Cycling Advocacy vs Green Initiatives vs Anti-Car

[TandemGeek]

As I read the various responses to cycling advocacy & safety topics I note that many writers appear to embrace "Green Initiatives" or expouse "anti-car" sentiments. I thought it would be interesting to parse out that particular discussion from the ones tied to specific incidents to find out where many of you stand.

For example, do you believe that someone who calls themselves a bicycle advocate can own and drive a SUV without being a hypocrite? Or, do you feel that being a bicycle advocate predisposes you to dislike all but the most fuel efficient and/or environmentally friendly vehicles?

In addition to responding to the poll please explain your views.

[cyclezealot]

I find myself wanting to say Advocacy is about just getting people out of their cars and encourage alternative transportation; however, to be honest- as I see so many motorists anti-cycling -my attitudes become more hardened. At least in the US..
So I voted Anti-car- just because I think them polluting, wasteful, stressful, and un-healthy..

[Chris L]

This is quite an interesting question. I haven't yet chosen an option in the poll, but I'll say what I think anyway. I am a cyclist, first and foremost. However, I will admit that I have become more aware of 'green' issues since I started cycling. However, I have never at any stage suggested banning cars. I don't think that's going to happen in the near future.

However, there are a few things that surprise me about the 'car culture'. The first of these is just how little innovation there is in car designs. Think about it, where are the "single seater" cars for the young, single professionals in major cities. This is potentially a huge market, and the benefits for this market are many. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in a car that used less fuel (thereby saving them considerable money) and handled better in traffic. Yes, it would also be a "green" issue, but with a lot of other benefits to a lot of other people, too.

Another is the total and complete lack of rationality people have in choosing their car habits. The argument seems to be "I need a car so I can commute from the suburbs to the city". Of course, many of them complain that it's too far and they'd prefer to live in the city or in the neighbourhood close to shops, work, schools etc if they only had the money (forgetting that the amount they spend fuelling and paying for their car could easily accommodate this if they really wanted to).

However, those are minor issues. What really annoys me is the amount of anti-cyclist bigotry I see all the time. It appears in many forms, whether it be through the almost daily verbal abuse we receive from car drivers, the pitiful accountability of drivers who run down cyclists (for whatever reason), or the decisions of many urban planners to build separate, second-rate facilities that effectively prohibit the use of bicycles as a transport option and then expect us to use them. This is my main issue.

Is it really a big deal if I ride to work? When I get there I do the same job as everyone else. When I get home I have dinner like everyone else. To steal a quote from The Screaming Jets: "We all eat, s**t, f**k and die." Why do so many people have issues with the fact that I use a bike and not a car to get around?

[TandemGeek]

Originally posted by Chris L
Think about it, where are the "single seater" cars for the young, single professionals in major cities. This is potentially a huge market, and the benefits for this market are many. I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in a car that used less fuel (thereby saving them considerable money) and handled better in traffic. Yes, it would also be a "green" issue, but with a lot of other benefits to a lot of other people, too.

Here it is: http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcnuts/sparrow.html

And there it goes: http://www.corbinmotors.com/

A real shame but there was not a market for it.

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by livngood
Here it is: http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mcnuts/sparrow.html

And there it goes: http://www.corbinmotors.com/

A real shame but there was not a market for it.

I'd love one of these but the price is pretty high which is too bad. I think they're pretty cool.

I voted Cycling Advocacy includes on-road accommodations but also Rails-to-Trails type initiatives to address recreational cycling needs. I'm definitely not anti-car since I do enjoy driving them, looking at them, watching racing events, etc.

[oscaregg]

Advocacy, in a society in which car users have been so OVER-accommodated as the US, has to have an anti-car element. In any American traffic situation except for controlled-access freeways, auto users are an overprivileged class who are held above the law in most conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists.
On the freeway we get what's coming to us--it really seems to me that drivers are even worse to each other than to human-powered travelers. I am not ashamed to call myself an anti-motorist bigot, as 35 years of cycling plus having grown up in Los Angeles have educated me to the FACT that the creature inside a motor vehicle is of a lower species than the same animal outside of one. Drivers are dangerous animals who need harsh controls on their behavior, much harsher than most societies realize the need for.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Chris L
What really annoys me is the amount of anti-cyclist bigotry I see all the time. It appears in many forms. This is my main issue.

