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

re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket

Expand Messages
  • richfroh@comcast.net
    ... My family has experienced this deeply cynical and amoral type of greed that is wrapped around patriotism, democracy, and common cause. In April, near the
    Message 1 of 21 , Mar 16, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Ortiz wrote:

      > Have
      any of you ever heard of General Smedley Butler?  He was a major public figure in the 1930’s.  He was disgusted by the corrupt profiteering he witnessed during WWI, and stumped around > > the US beginning in 1930, giving a speech entitled “War is a Racket”.  He published a written version as a small book in 1935.  Pro-Nazi “isolationists” tried to use him as their figurehead in a 1933 > fascist coup plot against Roosevelt, but that collapsed when Butler refused to go along with it and blew the whistle on it before a congressional committee.

       

      > This is Butler’s definition of a racket:

      > A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is >conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many.

       

      > Does that ring a bell?

       

      > I was just reading the NACTO guidelines.  About bike lanes, they claim that bike lanes are good because they reduce uncertainty about where bicyclists should be on the road, and should be

      > expected to be on the road.  And at present, this is how the public and uninformed advocates perceive them.  Yet in fact, bike lanes do exactly the opposite, by promoting the false doctrine that

      > there is a single correct lateral position for bicyclists and creating increased confusion about where bicyclists should be, especially on intersection approaches, where it matters the most.

       

      > Segregated sidepaths and buffered bike lanes are even worse, because you can’t get out of them.

       

      > And a small number of people make money off these bogus safety measures, and actively promote the lie.

       

      > That is a racket.

       

       

      > Mark Ortiz


      My family has experienced this deeply cynical and amoral type of greed that is wrapped around patriotism, democracy, and common cause.


      In April, near the end of WWII my uncle's submarine "Lagarto" (Google it) went missing in the Pacific. One day shortly after receiving the MIA telegram from Uncle Sam, my grandfather left the downtown bank where he was head teller and began the long trudge up the hill to home.  Standing just outside the bank in conversation  were tow large depositors - a tool and die maker and another local manufacturer who were involved in war production.  My grandfather overheard the tool and die business owner say to the other manufacturer, "I hope this war keeps going for a while longer - I am making a KILLING!" 


      So I guess that General Smedley Butler didn't have much of an influence in his appeal to people's decency.  But hey, when you have enemies as easy to hate as Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito, it facilitates whipping people into a fury and focusing their hatred on these easy targets. Many evils can be excused or glossed-over in the name of righteousness.


      Boy, do "we" have some great things to hate now! And see how quickly these eager haters come to heel to obey their Bike Friendly masters.


      We HATE Big Oil.  We HATE Big Corporations.  We HATE Bushbushbushbushbushbushbushbush. We HATE Tea Partiers.  We HATE Cars.  We HATE Polluters.  We hate SUVs. We HATE "THEM".  And "we" are going to take their gas and their cars and their roads and their SUVs and their greed, ant we are going to make them all SUFFER by paying for out bike infrastructure and making them WATCH OUT for us as we ride in our shiny new bike facilities.  And every single miceaclist shall join in solidarity and ride together in our new bike facilities to show our individuality and our deep caring for each other and the globe. So THERE!


      Friends, I would venture that Big Bikes and Big Advocacy have succeeded nicely in their campaign to focus hate against common enemies while deflecting attention away from their own stinking hypocrisy and cynically selfish greed.  Hate isn't rational, but it sure is powerful.


      How do you suppose it feels to be one of the few - one of the leaders of Bike Advocacy - as you whip up the hate and use people's irrational emotions to make them into useful idiots?  What a "power trip" it must be!


      What a great "racket"!

    • jerry_foster@comcast.net
      Every type of business that has dependency on government, and just about all do, has a relationship with the people who make the decisions in government,
      Message 2 of 21 , Mar 16, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Every type of business that has dependency on government, and just about all do, has a relationship with the people who make the decisions in government, whether through lobbying, a revolving-door career ladder in/out of governent/private sector firms, or just funding political campaigns, individually or through various groups like PACs, super or not. This is not a racket, or a conspiracy, by itself - it's a fundamental structural feature of our political economy - it's capitalism. About the only thing you can say for paint/path is that it's chump change compared to other sectors of the economy, like the $700 billion TARP program, to take one particularly expensive program, or the lost savings from being prevented by law to negotiate volume discounts on medicare drugs, to take another particularly expensive program.

