Yesterday's local newspaper, here in Fairbanks, Alaska, featured the following "Letter to the Editor:"
"This letter is in response to Leslie Almberg’s bicycling problems. Highways and roads are for motorized vehicles only. Bikes are allowed travel as an exception, not a rule, bikes will never be accepted as “traffic” because you lack the tools needed, a 'motor.' We can’t accept bikes as equals because there is no possible way you can afford all who travel on highways the same level of safety as in a motor-vehicle or vice versa. These taxpayer financed roads are engineered and regulated for travel with motor vehicles at 0-60 mph. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, people who walk or run at 0-10 mph. Bike paths are for … guess what, bikes. Bike paths are engineered to allow safe travel for speeds from 0-25 mph, Leslie stated bicyclists can travel up to 50 mph, that’s well over the limits for the design of the bike path so — slow down or get a car. If the bike path is obstructed by frost heaves or kids then complain to the Department of Transportation to have them repaired, don’t ask me to change my driving practices to accommodate their lack of path-repair funding. Do you see me dodging potholes by driving on the sidewalk? No. So why is it OK for them to dodge obstructions in their path by riding on the road? Let’s be realistic here, they choose to use a socially outdated system of transportation in an environment that makes construction and maintenance of a “road” bike path expensive and time consuming for taxpayers just so the very few who use it during a very short season can commute from day to day without any obstructions. Good luck with that, Lance Armstrong. My taxes aren’t paying for that."
Source: http://newsminer.com/2007/07/26/8099
I intend to draft a response to this letter, could you recommend some counterpoints to include in this letter? And what do you think of the phrase, "socially outdated system of transportation?"
-bobby,
Fairbanks, Alaska
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ah, some times I wonder why I left Alaska something comes back to show me. But for the most part there was a recent thread you can search for that had information about taxes and bicycles showing that the bicyclists were paying more per mile in taxes than the amount of wear on the roads. But the writer of that letter wont listen. If the RCW's for Alaska are available to you dig around and give him the numbers showing where bicycles are vehicles and are on the road. Then give him Chipcoms response ;)
That Guy
Seems unlikely that you'll be able to change this person's mind. Cycle long enough and you'll come across people like this. The obvious response would be to inform said individual of the traffic laws of Fairbanks and of Alaska regarding bicycles. An endorsement by local law enforcement wouldn't hurt either. I'm sure that Fairbanks PD has some kind of community outreach office that might be able to assist you with getting your facts together.
In general fighting fire with fire rarely works and doesn't really solve anything. Perhaps more constructive would be a letter to the newspaper asking for their help in informing the public of the benefits of bicycling, but spinning it so they'll have a story they can sell. I doubt very much the paper would help you proliferate a flame war on their pages. But if you've got a headline that can sell newspapers, maybe you'll find a journalist that will help you get a story going, and that would go much further than the "letters to the editor" column.
FWIW...
sggoodri
You'll get the best reaction from readers if you emphasize the following points:
- American/Western values regarding liberty require careful protection of everyone's right to travel to their destination of choice, requiring access to essential public routes. Public roads belong to the public.
- Americans value choice in vehicle type, from SUVs to Hybrids, motorcycles to bicycles. Americans don't want their government to prohibit their use of their preferred vehicles.
- Our traffic laws are designed to protect vulnerable road users from operators of heavier, potentially faster vehicles. Prohibiting travel by vulnerable persons in order to facilitate negligent operation of more dangerous vehicles would place the law on its head - the tail wagging the dog. Low-energy traffic poses less risk to the public; discouraging low-energy traffic in favor of high-energy traffic endangers the public.
- Bicycles are considered roadway vehicles subject to the rules for drivers because a long history of safety data has proven this to be the safest policy for cyclists.
- If the existing tax system is unfair - which it will always be - one should pursue a rational debate about improving the tax system. Meanwhile, it's inappropriate to deny basic rights to anyone as punishment for the imperfections of the government's tax system, which is beyond their control.
maddyfish
Attitudes like that are the main reason I strongly oppose bike paths. They promote the wrong idea with drivers. See signature.
Mr. Underbridge
Attitudes like that are the main reason I strongly oppose bike paths. They promote the wrong idea with drivers. See signature.
Yes, we're well aware of your 'my way is the only way' attitude. Personally, if I have a safe, convenient method of travel that isn't on road, I'll take it. As such, many of us appreciate well-designed bike paths. At the same time, if some inbred yokel wants to run me off the road when I'm on it, I'll be happy to report him or do what I need to do to maintain safety.
Oddly enough, even if the bike paths go away - which is your stated goal - guys like this will come up with some other tired rhetoric as to why you're in his way when you're on the road. Don't think for a second that if you eliminate bike paths and lanes from the world that idiots like him will accept you.
nelson249
I really hate the identification of the general public as 'taxpayers.' We are citizens damnit. This implies that since I pay more tax than you do my convenience matters more than your life. If this character wants to get into a pissing match about how much his gas tax pays for the roads... Guess what sunshine, everyone pays taxes (sales, property and income) into the general fund to pay for the public conveyances known as roads. Owning a car does not give confer licence to be an anti-social cretin.
