LA Times: 'Bicycle Brawl'
01-09-08, 07:25 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
LA Times: 'Bicycle Brawl'
Another newspaper trying to make money off the tired old 'bikes vs. cars' schtik. The anti-bike crowd is led by John Forester's ADC compatriot, Randal O'Toole. I guess the motorists are finally noticing the rise of bicycling in LA, led by groups like the Midnight Ridazz
Bicycle Brawl
The Bike World Outside LA
Showing Cyclists the Money
Huffy Vs. Hummer
Originally Posted by LA Times
Pedal-powered transportation is good for your health — no disagreement there. But should local governments and motorists accommodate it as a means of commuting equal to cars? L.A. blogger and cyclist Will Campbell and Cato Institute Senior Fellow Randal O'Toole (also a cyclist) debate bicycle infrastructure, planning and activism.
The Bike World Outside LA
Showing Cyclists the Money
Huffy Vs. Hummer
Last edited by randya; 01-09-08 at 07:36 PM.
01-09-08, 07:38 PM
#2
♋ ☮♂ ☭ ☯
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 40205 'ViLLeBiLLie
Posts: 7,902
Bikes: Sngl Spd's, 70's- 80's vintage, D-tube Folder
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
" But should local governments and motorists accommodate it as a means of commuting equal to cars? "
Yeah.....lets let motorists decide whats best
'Merikkaans just will not be happy until we are officially renamed
West Calcutta.
Yeah.....lets let motorists decide whats best
'Merikkaans just will not be happy until we are officially renamed
West Calcutta.
01-09-08, 08:16 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258
Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
This is an interesting debate.
I take exception with Randall O'Toole's contention that cities have become bicycle-friendly by being auto-hostile. It's not that I think he's wrong. He's probably right, in fact. But, the important question is 'why shouldn't citie be auto-hostile? Auto-friendly cities are hostile to all other forms of transportation: cycling, pedestrian and even equestrian. Cities should not be about cars, they should be about people and bicycles are more people-friendly than cars. Of the 24 pedestrians killed in Toronto this past year, not one was killed by a cyclist, after all.
The better the infrastructure for bicycles and the more-auto-hostile the environment, the more cyclists there will be and that means fewer cars, cleaner air, safer streets and better communities. Fewer cars also means that those who must drive---for there are those who have no choice---will have less-congested streets and be able to travel faster, with less stress and polluting less. Being hostile to a system that destroys is not such a bad thing.
I take exception with Randall O'Toole's contention that cities have become bicycle-friendly by being auto-hostile. It's not that I think he's wrong. He's probably right, in fact. But, the important question is 'why shouldn't citie be auto-hostile? Auto-friendly cities are hostile to all other forms of transportation: cycling, pedestrian and even equestrian. Cities should not be about cars, they should be about people and bicycles are more people-friendly than cars. Of the 24 pedestrians killed in Toronto this past year, not one was killed by a cyclist, after all.
The better the infrastructure for bicycles and the more-auto-hostile the environment, the more cyclists there will be and that means fewer cars, cleaner air, safer streets and better communities. Fewer cars also means that those who must drive---for there are those who have no choice---will have less-congested streets and be able to travel faster, with less stress and polluting less. Being hostile to a system that destroys is not such a bad thing.
01-09-08, 11:32 PM
#4
----
This is an interesting debate.
I take exception with Randall O'Toole's contention that cities have become bicycle-friendly by being auto-hostile. It's not that I think he's wrong. He's probably right, in fact. But, the important question is 'why shouldn't citie be auto-hostile? Auto-friendly cities are hostile to all other forms of transportation: cycling, pedestrian and even equestrian. Cities should not be about cars, they should be about people and bicycles are more people-friendly than cars. Of the 24 pedestrians killed in Toronto this past year, not one was killed by a cyclist, after all.
The better the infrastructure for bicycles and the more-auto-hostile the environment, the more cyclists there will be and that means fewer cars, cleaner air, safer streets and better communities. Fewer cars also means that those who must drive---for there are those who have no choice---will have less-congested streets and be able to travel faster, with less stress and polluting less. Being hostile to a system that destroys is not such a bad thing.