        Jerry

        All this brings to mind Rick's objection to Ugarte - I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one.
      • ianbrettcooper
        Bravo Mark, that is freaking genius!
        Message 3 of 21 , Mar 16, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Bravo Mark, that is freaking genius!

          --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Ortiz" <markortizauto@...> wrote:
          >
          > Segregated sidepaths and buffered bike lanes are even worse, because you
          > can't get out of them.
          >
          >
          >
          > And a small number of people make money off these bogus safety measures, and
          > actively promote the lie.
          >
          >
          >
          > That is a racket.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Mark Ortiz
          >
        • ianbrettcooper
          What happened after he heard that? I hope your grandfather gave him a piece of his mind. ... One day shortly after receiving the MIA telegram from Uncle Sam,
          Message 4 of 21 , Mar 16, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            What happened after he heard that? I hope your grandfather gave him a piece of his mind.

            --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, richfroh@... wrote:
            >
            One day shortly after receiving the MIA telegram from Uncle Sam, my grandfather left the downtown bank where he was head teller and began the long trudge up the hill to home. Standing just outside the bank in conversation were tow large depositors - a tool and die maker and another local manufacturer who were involved in war production. My grandfather overheard the tool and die business owner say to the other manufacturer, "I hope this war keeps going for a while longer - I am making a KILLING!"
          • the_exegete
            We re all educated, rational people here -- I think we can move beyond HATE. As for me, my emotions relative to this list range from contempt, pity, and
            Message 5 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              We're all educated, rational people here -- I think we can move beyond HATE. As for me, my emotions relative to this list range from contempt, pity, and indignation to mirth and appreciation.

              Do ozone and ash exacerbate asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema? Did the CAA and CARB save lives? Did CAFE save money? Are you, physically fit cyclists, stuck in the same insurance pool as quintuple-bypass solo car commuters? Did the SUV system use undue corporate influence to subvert the intentions of CAA and CAFE while using an artificial appeal to a Madison Avenue-created masculinity? Do oil profits wind up in the hands of terrorists and nuclear rogue states? Does a fill-up now have enough corn to feed someone for three weeks? If commuting cars are stuck at under 15 MPH, should transportation adminstrations not make a hole for rational people to get to work in a reasonable amount of time?

              I think that if VC can address these questions better than "big advocacy" it might get some traction.

              Andy Grell

              UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO


              --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, richfroh@... wrote:
              >
              >

              -snip-
              >
              > We HATE Big Oil. We HATE Big Corporations. We HATE Bushbushbushbushbushbushbushbush. We HATE Tea Partiers. We HATE Cars. We HATE Polluters. We hate SUVs. We HATE "THEM". And "we" are going to take their gas and their cars and their roads and their SUVs and their greed, ant we are going to make them all SUFFER by paying for out bike infrastructure and making them WATCH OUT for us as we ride in our shiny new bike facilities. And every single miceaclist shall join in solidarity and ride together in our new bike facilities to show our individuality and our deep caring for each other and the globe. So THERE!
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Friends, I would venture that Big Bikes and Big Advocacy have succeeded nicely in their campaign to focus hate against common enemies while deflecting attention away from their own stinking hypocrisy and cynically selfish greed. Hate isn't rational, but it sure is powerful.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > How do you suppose it feels to be one of the few - one of the leaders of Bike Advocacy - as you whip up the hate and use people's irrational emotions to make them into useful idiots? What a "power trip" it must be!
              >

              -snip-
            • John Forester
              Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they might get some traction . The trouble with that advice is that basing
              Message 6 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".

                The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.

                On 3/17/2012 5:38 AM, the_exegete wrote:
                 

                We're all educated, rational people here -- I think we can move beyond HATE. As for me, my emotions relative to this list range from contempt, pity, and indignation to mirth and appreciation.

