Originally Posted by phoebeisis
(Post 16926497)
Ski across frozen hell to destroy Nazi heavy water-now they have bike escalators?
Awfully costly solution when you can just walk up-pushing your bike? And they maintain it in their bitter weather? Doesn't "rust out" or get broken by ice melting freezing melting freezing? I couldn't tell if they had to pay a bit-coin operated-or not? Now I didn't see a hell of a lot of people using it and it didn't look "much faster" than walking up Awfully complicated approach to a simple situation-get off and walk your bike up. |
|
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
(Post 16926523)
One day, all, non essential vehicle traffic will be gone from the streets of cities like D.C., NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago and other metro areas with five figure population densities. As I understand it, the entire European Union plans to be (urban) car free by 2050. In America it will not take longer than that, but the fight will be bloodier. America's baby boomers are just as stubborn in their car addiction as they believe the cyclist community to be in their car free advocacy. At least the cyclist community does not have the destruction of the biome as a consequence of its existence.
H |
|
If you look past the racial embitterment the guy makes valid points from a non-cyclist pov. What bothers me more than the slight inclination towards a "violent" response, was that every comment was laden with an unspoken "look what whitey did". His rant bleeds everything that is wrong with the social problems of the inner city and gentrification off as the fault of evil yippee cyclists.
|
Originally Posted by punkncat
(Post 16928213)
If you look past the racial embitterment the guy makes valid points from a non-cyclist pov.
Originally Posted by joe_killiany
As a college comp professor, I'm always on the look out for examples of logical fallacies. In this, Courtland Milloy is the gift that keeps on giving. Seriously--the gang's all here: strawman, hasty generalizations, red herrings, weak analogies. I so often use his columns to illustrate ineffective rhetorical choices that I feel like I should offer him a stipend of some sort just to make sure he continues turning this stuff out. Has there ever been a columnist for the Post so less aware of the rhetorical situation?
|
I don't disagree with any manner of picking the article, or author, apart but in that we must be honest in validating certain points he makes. Ninja cyclists, salmon, sidewalk surfers, and the entitled bike road rager are all for real issues that pose a danger to folks on both sides of this fence. It's no wonder that the average urban driver has a pretty poor attitude regarding cyclists in general if you actually look at the things people on bikes do. It take a cyclist to actually know that we frown on that mess as well.
To add to that thought. It's my opinion that the average non-cycling motorist doesn't see most people on bicycles in an active conscious way unless they are doing something out of the ordinary. Then the perception in their minds are that all cyclists must act with such disregard because it's "all they have seen". |
Originally Posted by Andy_K
(Post 16927047)
For starters it's still open season on middle-to-upper class white men. That's not to say "oh poor us" because in nearly all other respects the system is still very heavily biased in favor of middle-to-upper class white men. In any case, our society seems to tolerate attacks on middle-to-upper class white men, and (as seen in the WP editorial) the visible majority of cyclists are middle-to-upper class white men. Notice that he has nothing bad to say about the "black juveniles" who apparently used to be the majority of on-street cyclists in DC (even if his statements have the subtext of "because they didn't ask for anything").
Second, the vast majority of us are cyclists by choice. In our society, (with the previously noted exception) it is not "OK" to express contempt for a group of people based on a characteristic that is beyond their control, even if it's a characteristic they are very proud of. People who may be grouped based on their choices, on the other hand, are fair game for just about any extreme of hatred. Witness the vile polemics in the political arena. |
Originally Posted by Matariki
(Post 16927077)
The pedestrians in the video were keeping pace, weren't they. To me, this seems more like a novelty than a real advantage to cyclists. Did the designers forget that legs can be used to walk? Also, it looked rather awkward for the users. I wonder how many injuries they have seen.
And yeah-hanging one leg to the side- looked awkward AND- suppose you have to dodge a car Perhaps a "Killer motorist" the sort that some posters here cross paths with very frequently(once every 20 years for me) Or just a distracted person-texting,reaching for radio You really wouldn't want that foot hanging over there if you wanted to swerve suddenly And that hill-maybe 50-60 ft elevation gain-not much for all that expense? I'm guessing BIKE ESCALATORS didn't catch on anywhere bikes are a simple cheap compact solution to short trip travel Bike escalator-??? Now a Big hill-mountain- 500-1000 ft elevation gain-if LOTS of riders made the trip-say to work at some mine maybe-might make sense? |
Originally Posted by Rollfast
(Post 16927606)
We are getting distracted too easily and coasting into oblivion here... get on track or end the thread.