Keith99
First remember you are not trying to convince him. You can't. You are not trying to convince his 'friends', menaing those who think pretty much like him. You will get negligable results. You also are not trying to convince cycling friendly people, no need.
You ARE trying to convince 80-90% of the people in the middle.
Some points.
1) The same government that designs the roads says they are for bikes.
2) What roads are designed for cars going 60 MPH besides freeways and how many bikes have you seen on freeways?
3) Just how many bike paths are there in Alaska?
Actually in Alaska one could make the case roads are for trucks and cars should not be permitted on them.
Blue Order
1. Bicycles were legally traffic and had a legal right to the road before cars ever appeared on the road. That legal status hasn't changed.
2. OP, check the Alaska statutes, they will tell you what Alaska law permits (i.e., is a bicycle "traffic"? Is a bicycle a "Vehicle"? What rights and duties does a cyclist have? Etc.).
3. We're all taxpayers. Driving a car doesn't make some jerkoff a more privileged taxpayer than you. Your taxes pay for the roads, just like his do, only your bike doesn't do anywhere near the damage his car does. If anything, you're subsidizing the jerkoff.
4. Don't call him a jerkoff. ;)
genec
2) What roads are designed for cars going 60 MPH besides freeways and how many bikes have you seen on freeways?
.
Actually I wish that were true... but here in sunny southern California we have surface streets bounded by sidewalks, with driveways and businesses alongside, that are marked at 60 and 65MPH. And many arterial roads marked at 50MPH. Said roads have the usual 5 foot wide (and narrower) bike lanes with naught but a thin line of paint 'tween cyclist and motor car.
This ain't just a problem of the far north.
Brusheda
Should I be denied my right to earn a living b/c I cannot afford a car? Public transportation cannot get you everywhere and often takes forever to get somewhere.
There are many developed countries where bicycles are a prevalant form of transportation- it is not socially outdated. If something is not popular should that mean I don't have the right to do it?
"We can’t accept bikes as equals because there is no possible way you can afford all who travel on highways the same level of safety as in a motor-vehicle or vice versa."-- Cycling is much safer than driving when they are given their full rights under the law.
banerjek
Some points.
1) The same government that designs the roads says they are for bikes.
2) What roads are designed for cars going 60 MPH besides freeways and how many bikes have you seen on freeways?
3) Just how many bike paths are there in Alaska?
Some other practical concerns
* Anyone who thinks bikes slow them down should consider how much time they spend waiting behind drivers prowling for parking spaces or who want to turn left across a busy lane of traffic rather than continuing to a light
* The only reason bikes slow down cars is that the latter takes up so much space. If cars took up only quadruple the space of bicycle, they'd be able to get by without going into the other lane. What makes their trip to work or the store more important than the cyclist's trip to the same destination?
* 10 bicycles will fit in the space taken up by a stopped SUV or pickup, so you'll never encounter a situation where only 2 or 3 bicycles can get through on a green light cycle.
* A hundred bicycles can be parked in the same space as a few cars, and bikes can be parked where cars can't even go.
* On a related matter, if the cars going zero mph on the right hand side of the road (i.e. the parked cars) weren't there, many roads would have an extra lane for cars to use. You'll never see anyone leave a bike in everyones' way for hours on end.
* Cyclists are taxpayers too, and many of us are quite affluent (i.e. we get soaked as bad as anyone). If anything, we subsidize the roads for people who take up much more space than us.
Brian Ratliff
Why in the world would you respond to a troll like this? The only way to make a published opinion die a silent death is an empty, echoing room; perhaps add some crickets chirping in the background. Instead, when you see a letter like this, make a special effort to be out on the road the next day, on your bike and exercising your right to the road in personal protest to that particular general opinion.
chicharron
<<Why in the world would you respond to a troll like this>>
The whole point of public discourse in the press, it to exchange dialouge. This is how ideas are exchanged, and hopefully the public is educated. In this case, it is an opportunity to change minds, about the right to use the roads using whatever form of transportation we so choose.
It is a basic constitional right to free speech, and if that right is not excersed, you loose it.
Bruce Rosar
It is a basic constitional right to free speech, and if that right is not excersed, you loose it.IMHO, the common and fundamental right to travel (http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection) also needs to be exercised:
The [U.S. Supreme] Court will also apply a strict scrutiny test if the classification interferes with fundamental rights such as first amendment rights, the right to privacy, or the right to travel.
oilman_15106
I have a letter to the editor pinned to the board above my desk: title: "Soccer, sport of terrorists" it is just sad that there are idiots everywhere that have enough time on their hands to write such trash.
The soccer letter is about how soccer is ruining American football and equates anyone who plays real fotbol with the taliban. Guess I am on some watch list because I played soccer. The writer of the Alaska letter is almost as stupid.