I find this is my same point of view. All I want is the rights I already have without the predudice I deal with day to day.

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by closetbiker
I find this is my same point of view. All I want is the rights I already have without the predudice I deal with day to day.
I don't cycle commute but if I did, I don't think anyone would pass judgement on me if I did. As for anti-cyclist bigotry ... haven't had to deal with any on the road as of yet .. maybe it's the area you live. Don't let the few make you think that we are all like that because it isn't the case.

[Inkwolf]

I don't think single seater cars will ever have a market. Where would your boyfriend/girlfriend sit? Where would you put your groceries, road maps, briefcase?

I also don;t think you can really be a cycling advocate without addressing at least some other issues--everything is interconnected. While 'green initiatives' haven't got to be an aspect, the fact is that our causes are very compatible, and it would be foolish to ignore any valid argument which supports our position.

[SamDaBikinMan]

my vote Cycling Advocacy is a multi-faceted movement that has several inter-related objectives including safe accommodations, recreational trails, and green initiatives.

Primarily, the reasons for cycling are for fitness or fun but I would like to see folks use it for transportation if possible and leave the car at home.

[Prosody]

At least in terms of suburban sprawl and the role of the automobile in our societies, one cannot address green initiatives without also addressing the problems that plague our cities: decay, crime, substandard schools, poverty...the list can go on and on. An environmentally friendly lifestyle requires that people use mass transit and live relatively close to the workplace. People live far away from work, though, because they want safe neighborhoods that are economically homogenous, good schools, responsive (read relatively small) municipal governments. All the hydrogen powerd automobiles, light rail lines, even bicycle friendly roads will not solve our environmental problems until our cities become friendly places to live (by the way, the energy to make hydrogen for "green" automoblies would come from oil and nuclear power, and that's no real solution).

[temp1]

As I bike in traffic in Chicago I really wish that the exhaust produced by vehicles was cleaner, especally city busses and other diesel vehicles, it does affect my breathing. I think somone who lives where they work and drives a massive Ford SUV is greener than the person who drives a Prius or VW TDI 30 or more miles to work. Less auto traffic can only be good for biking on city streets, since we share the same roads, bike advocacy and autos will always be connected

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
As for anti-cyclist bigotry ... maybe it's the area you live. Don't let the few make you think that we are all like that because it isn't the case.

I've commuted all year 'round for 18 years on the bike. It's not the few that are bigots. It's a car culture out there and few understand or care about cyclists needs. We're only (about) 1 or 2% of the transportation population. Who do you think gets the breaks? It's a chore to get the laws that are already on the books to be applied for cyclists. Trying to get a planning commitee to build something that would benefit cycling in a safe manner is a 50 -50 shot at best. Lots of people would like to see cyclists gone from the road for good. This is why we have to advocate!

[Stor Mand]

Well, if you truely want to be equal, then start paying some sort of yearly excise tax on the bicycles or register the bicycles or whatever ... then you will be equal and no one can say that the bicyclists aren't paying their fair share, as minimal as it would be, no one wants to do that though.

[cyclezealot]

I would not mind some kind of license fee.
Only point. It must be based on value of bike and not meant to be regressive to penalized cyclists; as it often is mean't. Should be considerably less than auto fee's since auto's add to congestion and bikes lessen over-crowded highways. Bicycles are a civil good, while auto's aren't. So taxes musn't be meant to penalize cyclists as some kind discrimination, which is really a sort of cycling prejudice.

[Raiyn]

I voted Option #4 I also feel that this statement:
you feel that being a bicycle advocate predisposes you to dislike all but the most fuel efficient and/or environmentally friendly vehicles?
is about as well put as anything I could come up with.


orginally posted by Stor Mand
Well, if you truely want to be equal, then start paying some sort of yearly excise tax on the bicycles or register the bicycles or whatever ... then you will be equal and no one can say that the bicyclists aren't paying their fair share, as minimal as it would be, no one wants to do that though

Sign me up. I'll pay that excise tax the minute you pay for gas that isn't government subsidized -- with MY tax dollars

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Well, if you truely want to be equal, then start paying some sort of yearly excise tax on the bicycles or register the bicycles or whatever ... then you will be equal and no one can say that the bicyclists aren't paying their fair share, as minimal as it would be, no one wants to do that though.

