Advocacy & Safety - Sub-5% Transportation= Marginalization

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/commuter.htm
The United States.
In a political sense- people who ride bikes will never achieve a significant change in attitudes, infrastructure, subsidies, or even painting stoplight sensors unless more people ride. Regardless of the merits, few people ride and most consider it socially unacceptable (-NYC), juvenile and dangerous. Most bicycle riders are generally seen as Lance, homeless or a kid; think a sidewalk is safe and and not wearing a helmet is certain injury.
While you may disagree: geographical and regional differences- most people see us like this.
As a philosophical starting point this explains several political elements of riding a bicycle anyplace. We subsidize mass transit and invest in roads. We build million-dollar-a-mile roads instead of million-dollar-10-mile MUD's. Bike lane markings are slick (rain) crawl up curbs and disappear before intersections. Californians debate a $5 a bike recycling tax as Los Angeles beats Fresno in the smog Olympics. The pattern or premise is always based on the stereotype and homeless people/kids don't vote or pay taxes.

While I'm light on answers, I have seen historical parallels in political movements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)
Libertarians are the bicycle advocates of political parties.
"As in any political party, there is some internal disagreement about the platform, and not all the party's supporters advocate its complete or immediate implementation, but most think that the USA would benefit from most of the Libertarian Party's proposed changes.However, under a policy known as the Dallas Accord, the national Libertarian Party does not favor any particular Libertarian approach, leaving this to be decided by the actual locality or users."

Translation: Nobody knows squat about us, and we have several approaches to this end. We splinter along so many lines that we are left with no discernible identity, and no real public impact. (Thats them not us...)

After reading the same VC/bike lane/stickies/road rage stuff I skim and leave. Didn't somebody start a scuba diving comparison thread: that was the last meaningful read.
The most direct personal bicyle advocacy is to ride to work, errands, school, and tell people. If a majority of people did this nationally I wouldn't be carless and some other schmuck would be bikeless, ranting about Vehicle Code/car lane/stickies/bike rage.

Check out the "Practical Cycling" thread. I started that specifically to generate ideas to get past the very problem you outlined. I agree with your analysis of the problem, but not of the outlook. Important advocacy goals are being met in various places around the county, if not everywhere. Bicycling advocacy in Oregon, for instance, is alive and kicking. And everyone here advocates by being seen riding our bicycles.

One step at a time to get to the goal. That's how it starts.

After reading the same VC/bike lane/stickies/road rage stuff I skim and leave. Didn't somebody start a scuba diving comparison thread: that was the last meaningful read.
The most direct personal bicyle advocacy is to ride to work, errands, school, and tell people. If a majority of people did this nationally I wouldn't be carless and some other schmuck would be bikeless, ranting about Vehicle Code/car lane/stickies/bike rage.

No, the discussions on the board are meaningful, though perhaps not always in a direct way. Answers don't come in a vacuum. Ideas are not generated out of thin air. The knowledge and analysis from different perspectives contained in these threads on this board help to generate ideas about what problems there are to solve and how to solve them.

To become heavier with answers, you'll do well to participate. We would enjoy your company on this forum.

This forum needs more cycling advocacy and less bike lane and vehicular cycling advocacy. No one ever posts ideas on advocating the use of bicycles. Nearly all the threads are VC BL VC vs BL vs what ever.

The most direct personal bicyle advocacy is to ride to work, errands, school, and tell people.
I remember when I was ignorant about how easy it is to get around by bike. When I finally learned I could, and started riding to work, I found out people at work had the same ignorance problem. They were shocked I'd try such a thing. Over the years, their comments have changed from, "That's dangerous," or "you'll catch pneumonia," etc. to, "Did you ride your bike today?" in a friendly tone. I know from experience that my riding has broken down walls of ignorance.

At the same time, I don't notice any of them adopting bike commuting. Instead, they take up walking or weekend riding on recreational paths. Yet it has become more socially acceptable to them, and that's good for me.

It sure does seem, at some times, that we are a "marginalized" group, but despite the fact that in my area, only 2% of the cities traffic are commuting cyclists, there are an awful lot of resources that are dedicated to and for cycling.