The columnist didn't actually "call for assaulting cyclists" so original heading was a lie What the columnist actual wrote was typical "I don't like bikes bike riders-if they keep pissing "us off" someone might run them over" "Lots" of drivers and pedestrians don't like bike riders. Nothing new there |
As a college comp professor, I'm always on the look out for examples of logical fallacies. In this, Courtland Milloy is the gift that keeps on giving. Seriously--the gang's all here: strawman, hasty generalizations, red herrings, weak analogies. I so often use his columns to illustrate ineffective rhetorical choices that I feel like I should offer him a stipend of some sort just to make sure he continues turning this stuff out. Has there ever been a columnist for the Post so less aware of the rhetorical situation? For cyclists, silly season never ends. |
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
(Post 16928835)
...
And that hill-maybe 50-60 ft elevation gain-not much for all that expense? I'm guessing BIKE ESCALATORS didn't catch on anywhere bikes are a simple cheap compact solution to short trip travel Bike escalator-???... The escalator is 4-6 mph. My personal opinion: ridiculous. Why would an active person be averse to walking a short distance uphill? |
Originally Posted by wphamilton
(Post 16929147)
Looking at Google Maps I figured about 80 feet total, maybe the steep section is 50-60? Maybe 6% grade, near as I could tell.
The escalator is 4-6 mph. My personal opinion: ridiculous. Why would an active person be averse to walking a short distance uphill? |
Originally Posted by Leisesturm
(Post 16926523)
One day, all, non essential vehicle traffic will be gone from the streets of cities like D.C., NYC, Philadelphia, Chicago and other metro areas with five figure population densities. As I understand it, the entire European Union plans to be (urban) car free by 2050. In America it will not take longer than that, but the fight will be bloodier. America's baby boomers are just as stubborn in their car addiction as they believe the cyclist community to be in their car free advocacy. At least the cyclist community does not have the destruction of the biome as a consequence of its existence.
H |
Not sure if any of you saw this, probably got swallowed up in this whole controversy, but instead of displaying his general jack***ery, Courtland Milloy probably should have written something more along the lines of this: Hey, infuriated D.C. bikers and drivers, can?t we all just get along? - The Washington Post
|
@huizar: Several of the Post's columnists have gotten into the act since Milloy's column was posted. I know a lot of people are accusing them of posting "click-bait" and I'm starting to believe it. It's as if they're saying, "Wow, look at all the traffic Milloy's column got. I want a piece of this action."
|
Originally Posted by punkncat
(Post 16928390)
...we must be honest in validating certain points he makes. Ninja cyclists, salmon, sidewalk surfers, and the entitled bike road rager are all for real issues that pose a danger to folks on both sides of this fence.
|
Originally Posted by kickstart
(Post 16929282)
I'll admit if there were one of those on the mile long, 8% to 10% grade hill I climb on my way home after 10 + hours at work I would use it with no shame. I can ride it on my 8 and 21 speeds but need to walk it with my 3 speeds. From what I've seen most just take the bus up the hill but I'm a cheapskate.
I would probably break down and get an electric "boost" for my bike(if I didn't just drive-which is what I do) Just gaining 500 ft- assuming about 200 lbs- 1/3 hp 500 seconds-8 1/2 minutes and no way could I put out 1/3 hp for more than a few seconds so figure 15 minutes per 500 ft-and dead tired My "workout fun ride" up and down river levee-maybe 15 20 ft mini climbs- 24 minutes-just 300 feet of gain but I am old-63 fat 180 5'5" and it is hot in NOLA yeah kickstart-get an electric boost-(assuming you can lock it well at work) wphamilton- so just 80 foot gain?? Wow awfully complicated "fix" for a not a problem problem. |
Originally Posted by Brennan
(Post 16929628)
Except I have a major problem with singling out just one group because it doesn't address the overall issue and results in absolutely nothing except flame wars. What we are really talking about here isn't bikes, it's traffic safety, and anyone who is genuinely concerned about the subject would take all offenders to task, not just one subset. The mode of transport is incidental (although a strong case should can be made that an emphasis should be placed on the group that causes the most injuries and fatalities, namely motor vehicles).
Where there is no doubt that in a car/cyclist situation the car will always win, but it isn't to say that the car driver is always at fault or that any and all cyclist act they way they should. |
Originally Posted by phoebeisis
(Post 16930050)
Wow 1 mile 500 ft gain-at the end of a work day-hmmmm
I would probably break down and get an electric "boost" for my bike(if I didn't just drive-which is what I do) Just gaining 500 ft- assuming about 200 lbs- 1/3 hp 500 seconds-8 1/2 minutes and no way could I put out 1/3 hp for more than a few seconds so figure 15 minutes per 500 ft-and dead tired My "workout fun ride" up and down river levee-maybe 15 20 ft mini climbs- 24 minutes-just 300 feet of gain but I am old-63 fat 180 5'5" and it is hot in NOLA yeah kickstart-get an electric boost-(assuming you can lock it well at work) |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:58 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.