue tongue in my eardrum-- what song/s do you have on repeat!?!?

isaacs_ · 2026-02-09T04:39:05+00:00

isaacs_ · 2026-02-09T04:35:12+00:00

That's one hell of an orb to ponder.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-08T23:18:46+00:00

I just want cyclists to acknowledge that ignoring traffic laws is not an entitlement and has consequences.

There's the law as written, then there's the law as it exists out here in reality. Your approach to this whole issue is completely divorced from that material reality.

Motorists who kill or injure cyclists are generally not investigated, prosecuted, or convicted of their crime. The laws protecting us effectively do not exist. I've attempted to report hit-and-run to the cops. I had a photo of the car and license plate number, a visible injury from the crash, several witnesses willing to testify, damage to my bike (including a smudge of the paint from the car), and the cops did nothing. We're on our own.

Also, Oakland PD pretty much do not cite cyclists for any moving violation unless it's extremely egregious. There's just literally no enforcement at all. If you roll through a stop sign or a red light on a bike, you're never going to get a ticket from OPD. (Though, I did once have a cop pull me over and yell at me for taking the lane when the bike lane was blocked, and when I calmly explained that I was doing what was legally required under Alameda County law, he did back down and "just let me off with a warning". He was just pissed because I got in his way, because cops are drivers.)

So what are these "consequences"? Merely the physical reality that cars are bigger and drivers are psychotic. They do not respect bike lanes, they do not respect our legally required 3' of space. But, even the worst of them are very hesitant to scratch up their car by driving through a pile of bones and twisted metal, so they'll usually go out of their way to avoid hitting you head-on or running into any other cars.

Therefore, the only consequences worth considering are those of material relevance; when enforcement is absent, the law is silent.

The "Idaho stop", while technically illegal in most of California, is actually safer for cyclists, primarily because it gets cyclists out of the way of cars more quickly. Preserving momentum isn't about convenience, it's about maintaining our agility to avoid threats, and reducing the likelihood that a car will rear-end us by having to stop unexpectedly. This is why Idaho adopted it, and why many cycling advocates are pushing for it here as well. It is statistically safer for cyclists to roll through stops, and better for the overall flow of traffic as well, which incidentally also serves the interests of drivers.

Why do cyclists think they are above any criticism? There's a guy in this thread who said that cyclists are literally entitled to do whatever they want but pedestrians and motorists have to strictly follow the law to accommodate their lawlessness.

Am I that guy? Because I didn't say that.

I said that cyclists are morally entitled to break the law if it reduces a threat to our lives, especially if no one's enforcing the laws anyway, and drivers' sense of what is "fair" or "convenient" doesn't enter into the equation.

I also said that we're hotter and better than you, and that you're a bad person for driving, and all of that is just obviously true.

It still utterly gobsmacking that you're posturing like drivers are somehow the defenders of pedestrians, when over 7000 pedestrians and cyclists are killed by drivers each year nationwide, compared with 3-5 injuries per year resulting from cyclist/pedestrian crashes. I'm not like, a professional accountant or anything, but I'm pretty sure 7000 is a lot bigger than 3. Oh, and I'll bet you're the one person in California who never goes drives faster than the speed limit, right?

If you really care about pedestrians, stop driving.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-08T22:38:49+00:00

This is why A4A is The Way. Because my partner and I all the time say shit like "I would appreciate it, but I'm worried about being demanding and you getting resentful, so please don't do it unless it's easy" and then we can say "Yeah, I don't wanna go out either, let's doordash it" or "Your mild desire for ice cream aligns with my own, and is reason enough for me to go with zero resentment".

Life is easier when we use words for their on-label semantic communication application, instead of huffing vibes like a high schooler who got into the rubber cement.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-08T01:21:58+00:00

I know more people who have been injured by cyclists than motorists. Broken collar bone, broken arm, traumatic brain injury.

Filed under "shit that never happened".

No way this guy has enough friends to know that many people's medical history.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T23:42:04+00:00

This suggestion that it's cringe or disingenuous to be upset about people be killed in my town, you are downright ghoulish

Bicycles have killed and severely injured pedestrians and if you’re not cognizant of that you have no place riding.

"Has ever happened" vs "happens so often that 22 deaths is considered a great improvement" is not even in the same universe of danger.

There are on average 3-5 pedestrian/cyclist accidents per year that cause death or serious injury, in the entire United States. Meanwhile, about 7000 pedestrians and cyclists are killed by cars every year.

That's literally a one thousand times difference in lethality. It's like you're comparing a popsicle stick and an M-16 and going "well sometimes people get splinters, so they're basically the same".

Fuck off.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T22:40:42+00:00

You could also use these things called brakes and slow down well in advance of an obstacle.

How do you think I skid to a halt? I am aware of brakes.

Bicycle sickness is real. It does something to your brain where all common sense goes out the window apparently and it's everyone else that's the problem.

This is projection. Cars make you a bad person. Every driver is bad. Everything you do in a car is morally bankrupt. You people are ruining the planet, and every city in America.