Every bit of traffic not in a car is essentially creating space on the roads for other traffic. To encourage cycling helps drivers. How much would a 2% increase in road capacity cost the people of the land? Probably more than the money spent on cycling initiatives.

After a few years of improving our infrustucture, our local advocacy groups are now starting to push for more and better education.

The more everyone realizes that cycling is better for all traffic, the less problems cyclists will have from others.

One of the best things you can do is ride and give unsolicited advice that shows how riding is better for everyone. Another good thing someone can do to decrease this marginilazation is to get out of the house and join a group that shows people just how cyclists help traffic and encourages people to get out of their cars a little more often.

Here in Los Angeles I only see one other commuter. I personally don't count the sidewalk riders or college kids going to class on their beach cruisers. The reason I don't count these folks is the simple fact that if the sidewalk riders had a car they would use it and the college kids will give up transportation cycling as soon as they get their first job.

I don't expect to see the percentage of transportation cyclists change in Los Angeles in my lifetime. Even when we see $5 a gallon gas the perception remains for most folks that cycling in traffic is incredibly dangerous. And how can people not think that when we have a thread on the road forum discussing how a newbie probably deserved to get knocked over because she was blocking the bike lane. An attitude, which to me is synonomous with motorists believing that they don't have to yield to cyclists.

The only thing that will get more folks on bikes is if they have to, which would be ludicrous gas prices. But before then we'll go through a few more wars to secure cheaper fuel, and then will come a demand for better public transportation. But again it's too late for that too as we've put it off for years and painted ourselves into an auto only transportation system.

If people ask I'll tell them about all of the benefits of transportational cycling, but I am tired of trying to convince other people to ride. It's just like any other advocacy program, people have to want to change. Can anyone honestly say they don't know to wear a condom, or not eat 3 big macs for lunch? The information is out there, but folks prefer to drive. They see me cycling and they think, "well that dude's helping the environment so I can still drive." In most people's eyes alternative transportation is for other people.

I am not nearly as concerned with whether or not another person rides. I am however, concerned that they see my riding in a positive light. Most folks I know seem to look at my cycling in a positive way. In general, most folks seem to take me in a positive way. Were I to approach others in an obnoxious, rude or insensitive manner, I suppose I might be thought of as an obnoxious, rude or insensitive cyclist by some.

I do speak positively about cycling. I do answer people's questions. I do respond gratefully to compliments and gaciously to other comments. I try to project my cycling habit as one of the positive things about me.

Hopefully, when a non-cycling acquaintenace of mine hears a negative reference to cyclists, they will recall that the cyclist they know is a great guy and say so. More importantly, maybe they'll be careful on the road.

Quote by David Garman, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy...........................................
I heard this on C-span and it grated on me. He said, "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who have a car, and those who want one."

This guy is working hard for the fuel cell car future, the guilt free car. As if the tailpipe emissions and foreign dependence on energy are the ONLY consequences of car use.

We bike people are off the radar. We do not matter, we are just dreaming of getting in a car.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. :mad:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040312-2.html

Safety is an important part of advocacy. I have been carfree much of my life, but I would not have started riding again if I had not learned that cycling can be safe. I think that fear for their safety is certainly one of the top reasons people give for not riding.

I am not nearly as concerned with whether or not another person rides. I am however, concerned that they see my riding in a positive light.

Me too.

I want other road users to see a cyclist on the road and think, "good for him, he's helping out" rather than, "That b*stard is in my way. Get off the road!"

The former example I can live with, the later kind of marginalization we all could do without.

No, the discussions on the board are meaningful, though perhaps not always in a direct way. Answers don't come in a vacuum. Ideas are not generated out of thin air. The knowledge and analysis from different perspectives contained in these threads on this board help to generate ideas about what problems there are to solve and how to solve them.