EnigManiac
I would respond with something to the effect of:
'Before one can state facts, one must know facts. Highways and roads are NOT for motorized vehicles. Highways and roads are public spaces and, therefore, natural to pedestrians, cyclists and any other member of the public whom does not require special permission to access public spaces. By virtue of requiring a license, a motor vehicle is a GUEST upon a public space and must, by law, acknowledge and respect all other legally recognized users of public spaces. Look it up, brainiac. The laws are clear and before you ever passed your test, you should have known them.
Taxpayers, indeed, fund roads, but contrary to your beliefs, gas, vehicle and other car-related taxes do NOT pay for roads. Property taxes pay for roads. They are a municipal responsibility. All cyclists are either home-owners or tenants and, therefore, they all pay property taxes, directly or indirectly. As a result, they pay for the roads you have been granted the PRIVELEGE of operating your vehicle on, but that they possess the natural right to use.
Cyclists and motorists do exist as equals elsewhere in the civilized world and only the ignorant, misguided or self-aggrandizing think otherwise. In some respects the two modes of travel are unequal: bicycles, generally, are unable to travel as fast as a motor vehicle, but that does not make them unequal; it means they are physically incapable, for the most part, of exceeding the maximum speed-limits and, therefore are more law-abiding and safer and in some contexts, that would make them superior. Motor vehicles are generally less maneuverable and accessible to various roads, paths or trails, but that does not mean they are unequal to a bicycle; it means accomodations are needed to allow them to operate safely. Bicycles are generally incapable of hauling multiple people and/or cargo, but that does not mean they are inequal; it means accesories must be employed to accomplish the same tasks. Slower, perhaps, but with greater benefit, fewer downsides and less impact upon communities and infrastructure. Motor vehicles are responsible for more deaths and serious injury, greater environmental destruction and physical damage to infrastructure than bicycles are, but that does not make cars, trucks and motorcycles unequal to bicycles; oh wait, yes it does. Since there are fewer negative impacts with bicycles than motor vehicles, bicycles are clearly superior to motor vehicles.
You may not want your tax dollars going toward road repair, but combined with weather conditions, it is motor vehicles that cause the damage to roads, not bicycles. In a perfect world, only motorists would pay for road repairs, because only they cause them. Motorists also dodge obstructions, incidentally, but should you, specifically, encounter an object blocking your path or a deep pothole, I would expect you, alone, to plow through it and suffer the consequences, because it is your contention that cars are invulnerable to hazards on the road. I propose that if you swerve or veer once, you renounce your insipid argument and must vow to never utter another foolish word about this subject.
So, let's be realistic, as you propose, The U.S. bicycle industry was a $5.8 billion industry in 2006, including the retail value of bicycles, related parts, and accessories through all channels of distribution, according to research funded by the National Sporting Goods Association. 18.2 million Bicycles were sold in the US. Hardly, a socially outdated mode of transportation considering that 13.9 million motor vehicles were sold during the same period and production continues to drop. With the imminent exhaustion of oil reserves worldwide, motor vehicles as we know them today, will soon be socially outdated, economically outdated and environmentally outdated. So, while you are a relic and think you can choose where your money will be spent, if I, a cyclist, had the same fanciful right, I could then deny the municipalities my money that go toward the roads that I graciously allow you to operate your vehicle on. Maybe I could even choose to withdraw my permission for you to operate your vehicle on my public space. Yeah, I think that's what I'll do. Your privelege is hereby revoked. Just park it, pal.'
Or something like that. LOL
bragi
I really hate the identification of the general public as 'taxpayers.' We are citizens damnit. This implies that since I pay more tax than you do my convenience matters more than your life. If this character wants to get into a pissing match about how much his gas tax pays for the roads... Guess what sunshine, everyone pays taxes (sales, property and income) into the general fund to pay for the public conveyances known as roads. Owning a car does not give confer licence to be an anti-social cretin.
I don't know if this is true everywhere, but where I live, local surface roads are not paid by gasoline taxes, but largely through property taxes. Gas taxes pay for highways, big-ass bridges, and mass transit. So, if you're primarily riding on local roads, and you own even a little property, and, since your impact on the road is much less on a bike than in a car, you may have more of a right to the road than the moron in the pickup or SUV who's getting bent out of shape because he has to wait two seconds longer to get to the next red light.
KnhoJ
Don't argue with this guy, he's looking for a fight. The best response I've ever found is to totally agree.
Like so: (don't argue with this, it's satire, I'm making this up right now)
----------------------------
Roads are for cars, not people. Roads were put there by gifted engineers for cars to travel upon at speeds much greater than the draconian speed limits. Drunks and poor people are at fault for these unreasonable speed limits, because they won't or can't drive cars and some government safety nanny bleeding heart liberals think that the general public isn't able to avoid running over these people, since they're always getting drunk or high and wander out into traffic because they think they're cars. Why is it that millions of drivers can manage to drive a complicated piece of machinery at speed maintaining a narrow trajectory defined by nothing more than a few painted lines, while all these drunken poverty cases can't even keep themselves on the entire rest of the earth that isn't covered with speeding cars? These bikers should be arrested, and banned from riding a bicycle in a public place again before they get someone killed.
