Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes asserted last year that Denver’s efforts to encouraging bicycling “threaten our personal freedoms"Some days I wonder if the Yes Men have fully infiltrated the GOP consultants hierarchy...
Jeff Mapes, author of “Pedaling Revolution,” thinks the smugness factor is almost accidental: “I know a lot of cyclists who say their commute is the best part of their day” — not exactly the kind of thing that the co-worker who just spent an hour in gridlock wants to hear at the water cooler. And just like “I don’t have a TV” guy, those who eschew modern conveniences can rub people the wrong way. In fact, the antipathy toward bicycles resembles the Republican aversion to trains, a form of transport that’s older and slower than flying but seen as elitist nonetheless. Like trains, bikes are looked at as a boutique form of transportation that pretentious liberals like because they want to Europeanize our cities.That may be a good idea: the EU uses 27.88 barrels per 1,000 people per day, while the US is at 61.14.
You know what helps? Reading the article. That thing? At the top? That prompted this discussion? You should read that.Thanks, I did. But hey, he's not wrong about patronizing!
13. If I make a mistake while driving, am in an accident, or cause injury to myself or others, this will not be held against all drivers or considered proof that driving is inherently dangerous or irresponsible.posted by anthill at 1:36 PM on December 4, 2011 [9 favorites]
I walk and ride the subway. You wheeled motherfuckers can kiss my ass.Well, you sure are awesome, but there's no subway here, and walking in the dark, which would be necessary for me to get to and from work in the winter, is really dangerous.
I have commuted for going on 15 years now, and this just doesn't make sense to me. Am I doing it wrong? 90% of the traffic lights I come to are timed, and traffic is almost always flowing both ways (taking turns of course.) That means that standing in the road is a given. If this is really dangerous then I'm in trouble.When I lived in Chicago I paid attention to lights during commute times for the reasons you mention (they're timed and cross traffic precludes cruising anyways) but that's not the case most of the time in most cities. On Saturday nights when there isn't much cross traffic and there's usually a crazed taxi cab behind you, you better believe I'm going to keep moving through that red light if I can. You're not doing it wrong, but hermitosis isn't either, for very good reasons.
And last week, I saw an accident happen when a cyclist swerved in front of a driver in rush hour, causing Driver 1 to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting the bike, which resulted in getting rear-ended by Driver 2.Do you make a note of every time you see a driver double-parked in a bike lane? How about every time you see someone open a car door without looking behind them to see if there's a bike approaching? Because that's the kind of thing that happens all the time and that leaves me with a choice of swerving out into traffic, which could cause an accident, or definitely getting into an accident that could kill me. And I bet that like most non-bike-riders, you don't even notice that shit.
I am honestly curious about the [American only?] notion of cars being "working class", and bikes being "elite".Bike infrastructure is a real luxury in the US, and partly for that reason, people who bike by choice tend to be pretty privileged. They live in fairly cushy neighborhoods, can afford expensive equipment, and have health insurance which means that they can financially weather a non-catastrophic accident. The other big group of people who ride bikes are the truly disadvantaged. They usually don't have access to infrastructure, fancy equipment, or health insurance, but they also don't have other good options. And as people have said, they're invisible. They're not just invisible in this particular instance. Other Americans don't give a damn about them, except when they're constructing them as a problem. And bike advocates don't necessarily want to point to the other bike riders to combat the image of being elites, because it doesn't necessarily behoove them to tie their cause to illegal immigrants (who can't get licenses legally) or desperately poor people.
Surely you mean "buy a mass transit pass" or "walk".You can't assume that these are options for everyone. I live in a city with decent public transit, and even here the bus doesn't run at all overnight or on Sunday. It runs hourly at most other times. We have no sidewalks in my neighborhood, and the street lighting is very poor. It's not super-safe to walk during the day, and it's downright dangerous when it's dark. Many people here don't have 9-5 jobs, and many work on Sundays or at night sometimes. My neighborhood is poor enough that almost all the kids here qualify for free school lunches, and during the summer the lunch truck comes and gives free lunch to any kid who gets in line. Some people here can't afford a car. Many can't afford to hire a cab to get to work on Sundays or at night, although plenty of people do that. I know this is hard to wrap your head around, but some people ride bikes because their other options are non-existent or really crappy.
I always find it so funny that wide swaths of intelligent, open-minded MeFites have trouble imagining why someone could not reasonably bike to work every morning.I don't think that has anything to do with anything that's going on in this conversation, to be honest. Nobody is saying that everyone should bike to work.
The point of my mentioning mass transit and walking was to point out that people do live in varied environments and circumstances, with jobs of varying distances and operating hours.Huh. Really? I didn't get that from that comment.
This is why the Driver v. Rider arguments will never end so long as we're so focused on "no, YOU'RE the one who has to change" back and forth. Municipalities should - within reason - do what they can to provide their residents with the options of different forms of transportation. Once those options are there, I feel, discussions between drivers and riders will dial it down a bit.The thing is, these debates aren't just, or even primarily, about people sniping at each other about who is ruder. They're primarily about how municipalities are going to allocate resources and space. The question is about what is "within reason" when it comes to provision for cyclists, transit users and pedestrians. People who harp on rude cyclists usually don't blame the infrastructure. They blame the cyclists, and they never seem to say "I hate it when cyclists ride on the sidewalk, so let's get some separated cycling tracks!" If we all agreed that there should be better cycling infrastructure, I don't think there would really be much to fight about.
« Older The Canadian government has put a negative spin on... | Taco Fiction is the winner of ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tomswift at 12:59 PM on December 4, 2011