To become heavier with answers, you'll do well to participate. We would enjoy your company on this forum.
I will be in PDX for Xmas, I'll buy the coffee (after I hit Powell's).
Not to be disparging, what is the killer app for bicycling? To be fair, the killer application for drunk driving was (interestingly enough) a critical mass of people- who know people affected. It is well known if you drink and drive, your toast and maybe- dealing w/ county lock up, court dates, , $, job problems, etc..
The textbook reasoned arguments involving sound logic are dated. The scientific method of bicycling, as applied to poor recent immigrants, homeless people, and two wage-earner households is meaningless. It's as if you explained a rotary engine to Chinese Villagers- They want a car.
I understand you have given careful thought to formulate immaculate/reasonable ideas to complex thoughts, but go macro. What would make most people ride a bike?

No, the discussions on the board are meaningful, though perhaps not always in a direct way. Answers don't come in a vacuum. Ideas are not generated out of thin air. The knowledge and analysis from different perspectives contained in these threads on this board help to generate ideas about what problems there are to solve and how to solve them.

To become heavier with answers, you'll do well to participate. We would enjoy your company on this forum.
I will be in PDX for Xmas, I'll buy the coffee (after I hit Powell's).
Not to be disparging, what is the killer app for bicycling? To be fair, the killer application for drunk driving was (interestingly enough) a critical mass of people- who know people affected. It is well known if you drink and drive, your toast and maybe- dealing w/ county lock up, court dates, , $, job problems, etc..
The textbook reasoned arguments involving sound logic are dated. The scientific method of bicycling, as applied to poor recent immigrants, homeless people, and two wage-earner households is meaningless. It's as if you explained a rotary engine to Chinese Villagers- They want a car.
I understand you have given careful thought to formulate immaculate/reasonable ideas to complex thoughts, but go macro. What would make most people ride a bike?

What would make most people ride a bike?
This is a question that has many answers, including that some people disregard the question as irrelevant, since (they say) it's ridiculous to try to get people to ride who don't already want to. I think that's only partly true.

I would approach it differently.

A doctor recently stated that children and teens who exercise are more likely to exercise as adults. I would agree with that. In fact, I would say that children who ride bicycles for fun are more likely to enjoy riding them as adults.

Carry it a step further, and you find that adults who start an exercise program are much more likely to continue it if they enjoy it. For example, someone who loves tennis is more likely to continue playing it than someone who dislikes it, but plays tennis purely for the exercise.

If kids who like bicycling continue liking it as adults, then one way to increase the number of adult cyclists is to increase the number of child cyclists and make it fun for them. Obviously, recreation is the main way for a child to enjoy bicycling, so kids need plenty of places to ride and have fun doing it. I'm not sure it would significantly increase the number of adult cyclists, but it might.

Add to that a cultural environment that rewards cycling and honors cyclists. Lots of kids enjoy sports, but how many American kids enjoy rugby? Cricket? No, they love baseball, football and basketball, mostly. That's because the culture honors those sports.

Part of me thinks that maybe, as cycling for sport becomes a bigger and bigger business, with more American heros, the more it will permeate the culture and encourage cycling.

...and maybe we can get onboard and remove the popular misconception that driving around in a car is the "safest" way to travel.

I think one of the reasons we don't see kids riding bikes to school anymore is that misconception, so parents end up driving the kids everywhere, not understanding that getting injured in a car accident is more likely than being hurt while riding a bike.

But how likely is that to happen? I'd say not very because the auto industry has been very good at convincing everyone that the only way to get around (and get around safely) is in a car despite the obvious carnage and jams on the roads.

The industry has managed to marginalize evryone who is not in a car.

I will be in PDX for Xmas, I'll buy the coffee (after I hit Powell's).
Not to be disparging, what is the killer app for bicycling? To be fair, the killer application for drunk driving was (interestingly enough) a critical mass of people- who know people affected. It is well known if you drink and drive, your toast and maybe- dealing w/ county lock up, court dates, , $, job problems, etc..
The textbook reasoned arguments involving sound logic are dated. The scientific method of bicycling, as applied to poor recent immigrants, homeless people, and two wage-earner households is meaningless. It's as if you explained a rotary engine to Chinese Villagers- They want a car.
I understand you have given careful thought to formulate immaculate/reasonable ideas to complex thoughts, but go macro. What would make most people ride a bike?

A critical mass of people is necessary here as well. Getting that critical mass is our problem.

