nathan903

ive always felt too lazy to write to my local governor / city counsel / officials to advocate for cycling infrastructure or laws.
today i tried using chatGPT to generate such a letter and it seems pretty good to me (?)
i think with this tool, advocacy writing campaigns can be much bigger and easier

with just a single sentence command:

Then I tried giving it some context by copy-pasting a news article about NY's bike lane parking fine (only the last two sentences are my writing)
PS: please share any advice on which agency/official to write to would be the best. (or maybe write to everyone?)
PS2: chatgpt is a new AI language model that makes writing. google chatgpt to play with it

retswerb

And here I've only been using it to write bad poetry!

Leisesturm

What is it about cars parking in bike lanes that gets some of you in such a lather? Let it go. If I were in government and got such an email I would open a dossier on the letter writer. Then set the blues on them to show them what real inconvenience looks like. Perspective is a hell of a thing. People can die when hit by distracted drivers. Repealing right turn on red statutes and doubling fines for moving violations could save lives. Have you written that email yet?

I have never seen a non-commercial vehicle parked in a bike lane. Have some sympathy for the Fed-Ex or DHL driver who has to hump a 150lb treadmill out of his truck and into the service elevator of a high rise. Where TF do you think he should park to make YOUR delivery? Yah, in YOUR driveway. Well we don't ALL have driveways. We don't ALL live in idyllic suburban or rural retreats and those bike lanes that you enjoy riding in were parking spaces. You forget. I try to walk a mile in the other guys shoes before I lose my cool. On the scale of things to really go postal over I just can't see the parking in the bike lane thing rising to that level of crisis.

Edit: The program in NYC is (much) less about cyclist safety or comfort and more about revenue. The number of people reporting scofflaw parkers are a tiny, tiny, fraction of the cycling community. In fact the most ardent reporters, a few racking up millions(!) of dollars in reward money are not cyclists at all.

veganbikes

Color yourself lucky, I see plenty of non commercial vehicles parked in the bike lanes all the time and those Fed-Ex or DHL or Amazon drivers in some cases have tried to hit cyclists or not paid attention enough to not drift over. I do have sympathy for workers and I understand that not everyone has suburban driveways and stuff but there is no excuse to be in a bike lane. There are car lanes for cars and if cars are inconvenienced then so be it. However sure if the UPS and Fed Ex drivers were more respectful of cyclists around here maybe I wouldn't care as much but really the übers and random sleaze that just thinks double parking is OK is the biggest problem.

I can at least understand the actual delivery vans to a point but then why have a bike lane if we cannot have a bike lane. Why should my life be more at risk to ride a bike so someone can get their 100lb treadmill or some idiot can illegally park because they were too lazy to pull into the actual space. A bike lane should be for bikes. We pay the same taxes as car users and more taxes than a lot of the major corporations so why can't we have our share of the road when we do less destruction to it and cause less pollution and yada yada. The bike lanes around me were never parking lanes, the parking lanes are still there as are the spaces for cars, these are just small spaces that bikes can sometimes access when not being blocked. Maybe in your neck of the woods they destroyed parking spots for bike lanes but I doubt it.

I guess if you (non-specific) are a casual cyclist who will drive to bike and then go home and not ride till next weekend or someone similar to that then a bike lane could be a nuisance or at least just a thing you don't care enough about. Cycling to that person is just a fun hobby and not always a way to get around. To those that do commute and ride in the city or wherever they are to get around having some margin of safety from bike lanes is pretty crucial. Bikes don't need to be second class citizens just because we are goddamn 'Muricans not from Euroland. I get that we are a heavy car culture but that doesn't need to be the case and really shouldn't in a city where sometimes a car is the worst way around and contributes to a lot of issues.

It is a rare oddity that I order stuff online. Just thought it was a relevant comment because of the mention of delivery vehicles.

Leisesturm

It's a little ironic that up (or maybe down now) the page is a thread about not using bike lanes, because, yadda yadda. For the record I love and use bikelanes daily. I just don't think it is worth a letter to anyone to complain about someone blocking it. By the time I register the obstruction I have already calculated a path around it that doesn't add a single second to the commute. There are far more dangerous realities of urban riding than blocked bike lanes. That's my take anyway.

livedarklions

So let's get this straight, you think it's reasonable policy for the government to go to the expense of creating bike lanes on the basis that their use will make cyclists safer by keeping them out of traffic lanes, then to turn a blind eye to the routine blockage of those bike lanes for commercial purposes? Either build the lanes and enforce it, or don't build the lanes. If you're having to zip in and out of them in traffic, it's hard to see what's gained there in terms of safety or convenience. If it's an area where it's inevitable that there's going to be commercial vehicles parked in the lane routinely, I'd much rather have a sharrow making it clear it's ok for me to maintain a line in the lane rather than zipping back and forth.

As far as your edit goes, that's a non sequitur. The NYC program is an example of what is known as a "private attorney general" policy--the government creates an incentive where the violator has to pay the reporter for catching them, which basically makes it much easier to enforce the rules. The reporter's motives are completely irrelevant to the purpose of the program, just like the plumber doesn't really have to care about your comfort as long as he's doing a good job for the money.

retswerb

What an absolutely bizarre response. Obviously BF doesn't have a culture of not biting the newbies.