----------------------------
And so forth. (seriously, don't argue with this, it's satire) Present the same content, but nudged over the edge into something that can't be supported. Don't get too carried away, make it something your opposition would nod to in a bar, and more importantly something publishable. If it gets published, your opponent has three options: Tone down his/her argument to retain credibility, chase it over the edge, or ignore it while most sensible readers wind up offended by the bloodthirsty cyclist hating drivers. That's why it's important to not get carried away, because if you go too far he/she won't have to back down much if at all.
Unreasonable, blathering opponents are assets. Use them.
NoNaYet
Oh I hate that tax argument.
By appearance I suspect I pay a butt load more taxes than most of the crappy pickup drivers that hassle me.
Bikepacker67
* On a related matter, if the cars going zero mph on the right hand side of the road (i.e. the parked cars) weren't there, many roads would have an extra lane for cars to use. You'll never see anyone leave a bike in everyones' way for hours on end.
No shyt.
Selfish mofos.
bobbyahines
CONCLUSION:
Okay, I took everyone's advice, found the common themes, and this is what I did:
Cyclists try to get word out about rules of the road
By Matias Saari
Fairbanks Daily News Miner
Published July 28, 2007
The Critical Mass cyclists numbered just nine, but on an hourlong ride Friday night on Fairbanks’ roads accomplished one goal — getting noticed by motorists.
Whether they succeeded in their primary mission — promoting awareness of their lawful right to pedal the roads — remains open for discussion.
The debate between motorists who are reluctant to give ground and cyclists who desire to ride safely on roads has reached a mini-firestorm in recent days through letters to the editor published in the News-Miner.
“I felt that getting into the letter to the editor exchange would not be very fruitful,” said Bobby Hines, 32, who has escaped major injury despite being hit by vehicles twice in the last two years. “I think this might be more constructive and do better at bringing awareness. The roads are not motor vehicle byways. They are transportation systems that are designed to ensure access.
“To discriminate against cyclists is to deny freedom of access...”
See the whole article here: http://newsminer.com/2007/07/28/8150
Thanks folks!
-bobby
geo8rge
I think cyclists should respect the fact that 5 people in a car traveling 55 mph do not want to slow down to 5 mph to accommodate a single cyclist.
The safety argument is somewhat bogus. A better way to see things is if the road were a privately run toll road. Would they allow cyclists, on what terms?
Bikepacker67
I think cyclists should respect the fact that 5 people in a car traveling 55 mph do not want to slow down to 5 mph to accommodate a single cyclist.
In 10 years of adult cycling, I have never, EVER, slowed down a vehicle from 55 down to 5.
Nice strawman, trollyboy.
notzofast
Here is the response:
------------START------------------
--------------END--------------------
Uhhhh hummm. Sometimes no words speak louder than a million words. Words are useless. Action counts more than talk can ever be. In this case ignoring speaks pretty damn loud. It's a letter in a news papers, who cares.
You have an insecure gentelmen or lady that you meet that tells you can't ride your bike here. Response? Do circles around her. If she calls the cops let her, it's her right. Just like you riding your bike there.
Forget about letter.
Don't give the haters fuel to burn. They not worth it. Let them die quetly and peacefully or hatefully, just like any other hater deserves.
hotbike
I intend to draft a response to this letter, could you recommend some counterpoints to include in this letter? And what do you think of the phrase, "socially outdated system of transportation?"
-bobby,
Fairbanks, Alaska[/QUOTE]
"don’t ask me to change my driving practices to accommodate their lack of path-repair funding."
No, sorry, I have to ask you to change your driving practices. You have no right to put other people at risk. If you see a cyclist, you can slow down to 25~30 MPH, and pass well to the left when there are no cars coming the other way. Do you have a problem with your reflexes, or blurred vision? Am I asking you to change your driving practices or your drinking parctices?
Bike paths are only engineered for 18 MPH, which is the main reason cyclists don't always use them , even if they are available.
I saw a show on The Discovery Channel about building the Alaska Highway. You're lucky you even have roads in Alaska. Building a bike path could take as much effort and expenses as building a road.
But wouldn't it be better if we simply widen the road by , let's say, ten feet? Then you can continue driving as you do now, and the bicyclists can move ten feet over to the right when you come by.
I don't believe in bike lanes. They give motorists the false impression that bikes aren't allowed on the roads. A wider overall road could be built at the same expense as building a barrier divided bike lane, and everyone could share the benefit of having a wider road. A wider road could give a driver more room to swerve to avoid a moose, for example. Wider roads give a better line-of-sight, so drivers can see what's ahead without vision obstructed by trees and foliage.
--------------
I'm thinking about this phrase; "socially outdated system of transportation". He doesn't say "technically outdated mode of transportation" , he says "socially". What I'm reading into this is the writer doesn't think cyclists are of the same social class, or are second class citizens. I think he's being a snob, first of all, and second he's just foolish, because most cyclists have a car or van for rainy days. Really , this guy is being snooty, I wonder where he came from originally, or where his family came from . I don't think it's Alaska. He sounds like he's from New York or New Jersey.