As to your question: what would make most people ride a bike? Convenience. Not cost, not environment, not morality, not exercise. Convenience. People do what is convenient for them, even if it costs them more and makes them fat and stressed out. Why do students in college overwhelmingly ride a bike everywhere? Convenience. Finding parking for a car on a college campus is harder than simply picking up a bike and pedaling. Why do most adults drive cars everywhere? Again, convenience.

How do we make cycling more convenient? Well, that's why we're all here.

carless: It's good you asked this question. It got me thinking. More on this later.

As to your question: what would make most people ride a bike? Convenience. Not cost, not environment, not morality, not exercise. Convenience. People do what is convenient for them, even if it costs them more and makes them fat and stressed out. Why do students in college overwhelmingly ride a bike everywhere? Convenience. Finding parking for a car on a college campus is harder than simply picking up a bike and pedaling. Why do most adults drive cars everywhere? Again, convenience.
Given our current national urban-sprawl model, along with the entrenched car-centric culture and economy, bicycling cannot compete against driving in convenience for the vast majority in America. Only those who absolutely love to ride will attempt to switch to a bicycle from a car.

Yet, shrinking distances might give the bicycle an advantage. Also, having to choose between cycling and walking could do the same thing.

But still, I don't think we'll redesign our cities just to get people on a bike. Economic forces are what causes our cities to sprawl, and economic forces are what is also causing people to move back intown in many places. It's not driven by idealism, but market forces.

In the mean time, those of us who love to ride will continue to find creative ways to accomodate our needs.

Given our current national urban-sprawl model, along with the entrenched car-centric culture and economy, bicycling cannot compete against driving in convenience for the vast majority in America. Only those who absolutely love to ride will attempt to switch to a bicycle from a car.

Yet, shrinking distances might give the bicycle an advantage. Also, having to choose between cycling and walking could do the same thing.

But still, I don't think we'll redesign our cities just to get people on a bike. Economic forces are what causes our cities to sprawl, and economic forces are what is also causing people to move back intown in many places. It's not driven by idealism, but market forces.

In the mean time, those of us who love to ride will continue to find creative ways to accomodate our needs.

I didn't comment on how cycling could become more convenient. I simply reported an observation. If what you say is true, however, than we can all sit down because cycling will always be a fringe activity.

Yet, I don't think what you say is true. Variables change. Economics change.

Given our current national urban-sprawl model, along with the entrenched car-centric culture and economy, bicycling cannot compete against driving in convenience for the vast majority in America. Only those who absolutely love to ride will attempt to switch to a bicycle from a car...

...In the mean time, those of us who love to ride will continue to find creative ways to accomodate our needs.



If what you say is true...than we can all sit down because cycling will always be a fringe activity.
I didn't say we should "sit down" and accept things as they are. I said, "In the mean time, those of us who love to ride will continue to find creative ways to accomodate our needs."

I think the first order of business is to find ways to fulfill our own bicycling needs. Trying to fulfill the bicycling needs of people who aren't yet riding is much more difficult, and with limited resources, should take a back seat to higher priorities.

Convenience is a definite incentive. In our car-centered urban design, bikes just aren't convenient.

Another good "killer app" for cycling is weight loss. Seeing someone start commuting to work lose 20 pounds is inspiring. Unfortunately, I've been riding my bike 4-5 days a week (up from 2 the year before) for a year now and best I can do is keep from gaining weight.

The irony about driving kids to school because it is so dangerous is that it is self-fulfilling. It is only so dangerous because so many people are driving their kids to school. If they all stopped, there wouldn't be so many cars and it wouldn't be so dangerous.

And I agree that it's the image thing as well. The reality is that it's just so sensible and civilized to ride a bike to work or to the store to pick up a few things. But people just can't see it because of how car-centered we are.

Maybe we should all dress up when we ride. You know, instead of Lance suites wear a real suit, a button-down collar and dress shoes. With a brief case on the back rack. Image is everything.

Convenience is a definite incentive. In our car-centered urban design, bikes just aren't convenient.

(...)

Maybe we should all dress up when we ride. You know, instead of Lance suites wear a real suit, a button-down collar and dress shoes. With a brief case on the back rack. Image is everything.

