The Right to Travel by Human Power

[crankshank]

Here is a fantastic advocacy arguments from bicyclinglife.com. It is well worth reading and regurgitating:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Effecti...htToTravel.htm

Anyone who has spent much time bicycling or walking in America knows how it feels to be treated as a trespasser on our streets. As the popularity of motoring has grown, so has the belief among some Citizens that there is no room to safely or affordably accommodate non-motorized travel on public roads - at least, not on the important roads. Motorists give us helpful advice: "Roads are meant for cars, not bicycles." During road widening projects, we sometimes hear that "there aren't enough pedestrians here to warrant sidewalks or pedestrian signals" or that "we don't want to encourage pedestrians to walk here - it's too dangerous." As traffic congestion worsens, competition over road space grows bitter. "Go join a gym!" the commuting cyclist may hear from a passing car. "Get off the road!" is the standard line from pickup drivers. Even town planners, roadway engineers, and elected officials have sometimes sought to encourage "people getting exercise" (as if that were the only reason people might not drive) to stick to residential areas and stay away from those roads that actually go anywhere...


...To preserve their constitutional rights, pedestrian and cyclist traffic must be accommodated by default when designing roadways, not considered as an afterthought. Rather than having one network of travel facilities for automobiles, another for human-powered vehicles, and a third for pedestrians, the most practical approach is to have one network - public roads - and accommodate all legal forms of travel as safely and efficiently as possible on or along each link and across each node. Expressways designed exclusively for motor travel are useful for transportation efficiency, but are acceptable only if they are completely redundant to the network of roads accessible by all. Likewise, off-street greenways for non-motorized travel can be quite pleasant, and sometimes provide useful shortcuts, but they have their own significant disadvantages and must not be used as a substitute for the right to travel on roadways. Roadways are the only facilities that go everywhere, allow safe and efficient movement, and are open around the clock.

[hank moon]

commie

[crankshank]

commie

How does bicycle advocacy relate to communism? You keep your gun on your hip and walk around Bed Bath and Beyond, and I will keep riding in the middle of the street. Safety is a matter of perspective, right?

[trackrunner]

How does bicycle advocacy relate to communism? You keep your gun on your hip and walk around Bed Bath and Beyond, and I will keep riding in the middle of the street. Safety is a matter of perspective, right?

knowing hank's political posts I bet he was being sarcastic.

[Cirrus2000]

knowing hank's political posts I bet he was being sarcastic.

I totally agree. And I think he just wanted to hit 1500 posts, too.

And, with regard to the article, I also totally agree.

[trackrunner]

And I think he just wanted to hit 1500 posts

good point even more the reason to make 1500 count.

[Sombeech]

I overhear this conversation often, "I'm the one paying gas taxes for the road, not them!"

Even though I don't ride the road very often, I like to throw the reminder out there that cyclists own automobiles as well.... and they're usually driving just as often as the average motorist. Rather than watching Glee, they're out maybe once a week taking a ride.

That may have been in the article listed, but you know, I'm not a reader.

[cachehiker]

A few rednecks tried to give me that argument at the FOE Lodge a year or so ago. It's all supply and demand. If it weren't for bike commuter nuts like me their taxes would be higher (more road repair), their health care would be more expensive (yet more obesity related diseases), and there would be even less gas to go around. And that's on top of the fact that I was in a higher income tax bracket than they were and we will soon have more highway funds will be coming out of income taxes than the federal highway fund.

[hank moon]

I totally agree. And I think he just wanted to hit 1500 posts, too.

And, with regard to the article, I also totally agree.

Ooooh 150 posts - I hadn't noticed. And...I would go with "ironic" over "sarcastic"

[Cirrus2000]

Ooooh 150 posts - I hadn't noticed. And...I would go with "ironic" over "sarcastic"

1500. Fifteen hundred - one thousand five hundred!! Post-whore...

[hank moon]

1500. Fifteen hundred - one thousand five hundred!! Post-whore...

heyyyy, no comments about my former lifestyle, please!

[crankshank]

The idea is to present information that will educate and benefit everyone. The information presented indicates that almost all injuries and deaths related to bicycles occur at intersections (anywhere two lines meet i.e. driveways, sidewalks, intersecting roads...) If a bicycle makes an abrupt "lane change" to avoid a parked car, you might rear-end him, just like you would any car. Designated bicycle lanes can reduce this, but the intersections issue still remains. Someone opens a car door A car backs out of a driveway

Just like motorcycles, bicycles are harder to see. I always rode my KLR close to the center of the lane to avoid dangerous situations, reassure others of my intent to maintain a straight path and hoping that it would make me easier to see. I ride a bicycle the same way. The difference is that I can't do 35-85 MPH on a bicycle. Does this mean I shouldn't ride on nonresidential roads?

