njkayaker

No one is "equating it to vandalism".

njkayaker

You are missing the point.

"You" are making the decision to mess with other people's property and waste thier time without having any idea of what their opinion is.

Everybody who wants to do this rationalizes why it's "OK" to do. Not being "commercial" might make it a bit better but you are still forcing people to deal with your trash.

It's selfish and discourteous. In an obvious and basic way.

All the excuses you make don't change that.

njkayaker

Posters an poles may also be illegal.

That approach doesn't work too well because people don't remove their trash frm the posts.

digger

If this is information on how roads could be made safer, then I do not have a problem with receiving this information on my bike. If it was a 2-for-1 pizza offer for $9.99 then I'd be irritated.

Sure, heavy stock paper might be best...expensive.

Do not put it into my spokes.
Do not wire it, or use rubber bands to attach it to my handlebar or other part of bike.

Fabricate the flyer so that it has a slit, with a hole, so that it can be easily hung on the handlebar and removed. Like the "Do Not Disturb" signs in hotels.

digger

Edit: Another poster suggested offering some sort of...reward or offer. Perhaps a free coffee at whatever popular shop is in your area (Starbucks, Second Cup, etc) or perhaps a coupon for a free mini-blinkie light at MEC or REI, free tune-up at a LBS, etc. That way there will be less inclination to throw it away.

kickstart

I take it you didn't read the link.

njkayaker

Is the OP in Seattle? How common is that allowance elsewhere? Keep in mind that not every one here is in Seattle.

My comment was more to remind people to check to see whether or not it was legal where they are considering doing it.

If he takes the posters down rather than forcing tax payers to pay to do it, it would be better than co-opting other people's property.

It's still ugly.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sounds real kewl, dude; anybody who has an issue with a plan to stick objects into spokes or the litter involved must be a "troll" or somehow unworthy anyhow.

AboutDavid

All advertising is, pretty much by definition, selfish and discourteous. It's intruding into a person's time and space in order to personally benefit from the transaction. Nike doesn't spend millions making flashy commercials to make you a better person. I'm not sure what point is being argued beyond all advertising should cease. Not going to happen.

It seems pretty obvious that some people let it bother them (maybe excessively), some people could care less, and some people actually like being solicited (new ideas, raised awareness, all that jazz). To each one's own.

The OP shouldn't need this forum to realize that universal truth, and simply needs to weigh whether the risk of alienating those who it annoys is outweighed by the benefit of engaging those that it doesn't. Nothing they've suggested seems to indicate that they're planning anything more "intrusive" than might be involved by someone carefully moving a locked bike a bit to the side in order to park their own. If you consider that "messing with someone's property", then I'm pretty guilty, and I don't even advertise.

njkayaker

This isn't actually entirely true. Often, advertising subsidizes the cost of what people want (TV, magazines, free forums like this one!). And, if you don't like it, you can choose not to buy the magazine or whatever. Choosing not to park your bike isn't a reasonable response at all.

And, the fact that other things are "intrusive" isn't a justification for being intrusive too. "Everybody does it!" is a lame excuse.

No. It is obvious that most people are going to be annoyed more-or-less by the fliers. The "weighing" they do is mostly rationalizing a selfish act.

It's bizarre that you think they are the same sort of thing. It's more like somebody going from bike rack to bike rack moving bikes. The scenario you are describing is basically unavoidable. People aren't going out of their way to choose to move your and other's people bike's.

The problem is that you are denying people who don't want to be annoyed (the majority, I suspect) not to have "their own".

So, it's not "to each" you are recommending but to some.

The "to each one's own" is applied to things people can choose for themselves. It doesn't apply to crap forced on them.

AboutDavid

I don't think it's obvious that most people are going to be annoyed. The posts in this thread alone seem pretty much split between outrage to meh, who cares to good idea. It seems to sync with the general feeling about any advertising, spam, junk mail, flyers, billboards, commercials, you name it.

And I didn't say they were the same sort of thing, I just said that one's no more intrusive than the other. It's not the "messing with your stuff" that bothers you, it's the unsolicited advertising.

njkayaker

So, if you aren't sure, it's less polite to assume that they would not be annoyed.

No, it appears that more people don't like the idea of having their bikes messed up with.

It still doesn't make sense to annoy half of a population. It's odd that you don't see that's generally rude.

SPAM and robocalling is really the same thing. The number of people who actually like SPAM are likely very few

Most (a vast majority of) people are annoyed by it but don't have any recourse. The same thing is the case with selfish people attaching trash to other people's property.

It's bizarre that you think it's OK to annoy so many people!

They aren't "no more intrusive".

One is basically an unavoidable interaction with one bike, which doesn't force owner to deal with trash left behind.

The other is a completely avoidable choice to mess with many other people's bikes in a way that forces each of the owners to deal with the trash left behind. It's much more intrusive.

No. It's the involuntary use of other people's property for selfish reasons that bothers me.

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

I'm not talking about moving locked bikes.

That you consider it (attaching trash) not "messing with someone's property" means that you don't care what the owners actually think. You are suggesting doing it regardless of the opinions of people whoes property to are messing with.

daihard 

My bad. I read your statement regarding vandalism incorrectly. Thanks for pointing that out.

njkayaker

I was replying to silly excuse that "it's OK because it's not permanent". Which is saying "it's OK because it's not vandalism". (It's not murder, either.)

The excuse that it's OK to annoy "half" of a population is pretty silly too.

daihard 

Yes, I see what you're saying. I still think it's nothing but a minor nuisance, but like everything else, YMMV.

njkayaker

Even it being "minor" really doesn't excuse it. One of the problem is that people spend a lot of effort rationalizing it as being "minor".

"You" don't get to decide how much of nuisance it is to other people. That is, their right not be be subjected to a nuisance takes presidence over the lame reason "you" want to annoying them.

"You" should strongly choose things that won't be nuisances to other people even if the nuisance is minor to "you". Keep in mind that "you" are also being a nuisance to many other people.

It's sort of basic courtesy to try to avoid being a nuisance to other people.

daihard 

Calm down. I'm saying it's a minor nuisance to me as a receiver of the action, as is pretty obvious from my first reply.

njkayaker

The issue is whether to choose doing it to other people.

People who think it's a good idea either don't care that it's a nuisance to you or will claim that your position is unusual (and can be ignored).