Regarding the dress-up, I was pondering this myself. In The Art of Urban Cycling, Robert Hurst makes some suggestions to this point as well. Sometimes I wonder if the sports aspect of cycling hasn't taken over and made transportation cycling less relevent.

My only problem is that my commute, under the best of circumstances, is still over an hour long. And what would I wear in the rain?

Sometimes I wonder if the sports aspect of cycling hasn't taken over and made transportation cycling less relevent.

You wonder ONLY sometimes that the sports aspect of cycling hasn't taken over? Have you looked at the product offered for sale for the last 30 years at any U.S. local bicycle or chain xmart/dept. store?

What would you wear in the rain? Why an English raincoat of course! With an umbrella in one hand, too, if you're daring.

There's no reason why, on better weather days, you couldn't wear a nice shirt and maybe some Dockers and change out of that into your clean, dry work clothes. In other words, instead of a spandex riding suit it's riding suit of a different sort.

Convenience is a definite incentive. In our car-centered urban design, bikes just aren't convenient.

I think it becomes more convenient to ride a bike when the traffic bottle necks and parking becomes expensive (because of demand from increased traffic).

I've had to drive my kids places on occasion where there is significant traffic commuting to or from work and even including the distances involved, it would be more convenient to ride a bike because you can easily by-pass the bottlenecks that the drivers sit and wait in.

Here in Los Angeles I only see one other commuter. ... I don't expect to see the percentage of transportation cyclists change in Los Angeles in my lifetime.
Agreed. And I hardly ever commute by bicycle as well. I do expect to see a trend towards more fuel-efficient vehicles and motorcycles. The "bling, bling rides" can only be afforded by the wealthy as nearly every middle-class surbanite here in SoCal is maxed out on their mortgages and credit cards.

Another reason you won't see more commuters here in LA is based on geography. We're not flat like the fly-over states, but instead have hills and mountains.

I think it becomes more convenient to ride a bike when the traffic bottle necks and parking becomes expensive (because of demand from increased traffic).
The actual "riding the bike" vs "sitting in traffic" is more convenient. But let's look at the overall picture: you have to spend time getting your bike ready in the morning; stretch out; packing your work clothes, toiletries, etc.; find a place to lock your bike and remove your panniers so they won't get stolen; clean up at the office; change; then change again at the end of the day; stretch out; get your bike ready (water bottles, etc.); attach your panniers; cycle home; clean up again, etc. That's why I don't commute. Actually riding my bike is fun. It's all the pre- and post- ride stuff that makes it a P.I.T.A. So I ride my motorcycle to work & home, then go for a bicycle ride in the evening.

If a bicyclist (and Libertarian) like me sees commuting a P.I.T.A., what are the chances that your average John Joe couch potato will take up bicycle commuting? None.

I think it becomes more convenient to ride a bike when the traffic bottle necks and parking becomes expensive (because of demand from increased traffic).

I've had to drive my kids places on occasion where there is significant traffic commuting to or from work and even including the distances involved, it would be more convenient to ride a bike because you can easily by-pass the bottlenecks that the drivers sit and wait in.

I know. A lot of people who haven't tried it say cycling is inconvenient. I have found it to be far more convenient than driving in my situation. I get to work far faster on my bike than on the bus, and a car is only a little faster (like 3 or 4 minutes) than the bike.

Most people work a full 8 hours every week just to earn enough money to pay for the "convenience" of driving a motor vehicle, so factor that fact into your calculations. I went from working 40 hours a week to 36 hours when I dumped my car, and still came out ahead. That's 4 hours every week for riding!

I don't find a need to get all duded up every time I go for a ride. Occasionally you have to put a little thought into selecting practical gear, but it soon becomes automatic. Those recreational cyclists who have to wear the "full kit" each time they ride should try some new gear. There are lots of ideas in the Commuting and Living Carfree subforums.

I sure don't care what form of transportation you use. All I ask of fellow cyclists is that you don't claim that the bike is "inconvenient" as basic transportation if you have never tried it.