So this guy is hiding out in Alaska.
Hey, the President of the United States rides a bicycle. Many independent businessmen ride bicycles, the average working Joe Schmoe can't fit bicycing into his daily or weekly schedule. Retirees ride bikes, both for fitness and to save the gas in the tank of the car that's parked on his estate. Military personnel ride bikes, especially those in elite recon units.
Anyway, this guy has written to the paper, and he states that he drives 60 MPH and he doesn't blink. I think it's more likely he'll hit a moose than a bike. A man on a bike will at least try to get out of the way.
bikedaddy
I have a letter to the editor pinned to the board above my desk: title: "Soccer, sport of terrorists" it is just sad that there are idiots everywhere that have enough time on their hands to write such trash.
The soccer letter is about how soccer is ruining American football and equates anyone who plays real fotbol with the taliban. Guess I am on some watch list because I played soccer. The writer of the Alaska letter is almost as stupid.
The American football coach at my high school often told me I was a communist for playing soccer. He was not joking. Back to topic:
I vote for ignoring letters such as these and going for a ride.
Brian
In 10 years of adult cycling, I have never, EVER, slowed down a vehicle from 55 down to 5.
Nice strawman, trollyboy.
I think the point was that cyclists can and do impede the flow of traffic. You've never gotten stuck behind a family outing - dad with junior on the trail-a-bike, mom on her bike, and another kid on a 16" or 20" bringing up the rear, taking up a good chunk of the roadway?
Valpo Hawkeye
I think the point was that cyclists can and do impede the flow of traffic. You've never gotten stuck behind a family outing - dad with junior on the trail-a-bike, mom on her bike, and another kid on a 16" or 20" bringing up the rear, taking up a good chunk of the roadway?
Yeah, and whose life is so important that they can't spend an extra 45 seconds in their climate-controlled, power-steering, power-brakes vehicle to allow a fellow citizen the same right to the road they have. When I'm running early Sunday mornings, when no one else is around, the same old man who is possibly on his way to his morning worship or coffee or whatever, always honks at me and waves me to the sidewalk. Well, no one else is on the road, he has both lanes to do with what he pleases. Still, he honks. Why don't I run on the sidewalk. They're uneven, they're on-again, off-again, etc. I have the right to walk/run against traffic. This cycling thing is the same way. I'm sorry that I've asked for an extra 20 seconds of you life in your luxury SUV with a "W" sticker on the back. I must be less of a person for riding my bike instead of consuming large amounts of gas. MORONS!
trackhub
My 2 cents worth on this:
I also noticed these two items in his letter,
-"socially outdated system of transportation", and this,
-"My taxes aren't paying for that".
Now that is amazing. I wish I had some say as to how my tax dollars are allocated, aside from that "Presidential election fund" checkbox on the 1040 form.
The bit about the "socially outdated system of transportation" is something. I wonder how much brainstorming he did, coming up with that. Some would say that with the price of gasoline, and the world wide oil situation, the automobile is socially outdated.
I've long heard that Alaska has very few women. Maybe that's why this guy is so angry. Just a theory of course.
Write your counter-letters to the editor, but as others here have mentioned, I suspect it won't change the way this guy, and people like him, think.
Brian
Yeah, and whose life is so important that they can't spend an extra 45 seconds in their climate-controlled, power-steering, power-brakes vehicle to allow a fellow citizen the same right to the road they have. When I'm running early Sunday mornings, when no one else is around, the same old man who is possibly on his way to his morning worship or coffee or whatever, always honks at me and waves me to the sidewalk. Well, no one else is on the road, he has both lanes to do with what he pleases. Still, he honks. Why don't I run on the sidewalk. They're uneven, they're on-again, off-again, etc. I have the right to walk/run against traffic. This cycling thing is the same way. I'm sorry that I've asked for an extra 20 seconds of you life in your luxury SUV with a "W" sticker on the back. I must be less of a person for riding my bike instead of consuming large amounts of gas. MORONS!
Don't know why you're quoting me here.
KnhoJ
I think the point was that cyclists can and do impede the flow of traffic. You've never gotten stuck behind a family outing - dad with junior on the trail-a-bike, mom on her bike, and another kid on a 16" or 20" bringing up the rear, taking up a good chunk of the roadway?
Just yesterday! I slowed down, rang my bell, they rang their bells, we parted ways. Nobody worried about getting killed by me.
Recreational riding aside, what about people who rely on walking or bicycling to get around? I know about a dozen people with revoked licenses, and three of them don't drive. Two have the good fortune of living on a useful bus route, and one has a very understanding wife who gives him a ride everywhere. The rest drive because they're worried about exactly what you describe. More worried about that than killing someone doing whatever it was that resulted in the suspended license in the first place or going to jail. They get picked up, tossed in jail, fined, community service, and probation, and even then suspended licenses are still ineffectual because of attitudes like this and a complete lack of other transportation options.