Setting that aside, if you've truly never seen a non-commercial vehicle in a bike lane you clearly live in an unusual place where these laws are already enforced, and therefore this advocacy is irrelevant to you and your community. In my community I see vehicles of all sorts parked in bike lanes constantly. Two days ago (while driving, not riding) I saw a relatively new two-way bike lane with a whole line of cars in it, parked head-in next to each other on top of the green pavement, blocking both directions of the lane.

I learned a long time ago that life is too short and our capacity for involvement is too small for us to each care about everything. Each of us has to pick where to make a difference and then invest there well. I have a neighbor who tried really hard last year to get me to join her in passing out pamphlets discouraging fellow neighbors from setting off their own 4th of July fireworks. I told her that while I agree that it's an illegal fire hazard - and I'm not setting them off myself - it's just not an issue I care about enough to go door-to-door. She's barely spoken to me since; she took offence at my lack of advocacy regarding her personal priority. nathan903 didn't ask you specifically to get involved; if this isn't your priority, feel free to move along and write the letters you suggest instead.

JoeyBike

No thanks.

.

Parking in a New Orleans bike lane will now cost you $300

For a so-called "backwards" community in the USA, we do not eff around with parking in bike lanes. I'm pretty sure texting a photo with plate visible and street address gets a ticket mailed to them. At least that was the case a few years ago. A coworker rides around town just looking for that stuff. I'd pay him a commission.

Let the ticket lapse 30 days - $500.

Cheers!
.
.
.

livedarklions

Bizarre responses are par for the course for certain self-certified geniuses. I think having bike lanes but not enforcing the no parking rules is probably the worst thing that the authorities can do, much worse than not putting in bike lanes at all. I also think that it's reasonable that the places we ride in might make the amount that the issue matters to us vary. Some people who post here seem to think that everyone else should have their priorities and like to lecture newbies and others accordingly.

An interesting aside about perspective affecting priority--I'm seeing a lot more of veterans' groups taking up the issue of discouraging fireworks. A lot of people with combat-related PTSD find the 4th of July time of year very difficult.

Leisesturm

Nah, I've seen an eyeful. You've got me beat for bizarre. So just leave me alone and I won't quote from threads where you don't come off looking so good. Deal?

livedarklions

So you're admitting you made a fool of yourself in this thread?

Headpost

A car or truck temporarily parked in a bike lane is one thing. There are plenty of places here in NYC where bike lanes are permanently blocked by businesses--mostly auto repair shops is what I've seen--that have claimed the space for their own. In some places in the Bronx it's so bad that, for blocks at a time, all you can do is ride in the narrowed-down street.

On another note, does no else care that, with the introduction of ChatGPT, computers are now--seemingly--smart enough to use reason and language as well as a human? I find it amazing and incredible and I'm frankly a little freaked out!

livedarklions

Getting back to the OP, I'm not sure I would advocate using ChatGPT for drafting such things. Frankly, the rhetoric sounds a bit canned and I'm guessing people are going to get better a recognizing a canned AI argument realtively quickly. Here's one I cooked up myself:

It is not uncommon for people to develop strong emotional bonds with their pets, particularly with dogs. Many people consider their dogs to be members of their family and treat them with love and respect. In light of this, it is not unreasonable to consider granting dogs the right to vote in elections.

There are several arguments in favor of giving dogs the right to vote. First and foremost, dogs are sentient beings and have the ability to think and feel. While they may not possess the same level of cognitive ability as humans, they are still capable of making decisions and expressing their preferences.

Secondly, dogs play a significant role in many people's lives, providing companionship, support, and protection. They deserve to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives and the lives of their human companions.

Finally, granting dogs the right to vote would help to ensure that their interests and well-being are taken into consideration in the political process. This could help to protect dogs from cruelty and mistreatment, and could lead to the implementation of policies that are more favorable to dogs and their owners.

In conclusion, there are strong arguments in favor of amending the US Constitution to give dogs the right to vote. Dogs are sentient beings who deserve to have a say in the decisions that affect their lives, and granting them the right to vote would help to ensure that their interests are taken into consideration in the political process.

livedarklions

Upon further reflection, ChatBot changed its views a bit':

It is important to recognize that the United States Constitution is a document that outlines the structure of the government and the fundamental rights of its citizens. It is not intended to extend rights to non-human animals.

However, it is worth considering the idea of granting some level of legal protection to animals, particularly those that are commonly kept as domestic pets. Dogs, in particular, have a special bond with humans and play a significant role in many people's lives. They provide companionship, security, and assistance to their owners and often serve as important members of the family.

Given the close relationship between humans and dogs, it may be appropriate to consider granting some level of legal protection to dogs. This could potentially include the right to vote in certain circumstances. For example, states could allow dogs to vote in elections related to animal welfare or other issues that directly impact dogs and their owners.

Ultimately, the decision to amend the Constitution to grant voting rights to dogs would be a significant and complex undertaking. It would require careful consideration of the potential consequences and implications of such a change. However, it is worth discussing and considering the idea as a way to recognize the important role that dogs play in our society and to ensure that their interests are taken into account in decision-making processes.

mr_bill

An interesting question - can you plagiarize an AI? (Actually, an uninteresting question.)
Will you get caught if you ask ChatGPT to compose your essay? (Yes. Almost certainly. Just like you can get caught for "reading" Cliff Notes.)

It's very good at producing plausible sounding gibberish.

p.s. There are already ChatGPT detectors.

-mr. bill