                Do ozone and ash exacerbate asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema? Did the CAA and CARB save lives? Did CAFE save money? Are you, physically fit cyclists, stuck in the same insurance pool as quintuple-bypass solo car commuters? Did the SUV system use undue corporate influence to subvert the intentions of CAA and CAFE while using an artificial appeal to a Madison Avenue-created masculinity? Do oil profits wind up in the hands of terrorists and nuclear rogue states? Does a fill-up now have enough corn to feed someone for three weeks? If commuting cars are stuck at under 15 MPH, should transportation adminstrations not make a hole for rational people to get to work in a reasonable amount of time?

                I think that if VC can address these questions better than "big advocacy" it might get some traction.

                Andy Grell

                UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
                ~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~end group email -->



                -- 
                John Forester, MS, PE
                Bicycle Transportation Engineer
                7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
                619-644-5481    forester@...
                www.johnforester.com
              • the_exegete
                I think I ve made it abundantly clear that I m not anti-car. I m anti (1) paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
                Message 7 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car." I'm anti (1) paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3) manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of terrorism or mass suffering.

                  Andy Grell

                  UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO


                  JF:

                  Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket


                  Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".

                  The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
                • pmsummer
                  One of the problems with US bike planning, and Mr. Grell s position, is that it s all to similar to the Drive 80, Freeze a Yankee bumper stickers that were
                  Message 8 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    One of the problems with US bike planning, and Mr. Grell's position, is that it's all to similar to the "Drive 80, Freeze a Yankee" bumper stickers that were so popular here in Texas in the '70s and '80s. It's a form of regional myopia.

                    It presumes a 'one size fits all' solution to the issues facing the world's most diverse nation and economy. What is appropriate for Manhattan, may not even be appropriate for Brooklyn, much less Oklahoma City, and vice versa. The vast majority of the nation, and maybe 50% of its population, depend upon the automobile for viability. There simply is no other alternative beyond a post-apocalyptic scenario incorporating a complete collapse of the United States.

                    --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car." I'm anti (1) paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3) manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of terrorism or mass suffering.
                    >
                    > Andy Grell
                    >
                    > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
                    >
                    >
                    > JF:
                    >
                    > Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
                    >
                    >
                    > Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".
                    >
                    > The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
                    >
                  • ianbrettcooper
                    Hey, speak for yourself. I m pretty sure I m an under-educated nutcase.
                    Message 9 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hey, speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure I'm an under-educated nutcase.

                      --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > We're all educated, rational people here...
                    • nrphillipsyh
                      I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic plans
                      Message 10 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic plans that don't deliver as promised. However, this is a disingenuous argument.

                        Most of us on the list do not see these as arguments to support bicycle facilities, because the facilities we see designed and built promising to make bicycling better and safer don't disclose that they are only safe if you walk your bike and aren't designed for transportation.

                        As examples, the old and new bike lanes are in the door zone, to the right of RTOL lanes, many lights in PA have signs indicating they won't change for pedestrians or bicyclists. All the local trails built with transportation funds are closed after dark. Many planners, LEO and lower court judges in DE and PA believe bicyclists are always legally obligated to yield to all motorists, i.e. the bicyclist is at fault in any collision, even with turning motorists. This is NY and MD have to make facility use mandatory, with few of the normal exclusions - the facilities violate so many normal traffic rules many bicyclists would prefer the road, especially when traffic is traveling at bicycle speeds.

                        The current facilities have broad public support because many motorists recognize the restrictions they place on bicyclists (as explained very vocally by motorists in PA when bicyclists leave bike lane to make left turns or avoid parked cars).

                        It's one thing to oppose funding terrorists or burning gas to drive a mile for bread - this does not entail building pedestrian speed facilities to remove bicyclists from the road.

                        NR Phillips



                        --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car." I'm anti (1) paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3) manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of terrorism or mass suffering.
                        >
                        > Andy Grell
                        >
                        > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
                        >
                        >
                        > JF:
                        >
                        > Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
                        >
                        >
                        > Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".
                        >
                        > The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
                        >
                      • the_exegete
                        At no point have I ever advocated the Manhattan solution -- which is primarily a way to deter cars from entering because state legislators in commuter
                        Message 11 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At no point have I ever advocated the Manhattan solution -- which is primarily a way to deter cars from entering because state legislators in commuter counties refused to let us charge drivers for our asthma costs -- for any specific place except L.A.