I don't drive due to a physical problem. The buses are not usually in my favor. So I ride a bike on highly variable suburban roads. I take the lane over narrow bridges with 50 mph traffic, I turn left on five lane roads, I block right turn lanes when it's absolutely necessary for me to do so; I get in the way all the time. Apart from bored teenagers, about one driver every five hundred miles lets this much attitude show. The rest are patient, understanding, and quite a few will put themselves in the way to make my trip easier.
So what's the choice here? #1: Cyclists and pedestrians should always stay out of the way of traffic; out of the road, out of driveways, out of intersections. (driveways and intersections are where I meet most of the opinions like this) #2: The most fortunate and able road users make a ten second sacrifice (seriously, count off ten seconds while you're driving, it's an eternity compared to nearly any impediment produced by a cyclist) so that those who are not physically able to drive can go to work, buy groceries, and maybe even have a social life. Also giving people who have been deemed too irresponsible to drive some alternative to driving, making the roadways safer for everyone, and [selling point for drivers] getting those cars off the road to alleviate congestion.
Valpo Hawkeye
Don't know why you're quoting me here.
In your post you mentioned anecdotal evidence about the dad with fam and how they were holding up traffic. Big deal! So someone had to take a few seconds out of their day to go around. I'd much rather be slowed down a little while driving due to more people being out on bikes. Our society is in too much of a hurry!
Ky Venom
I think a post on another forum sums it up well. I do pray for such often.
Posted 29 July 2007 03:53 PM
This is terrible, the day these drivers respect bike riders is the day a family member of their own dies in the hands of a driver while on a bike.
Brian
In your post you mentioned anecdotal evidence about the dad with fam and how they were holding up traffic. Big deal! So someone had to take a few seconds out of their day to go around. I'd much rather be slowed down a little while driving due to more people being out on bikes. Our society is in too much of a hurry!
I never mentioned driving. Our tandem is hardly the easiest handling bike at slower speeds, and I hate it when cyclists don't show some courtesy (not to mention common sense) towards others on the road.
Valpo Hawkeye
I never mentioned driving. Our tandem is hardly the easiest handling bike at slower speeds, and I hate it when cyclists don't show some courtesy (not to mention common sense) towards others on the road.
My bad... :p I guess what my dad told me about 'assuming' is true after all.
aMull
I would respond with something to the effect of:
'Before one can state facts, one must know facts. Highways and roads are NOT for motorized vehicles. Highways and roads are public spaces and, therefore, natural to pedestrians, cyclists and any other member of the public whom does not require special permission to access public spaces. By virtue of requiring a license, a motor vehicle is a GUEST upon a public space and must, by law, acknowledge and respect all other legally recognized users of public spaces. Look it up, brainiac. The laws are clear and before you ever passed your test, you should have known them.
Taxpayers, indeed, fund roads, but contrary to your beliefs, gas, vehicle and other car-related taxes do NOT pay for roads. Property taxes pay for roads. They are a municipal responsibility. All cyclists are either home-owners or tenants and, therefore, they all pay property taxes, directly or indirectly. As a result, they pay for the roads you have been granted the PRIVELEGE of operating your vehicle on, but that they possess the natural right to use.
Cyclists and motorists do exist as equals elsewhere in the civilized world and only the ignorant, misguided or self-aggrandizing think otherwise. In some respects the two modes of travel are unequal: bicycles, generally, are unable to travel as fast as a motor vehicle, but that does not make them unequal; it means they are physically incapable, for the most part, of exceeding the maximum speed-limits and, therefore are more law-abiding and safer and in some contexts, that would make them superior. Motor vehicles are generally less maneuverable and accessible to various roads, paths or trails, but that does not mean they are unequal to a bicycle; it means accomodations are needed to allow them to operate safely. Bicycles are generally incapable of hauling multiple people and/or cargo, but that does not mean they are inequal; it means accesories must be employed to accomplish the same tasks. Slower, perhaps, but with greater benefit, fewer downsides and less impact upon communities and infrastructure. Motor vehicles are responsible for more deaths and serious injury, greater environmental destruction and physical damage to infrastructure than bicycles are, but that does not make cars, trucks and motorcycles unequal to bicycles; oh wait, yes it does. Since there are fewer negative impacts with bicycles than motor vehicles, bicycles are clearly superior to motor vehicles.
You may not want your tax dollars going toward road repair, but combined with weather conditions, it is motor vehicles that cause the damage to roads, not bicycles. In a perfect world, only motorists would pay for road repairs, because only they cause them. Motorists also dodge obstructions, incidentally, but should you, specifically, encounter an object blocking your path or a deep pothole, I would expect you, alone, to plow through it and suffer the consequences, because it is your contention that cars are invulnerable to hazards on the road. I propose that if you swerve or veer once, you renounce your insipid argument and must vow to never utter another foolish word about this subject.