I take exception with Randall O'Toole's contention that cities have become bicycle-friendly by being auto-hostile. It's not that I think he's wrong. He's probably right, in fact. But, the important question is 'why shouldn't citie be auto-hostile? Auto-friendly cities are hostile to all other forms of transportation: cycling, pedestrian and even equestrian. Cities should not be about cars, they should be about people and bicycles are more people-friendly than cars. Of the 24 pedestrians killed in Toronto this past year, not one was killed by a cyclist, after all.
The better the infrastructure for bicycles and the more-auto-hostile the environment, the more cyclists there will be and that means fewer cars, cleaner air, safer streets and better communities. Fewer cars also means that those who must drive---for there are those who have no choice---will have less-congested streets and be able to travel faster, with less stress and polluting less. Being hostile to a system that destroys is not such a bad thing.
Just drive one to discover this. What makes you most unhappy in a car?- more cars on the road. Bikes are little more than an annoyance to an automobilist other cars are the enemy.
01-09-08, 11:39 PM
#5
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
the thing most hostile to the automobile is more automobiles. If you keep piling them into cities, onto roads, parking garages, streets etc they become hostile to one another.
Just drive one to discover this. What makes you most unhappy in a car?- more cars on the road. Bikes are little more than an annoyance to an automobilist other cars are the enemy.
Just drive one to discover this. What makes you most unhappy in a car?- more cars on the road. Bikes are little more than an annoyance to an automobilist other cars are the enemy.
Yeah, but they haven't quite figured that out yet, have they... sigh.
01-10-08, 09:08 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,258
Bikes: BikeE AT, Firebike Bling Bling, Norco Trike (customized)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
A pendulum that swings one way and then the other eventually settles in the middle.
01-10-08, 01:20 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 991
Bikes: Cannondale Synapse 5c, Scattante XRL
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
the thing most hostile to the automobile is more automobiles. If you keep piling them into cities, onto roads, parking garages, streets etc they become hostile to one another.
Just drive one to discover this. What makes you most unhappy in a car?- more cars on the road. Bikes are little more than an annoyance to an automobilist other cars are the enemy.
Just drive one to discover this. What makes you most unhappy in a car?- more cars on the road. Bikes are little more than an annoyance to an automobilist other cars are the enemy.
__________________
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion" is only half-right.
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
"Everyone is entitled to an opinion" is only half-right.
Everyone is entitled to an informed opinion.
01-10-08, 02:22 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This is an interesting debate.
I take exception with Randall O'Toole's contention that cities have become bicycle-friendly by being auto-hostile. It's not that I think he's wrong. He's probably right, in fact. But, the important question is 'why shouldn't citie be auto-hostile? Auto-friendly cities are hostile to all other forms of transportation: cycling, pedestrian and even equestrian. Cities should not be about cars, they should be about people and bicycles are more people-friendly than cars. Of the 24 pedestrians killed in Toronto this past year, not one was killed by a cyclist, after all.
The better the infrastructure for bicycles and the more-auto-hostile the environment, the more cyclists there will be and that means fewer cars, cleaner air, safer streets and better communities. Fewer cars also means that those who must drive---for there are those who have no choice---will have less-congested streets and be able to travel faster, with less stress and polluting less. Being hostile to a system that destroys is not such a bad thing.
I take exception with Randall O'Toole's contention that cities have become bicycle-friendly by being auto-hostile. It's not that I think he's wrong. He's probably right, in fact. But, the important question is 'why shouldn't citie be auto-hostile? Auto-friendly cities are hostile to all other forms of transportation: cycling, pedestrian and even equestrian. Cities should not be about cars, they should be about people and bicycles are more people-friendly than cars. Of the 24 pedestrians killed in Toronto this past year, not one was killed by a cyclist, after all.
The better the infrastructure for bicycles and the more-auto-hostile the environment, the more cyclists there will be and that means fewer cars, cleaner air, safer streets and better communities. Fewer cars also means that those who must drive---for there are those who have no choice---will have less-congested streets and be able to travel faster, with less stress and polluting less. Being hostile to a system that destroys is not such a bad thing.
01-10-08, 02:44 PM
#9
I... Don't care.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 1,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You know? I grew up out in the country - wide open spaces, uncrowded roads, plenty of room to park, business all having big parking lots because EVERYBODY drove a car or pickup truck. Heck, I think most cities are ALREADY auto-hostile!!! Traffic, no place to park, and having to pay when you do find a spot, etc. I don't know if I could think of a better mode of transportation in the average city than a bicycle!