                          My continuing position is that if people had to pay the true cost of driving, they would be far more amenable to ride bikes; if that can't happen politically, then if people who rode bikes got reimbursed for the money everyone else saved, it would have the same effect. And if VC can publicize itself as safer and cheaper, it would have a good shot at beating p&p.

                          BTW, right here in Manhattan today, while taking my little doggie for a bike ride, I rolled into the aftermath of a bad right cross -- a right turn from West Street - West Side Highway across the Hudson River Greenway side path. Even though there's a gigantic sign that says RIGHT TURN YIELD TO BICYCLES.

                          Andy Grell

                          UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

                          --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "pmsummer" <pmsummer@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > One of the problems with US bike planning, and Mr. Grell's position, is that it's all to similar to the "Drive 80, Freeze a Yankee" bumper stickers that were so popular here in Texas in the '70s and '80s. It's a form of regional myopia.
                          >
                          > It presumes a 'one size fits all' solution to the issues facing the world's most diverse nation and economy. What is appropriate for Manhattan, may not even be appropriate for Brooklyn, much less Oklahoma City, and vice versa. The vast majority of the nation, and maybe 50% of its population, depend upon the automobile for viability. There simply is no other alternative beyond a post-apocalyptic scenario incorporating a complete collapse of the United States.
                          >
                          > --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car." I'm anti (1) paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3) manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of terrorism or mass suffering.
                          > >
                          > > Andy Grell
                          > >
                          > > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > JF:
                          > >
                          > > Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".
                          > >
                          > > The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
                          > >
                          >
                        • the_exegete
                          I m not making the argument that paths sre needed to de-fund Hezbollah or to keep Iran from enriching uranium. In the current sub-thread, I m challenging VC
                          Message 12 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm not making the argument that paths sre needed to de-fund Hezbollah or to keep Iran from enriching uranium. In the current sub-thread, I'm challenging VC to promote itself as safe and very low in cost in order to get many people riding to acomplish tasks such as those listed above.

                            BTW Have we considered the possibility that riding in traffic really is nuts; that we're the strange ones, and everyone else really is rational?

                            Andy Grell

                            UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

                            --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "nrphillipsyh" <nrphillipsyh@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic plans that don't deliver as promised. However, this is a disingenuous argument.
                            >
                            > Most of us on the list do not see these as arguments to support bicycle facilities, because the facilities we see designed and built promising to make bicycling better and safer don't disclose that they are only safe if you walk your bike and aren't designed for transportation.
                            >
                            > As examples, the old and new bike lanes are in the door zone, to the right of RTOL lanes, many lights in PA have signs indicating they won't change for pedestrians or bicyclists. All the local trails built with transportation funds are closed after dark. Many planners, LEO and lower court judges in DE and PA believe bicyclists are always legally obligated to yield to all motorists, i.e. the bicyclist is at fault in any collision, even with turning motorists. This is NY and MD have to make facility use mandatory, with few of the normal exclusions - the facilities violate so many normal traffic rules many bicyclists would prefer the road, especially when traffic is traveling at bicycle speeds.
                            >
                            > The current facilities have broad public support because many motorists recognize the restrictions they place on bicyclists (as explained very vocally by motorists in PA when bicyclists leave bike lane to make left turns or avoid parked cars).
                            >
                            > It's one thing to oppose funding terrorists or burning gas to drive a mile for bread - this does not entail building pedestrian speed facilities to remove bicyclists from the road.
                            >
                            > NR Phillips
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car." I'm anti (1) paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3) manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of terrorism or mass suffering.
                            > >
                            > > Andy Grell
                            > >
                            > > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > JF:
                            > >
                            > > Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".
                            > >
                            > > The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
                            > >
                            >
                          • jerry_foster@comcast.net
                            I d agree with this
                            Message 13 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              </ it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling. />

                              I'd agree with this if the word "only" is inserted before vehicular cycling. I believe it's really rather easy to ask other bicycling advocates to include vehicular cycling issues along with the other things that less experienced bicyclists want, like p&p. You'd merely (!) have to see that it's not a zero sum game, that you can have a roadway that supports facilities for those who want them as well as rights to the road for those who want them. That it hasn't happened doesn't mean it cannot happen.