(BTW, closetbiker--I thought you had great points in all 3 of your posts on this thread. Thanks.)

well, there are tons and tons of reasons, but the #1 reason is the power of advertising --- cars companies earn big bucks and virtually no one stands to earn big bucks if lots of Americans bike commute.

but yeah the reasons are:
1) savings
2) dealing with traffic/parking
3) health - i.e. weight loss
4) stress relief/fun

unfortunatley none of these reasons is big enough to overcome the preconceived idea that cycling is slow, dangerous, low-tech and uncool...

as to the Advocacy question i have to agree with Brian that it can really do something and that Portland is the best example!

Regarding the dress-up, I was pondering this myself. In The Art of Urban Cycling, Robert Hurst makes some suggestions to this point as well. Sometimes I wonder if the sports aspect of cycling hasn't taken over and made transportation cycling less relevent.
Brian, I snapped my front brake cable this week. I just happened to be a block from a bike shop in Little Five Points (counter-culture haven,) so off I went to get it fixed.

As a young man worked on my old Moto, another guy came up and asked me if everything was ok, you know, good customer service. He must have noticed I felt a little out of place after browsing through all the expensive bikes and cycling gear. At about that time a guy dressed up to match both his bike and his helmet walked in, and I felt even more self-conscious in my casual clothing.

I suddenly remembered I needed to call my wife and I had left my cell phone at home, so I asked him if I could use the phone. He said "sure," and he brought the wireless phone over. He clicked it on, only to find that the other cyclist was using the line.

He pointed over to him and told me, "Uh, you can use it as soon as the guy in the pajamas is finished."

:D

The actual "riding the bike" vs "sitting in traffic" is more convenient. But let's look at the overall picture: you have to spend time getting your bike ready in the morning; stretch out; packing your work clothes, toiletries, etc.; find a place to lock your bike and remove your panniers so they won't get stolen; clean up at the office; change; then change again at the end of the day; stretch out; get your bike ready (water bottles, etc.); attach your panniers; cycle home; clean up again, etc. That's why I don't commute. Actually riding my bike is fun. It's all the pre- and post- ride stuff that makes it a P.I.T.A. So I ride my motorcycle to work & home, then go for a bicycle ride in the evening.

If a bicyclist (and Libertarian) like me sees commuting a P.I.T.A., what are the chances that your average John Joe couch potato will take up bicycle commuting? None.

I assume you ride a much longer distance than I do (5 miles), and that you do it faster, and on a less convenient bike (european city bike) for daily use. Everyone has their own situation, and I might well face the same issues if I lived and worked where you do.

Getting bike ready in the morning: Open door, roll bike out

Water bottle: This is a half hour ride, not a trek across the Gobi Desert. My bike has no holder for a water bottle anyway.

Stretch out: Huh? This is not the Olympic trials.

Find a place to lock: There's a rack in the parking garage at worl. It never moves.

Remove panniers: What panniers?

Clean up: Why? Should I clean up after a half hour walk at the same level of physical effort? This is 5 miles in 35-40 minutes, after all.

Change: I wear my suit and tie. I do carry the suit jacket on warm days.

Change again: See above

Attach panniers: See above

Clean up again: See above.

I agree that driving can be easier and more practical over longer distances. However, people like me who live close to work and in highly congested areas might be good candidates for bike commuting.

If a registered Republcan like me, who has never cycled recreationally and has no interest in doing so, finds cycle commuting much easier and more fun than driving, I would assume that a lot of people who live near work and shopping, in places where parking is hard to find, would like to do the same. Basically, I'm too lazy to drive either of my cars to work. When I do drive in, I worry about stuff like dents, and snowstorms. I'm pretty much a recreational motorist.

What it all boils down to is that we all have different environm,ents and what works for me may not work for you (and vice versa).

Paul

Maybe another way to try to reduce marginalization of cyclists is not just point out how we help clear up traffic on the roads by using less room than a car or truck, but to emphasize the fact that it is an individual who is riding that bike just as it is an individual that is driving that car and don't we all have rules that ensure equal rights and conduct that we each treat others by?