So, let's be realistic, as you propose, The U.S. bicycle industry was a $5.8 billion industry in 2006, including the retail value of bicycles, related parts, and accessories through all channels of distribution, according to research funded by the National Sporting Goods Association. 18.2 million Bicycles were sold in the US. Hardly, a socially outdated mode of transportation considering that 13.9 million motor vehicles were sold during the same period and production continues to drop. With the imminent exhaustion of oil reserves worldwide, motor vehicles as we know them today, will soon be socially outdated, economically outdated and environmentally outdated. So, while you are a relic and think you can choose where your money will be spent, if I, a cyclist, had the same fanciful right, I could then deny the municipalities my money that go toward the roads that I graciously allow you to operate your vehicle on. Maybe I could even choose to withdraw my permission for you to operate your vehicle on my public space. Yeah, I think that's what I'll do. Your privelege is hereby revoked. Just park it, pal.'
Or something like that. LOL
Well said :)
Brian
My bad... :p I guess what my dad told me about 'assuming' is true after all.
It's all good. I give cyclists (even rude or stupid ones) plenty of room when I'm in a car or on my motorcycle. But it really annoys me when other cyclists are rude to each other.
benda18
a response to that letter would be a waste of (e)paper.
Tude
What a piece of work that is. I sincerely hope one, no, three "unfortunate" people of that writer's family decide to "endanger" themselves by deciding to ride one of those "vehicles" that we unfortunates ride - - and have a wonderful day in the neighborhood meandering around ... and then come to instant reality check when some jerk reminds them where they should be riding - on the @#$! sidewalk - and perhaps make that verbal assault more real by veering into them abit as I have had done to me way tooooo many times.
What an absolute ignorant person. Wonder when the last time they picked up a drivers manual?
Please be sure to include which section - paragraph b and all from your state's laws in your letter where it includes bicycles on the road. I am the Publicity Director for my club and have a informational booth/table at several festivals/expositions and pro race in my area and I hand out bicycle safety info, etc to people as well as inform people - who are asking because they are new to bicycling and are confused to the reactions they've received by drivers. I have hand outs that I give them with NYC laws.
Yes, we are a legal vehicle on the road.
(Oh did I add that I'm quite the advocate for the club too? :))
Tude
Here is the response:
------------START------------------
--------------END--------------------
Uhhhh hummm. Sometimes no words speak louder than a million words. Words are useless. Action counts more than talk can ever be. In this case ignoring speaks pretty damn loud. It's a letter in a news papers, who cares.
You have an insecure gentelmen or lady that you meet that tells you can't ride your bike here. Response? Do circles around her. If she calls the cops let her, it's her right. Just like you riding your bike there.
Forget about letter.
Don't give the haters fuel to burn. They not worth it. Let them die quetly and peacefully or hatefully, just like any other hater deserves.
But it's not dieing off, it's not going away - in fact this sentiment is building. So how would you suggest we inform the public to our actual rights on the road. There's more of us out there now - I see growing amount of commuters in my area - as well as other types of bicyclists (race, tri, tour, etc) out there as well - and they are running into more problems with drivers - new bicyclists especially are confused and are having a very hard time dealing with it.
I had many people asking me about this problem two weeks ago when I had my booth (I'm the Publicity Director for my club) at a festival - they bought a bicycle with intentions of becoming more fit and enjoying life and when they finally got ready fitness wise and felt good about it, they got out on the road and were called all sorts of things, were nearly run over, blah blah blah - and here we are telling people the FUN, yes FUN aspects of getting out on the road.
And yes these people come back to me - "hey, remember me? Well I joined in a couple rides from you club and enjoyed them and thought I would get out and travel here and ... a bad driver happened. Yes, I replied, this does happen, it's bad I know - but that's why we ride defensively etc etc. But I've had too many new riders come back with the - I can't believe it/that was too much attitude - I'll stick to my local sidewalks and perhaps the canal (which essentually means they are only going to ride around the block). And that's too bad. Really too bad.
If anything this writer should be answered with several replies. Local bicycle club and LBS should send in a general group letter as well. If not that, where do you start?
Advocacy groups give out information, hold rodeos, lots of things ... but how do you change the attitude?
Scummer
A wider overall road could be built at the same expense as building a barrier divided bike lane, and everyone could share the benefit of having a wider road. A wider road could give a driver more room to swerve to avoid a moose, for example. Wider roads give a better line-of-sight, so drivers can see what's ahead without vision obstructed by trees and foliage.
A wider open road would just invite more drivers to slip past 0.1mph slower drivers on the right side of the road.
I've seen it many times and I have a huge smile on my face when a cop actually tickets someone who has been caught riding the shoulder to pass traffic.
So a wider open road won't help in my opinion. The whole driver education system has to change in the US. The population as a whole has to rethink their values.
Why is it possible that in Europe, which has a way higher density of people than in the US btw, people can ride their bikes without fear of being run-over by some dumb, uneducated operator of a 4000lb weapon?
I think the drivers education in the US is lagging behind horribly just like so many other things.
littlewaywelt
I have a letter to the editor pinned to the board above my desk: title: "Soccer, sport of terrorists" it is just sad that there are idiots everywhere that have enough time on their hands to write such trash.