                              Jerry
                            • John Forester
                              The basic requirement for serving both the facilities advocates and vehicular cyclists is to get the government to repeal the laws that restrict the operation
                              Message 14 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                The basic requirement for serving both the facilities advocates and vehicular cyclists is to get the government to repeal the laws that restrict the operation of cyclists to less than other drivers. So far, the facilities advocates have shown no sign of assisting in such advocacy. There are good reasons for them to want to participate, because even bicycling facilities require that cyclists sometimes obey the rules of the road, but they have chosen to ignore that fact.

                                In my view, it is more likely that vehicular cyclists could get such a change through a legislature, because they can argue the logic without getting mixed up with planning issues. It will be a hard sell, regardless, but I think that that issue, being of such importance, requires our dedicated effort.

                                On 3/17/2012 4:06 PM, jerry_foster@... wrote:  

                                </ it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling. />

                                I'd agree with this if the word "only" is inserted before vehicular cycling. I believe it's really rather easy to ask other bicycling advocates to include vehicular cycling issues along with the other things that less experienced bicyclists want, like p&p. You'd merely (!) have to see that it's not a zero sum game, that you can have a roadway that supports facilities for those who want them as well as rights to the road for those who want them. That it hasn't happened doesn't mean it cannot happen.

                                Jerry

                                _

                                -- 
                                John Forester, MS, PE
                                Bicycle Transportation Engineer
                                7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
                                619-644-5481    forester@...
                                www.johnforester.com
                              • Mark Ortiz
                                I do support having laws entitling bicyclists to operate normally even in the presence of segregationist facilities. But it is disingenuous to suggest that
                                Message 15 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  I do support having laws entitling bicyclists to operate normally even in the presence of segregationist facilities.  But it is disingenuous to suggest that that makes segregationist facilities acceptable, or not a racket.

                                   

                                  If you build it, they will confine you to it.

                                   

                                  The confusion doesn’t go away.

                                   

                                  People are making careers out of this.

                                   

                                  It is a racket.

                                   

                                   

                                  Mark Ortiz

                                   

                                  -----Original Message-----
                                  From: chainguard@yahoogroups.com [mailto:chainguard@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jerry_foster@...
                                  Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2012 7:07 PM
                                  To: chainguard@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket

                                   

                                  </ it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling. />

                                   

                                  I'd agree with this if the word "only" is inserted before vehicular cycling. I believe it's really rather easy to ask other bicycling advocates to include vehicular cycling issues along with the other things that less experienced bicyclists want, like p&p. You'd merely (!) have to see that it's not a zero sum game, that you can have a roadway that supports facilities for those who want them as well as rights to the road for those who want them. That it hasn't happened doesn't mean it cannot happen.

                                   

                                  Jerry

                                   

                                   

                                  ------------------------------------

                                   

                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  ++++ IMPORTANT++++ Please remove all excess previous content from the message you are responding/replying to before sending your reply.

                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  To change your delivery options, send a blank email to the corresponding address shown below:

                                    Subscribe:    chainguard-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                    Unsubscribe:  chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                    Switch to Digest Mode: chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com

                                    Use Website Access/Hold Mode: chainguard-nomail@yahoogroups.com

                                    Normal Mode: chainguard-normal@yahoogroups.com Mail the list manager(Jack Taylor): chainguard-owner@yahoogroups.com

                                   

                                  Chainguard site: http://probicycle.com

                                  To e-mail system:  http://yahoogroups.com/community/chainguard

                                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                                   

                                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/

                                   

                                  <*> Your email settings:

                                      Individual Email | Traditional

                                   

                                  <*> To change settings online go to:

                                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/join

                                      (Yahoo! ID required)

                                   

                                  <*> To change settings via email:

                                      chainguard-digest@yahoogroups.com

                                      chainguard-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                                   

                                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

                                      chainguard-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                   

                                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

                                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

                                • Mark Ortiz
                                  To Andy Grell’s suggestion that I am sowing hate by calling the segregationist facilities racket what it is: Excuse me while I puke. People are making
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Mar 17, 2012
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    To Andy Grell’s suggestion that I am sowing hate by calling the segregationist facilities racket what it is:

                                     

                                    Excuse me while I puke.