After all, if it was your best friend up ahead of you on a bike on the road while you were driving your car, wouldn't you cut him some slack rather than cut him off at the corner? If it was your Dad up there riding his bike because he just went through a by-pass and the doctors recomended exercise to help get his body back in shape, would you breeze him or admire his effort to be healthy? Is it acceptable to threaten relatively defenceless people just because you can? I could kick the ass of 99% of the jerks who honk and yell at me from their cars and those jerks would never do that to me if they were standing in front of me outside otheir cars, so why do they do it when they're driving? I'll tell you why. There's an element of dehumanization when someone is in traffic and you're "someone on a bike" and they're "someone in a car" but really the point is missed that it's a person in the car and on the bike and to get along we have to treat each other with the resect due them and not marginalize the group to remove the respect due them.

Aren't the people the important thing here? What would be the purpose to marginalize groups unless someone wants to elevate himself above others?

Marginalization of one group by a different group just seems to be an attempt for the group attempting marginalization to unjustly step over peoples equal rights by ignoring the unjustness against the individuals of that group by associating the action against a group and not the individual. If the group is not a popular or, even better, if it is a disliked group (disliked maybe because they are viewed as "different", in the minority, or "dangerous"), the marginalization seems to be even more justified, but it isn't.

Aren't the people the important thing here? What would be the purpose to marginalize groups unless someone wants to elevate himself above others?


Exactly, man. This brings to mind the question, "Why does any motorist need a 300 hp vehicle that goes from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds?" Answer: to elevate himself above the driver of the "average" vehicle.

Where does it all end?

Exactly, man. This brings to mind the question, "Why does any motorist need a 300 hp vehicle that goes from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds?" Answer: to elevate himself above the driver of the "average" vehicle.

Where does it all end?
I fail to see what is wrong with that. That is competition, capitalism, the drive to better yourself than others. All those qualities built the US.

And, FWIW, the 2006 Pontiac GTO has 400hp. :D

I fail to see what is wrong with that. That is competition, capitalism, the drive to better yourself than others. All those qualities built the US.

And, FWIW, the 2006 Pontiac GTO has 400hp. :D
Hey, that's cool if that's what you want, as long as you're willing to pay for the extra insurance and gas.

But unless you are racing someone else, there's no need for the horsepower. If you want to race, take it to the track.

I fail to see what is wrong with that. That is competition, capitalism, the drive to better yourself than others. All those qualities built the US.

But the public road system is not a place for competition amongst its' users. It lives or dies on co-operation.

But the public road system is not a place for competition amongst its' users. It lives or dies on co-operation.
The Germans don't have any issues with their Autobahn. Though I'm not sure if the country is bicycle-friendly or not.

We will not crack the automobile culture until we lose our cheap oil permanently, which will mean losing a war in the Mideast. This officially marks me as a "bad person," but such a military loss would be, in the long run, a good thing.

We will not crack the automobile culture until we lose our cheap oil permanently, which will mean losing a war in the Mideast. This officially marks me as a "bad person," but such a military loss would be, in the long run, a good thing.
I'll bite my tongue on this since it isn't the politics forum, but I will say this: that is a very narrow-minded viewpoint of the world's geopolitics. :mad: The fallout from the US suffering a military loss in the Middle East would knock us down socially, politically, and economically.

Cheap oil is already gone due to the free-market and China's and India's demand for it. We are already seeing sales of SUVs drop off.

But the public road system is not a place for competition amongst its' users. It lives or dies on co-operation.

The Germans don't have any issues with their Autobahn. Though I'm not sure if the country is bicycle-friendly or not.
I assume you have the same experience and knowledge of driving on the German Autobahn as you do with the bicycling conditions and issues in that country.

Cheap oil is already gone due to the free-market and China's and India's demand for it. We are already seeing sales of SUVs drop off.
I believe this is true. Combine the rising demand for oil in China with the fact that the world's peak oil production is just around the bend, and you have a recipe for ever-increasing energy costs.

The Germans don't have any issues with their Autobahn. Though I'm not sure if the country is bicycle-friendly or not.

That's got nothing to do with the issue or the topic at hand.

The point is, should there be maginalization of a group, even if the group is a legitimate user group and beneficial to the system as a whole, if the group only makes up a small portion of the users of the road?