I try to be a courteous rider, just like I try to be a courteous driver. I do not ride on city streets just to piss motorists off. I get into a position that allows cars to pass me as quickly and safely as I can. I try to constantly be aware of my surroundings and always have an escape plan. But, if you act like an asshole I will try to knock your mirror off as you pass; I will try to lean a handlebar into the side of your vehicle; I will attempt to force a confrontation and vehemently dare you to shoot me with your weapon. In my opinion, passive cyclists propagate the problem. I hate entitled drivers as much as many of you hate politicians who support gun control laws. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Motor-vehicles don't kill people, people kill people.

The point is: One law, one road, one expectation would eliminate a lot of confusion, surprises, injury, death, accidents, money, arguments and paint. There should be an agreement on this in order begin to change the paradigm.

[hank moon]

The point is: One law, one road, one expectation would eliminate a lot of confusion, surprises, injury, death, accidents, money, arguments and paint. There should be an agreement on this in order begin to change the paradigm.

Asking for agreement is asking a lot - how about starting with the law?

[crankshank]

Agreement among cyclists is the first objective. After researching and considering the information, I think almost all cyclists will agree. If we have people who sit in city council meetings acting as a "friend of the bicycling community" advocating traffic segregation and people who actually are cyclists believing that bike lanes are safer, there will be no change. Cyclists must first agree, instead of working against each other, that bicycle lanes do not make cycling safer.

The next step would be to attempt to affect the laws, as a quasi-unified group.

Imagine what would happen if a "friend of the bicycling community" who was also a friend of Big D Construction, argued, along with other misguided mountain bikers, that mixed use trails were too dangerous in Mill Creek Canyon.

[hank moon]

if you act like an asshole I will try to knock your mirror off as you pass; I will try to lean a handlebar into the side of your vehicle; I will attempt to force a confrontation and vehemently dare you to shoot me with your weapon. In my opinion, passive cyclists propagate the problem.

this quote is so ludicrous it bears repeating. if aggressive, nasty motorists are a "problem" then how will aggressive, nasty cyclists be part of a solution to that problem?

Have you forgotten that passive resistance can be a powerful tool for change? If you get shot just for riding on the road, that's a position that has the potential to generate sympathy. If you are shot due to your aggressive, nasty behavior, well, need more be said?

[IntrepidXJ]

The information presented indicates that almost all injuries and deaths related to bicycles occur at intersections (anywhere two lines meet i.e. driveways, sidewalks, intersecting roads...) If a bicycle makes an abrupt "lane change" to avoid a parked car, you might rear-end him, just like you would any car. Designated bicycle lanes can reduce this, but the intersections issue still remains.

I'm pretty sure a majority of vehicle on vehicle accidents/injuries also occur at intersections as well. If they haven't figured out a solution to that problem, why do you think they would be able to figure it out while adding bicycles to the mix......

[crankshank]

this quote is so ludicrous it bears repeating. if aggressive, nasty motorists are a "problem" then how will aggressive, nasty cyclists be part of a solution to that problem?

Have you forgotten that passive resistance can be a powerful tool for change? If you get shot just for riding on the road, that's a position that has the potential to generate sympathy. If you are shot due to your aggressive, nasty behavior, well, need more be said?

I am not looking for sympathy and the only place where passive resistance is effective on a road is concrete barriers on a highway. I don't reccomend that other people who ride bicycles carry the vindictive attitude I do. It is not a solution for cyclists, it is my own f'd up, counterintuitive, response to what I deem as a personal threat. I am sure it does not garner any support from the individuals I affect, but I assume these are people who lack respect for others regardless.

If you were at a gun club and someone started firing shots as you were down-range collecting your targets, would you be looking for sympathy or practice passive resistance? If I were the one firing the shots would the response "why would you put your life in danger by placing yourself somewhere you know could kill you" inspire introspection or rage?

Anyway, the point of this post is most likely lost on you. It is not about communism, it is not about my misguided responses to aggressive drivers, it's not about guns (despite the fact that I keep bringing them up.)

The point is: bicycle lanes are ineffective and a waste of money. Any comments that are not related to this premise should be saved for another post. Flame, flame, flame, argue, argue, argue...

[crankshank]

I'm pretty sure a majority of vehicle on vehicle accidents/injuries also occur at intersections as well. If they haven't figured out a solution to that problem, why do you think they would be able to figure it out while adding bicycles to the mix......

I agree, less intersections would equal less accidents; bicycle, vehicle or pedestrian. Bike lanes essentially create more intersections, that is why they are ineffective and usually counterproductive. In my opinion they are as pointless as the double white line for the HOV lane, or the HOV lane in general. HOV lanes don't encourage people to carpool (in general, they might in ATL or LA) they are just convenient if you have a passenger in your vehicle or are riding a motorcycle.

[crankshank]

Is the bike lane the safest place for cyclists?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11875691&hl=4

[StudChild]

Last year I was hit on my bike coming home from USU. The lady made a left hand turn in front of me into PetCo parking lot. She did not even hurry through the turn. Time I saw her turn it was to late. After when I was laying on the ground she was yelling "you didn't see me, you didn't see me". I want to yell that I saw her what the heck was she doing. I left a 20ft skid mark before I hit her.



More of my story at http://studchild.blogspot.com/2009/0...-accident.html