                                     

                                    People are making careers out of hawking things that don’t work as claimed, to the detriment of all, and engaging in elaborate deception and manipulation to make it happen – and large cash flows are involved.  That is a racket.

                                     

                                    Pointing this out is not hatemongering.  It is honesty.

                                     

                                     

                                    Mark Ortiz

                                    _._,___

                                  • the_exegete
                                    Mark, you might have the reply chain tangled. I m the one opposed to hatred; I was quoting another post satirically listing what we re supposed to hate. I m
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Mar 18, 2012
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Mark, you might have the reply chain tangled. I'm the one opposed to hatred; I was quoting another post satirically listing what we're supposed to hate. I'm the mirth and contempt guy.

                                      I didn't disagree with your analysis of segregated road facilities as a racket. I just think moving money from my state to give value to otherwise worthless property in some other state is a bigger racket.

                                      If we all had to pay an amount closer to what we actually use, cycling would become a better answer for many people. If VC is demonstrably safer and cheaper, that would become a better answer for cycling.


                                      Andy Grell

                                      UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

                                      --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Ortiz" <markortizauto@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > To Andy Grell’s suggestion that I am sowing hate by calling the segregationist facilities racket what it is:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Excuse me while I puke.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > People are making careers out of hawking things that don’t work as claimed, to the detriment of all, and engaging in elaborate deception and manipulation to make it happen â€" and large cash flows are involved. That is a racket.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Pointing this out is not hatemongering. It is honesty.
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > Mark Ortiz
                                      >
                                      > _._,___
                                      >
                                    • frkrygow
                                      John Forester wrote: Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they might get some traction . The trouble with
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Mar 18, 2012
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        John Forester wrote: "Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".

                                        "The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling."

                                        ==============================================

                                        First, I believe describing the negatives associated with car use, as Andy did, is entirely reasonable. Yes, there are positives as well, and we all understand that. But I see no reason to use "anti-motoring" to deprecate those who mention the negatives, any more than using "bluenose" to describe those who decry binge drinking.

                                        Second, I think that bike planning has focused on cycling's positives at least as much as on motoring's negatives. If that were not the case, the "anti-motoring" people who promoted rail-trails would be shaming anyone using a car to haul their bike to a MUP.

                                        _If_ there were an effective national organization protecting our rights to the road, its effective publicity department could tout the benefits of bicycling and could mention the negatives of excessive driving without confining us to bike lanes or bike tracks. After all, MADD has reduced drunk driving without endorsing prohibition. And the advertising industry regularly promotes and popularizes activities and consumer goods that are far less beneficial than cycling.

                                        - Frank Krygowski
                                      • John Forester
                                        I suspect that I spend much more time than Frank does reading the works of the bike-planning crowd. They do very little to promote cycling. Their interest is
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Mar 18, 2012
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I suspect that I spend much more time than Frank does reading the works of the bike-planning crowd. They do very little to promote cycling. Their interest is in replacing a transportationally significant number of motor trips with bicycle trips, which is a political interest. That is why I categorize their activity as anti-motoring. To carry that out they don't have to write much that is negative about motoring, although if one looks there is plenty of that expressed. It is reasonable for us to oppose bike-planning because the means chosen to replace motor trips with bicycle trips are harmful to people who already cycle properly. These means are harmful in two ways. First, they are enforced by laws. Second, they officially express the popular superstition of cyclist inferiority.

                                          We cannot change the popular superstition and bike-planners' reliance on it to achieve their political goal. I think that that conclusion is undoubted.

                                          We possibly can, however, get the restrictive laws repealed, so that government will be unable to enforce obedience to popular superstition instead of enforcing the rules of the road. That is, giving cyclists the choice of using bikeways or using the roadway and obeying the rules of the road. Working toward that goal depends on the formation of a national organization of, by, and for lawful, competent cyclists, meaning those cyclists who obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. That organization could also work to develop more cycling activities being done in the lawful, competent manner, and it would not have to be distracted by paying attention to the negatives of motoring.