I'll bite my tongue on this since it isn't the politics forum, but I will say this: that is a very narrow-minded viewpoint of the world's geopolitics. :mad: The fallout from the US suffering a military loss in the Middle East would knock us down socially, politically, and economically.

Cheap oil is already gone due to the free-market and China's and India's demand for it. We are already seeing sales of SUVs drop off.

Uh aren't you the guy with the 400 HP GTO that wants to do zero to 60?

Doesn't that bit about "no more cheap oil" kinda make that GTO rather null and void?

The Germans don't have any issues with their Autobahn. Though I'm not sure if the country is bicycle-friendly or not.

Except for massive pile-ups of cars due to drivers not slowing down when conditions prohibit excessive speed. Based on what I've read in car-forums (yes, I WAS a Porsche fan for many years), I think the only reason it's not shut down completely is the revenue stream from the traffic cameras installed along much of it's length. Imagine the outrage you'd hear about in the country if you #1 had to pay thousands for your license, #2 had to replace tires every 2 years with original equipment ($$$) tires regardless of wear in addition to a much more severe inspection than we do here, and #3 on top of that could get a ticket in the mail for tailgating which was caught on camera (oh, and it's $$$ plus get too many and your license is suspended).

So yes it does work with lots of government control and with people who understand that driving is a privilege (that can easily and expensively be taken away), not a right.

Exactly, man. This brings to mind the question, "Why does any motorist need a 300 hp vehicle that goes from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds?" Answer: to elevate himself above the driver of the "average" vehicle.

Where does it all end?

The same reason cyclists like having nice bikes. It feels pleasant to enjoy a good machine.

Paul

The pleasure of driving a nice machine is not limited to a gas-guzzling muscle car. The horsepower is unnecessary in normal, safe driving.

But it's a free country.

Check out the "Practical Cycling" thread. I started that specifically to generate ideas to get past the very problem you outlined. I agree with your analysis of the problem, but not of the outlook. Important advocacy goals are being met in various places around the county, if not everywhere. Bicycling advocacy in Oregon, for instance, is alive and kicking. And everyone here advocates by being seen riding our bicycles.

One step at a time to get to the goal. That's how it starts.

Thanks, Brain. Incidentally I'll be in Oregon for Xmas (PDX-Eugene-Medford) with my bike.
My point is not as a downer or discouragement for the average cyclist, yet a cold slap for the uninitiated. Much like Bush Sr was amazed at a bar scanner, people who discover bicycles as transportation, should consider the general perception of society.
Most suburban households regard milk and bread getting as a combustion activity. There is a real divide among bikers themselves, and no clear model for using a bicycle to get food or run errands, a majority of auto trips. Rather than debate this ad nauseum, and rant about the tactics or superiority of methods to this end, we should acknowledge the stereotype and seek to change it.

This forum needs more cycling advocacy and less bike lane and vehicular cycling advocacy. No one ever posts ideas on advocating the use of bicycles. Nearly all the threads are VC BL VC vs BL vs what ever.
If you question people on their use of a bicycle, most are offended or aprehensive. Bicycles as transportation is a radical idea, startling in simplicity, and threatening in its class leveling status. The personalization of bicycles is a carry-over from cars's- as is the new year models. Bikes don't progress in technology in (linear pattern) incremenntel in 12 month cycles, dealers need new product every spring.

If you question people on their use of a bicycle, most are offended or aprehensive. Bicycles as transportation is a radical idea, startling in simplicity, and threatening in its class leveling status. The personalization of bicycles is a carry-over from cars's- as is the new year models. Bikes don't progress in technology in (linear pattern) incremenntel in 12 month cycles, dealers need new product every spring.
I agree very much with your first statement. Are you then saying that bike manufacturers try to follow the automaker's pattern of introducing new models, but, as with cars, most of the model changes are purely superficial and sure don't represent any "progress in technology"? I qwould agree with that also.

What have been the latest changes in bike technology? Most are trivial bling. Disc brakes are probably useful, but 10 speed cassettes are probably insignificant. Only time will tell for sure.