We built it, we can change it if we want to. You're living the suburban lifestyle, so you've bought into it. Ultimately we will be forced to change by the increasing scarcity and price of oil, it's just a question of whether we rationally plan for it, or make drastic changes in crisis mode at the last possible minute. We'd already be halfway there if gasoline in the US cost what it does in most other parts of the world. None of our politicians are helping by making affordable gasoline the issue, rather than making planning for change the issue.

Hey, I can wave the signs too. I'm just saying that this has been in the works for a while and is not something so easily dismantled, if it is possible at all. For instance, where would you begin? What would you change? If there are a hundred different influences, all equally weighted and none well defined, which do you change to bring about the desired outcome? Would you rely on social engineering or personal choice? How do you experiment when a single perturbation takes a decade to play out?

Now, there are things we can do. We can start making neighborhoods smaller. We can start zoning commercial sectors closer, or even mixed, with residential. We can build more surface streets to replace freeways. Even simple things such as sidewalks can be installed. But it takes time. We keep hearing about the "oil crisis," but it never seems to affect things that much. Personal transportation is very ingrained in our culture. Oil or no oil, this won't change easily. There will be no crisis, and there will be no crisis mode we fall into. There will also be no rational planning, except on a very large scale. Our government, our economy, doesn't work this way. Our cities evolve; very rarely are they planned.

It took us a century +/- to get where we are, it might take a century more to change back. It may seem like a lot of time and a tough row to hoe, but it is neither. Sure, change is scary, but what are the alternatives, really?

I'll disagree, in that I don't think it does, but leave that for another thread! ;)

Many times our ideals and our actions are at odds. Unfortunately, our economy doesn't listen to our ideals, it only knows our actions.

Agree that the thousands of decisions (right or wrong) have landed us here today. It's so subtle and easy - so the slope tends to be slight, rather than staring off the edge of an abyss.


There is a field called "systems theory" which seeks to describe how a population of single minded (selfish in the economic sense) entities forms the sum total of a society. The one characteristic of a system is that you cannot tell, looking from the inside out, why the system evolved the way it did. Another characteristic is that you cannot look at the system from the outside in and predict the effects of a single change. It is not so much the thousands of individual decisions that got us here, it is the freedoms and restrictions we are given. A change in an individual decision will result in an individual change. Only by changing the rules as a whole can the whole system change. The US was a pioneer in the capitalistic economic system, and it was those freedoms to make our individual choices which now defines our society.

Our cities evolve; very rarely are they planned.


I like this... so what about their evolution is within our control, our choice? Things evolve due to environmental influences. These can be cheap oil, a "right" to private transit, "safer neighborhoods", white flight, urban decay, urban renewal, cheap consumer goods... etc.

Where to start?
What influences can start the next evolutionary step?

I'd start by supporting the local economy. Make and buy and use things from near where you live. (maybe even develop a local currency) Buying things made nearby is nearly impossible for all things - but keeping $$ local means that I support the folks down the block or in the next town over. If we start putting our money where out mouths are, thats when things can change - as economics and business seem to be the driving forces of most lifestyles.

Many times our ideals and our actions are at odds.


I'll agree with that. My own life is sometimes a painful series of choices and compromises.

It took us a century +/- to get where we are, it might take a century more to change back. It may seem like a lot of time and a tough row to hoe, but it is neither. Sure, change is scary, but what are the alternatives, really?

You are still using sign slogans. Tell me, what would you change, and what effect would that change make on our society? Now tell me, why do you think we have to change? Some would argue that our society is self correcting, citing our capitalistic economy which allows each person the right to make their own economic choices and noting that change will occur when it needs to occur.

For instance, take gasoline. This summer, gas prices rose to around $3.00/gal. Guess what happened: sales of SUV's went down and sales of passenger cars went up. Now you will ask: why not raise the price artificially to bring about this effect? Well, it's because it changes other things. For instance, having high gas prices means that the cost of living goes up, as well as the cost of doing business. The less business being done, the more unemployment. The more unemployment, the more driving, as people have to travel further to find better jobs. Perhaps they move closer to their work. Now, with more people moving around, price of housing goes up. It goes on and on and is utterly unpredictable.