                                          On 3/18/2012 7:34 AM, frkrygow wrote:
                                           


                                          John Forester wrote: "Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".

                                          "The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling."

                                          ==============================================

                                          First, I believe describing the negatives associated with car use, as Andy did, is entirely reasonable. Yes, there are positives as well, and we all understand that. But I see no reason to use "anti-motoring" to deprecate those who mention the negatives, any more than using "bluenose" to describe those who decry binge drinking.

                                          Second, I think that bike planning has focused on cycling's positives at least as much as on motoring's negatives. If that were not the case, the "anti-motoring" people who promoted rail-trails would be shaming anyone using a car to haul their bike to a MUP.

                                          _If_ there were an effective national organization protecting our rights to the road, its effective publicity department could tout the benefits of bicycling and could mention the negatives of excessive driving without confining us to bike lanes or bike tracks. After all, MADD has reduced drunk driving without endorsing prohibition. And the advertising industry regularly promotes and popularizes activities and consumer goods that are far less beneficial than cycling.

                                          - Frank Krygowski

                                          _

                                          -- 
                                          John Forester, MS, PE
                                          Bicycle Transportation Engineer
                                          7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
                                          619-644-5481    forester@...
                                          www.johnforester.com
                                        • nrphillipsyh
                                          ... I start with promoting VC as safe and free for bicyclists that want want to use public roads to go the same place motorists want to go. This hasn t worked
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Mar 22, 2012
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > I'm not making the argument that paths sre needed to de-fund Hezbollah or to keep Iran from enriching uranium. In the current sub-thread, I'm challenging VC to promote itself as safe and very low in cost in order to get many people riding to acomplish tasks such as those listed above.

                                            I start with promoting VC as safe and free for bicyclists that want want to use public roads to go the same place motorists want to go. This hasn't worked because most local advocates and motorists (including road designers and LEO) reject the idea that motorists have the ability or legal obligation to yield to bicyclists. (Sounds insane, but this is my experience.)


                                            >
                                            > BTW Have we considered the possibility that riding in traffic really is nuts; that we're the strange ones, and everyone else really is rational?

                                            Maybe, but most readers on this list still say having motorists installing facilities for pedestrian speed bicycling with no legal ROW (enforcement of bike lane use) is even more nuts.

                                            Facilities may work where motorists are held at fault for hitting pedestrians or bicyclists. If bicyclists' rights aren't enforced, the facilities that are built are substandard and can't fix the lack of ROW.

                                            >
                                            > Andy Grell
                                            >
                                            > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
                                            >
                                            > --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "nrphillipsyh" <nrphillipsyh@> wrote:
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic plans that don't deliver as promised. However, this is a disingenuous argument.
                                            > >
                                            > > Most of us on the list do not see these as arguments to support bicycle facilities, because the facilities we see designed and built promising to make bicycling better and safer don't disclose that they are only safe if you walk your bike and aren't designed for transportation.
                                            > >
                                            > > As examples, the old and new bike lanes are in the door zone, to the right of RTOL lanes, many lights in PA have signs indicating they won't change for pedestrians or bicyclists. All the local trails built with transportation funds are closed after dark. Many planners, LEO and lower court judges in DE and PA believe bicyclists are always legally obligated to yield to all motorists, i.e. the bicyclist is at fault in any collision, even with turning motorists. This is NY and MD have to make facility use mandatory, with few of the normal exclusions - the facilities violate so many normal traffic rules many bicyclists would prefer the road, especially when traffic is traveling at bicycle speeds.
                                            > >
                                            > > The current facilities have broad public support because many motorists recognize the restrictions they place on bicyclists (as explained very vocally by motorists in PA when bicyclists leave bike lane to make left turns or avoid parked cars).
                                            > >
                                            > > It's one thing to oppose funding terrorists or burning gas to drive a mile for bread - this does not entail building pedestrian speed facilities to remove bicyclists from the road.
                                            > >
                                            > > NR Phillips
                                            > >

                                            > >
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.