Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Fw: Bicycles are not a form of transportation

Expand Messages
  • Joel Siegel
    The msnbc link above the article actually links to a story about Hillary Clinton s health care plan (otherwise known as the Health Insurance Company Profit
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The msnbc link above the article actually links to a story about Hillary Clinton's health care plan (otherwise known as the Health Insurance Company Profit Security Plan, but I digress). It's possible that MSNBC moved the link.

      Here's a link to the original article at Salon.com, which should remain stable:

      http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

      Cheers,

      Joel Siegel

      -----Original Message-----
      >From: Lloyd Wright <lwright@...>
      >Sent: Sep 17, 2007 2:39 PM
      >To: Carfree Cities <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>, Sustran <sustran-discuss@...>
      >Subject: [carfree_cities] Fw: Bicycles are not a form of transportation
      >
      >
      >Interesting article on how the Bush administration does not consider the
      >bicycle to be a form of transporation...
      >
      >
      >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20819827
      >
      >
      >The bicycle thief
      >
    • Elliot Schwartz
      ... I haven t found in North America that there are sufficient paths that people believe that bicycles should get off the streets and use them. More often
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 17, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        On 9/17/07, doug@... <doug@...> wrote:
        > Secondly (and of critical importance), the presence of separate paths reinforces the ideas
        > (widely held by drivers, planners, peds, cyclists and your mothers) that streets are for
        > cars and that non-motorized users must be shunted into separate spaces, for their own
        > safety and to prevent obstruction of "traffic" (motorized, of course).

        I haven't found in North America that there are sufficient paths that
        people believe that bicycles should get off the streets and use them.
        More often people believe cyclists should be on the sidewalk, or in
        the bike lane. Perhaps if paths became as ubiquitous sidewalks or bike
        lanes that would be the case.

        In any case, I don't see why bicycles shouldn't have full access to
        shared infrastructure AND their own special purpose infrastructure.

        There are multiple classes of roads tailored to the needs of cars:
        divided highways to avoid cross traffic; local streets to drive to
        your final destination. It'd be great if multiple classes of roads
        designed for bicycles were more wide spread, some of which could be
        tailored to particular desires: bike paths to avoid auto collisions,
        noise & pollution, and form cross-town routes; bicycle boulevards to
        socially meander down local streets; highway overpasses to avoid long
        detours.

        elliot
      • Erik Sandblom
        ... *motorists* much more effectively than they serve cyclists/ pedestrians. They do so in two ways: First (but of lesser importance), these facilities move
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 17, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, <doug@...> wrote:
          >
          > In North America, bike and pedestrian paths serve the interests of
          *motorists* much more effectively than they serve cyclists/
          pedestrians. They do so in two ways: First (but of lesser
          importance), these facilities move some non-motorized traffic "out
          of
          the way" of the cagers. Secondly (and of critical importance), the
          presence of separate paths reinforces the ideas (widely held by
          drivers, planners, peds, cyclists and your mothers) that streets are
          for cars and that non-motorized users must be shunted into separate
          spaces, for their own safety and to prevent obstruction of
          "traffic" (motorized, of course).


          Separate bicycle paths can make sense along roads with fast traffic,
          faster than say 30-40 km/h, because it encourages people to cycle
          where they would otherwise wouldn't dare to. Where traffic moves
          slower than that, mixed use is a good idea. I believe that painting
          bicycle lanes right on the street can have a good effect by making
          bicycles legitimate in the eyes of motorists. I think bike lanes can
          slow down the pace of traffic from, say, 40km/h to 35km/h or so.

          Bike paths can also be functional if they provide shortcuts for
          cyclists, such as a bridge or tunnel, or a path through a park which
          makes journeys by bicycle faster.

          I think the main function of bike paths is that they encourage
          people to cycle. In so doing, they make cycling legitimate
          transportation and also safer, since bicycling becomes safer the
          more people do it.

          They don't work by themselves though, they need to be part of a
          larger package such as congestion charges, pedestrianised zones,
          favourable legislation around accidents, etc.

          Erik Sandblom
        • Jym Dyer
          http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/ =v= This is the DOT s official spin in the wake of the collapsed bridge in Minnesota: Bicyclists are
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 17, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths/

            =v= This is the DOT's official spin in the wake of the collapsed
            bridge in Minnesota: Bicyclists are to blame! Zap them with
            your Tasers! (Just imagine if FEMA had this excuse handy two
            years ago: Why, the levees in New Orleans would have been
            well-maintained if only we weren't spending all that money to
            accommodate rowboats and kayaks.)

            =v= Seriously, though, this is unsurprising, coming from the
            G.W. Shrub Administration, which lets various lobbies decide
            national policy. This particular line of argument -- that
            every transportation penny must go towards cars, cars, and
            more cars, in the name of safety -- comes from the American
            Automobile Association.

            =v= The real issue is, of course, that America has far too
            much highway infrastructure and can ill-afford to maintain it.
            <_Jym_>

            Jym Dyer ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: __Q :::
            jym@... ::::::::::::::::: "My other car is :: ==`\(s_ ::
            http://www.things.org/~jym/ :::: also a bicycle." :: (_)/ (_) ::

            The only way to solve the traffic problems of the country is
            to pass a law that only paid-for cars are allowed to use the
            highways. That would make traffic so scarce we could use the
            boulevards for children's playgrounds.
            -- Will Rogers
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.