Firstly, all of the "excise tax" and so on (and more) that drivers supposedly pay goes into subsidising their fuel. Cyclists don't get those sort of benefits, neither do we get all the other tax breaks that drivers get.

Secondly, even if we ignore the subsidised fuel argument, if we base the "excise tax" that cyclists should pay on the amount of wear and tear on the roads, the amount of space on the roads they take up and so on relative to a car, the amount that a cyclist would actually pay would be very minimal, something like $10 per annum if that. Any revenue generated from this would be chewed up in administrative costs (things like compliance enforcement) within a week.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying this "excise tax", but I doubt our politicians or those who vote for them would accept a system that was running at a loss.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Well, if you truely want to be equal, then start paying some sort of yearly excise tax on the bicycles or register the bicycles or whatever ... then you will be equal and no one can say that the bicyclists aren't paying their fair share, as minimal as it would be, no one wants to do that though.

Oh man, where to start?

No offense Stor Mand, but the A,B,C's of advocacy need to be addresed here. We already do pay for the roads, laws (including enforcement of those laws) and politicians who are supposed to advocate for all their constituants. We have legal access to all the rights and responsibilities that motorists do. Why are we treated differently or are regulated to set-aside areas apart from others (lanes /trails) when we need to ride elsewhere?

A cyclist saves society money by requiring less costly infrastuture and improves health saving even more in health care and causes less damage to the enviroment and accident victims.

We should get paid to ride, if we want to be fair about it.

[Raiyn]

Holy crap! I agree with closetbiker on something? :confused:

[cyclezealot]

I agree,we should be paid to ride and not use a car.. However, I am sick of anti-cycling elements claiming we pay nothing.
Plus, we do utilize about 6 inches of the road surface.. Considering the overall benefits to society, our bike licensing tax should be about $3 per year and that just might help organize wider highway shoulders for cyclists; and eliminates motorists hitting on us for paying nothing..
In most states auto licensing fees are under $40 a year, on average? So ideally, a $3-4 to give us legal status is every bit worth the cost of this annoyance? For that we would get a decal to use our share of road and maybe help prevent theft of our bikes..
Just playing devil's advocate.

[ngateguy]

I voted for the fourth option. On the tax issue as a year round commuter I have never been against licensing cyclists who ride in the street, but not as a tax that won't work as Chris mentioned earlier it won't raise any revenue because of the cost to maintain the program. Here in Washington they repealed the excise tax on cars and now they want to tax bikes thinking that the money raised would go to pay for bike lanes (which a lion share of that money comes from the Federal level and not the state level). However if you treated it like a drivers license which is more educational oriented and start to include the responsibilities and privileges ( I really hate to use the word rights in this case I think, at least in this country, that word is becoming way over used) in the drivers ed programs and tests and that all riders would be required to take a test to prove they know the rules of the road then I am all for that. As is an all cases of prejudice it is due to ignorance and mis information so if cars actually knew what the cycling laws were maybe it would cut down on the abuse we receive. Now my thoughts on bike advocacy, I am not anti car, I own a 4x4 Ford Ranger but I view that as my way out of town not a means to get to and from work. Banning cars won't work and is pretty un realistic, however showing the general population just how much the cost of driving is, and I don't just mean fuel or wear and tear I mean infrastructure, might just help. I read once (and I wish I could remember where) that the Automobile has cost society more than any other invention in history. Here in Seattle we are actually losing jobs because of the traffic Boeing moved their corporate office to Chicago and have told two of the communities here Renton and Everett that if they do not work on the traffic situation they maybe forced to close plants and that is a ton of jobs. I view bike commuting as a lifestyle and I hope to lead by example I am not some great athlete, I have asthma (though it is sure a lot better now that I ride) and I feel that if I can do it anyone can and in reality it doesn't take a whole lot more time than driving. My average commute time by bike is 1 1/2 hrs in the AM and 1 3/4 hrs in the PM (only because of bus schedules) driving time average is 1hr 15 min. One of the reasons society is so stressed out is because of driving in traffic, everybody knows it but no one really does anything about it. Anyway thats just some of my rambling thoughts on the subject it is late now and I must be up bright and early I hope you all have a good week :D

Peace David

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Raiyn
Holy crap! I agree with closetbiker on something? :confused:

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by cyclezealot
our bike licensing tax should be about $3 per year... and eliminates motorists hitting on us for paying nothing.. Just playing devil's advocate.