Change is not scary, but it does ripple through systems in unpredictable ways. Any change made might make things better, it might make things worse. It's a crapp shoot. Remember the famed "Butterfly effect" where modeling showed that the equivilent of a butterfly flapping its wings could be the difference between clear skys over Florida or a hurricane? This is the same, but in economic terms.

Let's say the City of Portland closed the entire fareless square to private motor vehicles. What do you think would happen?

I like this... so what about their evolution is within our control, our choice? Things evolve due to environmental influences. These can be cheap oil, a "right" to private transit, "safer neighborhoods", white flight, urban decay, urban renewal, cheap consumer goods... etc.

...

I'd start by supporting the local economy. Make and buy and use things from near where you live. (maybe even develop a local currency) Buying things made nearby is nearly impossible for all things - but keeping $$ local means that I support the folks down the block or in the next town over. If we start putting our money where out mouths are, thats when things can change - as economics and business seem to be the driving forces of most lifestyles.


It depends what you mean by control. Yes, the sum total of our actions make up our system, and we can change those actions to produce a change in the system. What that change may be is anyone's guess.

Take your local currency idea. This might have the desired effect of making your community self sufficient and well off, but there is at least an equally great chance that your local economy will collapse as people move to places which make the things they want to buy, or have jobs that they want to have. The local community was everything in the past, before travel was made easy between communities. Local communities had everything that people needed, and they didn't know what was going on in a different city or state. Now, people are able to compare lifestyles and get up and move. If someone now is offered an appealing job in Portland, but currently lived and worked in Seattle, they could move at the drop of a hat.

There is a reason why national and multinational companies are taking over communities, but it is not because of a single, or even a dozen choices. We are what we are because each and every person in this country acts the way they do. Wal*Mart is big because people shop there, even though nobody likes their business practices. People work at Wal*Mart despite the crummy conditions because Wal*Mart has jobs because people (in those same communities, mind you) shop there.

You are still using sign slogans. Tell me, what would you change, and what effect would that change make on our society? Now tell me, why do you think we have to change? Some would argue that our society is self correcting, citing our capitalistic economy which allows each person the right to make their own economic choices and noting that change will occur when it needs to occur.

For instance, take gasoline. This summer, gas prices rose to around $3.00/gal. Guess what happened: sales of SUV's went down and sales of passenger cars went up. Now you will ask: why not raise the price artificially to bring about this effect? Well, it's because it changes other things. For instance, having high gas prices means that the cost of living goes up, as well as the cost of doing business. The less business being done, the more unemployment. The more unemployment, the more driving, as people have to travel further to find better jobs. Perhaps they move closer to their work. Now, with more people moving around, price of housing goes up. It goes on and on and is utterly unpredictable.

Change is not scary, but it does ripple through systems in unpredictable ways. Any change made might make things better, it might make things worse. It's a crapp shoot. Remember the famed "Butterfly effect" where modeling showed that the equivilent of a butterfly flapping its wings could be the difference between clear skys over Florida or a hurricane? This is the same, but in economic terms.


A few thoughts that I've had:

Raise fuel prices to include development money for regionally centered alt. transportation and regionally centered alt energy. Let the economy of driving pay for the next economy and technology. Would it suck to pay more for gas? Yes. Would it suck to pay more for gas knowing that it was creating jobs and developmental technologies right in my backyard? - not nearly as much as seeing oil investors rolling in huge profits....

Do away with automobile insurance as we know it. Insert the cost of driving into the cost of fuel. The more you drive, the more you pay in insurance. If I choose to cycle commute or walk, I save not only in fuel, but in insurance - which I currently pay even if I park the car.

Let's say the City of Portland closed the entire fareless square to private motor vehicles. What do you think would happen?

Huge parking complexes would spring up right around the border, at the expense of the businesses which used to occupy buildings on the land those parking structures would take up.

Inside the fareless square, there would probably be more bikes and more bike parking. Perhaps they can put in more lines on the street car. More bicycles would be sold and more bike racks would be bought.

Business might boom, expecially at first, as it is a novelty. Over the years, as people get tired of parking at the border and walking, riding, or taking the public transportation, commercial business might fall through the floor. On the other hand, Portland being what it is, it might thrive better than ever.

My point is not that change would occur, it is that the change will be unpredictable.

A few thoughts that I've had:

Raise fuel prices to include development money for regionally centered alt. transportation and regionally centered alt energy. Let the economy of driving pay for the next economy and technology. Would it suck to pay more for gas? Yes. Would it suck to pay more for gas knowing that it was creating jobs and developmental technologies right in my backyard? - not nearly as much as seeing oil investors rolling in huge profits....

Do away with automobile insurance as we know it. Insert the cost of driving into the cost of fuel. The more you drive, the more you pay in insurance. If I choose to cycle commute or walk, I save not only in fuel, but in insurance - which I currently pay even if I park the car.

All good thoughts. Expecially the scaling of insurance costs. It is insane that I have to pay insurance even while I don't drive. On the other hand, the whole point of insurance is to pool the money of many people in order to pay the high bills of a few. If this scaled insurance were put into effect, you can bet that the insurance companies would demand that coverage also be scaled to the miles travelled. Travel one mile in a year and happen to run off the road and total your car? You're on your own.

My only point is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of a singe change imposed on our society.

Take your local currency idea. This might have the desired effect of making your community self sufficient and well off, but there is at least an equally great chance that your local economy will collapse as people move to places which make the things they want to buy, or have jobs that they want to have.


Local currency would be a supplement to our hard earned US dollars, not a replacement. Used for local products and services, it really is an awareness building tool at where our $$ goes, how far it moves, and what it is worth to neighbors and local businesses.

A great model of local currency is the Ithaca, NY (http://www.ithacahours.org/index.php) version.

My comments regarding the local economy are trying to slow the "grass is greener" concept we all seem to have - for living arrangements, jobs, bikes, cars, etc. I'm baffled (and guilty) of spending loads of $$ to vacation in a far off land - we read books, study it, map it, take loads of photos, etc... and to be honest most people don't know or have intimate knowledge of their own watershed! (Like I said - I'm guilty - so my push for the local is self driven - to find out what's here, where I can dig in...)

All good thoughts. Expecially the scaling of insurance costs. It is insane that I have to pay insurance even while I don't drive. On the other hand, the whole point of insurance is to pool the money of many people in order to pay the high bills of a few. If this scaled insurance were put into effect, you can bet that the insurance companies would demand that coverage also be scaled to the miles travelled. Travel one mile in a year and happen to run off the road and total your car? You're on your own.

My only point is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of a singe change imposed on our society.

I guess I would get rid of the insurance companies as we know em.
Why is profit from death and destruction legal? (oh wait, never mind!)

It would have to be a no fault national program. $xx.xx per gallon would funnel into a management fund for repairs, health costs, etc. Perhaps there would be a yearly administrative fee that you paid when you registered your drivers license.

Which is another weird thing - the most accepted ID is a drivers license. Linking identity with the automobile... (in more ways than literally!)

So far, most of what Brian has said boils down to 'change is unpredictable'. Change doesn't have to be unpredictable nor does it have to be driven by 'free market economy' forces beyond our control.

IMO, the problem is too many private motor vehicles and too much dependence on them; if gas got expensive and that just meant everyone would drive the same amount, just in smaller vehicles, it wouldn't make much difference, and I would not view this as a significant change.

Road charges, road closures, zoning laws and a lot of other tools can also be used to accomplish change.

IMO, the problem is too many private motor vehicles and too much dependence on them; if gas got expensive and that just meant everyone would drive the same amount, just in smaller vehicles, it wouldn't make much difference, and I would not view this as a significant change.

Road charges, road closures, zoning laws and a lot of other tools can also be used to accomplish change.

I'll agree with this - we call it "social engineering" and other nasty things when the government tries to implement programs - but we call it "capitalism" when businesses implement profitting.

Paraphrasing (I could have it wrong) from a sticker with a priest on it I've seen: "When I give food to the poor, people call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, I am called a communist."

So far, most of what Brian has said boils down to 'change is unpredictable'. Change doesn't have to be unpredictable nor does it have to be driven by 'free market economy' forces beyond our control.

IMO, the problem is too many private motor vehicles and too much dependence on them; if gas got expensive and that just meant everyone would drive the same amount, just in smaller vehicles, it wouldn't make much difference, and I would not view this as a significant change.

Road charges, road closures, zoning laws and a lot of other tools can also be used to accomplish change.

You are right, it doesn't. Just realize that if change is not driven at least in part by a free market economy, we essentially have socialism. Many European and Russian cities are designed rather than evolved. Ours are evolved because of our capitalistic system. Theirs are designed because of their socialistic system.

You are showing the good of socialistic economics. The bad is that there is a lot of waste and the potential for outright corruption. Think of what Ford Motor company would do if its lobbyists could get a hold of the government's social planners.

You are showing the good of socialistic economics. The bad is that there is a lot of waste and the potential for outright corruption. Think of what Ford Motor company would do if its lobbyists could get a hold of the government's social planners.


Socialist or Capitalist, it still happens ... it's just called lobbying in this country.

But you have to ask yourself why "prozac wasteland" looks the way it does... was it designed to allow consumers to be able to walk to those stores, or was it designed to service everyone from the driveup window.

Motor vehicle centeric designs are what make everything look like the same strip malls all over the US.
... blah, blah...
Just like the OP; relevance to bicycling advocacy? Do you consider relentless counter culture ranting to be bicycling advocacy?

Just like the OP; relevance to bicycling advocacy? Do you consider relentless counter culture ranting to be bicycling advocacy?
What does someone from Iowa even know about counter culture ranting? By the time it gets to Iowa - if it gets there at all - it's already mainstream. And why do you care? No one's forcing you to read this thread.

Just like the OP; relevance to bicycling advocacy? Do you consider relentless counter culture ranting to be bicycling advocacy?

I do not consider it to be counter culture ranting... I consider it to be pro bike ranting and anti auto centeric ranting.

And based on the conversation thus far, I am not alone.

Now focus on the last few posts for a moment and gleen out of those the subtle point that we often let the environment happen to us, rather then guide it to be what we really want.

Wide car seats to fit even wider drivers is one of those subtle choices that will continue to "shape" our future environment...

Yet, no one in their right mind starts out each day saying... "Well I plan on getting much fatter today... so much so that there is no way I can even hardly walk to the car... "

Change comes from within... Accepting larger car seats and bigger pants is the same as accepting that all of America has to look like the same boring strip mall.

You may simply decide to give in to the status quo, I plan on continuing to work to make change... To steer this mighty ship of a nation toward cleaner air, cleaner water, and yes, a healthier lifestyle. My little changes won't mean a hill of beans compared to the nation as a whole, but subtle changes add up, as already has been mentioned.

Now if there were more then one of me... and those "clones" all worked their little changes wherever they were...

Chose your path.

What does someone from Iowa even know about counter culture ranting? By the time it gets to Iowa - if it gets there at all - it's already mainstream. And why do you care? No one's forcing you to read this thread.
I'm just trying to steer the thread back to the original load of stuff in the OP about insulting the American public over it not conforming to the OP's approved profile.

Each new rant of social engineering/counter culture "stuff" introduced by spaced out political science whiz kids should be started in a new thread titled OT: No Bicycling Content Within so as not to confuse anyone looking for bicycling content.

I'm just trying to steer the thread back to...blah blah blah.
Again, if you don't like the topic or you're not interested in participating in this thread, no one's forcing you to participate. So please get off this thread and go bug Helmet Head, you seem happier doing that. :rolleyes:

Again, if you don't like the topic or you're not interested in participating in this thread, no one's forcing you to participate. So please get off this thread and go bug Helmet Head, you seem happier doing that. :rolleyes:
Oh but I am interested. Interested in the methods some people employ to convince others why cycling is such a good thing; and why bicycling advocacy could be helped by purging itself of the loonytune promoters. Fortunately, the general public doesn't dial in to this taste of just how dang wacky/insulting/elitist/far out some alleged bicycling advocates get when promoting their theories of so-called bicycling advocacy.

If that bugs you; wait til you promote such advocacy in a public forum not over populated with Woodstock Wannabes, practitioners of alternative lifestyles and/or social dropouts.

Oh but I am interested. Interested in the methods some people employ to convince others why cycling is such a good thing; and why bicycling advocacy could be helped by purging itself of the loonytune promoters. Fortunately, the general public doesn't dial in to this taste of just how dang wacky/insulting/elitist/far out some alleged bicycling advocates get when promoting their theories of so-called bicycling advocacy.

If that bugs you; wait til you promote such advocacy in a public forum not over populated with Woodstock Wannabes, practitioners of alternative lifestyles and/or social dropouts.
Your third post today on this thread, and all of them are full of insults. You're not scoring any points with anyone but yourself, and your style isn't conducive to convincing anyone of anything. Too bad, because you might have something important to say, but when you finally do say it, no one's going to be listening.

If that bugs you; wait til you promote such advocacy in a public forum not over populated with Woodstock Wannabes, practitioners of alternative lifestyles and/or social dropouts.

Careful there bucko... your comment on another thread about being the only guy that rides a bike to a factory of some 900 workers pretty well puts you right on top of the "practitioners of alternative lifestyles" list...

"Say, are you some sort of commie?"

You might have something important to say, but when you finally do say it, no one's going to be listening.
It was said in message #3, but you are correct, you and a few other social engineer wannabes, passing off your PC theories as bicycle advocacy are not listening.

Change comes from within... Accepting larger car seats and bigger pants is the same as accepting that all of America has to look like the same boring strip mall.



I beg to differ. NOT being willing to accept something different is the same as accepting that all of America has to look like the same boring strip mall. Making assumptions about people or places for that matter based on a single criteria is foolish in the extreme. Not all lagrge people are fat slobs who eat too much and excercise too little. Come to think of it not all large people are even fat. There are even a few rather thick world class cyclists out there (Hubner when he won the world sprint championship coems to mind). For that matter not all (though I'll conceed most) strip malls are boring. Some have rather interesting shops and many, at least in Los Angeles have rather interesting eating places (usually much more healthy than chain burger stands and more tasty too).

It was said in message #3, but you are correct, you and a few other social engineer wannabes, passing off your PC theories as bicycle advocacy are not listening.
I must have missed the part where it says I-Like-To-Bike = She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.

:roflmao:

I beg to differ. NOT being willing to accept something different is the same as accepting that all of America has to look like the same boring strip mall. Making assumptions about people or places for that matter based on a single criteria is foolish in the extreme. Not all lagrge people are fat slobs who eat too much and excercise too little. Come to think of it not all large people are even fat. There are even a few rather thick world class cyclists out there (Hubner when he won the world sprint championship coems to mind). For that matter not all (though I'll conceed most) strip malls are boring. Some have rather interesting shops and many, at least in Los Angeles have rather interesting eating places (usually much more healthy than chain burger stands and more tasty too).

I rather doubt that a world class cyclists needs a wider car seat, and exactly what strip malls in LA are you refering to... bet they have been there far longer then Wendys has been making burgers.

But I do see your point... in that NOT all folks fit into this certain profile. As far as making assumptions... hey the auto makers did that, I just reported the trend...

And a trend it is, based on the other news reports that I have seen regarding the "supersizing" of America.

I rather doubt that a world class cyclists needs a wider car seat, and exactly what strip malls in LA are you refering to... bet they have been there far longer then Wendys has been making burgers.

But I do see your point... in that NOT all folks fit into this certain profile. As far as making assumptions... hey the auto makers did that, I just reported the trend...

And a trend it is, based on the other news reports that I have seen regarding the "supersizing" of America.

For strip malls that have character try either Venice or Washington Blvds., near and inland from Santa Monica. There are a few on Ventura Blvd in the San Fernando Valley also. That is NOT to say they even come close to the boring ones in numbers.

Already gave you part of the name. Michael Hubner, two time world sprint champion looked like a stump when he was riding. It was an interesting contrast the year his training partner edged him out. I swear he was twice as big around as Gary Neiwand.

Oh and I do agree about the supersizing thing. A while ago I wanted a quick light bite for breakfast. At both Jacks and McD there was nothing small for breakfast. Only super huge stuff.

A pox on you, sir.

Right back at'cha...... :D

You're out of your mind Nice ballpark notwithstanding (and it is a jewel), try using any downtown BART station. They all reek of urine and human waste.

Also, it is a FACT that FAMILIES with young children are fleeing the city in droves. S.F, is very concerned about it, and the loss of revenue. You could look it up, if you like. Many theories abound and the politicos are actively trying to take steps to stop the bleeding. After all, it won't do to lose the tax base that pays for all the freak-friendly schemes they come up with over there.

Oh, and how about this:
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_citiestroy.JPG[/QUOTE]

Or this:
https://home.comcast.net/~dbltap/Mt_Diablo.jpg

Well, at least I'll agree with you on something - one of us is crazy...... :)

I see your point, but given that they are already driving to work and in their car, who wants to park at home and then walk to the grocery store. The great capitalistic system we have does what we want done. If people in the suburbs use strip malls, we get strip malls. Motor centric designs work in suburbia simply because "swinging by the store" on the way home from work is best done by parking in a parking lot at the store. More efficient, time wise.

About the "garage door dominance." My sig. other hates this style too. My first instinct would be to hid the garage as much as possible. But that's hard when people want to park in their garage and have little real estate to spare for a driveway - all this while still wanting a back yard. My sig. other managed to get a house where the garage is recessed, back behind the entrance way, but she also has 5 acres to work with.

The side-effects of our culture is unfortunate, but it is not related to any one thing. Rather it is the network of hundreds of little tendencies that exist here in the United States. These little tendencies, when taken alone, seem to be insignificant enough that it seems like we should be able to simply do away with most of them and change only a few to make a difference. But it's not like this. We can bemoan the "car culture" of the United States, but it is a product of our country's evolution and not something easily changed or easily linked to any one factor.


Again, the car culture is not a "product of the country's evolution" but is largely a result of the motor vehicle & oil industries scheme to deliberately destroy America's great & popular early public transit system in a form of social engineering for the benefit of big business. http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm

Again, the car culture is not a "product of the country's evolution" but is largely a result of the motor vehicle & oil industries scheme to deliberately destroy America's great & popular early public transit system in a form of social engineering for the benefit of big business. http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm
Thank you.

:beer:

Most people want clean air, clean water, biodiversity, trees, quiet streets, and safe places for chilren to learn and play, etc.

Most people want to know their neighbors, feel like a good citizen, and have choices about their lives.



Yet 'most people' elected GWB - twice.

Yet 'most people' elected GWB - twice.

Actually, "most people" elected him once. Gore won the popular vote handily. But I see your point.

It was said in message #3, but you are correct, you and a few other social engineer wannabes, passing off your PC theories as bicycle advocacy are not listening.

Talking down to anyone never really got me anywhere - so I understand your point about the "cagers" and fat Americans... but the topic has evolved a bit from post #3...


I guess the way I see it is that cycling advocacy can be what people make it, and when I look at issues involving commuting, health, a cleaner environment (from spotted owls to retail signage for the next 100 miles) I think of bicycles, and transport, and politics, and choices.

Factioning things off into small categories (bicycling advocacy is just one) can be very useful - but it can also be damaging as well - further dividing and breaking apart an already divisive landscape. Would there be so much effort put into arguing about bike lanes and oil and car culture if there seemed to be equal opportunities for varying choices of lifestyle? We are the home of the "free" - yet so much of our lives can be dominated by 1 or 2 forms of technology. Not really "free" in my book. Free to drive, free to own a gun, free to choose who I vote for... slightly more limited when it comes to "free to walk or cycle down the street to the store" or free to not want a car yet still have to pay insurance...


And, to answer another of your posts, I think alot of this does have to do with cycling... and shouldn't be dumped into a "non-cycling" related thread. It involves lives and choices and people - who may ride to work or for pleasure - but most who have come to a forum that discusses cycling, and often how it relates to their lives. In my view, my choices - to bike, not bike, drive, walk, buy from a local co-op, etc. all influence and relate to many of the issues here - and if I were to want to discuss changes in the way people around me live, I would discuss some of those changes mentioned here - some of which involve bicycles and a lifestyle that seems to fit with a less impactful, more thoughtful approach to choices people have.

If that bugs you; wait til you promote such advocacy in a public forum not over populated with Woodstock Wannabes, practitioners of alternative lifestyles and/or social dropouts.


I think you'll find that if you present ideas in a respectful, non threatening, choice driven way, people will respond well. Drop the rhetoric and frame the discussion in terms of health, beauty, $$ saving... etc. and people will listen. Not everyone will agree - but people will listen - and often times compromise.

Give everyone a voice. Allow a moment to pass before commenting, and make sure the people who never say much have a chance to put in their 2 cents. People react to strong tactics with fear and NIMBYism.

Social dropouts? You would have to define society so I could decide if I was "dropped out" or not. If you are discussing the typical made for TV American consumer lifestyle, I'm guilty. and isn't this what we are talking about - choices? Why continue to support a system if you don't like the choices? Why not alter your own lifestyle to better suit your ideals?

Again, the car culture is not a "product of the country's evolution" but is largely a result of the motor vehicle & oil industries scheme to deliberately destroy America's great & popular early public transit system in a form of social engineering for the benefit of big business. http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm


I hesitated posting this earlier... as I was trying to avoid the "conspiracy theorist" and "woodstock wannabee" label - but thanks. There are quite a few references to this on the web.

Kunstler does a great job of discussing this in "Geography of Nowhere".

I hesitated posting this earlier... as I was trying to avoid the "conspiracy theorist" and "woodstock wannabee" label - but thanks. There are quite a few references to this on the web.

Kunstler does a great job of discussing this in "Geography of Nowhere".
Now you can stop trying to avoid those labels:p, though it is still possible to avoid being accused of posting anything relating about (or promoting) bicycling advocacy on this thread. :rolleyes:

I guess I would get rid of the insurance companies as we know em.
Why is profit from death and destruction legal? (oh wait, never mind!)

It would have to be a no fault national program. $xx.xx per gallon would funnel into a management fund for repairs, health costs, etc. Perhaps there would be a yearly administrative fee that you paid when you registered your drivers license.

Which is another weird thing - the most accepted ID is a drivers license. Linking identity with the automobile... (in more ways than literally!)

Insurance Co's don't profit from death etc, those are their expense payout items, they profit from people who don't have trouble.

How do you deal with things like I drive a $200 POS '86 Buick that I do most maintence on myself and insure for liability only while some "better off" individual has a $60K Benz that their dealer lovingly maintains and needs big time coverage for theft, collision, etc.

Raze america, kill all cars.

Now you can stop trying to avoid those labels:p, though it is still possible to avoid being accused of posting anything relating about (or promoting) bicycling advocacy on this thread. :rolleyes:

Please, define bicycling advocacy for me. Tell me what you would post here.
Write it out, in simple terms, so I may understand.

Give it a whirl:





(and Happy New Year!)

(note: I've never claimed to be a bicycle advocate...)

Please, define bicycling advocacy for me.
Well step number one is to discuss bicycling or bicylists or issues directly related. If you wish to discuss bicycling safety; step one is to discuss bicycling or bicylists or issues directly related.

Special Note for the Obtuse:Bicycling advocacy does not include posting dreamy social, economic, and/or political manifestos; nor ratifying someone else's posting of same.

Just answer the question.

Just answer the question.

We must have missed the part where it says Randya = She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed. :D

Well step number one is to discuss bicycling or bicylists or issues directly related. If you wish to discuss bicycling safety; step one is to discuss bicycling or bicylists or issues directly related.

Special Note for the Obtuse:Bicycling advocacy does not include posting dreamy social, economic, and/or political manifestos; nor ratifying someone else's posting of same.

Just what do you define as "dreamy... manifestos?"

I see improving the cycling environment as a good call to advocacy... and along that line I persue such "dreamy issues" as reducing motor vehicle speeds where I can. Prime examples locally are the use of traffic calming circles, the reduction in speed limits, and the changing of traffic patterns and bike lanes to make cycling more comfortable. I don't find any of this "dreamy." One simply has to work with the system to make this happen... attending community meetings, signing petitions, and submitting whatever paperwork is required to move those in traffic engineering in the right directions to plan for cyclists.

Now what does all this have to do with wider seats in cars? That problem is a general overall indicator of a larger health issue... and more people out on the roads exercising... be it biking, running or roller skating is a far better solution then simply looking the other way at an ever growing problem and simply "letting a few notches out of the belt."

Now go one further and move some of these growing folks out of their cars and onto the roads on bikes, and two issues have been addressed: General health and increasing cycle ridership... which increases awareness of all cyclists and improves conditions for cyclists.

hmm. been quiet here. i guess everyone moved over to "advocating impotency".

hmm. been quiet here. i guess everyone moved over to "advocating impotency".

Sex sells? :p