The soccer letter is about how soccer is ruining American football and equates anyone who plays real fotbol with the taliban. Guess I am on some watch list because I played soccer. The writer of the Alaska letter is almost as stupid.
LINK PLEASE!!!!
radiofree
"socially outdated method of transportation" ?
the bicycle is still by far the most popular method of transportation in the world. Not America, the world. If anything a bicycle is a socially responsible method of transportation.
hotbike
"socially outdated method of transportation" ?
the bicycle is still by far the most popular method of transportation in the world. Not America, the world. If anything a bicycle is a socially responsible method of transportation.
The word "socially" , which the letter-writer used instead of "technically", has me thinking. For one thing, Alaska has more men than women, so maybe the letter writer has "blue balls". (I'm trying not to laugh). Alaska is freezing cold, so there might be a double-entendre here.
Maybe when you were in High School, a girl would've turned down your invitation to go on a bicycle ride together. It's an attitude that goes back to the 1930's, when, because of the Great Depression, people had to choose between a car OR a bicycle. They could not afford both. Cars were $400.00 new, and bicycles were over $100.00, more than a quarter of the car's price. People who had to bike-to-work, did so out of necessity, not by choice. The Great Depression is over, but many people are still stuck in a rut, on a muddy dirt road, in their Model-A Ford. (figuratively speaking.)
I've heard that every time a new car is sold, six thousand dollars from the sale goes to more television airtime. That's why you see so many car ads on TV.
I wish more bicycle shops could afford the advertising. Put the most expensive bicycle in a quarter page photo ad in the local newspaper, with it's $3,995.00 price in bold print. People will see it, and develop more respect for bicycles. The Almighty Dollar, "in God we Trust".
hotbike
A wider open road would just invite more drivers to slip past 0.1mph slower drivers on the right side of the road.
I've seen it many times and I have a huge smile on my face when a cop actually tickets someone who has been caught riding the shoulder to pass traffic.
So a wider open road won't help in my opinion. The whole driver education system has to change in the US. The population as a whole has to rethink their values.
Why is it possible that in Europe, which has a way higher density of people than in the US btw, people can ride their bikes without fear of being run-over by some dumb, uneducated operator of a 4000lb weapon?
I think the drivers education in the US is lagging behind horribly just like so many other things.
Cycling education includes the rules of the road. High Schools give first priority to D- and F students who can only get to college on a football scholarship. Since they're Football majors, they don't need to know the rules of the road. (cycling and football are two different sports).
I'm still for wide outside lanes (WOL). Yes, Police need to give tickets to motorists who use the shoulder to pass other cars. It gives me a laugh to when I see it. I like to look at the driver's face , open mouthed "I can't believe it" expression.
BarracksSi
I'm all for wide lanes, too.
A lot of us are toeing the line (literally and figuratively, as it turns out) between our rights and public safety.
Holding up traffic is really not the best answer. We know that people are going to get frustrated. Drivers who want to be considerate and give cyclists a wide berth are stuck checking their mirrors and avoiding the biker at the same time while trying to move over; drivers who don't care about space are going to scare & piss off bikers by passing too closely.
I've said it elsewhere about driving in general, and I'll say it relates to cycling, too -- speed differential is one of the most important factors in traffic safety. Smoothly-flowing traffic simply goes along without much fuss. Add someone who's going a lot faster -- or slower -- and it gets to be a hassle.
If I find that I can't keep up with traffic, or don't have a lot of space to myself, I suck it up and go somewhere else. Too bad, so sad, sucks to be me.
Herman47
My recommendations for your letter to the editor:
1) Inform the public that unlike the motorist, the cyclist does not pollute the air that you breathe
2) Unlike the motorist, the cyclist does not significantly contribute to global warming
3) Unlike the motorist, the cyclist does not use up unrenewable resources
4) Motorists kill thousands of people each year, cyclists do not
5) Bicycles do not present the disposal problems that cars do
and last, but certainly not least,
6) The motorist is MORALLY INFERIOR.
atbman
I suspect that the legal position is broadly the same as in the UK, namely, that cyclists have a superior legal right to be on the road for the following reasons:
1. Drivers are not allowed to drive unless they have a licence which is valid for the vehicle type they are driving: cyclists have no such restriction
2. Vehicles must have been taxed/licenced for the year in question before the driver can take it on the road: bikes require no such tax
3. Drivers must (I assume) have 3rd party/public liability insurance to reimburse other road users for any injuries/damage caused by the driver, before he is allowed to drive on the highway: cyclists have no such requirement.
In other words, a cyclist can ride on the public highway without fulfilling any of the legal conditions listed above, ergo, the cyclist's right to be on the road is superior to that of the motorist.
Roads are designed for traffic; bikes are defined as traffic (except in specified circumstances); the original Alaskan letter writer is, therefore speaking from the wrong orifice. Suggest to him that if he wishes to see daylight in this matter, he shoves his head another 3' further up his posterior