Money for roads comes from general tax revenue and I pay plenty of that, so why should I pay more to ride my bike on them? I'd call that discrimination.

[cyclezealot]

Closetbiker. Not sure about Canada but in the US, pretty sure the better part of highway funds comes from gasoline taxes.
No, I would rebel about paying a regressive tax on bikes; mostly- I worry about countering motorists arguments, saying we pay nothing? And a slight fee is worth countering them to give us bonafide legal status?
I worry this point because some states have made legal efforts to deny us access..

[ChezJfrey]

Originally posted by Chris L
However, those are minor issues. What really annoys me is the amount of anti-cyclist bigotry I see all the time. It appears in many forms, whether it be through the almost daily verbal abuse we receive from car drivers. . .

And this is my concern. I just had a conversation with an acquaintance this weekend about cyclists. I mentioned an auto encounter I had earlier in the week and he confirmed a prevalent (and scary) attitude that I'm sure many drivers possess. He contends that bicycles don't belong on the road. So he drives in such a way that they get the "message" that they don't belong. He'll aim for them, and pass as close as possible in order to shake a bicylclist up. He figures that a cyclist made the choice to be out there on a bike, so they should either get off the road or endure the "consequences" of their decision to ride in a traffic system made for autos. Evidently, a consequence of the decision to ride a bike in traffic, is to submit to repeated, intentional attacks of reckless behavior intended to frighten and endanger the cyclist.

In parting, he did mention that I seemed like a nice guy, and he'd be a little more careful in the future knowing that I may be out there . Yeah, right.

I don't understand some people. I have an SUV. I also ride a bike every day to work. Why is it so hard for people to accept both realities? This animosity that I witness (both in conversation and action) has contorted my thinking as well. If anything were to happen to me, I'm almost certain to launch civil litigation just to send my "message." I would probably do this regardless of the driver's apparent remorse because I'm sure everyone is "sorry" when facing possible penalties. They're not sorry they hit you, they're sorry they might have to pay significantly for it because, well, a bicycle doesn't belong on the road anyway.

[caloso]

I voted for no. 6. For me, riding my bike is cycling advocacy.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by cyclezealot
Closetbiker. Not sure about Canada but in the US, pretty sure the better part of highway funds comes from gasoline taxes.

I don't think so. Find a source to prove me wrong. I know in Canada roads come from general revenue.

From:

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/free.htm

One angry motorist (bigot) wrote: I am fed up with the people who ride bicycles. . . . AND THEY DON'T PAY ONE DIME OF FEES TO PAY FOR ANYTHING. Ever see how much a car owner pays in registration fees and gas tax?

This argument, that cyclists don't pay taxes, is an old one. It is a big lie.

It's based on the idea that all expenditures for roads come from registration fees and gas taxes. Actually, the idea of linking gas tax receipts to road-building is a fairly recent one, starting with the funding for the interstate system. Since then, politicians have discovered that people would support new gasoline taxes if the money was dedicated to paying for road building and improvements. improvements. But local, state, and federal governments have been funding massive projects for years based on whatever money was available to them. Money from other sources has always gone into road and bridge construction, and money from motor vehicle fees and taxes has always gone wherever it was needed.

we don't recover all the costs of our motor vehicles through taxes on them anyway. The taxes collected approximate the costs of the federal highways and some of the state highways, but can't also cover the cost of county roads and city streets. In addition, motor vehicles taxes don't begin to cover the indirect and hidden costs of automobile use, which include: 1) indirect construction costs and problems caused by the roads, 2) maintenance, 3) the costs and problems of providing parking spaces for the vehicles, 4) police, fire, and emergency assistance, 5) local and global health problems caused by pollution, 6) health problems created by lack of exercise and by auto accidents, and 7) global warming and other long-term adverse effects. Everyone pays these costs, whether in taxes or otherwise, motor vehicle user or not.

The roads in the United States are Public Roads. You do not have to pay any taxes at all to use them. You do not have to buy a license or pass a test either. You can walk, you can ride a horse, you can drive a buggy, and you can drive a farm tractor legally in every state without paying one red cent. On the other hand, owners of automobiles, trucks, and motorcycles are required to pass driving tests and to buy licenses. Why? These vehicles cause a lot of deaths and get stolen frequently. The government wants the operators carefully trained and their accidents recorded, and it wants to help them recover stolen vehicles. If cyclists were killing a lot of motorists, the government would go to the trouble of training and licensing them too.