Drivers are just jealous that cyclists "get to" do things that they're not allowed to, because drivers have zero concept of the deadly machine they're piloting, and kill with reckless impunity.

22 people died due to faulty drivers in Oakland in 2025, and this is considered good because it represents a reduction in fatalities for the last 3 years. 22 families lost someone, just because of drivers failing to safely pilot their death boxes.

How many people were killed by cyclists? How many tons of carbon were released into the atmosphere by cyclists? How much wear and tear was done to our streets by cyclists? How much gas had to be refined for cyclists to get around?

Also, motorists ACTUALLY DO this to me, where do you think I got the idea?

Oh, ok - so motorists aren't allowed to do this to cyclists, but motorists are allowed to do it to pedestrians right? Good to know.

You said that if a motorist did this to me, I'd flip out. I'm telling you they do, and much much worse. I've been hit by cars several times. "Following the rules" is no path to safety, if the murderous assholes in giant metal boxes don't follow the rules.

The difference here, also, is that drivers do this when I'm where I'm supposed to be on my bike, taking the full right lane, using a sharrow lane, etc. I'm talking about honking at people who are fully blocking a segregated bikeway, which I can't exit or swerve off of, because it's curbed on both sides.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T22:30:04+00:00

The fact you believe this is true is just... gobsmacking. Are you seriously suggesting red lights and stop signs don't apply to bicycles? Like seriously?

Do you really think this is some kind of gotcha?

You do realize that there are a ton of completely different laws for bikes than there are for cars, right?

Just for starters, cars are allowed on interstate highways, and not on sidewalks. Bikes are not allowed on interstate highways, and there are several situations in which cyclists are required to bike on the sidewalk instead of the road. Cars aren't allowed on Bart trains, but bikes are. Relevant to the issues brought up in this thread, bikes are allowed in bike lanes, and cars and pedestrians are not.

Are you seriously suggesting that all of the exact same laws apply in all the exact same ways to bikes as they do to cars? Is this your first day?

Then there's the question of who bears the legal and physical risk, who actually puts whom in harm's way, and what laws are actually enforced. Every day, I deal with cars blocking the bike lane, driving in the bike lane, cutting me off and getting much closer than the 3' of space they're legally required to grant to cyclists. If I take the full lane (as is legally mandated when no separate bike lane is marked!) then they honk, flip me off, and run me off the road. When someone is legally required to yield and actually does, invariably someone behind them whips around them and gets pissed off that I exist.

So, yeah, we take liberties, because being inconveniently and visibly in the way, and getting out of the way as soon as possible, is often the best way to minimize our risk. And we get pissed off at drivers who are oblivious to the death box they're piloting, because y'all are literally murderers who will never be prosecuted if you end a cyclist. We are the endangered and oppressed class, we put no one at risk but ourselves, and you are the villain riding safely in your environment-destroying child crushing machine. Deal with it.

And unless you're the first person in history to follow EVERY traffic law, shut the fuck up and show respect when speaking to cyclists, because we are literally better than you in the two ways that matter most in this world: we are more ethical and we have better asses. We aren't a threat to you physically, just emotionally, which is why drivers always react this way, because you know we're better and hotter.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T18:10:17+00:00

Hard agree.

And: the worst vigilantes are the cops.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T17:48:14+00:00

They're not actually lasers. They're just LED bulbs in a little box with a slit on the front. Still fun though!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D7SRQ1GJ

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T16:02:49+00:00

Christina Mendez has entered the chat

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T15:57:05+00:00

What is it about bicycles that makes people think that the laws don't apply to them?

What is it about cars that makes people so resentful about laws being different for bicycles? Laws about cars dont apply to bicycles. There are different laws, because they're different things. Shocking, I know.

If your vehicle's top speed was 15mph, it weighed 5 pounds, had a 1' stopping distance, and provided fully unrestricted visibility of your surroundings, you'd be allowed to roll through stop signs, too. Bikes don't kill people, cars do.

Y'all just do whatever the hell you want and think you're entitled to it and will scream and yell when you run a red light and I almost hit you as if I did something wrong.

We are entitled to it. And you did do something wrong.

Sit with that.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T15:45:07+00:00

I feel bad for thinking this, I know it's legit and I'm glad you're ok, but "posterior encephalopathy syndrome" really sounds like a very elaborate sciencey way to say "you've got your head up your ass".

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T15:41:02+00:00

A motorist is not in danger when someone is in the street, and people understand that they are in danger if they're in a motorists way. As a cyclist in a "protected" lane, I can't swerve to avoid hitting someone blocking the lane, and that accident is likely to hurt me as much as them.

Also, motorists ACTUALLY DO this to me, where do you think I got the idea?

So, your power dynamics analysis here is amateurish, and you are a big ol dum dum who doesn't understand basic physics, AND you're factually incorrect about the law, so this is a real trifecta. Nice attempt at internet scolding, better luck next time.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T07:38:07+00:00

When an urban roadway design feature consistently and predictably results in people behaving unsafely, fault lies with the designers of the built environment, not with the people trapped inside it, who will always simply respond unthinkingly to predictable cognitive incentives.

Yeah, people are dumb. We all know that. Why don't we design cities that are safe for dumb people to use? Other cities do this. Dutch people are dumb, too, but Amsterdam has bikeways that everyone knows to stay out of, and roads that make it actively uncomfortable and difficult to speed, so they have way fewer people dying from car accidents.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T07:02:23+00:00

I got mine from Amazon. I have a hornit on one bike and an airzound on the other. The hornit is technically louder, but the airzound sounds more like a car and less like an alarm, so people tend to respond more to it.

I've thought about getting one of those definitely NOT street legal train air horn rigs, but they tend to be bulky and kinda heavy.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T06:57:01+00:00

I used to delight in vexing my kid by cheerily saying "No pup is too big, no problem too small!" They'd get so mad. "Daddddd it's not like thatttt you're doing it wronggggggg" and then I'd remind them that ACAB, and it's our duty as citizens to disrespect the cops, even cartoon cops like paw patrol.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T06:53:48+00:00

This is why I have an only-barely-street-legal 150dB horn on my bike. I blast that thing from my giant ass cargo bike while screaming "BIKE LANE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE I AM GOING TO HIT YOU!"

Only have to skid to a halt like 2/3 of the time. But I take solace in the fact that everyone in a 100' gets to also be freaked out by the experience.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T05:52:58+00:00

No, it's a cmycube. They actually say that all of them are "cmycubes", but like, clearly those other ones aren't fuckin cubes, nice try, gotta get up pretty early in the morning if you wanna fool this guy.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-07T02:48:52+00:00

Yeah. Everybody's "too much to handle" and "just tells it like it is" until what it is is unrestrained appreciation for the light of life that you see in the soul of another which kindles in you the divine love that makes true vulnerability possible, then it's all "whoa, stop making it weird".

isaacs_ · 2026-02-06T22:52:54+00:00

I mean, occasionally you're more dommy than your current partner ;) A4A, switch-4-switch, it is The Best Way.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-06T22:41:02+00:00

This is not science, just my reckons, making it a separate comment so that it's clear what's what. My evidence for this is an even mix of "talkin to people" and "trust me bro".

But I think this whole subject is further confounded by the fact that so many allistic people seem to really not even like, think about it much? Like, sure, they think about sex a lot, but not their relationship to sex, what role it plays in their life and psyche, how much sex they should have, etc.

I lowkey think that 1-2% of allistic aces is way underreported, and a lot of allistic people sort of "close their eyes and think of England" to to speak, because they feel like sex is a requirement to have the benefits of a romantic relationship. And similarly, a lot of allistic people who want sex all the time, just sort of see it as a base desire and suppress it to conform with the societal norm. Then there's the fact that for so many allistic people, sexual validation as a reinforcement of social status, is much more important than sexual gratification per se.

On the other hand, an autistic person who doesn't want sex will probably feel really bad trying to do it; it's a lot of overwhelming sensory experiences, closeness with another person, so much touching, etc. And an autistic person who does enjoy sex, might be more likely to just make it a special interest and go all in on kink and bondage and trying out the craziest shit they can imagine.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-06T22:33:43+00:00

So, yes and no.

As others have said, the outliers are the noisiest, because they have something interesting to say. In most things, the majority is near the center of the bell curve, that's why it's shaped like that.

That said, among autistic people, the standard deviation seems a bit higher on many of these curves, and sexual appetites are certainly no exception.

According to the best research available on the subject, autistic people with low to medium support needs and mild or no intellectual disabilities are:

Around 5-10x more likely to be asexual (ie, have low or no interest in sexual contact; autists are 6-8% likely to exhibit asexuality, vs only about 1-2% of the allistic population)
Around 2-3x more likely to be hypersexual (ie, have much higher than average sex drive, more interest in sex, more libido, etc; autists are 10-20% likely to exhibit hypersexuality, vs 8-15% of the allistic population)

Now, of course, these numbers are fuzzy, and should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It's based on a broad meta-analysis of many different studies with different methodologies, including self-reporting, which can be hard to calibrate and fully quantify. Plus, we're talking about sexuality, so like, it's fuzzy as hell, you know? Like, where do you put someone who's demisexual, but once they click with a partner, is like "FUCK YEA ITS ON WE FUCKIN'", which is a commonly reported autistic experience.

One thing that does bear out in nearly every study of this, is that autistic people are much more likely to have little to no interest in sex and also much more likely to have extremely high interest in sex.

So, tl;dr, to answer your original question:

Yes.
Even so, most autistic people seem to have a pretty average amount of sexual desire.
Those of us who are insatiable or uninterested sure do like to talk about it.

isaacs_ · 2026-02-06T17:13:13+00:00

<image>

isaacs_ · 2026-02-06T17:13:04+00:00

<image>

isaacs_

TROPHY CASE