Hacker News Reader

Comment by maratd | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad you like to bike. Bikes don't go 60 miles an hour, which is necessary for some individuals who work an hour or more from their residence. And no, people don't do that sort of thing because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to. Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas.

View on HN

> Bikes don't go 60 miles an hour, which is necessary for some individuals who work an hour or more from their residence. And no, people don't do that sort of thing because they enjoy it. They do it because they have to. Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas.

Reread my post, as I don't think you're responding to what I wrote. I don't advocate taking away someone's license because of debts, which I believe I made clear in the last paragraph.

I did. You spent most of it lecturing people who use cars. I explained to you why you were wrong to do so.

Can you explain which parts you believe are lecturing drivers? My post was meant to offer my perspective as a cyclist: driving is more expensive than many appreciate. I wasn't arguing that it was unnecessary; quite the opposite.

I don't know what you mean by "Please don't ruin people's lives with your ideas" if you were not referring to taking away someone's license because of debt. As I stated, I don't believe someone should lose their drivers' license because of debt.

What is the idea I have that would ruin peoples' lives?

Just some perspective. I know this is not what you wrote, and probably not what you meant, but what I was thinking when reading your comment was "Car owners are extravagant. I spend a lot on my bike and still spend so much less money than them. Maybe if we suspended licenses some would get a clue."

I'm probably not alone in reading it that way, and I'd say many of us would be offended.

I appreciate your honesty.

What I meant was this: Driving is expensive, so one might argue that removing one's ability to drive would help them save money, but that doesn't work when a drivers' license is needed to generate income in the first place.

First you said it "could help", then you said it was "net counterproductive". Which is it?

This line of thinking that someone owes you a single sweeping opinion seems to reject any form of nuance that could exist in the world.

Maybe somethings could help sometimes and are net counterproductive other times.

Maybe some ideas could help in one aspect but are net counterproductive when considered as a whole.

I didn't read a contradiction in the parent post.

Both. There are multiple factors here. Reducing transportation costs is one factor (what I meant by "could help"), but typically one's income reduces even more, so on net it is counterproductive. I'll edit the post to be more clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com