[Stor Mand]

Using the same argument about bicycles not taking much space, my motorcycle uses little space on the road, get's 50 MPG and is relatively safe .. I'd say just as safe as riding a bicycle ... yet I have to register each one I own, pass a driving test, pay the rediculous insurance premiums, pay a gas tax, excise tax (yearly & never stops) on top of the original sales tax and on and on.

Why not have a special permit to ride on the road for bicyclists? Frankly, many of us (you know who you are ;) ) do not belong on the road and are a hazzard to everyone.

Why not have available insurance if you are a commuter or ride thousands of miles per year? You can't count on someone elses insurance to cover you in an accident because some places don't require it. Some of you speedier ones may need it if you lose it going 40+ MPH and get really wrecked, with the minimal protection that is worn, whether it be user error or anothers fault.

There's always going to be some that ruin it for others (car & truck drivers, motorcycle riders, bicyclists) and there will also always be someone whining no matter how good things are. I think we should all shutup and ride ... suck up the comments or maybe get a little thicker skinned. I know what many would like to have done to solve the problem but maybe think of something realistic other than the let's ban cars because face it, it's not going to happen very soon.
So shaddup and ride (which I really, really need to do after this long, long winter :) )
:beer:

[cyclezealot]

Even though I am the one vote to be anti-car, I always expect to drive a car. I am proud of the fact I ride my bikes almost as much as the mileage I annually put on my car. By about 3,000 miles.
But I remain anti car.. Those a$4 hole$ have spat at me, thrown bottles at me, thrown food at me, sworn at me, given me numerous gestures, and redicilued me . And finally, on two ocassions, those idiot motorists hit me once and did their darndest to kill me on a second, almost hit.
I feel I am a reasonable, responsibe cyclists and the bikes lanes here are so wide, I am rarely in their way.. Plus, driving a car in traffic is a miserable proposition about here. Riding makes me sane and somewhat content with the world.
I will not let those jerks deny me of my access to the road. So if society allows the sale of "Road bikes,' upon which I paid a heafty sales tax, I will ride on the road.
Since biking is a societal good and saves fuel and reduces overcrowding, and pollution- when push comes to shove; maybe Critical Mass is a last resort.

[closetbiker]

Motorcycles are just as safe as bicycles?

Permits to ride on the road for bicyclists?

Man...

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Why not have a special permit to ride on the road for bicyclists? Frankly, many of us (you know who you are ;) ) do not belong on the road and are a hazzard to everyone.

Why not have a special permit to walk on the road for pedestrians? Why not take this whole licencing thing to it's ultimate conclusion? Perhaps it's because if I do something stupid on my bike or while walking across the road, the only person I'll harm is myself. It's a bit different if I've got a tonne of steel behind me.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Why not have available insurance if you are a commuter or ride thousands of miles per year? You can't count on someone elses insurance to cover you in an accident because some places don't require it. Some of you speedier ones may need it if you lose it going 40+ MPH and get really wrecked, with the minimal protection that is worn, whether it be user error or anothers fault.


Well, my third-party insurance covers me against any personal injury claim up to $5 million, and any property damage claim up to $10 million. I also believe I have other insurance options available to me through Bicycle Queensland, I just haven't bothered to exercise them. Although, in saying that, my income protection insurance will cover me if I have a bicycle accident (I made sure of that before I signed up for it).

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I think we should all shutup and ride ... suck up the comments or maybe get a little thicker skinned. I know what many would like to have done to solve the problem but maybe think of something realistic other than the let's ban cars because face it, it's not going to happen very soon.

I don't recall ever suggesting "let's ban cars". In fact, I've already said "it isn't going to happen" in this thread. All I'd like to see is for people to be subjected to the same laws when they are inside their cars as they are when they are not. Why is that too much to ask? Why do I keep being accused of trying to "ban cars" every time I suggest it?

[Stor Mand]

First off, I never stated that you (Chris L) said "let's ban cars" nor was it insinuated .. sorry if you took it that way.
A wreckless bicyclist can cause lots of harm to a pedestrian or could also cause an auto accident. See what happens to a person who steps out and you're cruising along at 25+ MPH and nail him/her .. not pretty.
If a bicyclist doesn't have very good riding ability and/or has poor road road skills, he/she is a danger and shouldn't be on the road period. In a rural area, this may not be a factor but in the city, it's a danger.

[DanFromDetroit]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
...
If a bicyclist doesn't have very good riding ability and/or has poor road road skills, he/she is a danger and shouldn't be on the road period. In a rural area, this may not be a factor but in the city, it's a danger.

I the city that I live in poor drivers are much more of a danger than poor cyclists.

I don't see any effort being made to keep poor or unqualified drivers off the road. Even those that repeatedly and flagrantly violate driving laws are given no more than a "slap on the wrist". Drivers must literally kill someone before the driving privlege is revoked, even then it is not a foregone conclusion.

It would be a waste of time and resources to target cyclists, when even simple speed limits are not enforced for autos.

Dan

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Stor Mand
A wreckless bicyclist can cause lots of harm to a pedestrian or could also cause an auto accident. See what happens to a person who steps out and you're cruising along at 25+ MPH and nail him/her

O.K. if someone walks in front of a cyclist going that fast, I'd say both would could get hurt, but what I'd like to know is, in comparrison to how often motorists hit and hurt pedestrians, how often does this happen?

And what I'd also like to know is, when was the last time a cyclist injured a motorist?

:confused:

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by DanFromDetroit
I the city that I live in poor drivers are much more of a danger than poor cyclists.

I don't see any effort being made to keep poor or unqualified drivers off the road. Even those that repeatedly and flagrantly violate driving laws are given no more than a "slap on the wrist". Drivers must literally kill someone before the driving privlege is revoked, even then it is not a foregone conclusion.

It would be a waste of time and resources to target cyclists, when even simple speed limits are not enforced for autos.

Dan

I thought I mentioned the auto drivers that should be off the road but I must have just thought it and never typed it :confused: . There are many that should not be licensed ... many. I see them everyday but it is the exception, not the rule .. same goes for cyclists .. some just don't belong on the road or on a bike for that matter.
:beer:

[CranialCrusader]

If cycling advocacy groups are all into biking for the sake of being "green" it would cause me to avoid joining and/or donating money.

Most groups that advocate strict environmentalist policies are extremely liberal and that conflicts with my viewpoints on a lot of subjects, not to mention my personal beliefs about Earth stewardship.

Keep environmental politics out of it and let it remain about cycling! Use “friendly to the environment” as a slogan, not a lobbying issue.

CranialCrusader

[Stor Mand]

Originally posted by closetbiker
O.K. if someone walks in front of a cyclist going that fast, I'd say both would could get hurt, but what I'd like to know is, in comparrison to how often motorists hit and hurt pedestrians, how often does this happen?
...snipping


I came across this ... granted it's fairly old and only for NYC but I'm sure if I look, I could find more.

Official City statistics on traffic accidents provide telling information about risks to cyclists and risks from cyclists. For the full year 1992, there were 298 recorded collisions in New York City between cyclists and pedestrians. Two of these resulted in fatal injuries to the pedestrian.

[closetbiker]

and I found this at:
http://www.transalt.org/blueprint/chapter17/

In New York City in 1990, motor vehicles were involved in 187,503 accidents, pedestrians in 15,460 accidents, and bicycles in 3,706 accidents. Over the most recent 4-year period for which data are available, over 300 pedestrians and 15 cyclists are killed on city streets and sidewalks each year, while thousands more are injured and intimidated.

So ("in comparrison to how often motorists hit and hurt pedestrians,") - over 300, vs. 2. 15 cyclists killed each year.

No deaths of motorists killed by cyclists.

Cyclists should be regulated to a greater extent than already are?

[Pete Clark]

I never voted on this poll--it's not allowing me to vote. What's up with that?

Closetbiker, I wonder who voted, "Cars are bad?" :D (Hint: ChrisL... :roflmao: :angel:

Cycling advocacy is whatever it means to you. For each type of cyclist, there is an issue that is important to them.

So for me, I want cyclists to have equal access to the road with the same authority as motorists and with the same responsibility.

[closetbiker]

Originally posted by Pete Clark
So for me, I want cyclists to have equal access to the road with the same authority as motorists and with the same responsibility.

Me too! Is that too much to ask?:rolleyes: