Advocacy & Safety - this is sure to get you guys talkin

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/16/Columns/On_a_bike_is_no_place.shtml

I think this is a good level-headed article (for once!) about the whole cyclists vs motorists issue. I think that there is alot of self-righteous rhetoric, lots of tunnel vision on both sides of the issue. i think that it is hard to be objective on an issue when you are on one side, and you already perceive the other as the enemy

Originally posted by deliriou5
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/16/Columns/On_a_bike_is_no_place.shtml

I think this is a good level-headed article (for once!) about the whole cyclists vs motorists issue. I think that there is alot of self-righteous rhetoric, lots of tunnel vision on both sides of the issue. i think that it is hard to be objective on an issue when you are on one side, and you already perceive the other as the enemy

I simply cannot relate to what he's stating. I've never considered my riding as a political statement. I just can't image that other riders are riding double, and refusing to get over. I can't image that other riders "refuse" to go single file.

Is this really an issue? It certainly isn't where I ride.

This is the attitude that bothers me when he says the bikes were in their rights but the infuriated the driver. Well who need the anger management here? the building I work in is on the Burke Gillam Trail and the trail has no stop signs at the two 'T' sections at my building but about twice a year some poor cyclists get clobbered by a car who does not pay attention to the stop sign before the trail (The trail at this point runs parallel to Northlake Way) pulls forward to the intersection and pow! Of course the knuckle heads I work with all come and grab me and say look that bike hit that car. I always point out the stop sign and who has the right of way, but alas no matter what it is the cyclists fault. The last time it happened was a week ago when I finally mentioned to them that they need to be careful because that could of been me, Clark, Mary, Tim, Or even Carl(the owner of the company) and you all know us as law abiding responsible citizens. That still didn't work these guys do not see that the car was not obeying the law and the cyclists got hit in the process. "Well the cyclist should be more careful" is what I hear. Which may be true cyclist should be more aware of the traffic around them, they should be defensive riders. But that is not the law and cars need to be more aware of what is going on around them. There should be a requirement that before anyone gets a drivers license that they be required to commute and get around with out a car so they can experience what it is like to be a pedestrian, or cyclists. The excuse that they must of made him mad, should not be what the column is about it should be about how as a society we should be looking into just how driving automobiles in traffic is affected us. I also note that he must really live in a town with a huge amount of commuters, here in Seattle you are hard pressed to find 50 commuters in one shot going to work at the same time. Exaggerating the whole thing does not help us either.

Originally posted by bac
I simply cannot relate to what he's stating. I've never considered my riding as a political statement. I just can't image that other riders are riding double, and refusing to get over. I can't image that other riders "refuse" to go single file.

Is this really an issue? It certainly isn't where I ride.

Exactly the same here. I don't know what he's on about either. I do know that in instances where a traffic lane isn't wide enough to share with cars I simply claim the whole thing, and this happens whether I'm riding alone or in a group (and most of my riding is solo, too). This is not a matter of "making a political statement", it's simply a matter of taking the safer option compared to the alternative of being squeezed into the gutter.

As far as drivers complaining about having to change lanes to pass a cyclist, I merely ask them what they do when confronted with a slow car (most of which travel slower than the speeds I ride), do they honk, abuse or run into them? Or do they simply wait their turn like they'd have to in any other facet of life? From my observations, the answer is usually the latter.

Fact is, delays are simply part of life, and removing a relatively minor one is not going to ensure that nobody is late for work ever again. On the other hand, if everybody simply starts allowing for the inevitable delays in life and leaving five minutes earlier, that might just work. Either way, it isn't my problem, and I am not going to endanger or inconvenience myself unnecessarily by changing my riding style to keep someone else happy.

This article is an example of the hate speech.

I had the feeling that the author is gloating over the death and injury of the twenty cyclists.

Maxwell seems to think that, since he rides a bicycle, and has made group motorcycle rides, he can speak as an authority about large group bicycle rides. He states that he rides alone, which tells me he has no idea what a group bicycle ride is about.

"The ride becomes a political statement"? Please, we are not talking about critical mass rides here. Folks just want to ride in a group, and I believe that a double paceline is safer on smaller roads that a much longer single paceline. It forces cage drivers to respect our rights and pass the group as they would a car with full lane rights, rather than squeezing past.

What would a group do to enrage an oncoming old man? Maxwell implies that the group was holding Pastore up and he hit them from behind, whereas we all know he came over the yellow line to hit them, most likely while temporarily incapacitated.

Maxwell is just adding to our woes. Plus that has got to be the second worst byline photo I have ever see, topped only by Leon Hale of the Houston Chronicle.

Originally posted by Da Tinker
Folks just want to ride in a group, and I believe that a double paceline is safer on smaller roads that a much longer single paceline

Any reason one large group could not be broken into many smaller groups?

From your logic there it sounds like the group could be too big if riding single file would be unsafe.


It forces cage drivers to respect our rights and pass the group as they would a car with full lane rights, rather than squeezing past.
That can be done either single file or abreast you know. I take the lane all the time riding by myself. Not saying it is wrong to do so with two people, just that it can be done equally well single file or abreast, so its not really a good argument for riding that way.

take care,

Jester

A long double paceline doing 15 or 20mph on a 55mph road with no shoulder needs to be as courteous as a backhoe driver would be on the same road.

Usually, when a tractor driver sees he's got traffic piling up behind him, he'll pull over when it's safe and let the traffic pass.

Some places, that's actually required by law.

Ride leaders have to understand these issues and work out the rules in advance.

Making cars wait a minute until it's safe to pass is one thing. Making passing impossible for mile after mile is something else, and it's certainly not "sharing the road."

This isn't complicated. It's just people being hard-headed.

RichC

It seems to me his argument is summed up thusly,

Bicycles are no physical match for a Lincoln Continental or a VW Bug, for that matter. Any cyclist who bogarts a motorist is a damned fool. If anyone must give up a piece of asphalt real estate, it is the cyclist.

to which I would ask, why?

Using his logic, a VW Bug would be obliged to give way to an SUV and an SUV would be obliged to give way to an 18 wheeler. What about small, quick and manuverable cars, like little Porches or Ferraris'? Could they scoot about in between the larger cars avoiding conflight through speed and manoverability?

I would say the laws are on the books because they benefit everybody and by following those rules everyone is safer, slow or fast, big or small.

Roads are for all traffic paid for by all tax-payers. It sounds as if Mr. Maxwell is prejudiced against cycling because they may, sometimes be an inconvenience for motorists.

"If anyone must give up a piece of asphalt real estate, it is the cyclist."

Yeah, I liked that line too. Too bad so many motorists seem to believe it. In the past week I have nearly been killed by one motorist who did the pull-up- alongside-and- take-a-right-turn-into-the-cyclist-without-signaling trick, and another who simply left turned into me, ignoring right of way. It's a good thing our laws don't work along this clowns reasoning: "The state finds the defendant not guilty of murder by the fact the defendant was larger and stronger than the victim, so the victim simply should have yeilded." Sheesh.

Has anybody else noticed a recent (i.e. last 18 months or so) increase in anti-cyclist trolling in major newspapers? I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts about why this is so. Personally I think it's because they know they're pretty much always going to end up with 300 replies on the letters page (and each of those 300 people plus a heap of hangers on) buying a number of subsequent editions of the paper to see if their letter goes to print.

Any other thoughts?

I think Maxwell makes some good points.

Bicycles have rights AND responsibilities on the road. Some bicyclist groups DO hog up the road and make the whole car/bike/road environment dangerous. Let's face it, bicycles have rights and so do automobiles.

We think we are hauling a$$ when we are going over 25 miles per hour. Meanwhile, the motorist behind us is grinding his molars looking for an opportunity to get past us.

AND... Maxwell is correct that a bicycle is no match for a Lincoln Continental. If you don't believe it, ask any cyclist who has had a collision with a Lincoln - if you can find a survivor.

I dunno, Maxwell's article was more level headed than some I have seen.

Hmmm level heade. Maxwell exagerates the amount of bikes that he has to deal with. And tries to justify the killing of riders because they were in the way. Now he doesn't come right out and say it but if you read his article carefully it is there. And yes Chris there has been an increase in anti bike sentiment in the media and yes it is because it generates letters and phone calls. The news media is now not the disinterested third party (really they, for the most part were at one point) but now the create news to report as well. There are several case of this happening. The problem is not only with the media but the general public they do not need to buy into this, but they do. If you listen to some of these so called call in news programs you can tell the moderator is just saying what he says to generate phone calls nothing more. Print media has always done a better job in reporting the news but now their editorial content is getting disgusting. This guy Maxwell falls just short of advocating violence against riders. What is sad is that the media needs to point out to car drivers that bikes, buses, and trucks ore not what is cloggong up the streets, it is them. But then the media would lose all there watchers/listners/readers.

Originally posted by ngateguy
Hmmm level heade. Maxwell exagerates the amount of bikes that he has to deal with. And tries to justify the killing of riders because they were in the way. Now he doesn't come right out and say it but if you read his article carefully it is there.

The guy has carefully worded his article to avoid looking like a troll. I, for one, don't buy it.


Originally posted by ngateguy
And yes Chris there has been an increase in anti bike sentiment in the media and yes it is because it generates letters and phone calls. The news media is now not the disinterested third party (really they, for the most part were at one point) but now the create news to report as well. There are several case of this happening. The problem is not only with the media but the general public they do not need to buy into this, but they do.

I tend to think that a good number of the phone calls and letters being generated are coming from cyclists with over the top emotional responses. I just wonder how many more of these articles we'd see if cyclists simply started treating them with the contempt they deserve.

When I read this part, I saw strange connections with **** victims, whose attackers claimed "she was asking for it."

Now, back to the politicization of road cycling. Nearly two weeks ago, Joe Pastore allegedly mowed down 20 members of the combined St. Petersburg Bike Club and the St. Pete Mad Dog Triathlon Club with his Lincoln Continental. Some say Pastore was angry because the cyclists took over the road and would not relent. I was not at the scene, but I am convinced that at least some of the cyclists in question - although within their legal rights as they followed the written "rules of the road" - did something to infuriate Pastore.

I don't care if they gave him the finger and spit on his windshield. Pastore, like all of us, are in charge of our own anger.
There is no such thing as, "I did it because he made me angry." We make ourselves angry and we are all responsible for our own actions. We are responsible for our own anger.

Originally posted by mike
I think Maxwell makes some good points.

Bicycles have rights AND responsibilities on the road. Some bicyclist groups DO hog up the road and make the whole car/bike/road environment dangerous. Let's face it, bicycles have rights and so do automobiles.

We think we are hauling a$$ when we are going over 25 miles per hour. Meanwhile, the motorist behind us is grinding his molars looking for an opportunity to get past us.

AND... Maxwell is correct that a bicycle is no match for a Lincoln Continental. If you don't believe it, ask any cyclist who has had a collision with a Lincoln - if you can find a survivor.

I dunno, Maxwell's article was more level headed than some I have seen.

Me too. other than his implication that infuriating Pastore somehow excuses what he did.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
When I read this part, I saw strange connections with **** victims, whose attackers claimed "she was asking for it."

Now, back to the politicization of road cycling. Nearly two weeks ago, Joe Pastore allegedly mowed down 20 members of the combined St. Petersburg Bike Club and the St. Pete Mad Dog Triathlon Club with his Lincoln Continental. Some say Pastore was angry because the cyclists took over the road and would not relent. I was not at the scene, but I am convinced that at least some of the cyclists in question - although within their legal rights as they followed the written "rules of the road" - did something to infuriate Pastore.

I don't care if they gave him the finger and spit on his windshield. Pastore, like all of us, are in charge of our own anger.
There is no such thing as, "I did it because he made me angry." We make ourselves angry and we are all responsible for our own actions. We are responsible for our own anger.

That is a very, very good post. The funny thing is, if someone wrote an article telling women they should "dress conservatively" in areas with a high incidence of sexual assault, it's highly unlikely they would still be in a job by Monday morning, yet this guy has sent basically the same message to another group. It just goes to show that our society is no more enlightened than it was 50 or even 100 years ago.

Originally posted by Chris L
Has anybody else noticed a recent (i.e. last 18 months or so) increase in anti-cyclist trolling in major newspapers?

It seems every springtime the anti-cycling letters and articles make their annual appearance.

In my area, I keep a close eye on newspapers and telecasts that put cycling in a bad light. I almost always reply and quite often my letters have been printed. (at last count I've had over 24 letters printed over the last 14 years)

This past year, the negative stories on cycling have been almost non-existant. I don't know if an editorial decision has been made not to print the negativity or not. I know cycling in Vancouver is very popular and we have one of the highest rates of cycle commuters in Canada.

One letter was written just last week where someone was saying cyclists should ride on sidewalks and I replied with 4 reasons not to ride on the sidewalk and 1 good reason to ride on the road. It merrited a headline. The previous time I replied to an anti-cyclist opinion was last year when I took on a popular columnist and he printed my counter arguments.

"Fact is, delays are simply part of life, and removing a relatively minor one is not going to ensure that nobody is late for work ever again. On the other hand, if everybody simply starts allowing for the inevitable delays in life and leaving five minutes earlier, that might just work. Either way, it isn't my problem, and I am not going to endanger or inconvenience myself unnecessarily by changing my riding style to keep someone else happy."

Good point Chris L.! I like the saying, "Your poor planning is not my crisis."

I realize that he's ranting about the huge inconvenience that group rides cause him, but most the of the ugliness I've encountered is as a single rider, usually on my commute.


But I see too many cyclists who are arrogant, who glare at me, a motorist, as if I am committing a crime for trying to get to work on time.

Switch "cyclist" and "motorist" and you've got the true flavor of the car v. bike conflict. As I posted in the "How Was The Commute Today?" thread, this morning at 6:20 am on an empty three lane boulevard, some wank in a Merc. Benz flipped me off for having the temerity to cause him to alter his path by a few degrees.

First, I was hit by car's mirror about 2 years ago. I had a difficult time walking for 6 months. Secondly, my husband and I ride a motorcycle--we have been driven off the road twice in the last 4-5 years. ( If I had been more aggressive and took the lane, I probably wouldn't have been hit.)
Now, I ride solo, on tours and in several bike clubs. There is a big difference between solo riding and club riding. We have people who ride double and will not move over when cars approach. It is club policy when we ride as a group of 20 or more cyclists that we either keep the line to 4-5 long, OR ride signle file. When you see traffic backup, single file. It is just common courtesy. The bikers do not want to share the road. They get in a pack and it is the "mob mentality". No one has the right to get angry and strike another person--especially with their car, but believe me like there are plenty of bad car drivers, there are PLENTY of bad cyclists.

Originally posted by Pete Clark
Pastore, like all of us, is in charge of his own anger.
There is no such thing as, "I did it because he made me angry." We make ourselves angry and we are all responsible for our own actions. We are responsible for our own anger.

YES YES YES !!!

What this country needs is a bit more individual accountability.

You know... of all the stories Maxwell could have used to support his arguments, why choose the Pastore one? First of all, Pastore was not even behind the cyclists. He was in oncoming traffic... travelling in the opposite direction of the cylists... on the other side of the road. He had to illegally cross a double-yellow line to strike the cyclists head on. Secondly, he was not being held up by cyclists. How was it they did anything to anger him? From what I understand, he was actually attempting to get around a truck that was moving too slowly for him. Thirdly, there were many things pointing to the fact that Pastore was not always aware of his surroundings. There was no rage involved. There was no provocation involved. It was a matter of a driver being out on the road without the proper capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I'm now waiting for someone to write up an article about how the people in that farmer's market in LA provoked the driver of the Buick that went mowing down random pedestrians.

I have had Dr. Pepper thrown on me, had cars and P/U trucks stand the hair on my le.......I mean arms, and had people yell and curse at me on their way by or honk their horn to see if I'll fall off. I loath these types of human beings.

Having said that, I am the owner of welding company and we drive big trucks around the city 100-300 miles daily. I am also an avid fisherman and tow a bass boat often.

I ride my bike with myself in mind driving behind me and drive with myself in mind riding ahead. I have seen extremes on both sides.

In the past while driving I've seen riders that do not seem to keep in mind that they are going 20 mph and I, along with the rest of traffic are going 50. I always think, I would not be doing what they are doing right now. FOR MY OWN SAFETY I WOULD NOT. I realize the position I would be placing the driver in behind me. Additionally, I don't know why it is not a concern for any cyclist to have traffic backed up behind you? I, as a cyclist, cannot relax while I am a tampon in the road holding traffic at 15-20 mph.
It is in my best intrest to use common sense. To get by construction, bottlenecking lanes, parked cars etc.,yes, I'll hold traffic to 20. But to choose to ride a road that is too narrow for myself and traffic to use, or to stuff so many riders on that road w/o a plan for what we are going to do about traffic is just plain ignorance.

As for the article, I do think it was off base by stating the riders infuriated the driver. I think I know what he was saying, but I don't like his choice of words. It comes across as justification and I don't think that's what he wanted to convey and shouldn't have conveyed. All in all I don't think the article was that good.

Though there are many more drivers who need to ride a bike for a while, there are a few of us who might need to get a view from behind the wheel of my truck.

Originally posted by Chris L
Has anybody else noticed a recent (i.e. last 18 months or so) increase in anti-cyclist trolling in major newspapers?

...

Any other thoughts?

Not only anti-cyclist. And not only trolling. They cut funding of cycling infrastructure to $0.00 and beat the Buffalo CM from the road too.

It seems that someone is trying to pull another conservative revolution, as Pr. Reagan did once.

Recently Pr. Bush crawled out into the Rose Garden and started to blame people as sinful for, excuse me, having sex the way they like it.

The newspapers write about sucesses in "Killing or catching Saddam". Who was not convicted to capital punishment yet by any court. Besides the capital punishment is forbidden in neighbouring European countries and is unpleasant and repulsive to millions of people, who are to read or hear about it.

But if the Reagan's revolution was great, this one is the farce.

How did this get to politics on that level? It seems to me politsizing the issue with a host of irrelevent issues does'nt do anything. Not even sure where it fits in at all.

Originally posted by Fish

To get by construction, bottlenecking lanes, parked cars etc.,yes, I'll hold traffic to 20. But to choose to ride a road that is too narrow for myself and traffic to use, or to stuff so many riders on that road w/o a plan for what we are going to do about traffic is just plain ignorance.

It's not always a matter of choice. Believe me, I would love nothing more than to have nice wide shoulders on every road around here - fact is, that simply isn't the case - and I still need to get to work on time. Thus, I'll use whichever road is most practical for my needs.

The fact is, car drivers will happily change lanes to pass other cars - surely it's just as easy to change lanes to pass a bike if necessary (easier in fact, given the slower speed and smaller size of the bike). What about when traffic is too heavy to change lanes you ask? I don't know about your part of the world, but when that happens around here it's generally the drivers holding me up.

And I still don't see why it is a problem for someone to wait 3 or even 30 seconds to pass a cyclist. After all, it's not like there are that many of us - and it's not uncommon (around here at least) to lose 5 or even 10 minutes to one set of traffic lights. Now which delay do you think is more likely to make someone late for work?

That said, I'm courteous enough to move over where there's room - however I don't see the value in endangering myself by trying to move over where there isn't. Especially when we're only talking about three seconds of someone else's time.

Originally posted by khuon
You know... of all the stories Maxwell could have used to support his arguments, why choose the Pastore one?

Because he was trolling. One benefit of trolling is that you just have to write the first thing that comes into your head. You don't actually need to do any research.

Originally posted by khuon
You know... of all the stories Maxwell could have used to support his arguments, why choose the Pastore one?

Because his real message is this:

"If you are riding your bike on the road, you are fair game for me in my motor car. To hell with the law, to hell with waiting 4 seconds to pass, to hell with anyone but me."

Originally posted by Fish
I am the owner of welding company and we drive big trucks around the city 100-300 miles daily. I am also an avid fisherman and tow a bass boat often.

I don't know why it is not a concern for any cyclist to have traffic backed up behind you?

Though there are many more drivers who need to ride a bike for a while, there are a few of us who might need to get a view from behind the wheel of my truck.

So Fish, are you aware when you are driving one of your trucks, at times you may be going slower than other motor vehicles around you? Is it possible one of your trucks may be holding up traffic behind you for a bit of time?

As a cyclist that rides in city traffic daily, I often see trucks and busses holding up traffic (most often on hills) and I often travel faster than traffic.

Driving on roads is a co-operative venture done by many types of transportation that follow the same rules. Unless a road is signed no bicycles, trucks will have to deal with bikes just like bikes have to deal with motorized traffic slowing them up.

Originally posted by khuon
You know... of all the stories Maxwell could have used to support his arguments, why choose the Pastore one?

How was it they did anything to anger him? From what I understand, he was actually attempting to get around a truck that was moving too slowly for him. ...there were many things pointing to the fact that Pastore was not always aware of his surroundings. There was no rage involved. There was no provocation involved.
Maxwell was indeed misinformed. This was not a rage incident, and Maxwell's use of Pastore as an example that "the cyclists...did something to infuriate Pastore" showed his (and my) lack of familiarity with the facts of the case.

I don't feel any sense of sympathy for people who 1) don't know how to negotiate bicycle traffic; 2) don't have the patience to share the road with slower moving vehicles; 3) think they have a Constitutional right to travel at a minimum of the posted speed limit, regardless of the conditions.

Too much is being made of the presence of a handful of lawful cyclists on the roads and too little is being done about the flagrant and dangerous behavior of a very large number of drivers.

Dealing with bad driving and speeding is job one. When will we get a round tuit?

Why trucks?

Look at the bicycle-taxis they use in Copenahagen.

If they can transport people in the bicycle-taxis, for sure you can transport couple of wedding dresses in a similar human-powered vehicle.

I think this is a good level-headed article (for once!)

You call that level headed?????

The guy is anti-bike.
He accuses the riders of doing something to 'infuriate' the driver.

In a way he is justifying a road rage response, but of course the cyclists did nothing but legally use the road.

How did this get to politics on that level? It seems to me politsizing the issue with a host of irrelevent issues does'nt do anything. Not even sure where it fits in at all.

Here's how it all fits in.

1. The world is facing enviromental catastrophe, (global warming) in a large part due to the motor car.
2. The world is also facing another imminent disaster, the peak of oil production.
http://healthandenergy.com/oil_crisis.htm

The powers that be know all this of course, but they need to keep the sheep (consumers) buying their ****, (oil, big cars).

By smearing a means of transportation that allows the user to be free of buying their crap, it makes the sheeple feel better about their bad choices.

Face it, Bush represents this whole sick program.
Resist. Ride your bike.

This is the same old 'blame the victim' crap that gets thrown around for lots of issues. The road belongs to all vehicles, and bikes are considered vehicles. I have had cars buzz by within inches of me on the hghway, and it is not fun. But something to consider is that most people, including some cyclists, are not aware of the 'rules of the road' concerning bikes. I see bikes riding on the wrong side of the street, ignoring stop lights and stop signs, riding on sidewalks. I have no solution to the problem, except that following the laws - motorists and cyclists - and respecting others rights would make cycling much safer.

I want to add my 2 cents about the 'political statement' stuff. I ride because I love being out on my bike, either on the road or a trail, and feeling the world go by at a pace that I can actually enjoy it. NOT political. Definately just a fun hobby.

Originally posted by scarry

http://healthandenergy.com/oil_crisis.htm


Interesting site. Thanks.

Originally posted by steveK
I want to add my 2 cents about the 'political statement' stuff. I ride because I love being out on my bike, either on the road or a trail, and feeling the world go by at a pace that I can actually enjoy it. NOT political. Definately just a fun hobby.

I agree with you. When I'm on my bike, politics is the last thing on my mind... strike that... politics is never on my mind. Many a times, I'm out there riding because I want to escape the screwed up part of this worldly existance.

Originally posted by khuon
politics is never on my mind.

Denial is also politics. If you said that in the totalitarian state, they would call you a nihilist and lock you up for not supporting their politics.

Alright, this has gone far enough. Can I, for a moment, put my moderators' cap on and respectfully ask that those who wish to debate politics take their debate over to that forum? That is what it's there for after all. This thread is about comment on the article posted at the beginning of the discussion. Please don't hijack it and discuss something unrelated.

Thank you.

Originally posted by steveK
I see bikes riding on the wrong side of the street, ignoring stop lights and stop signs, riding on sidewalks. I have no solution to the problem, except that following the laws - motorists and cyclists - and respecting others rights would make cycling much safer.

Even so, this does not justify road rage. Two wrongs don't suddenly make a right. If someone has a problem with the way a cyclist is behaving on the road - call the cops. It is not sufficient justification for taking the law into one's own hands.

Chris L.

Thanks for the comment on putting politics aside. I can't stand when everything turns into politics when it isn't. My buddy and I couldn't disagree more on politics, but when I ride, it's with him. We've never even brought it up when were on the bike. It's just laughs and the wind in my face.

Originally posted by Fish
Chris L.

Thanks for the comment on putting politics aside. I can't stand when everything turns into politics when it isn't. My buddy and I couldn't disagree more on politics, but when I ride, it's with him. We've never even brought it up when were on the bike. It's just laughs and the wind in my face.

:D Yes

Originally posted by Chris L
Thank you.

Actually no... It's we who should be thanking you. I'm tired of the political propaganda from all sides.

This thread is about comment on the article posted at the beginning of the discussion

Excuse me, but article IS political.


The "it" I refer to is the politicization of road cycling, especially club road cycling.

The author tries to say that the victims somehow 'had it coming'.



Now, back to the politicization of road cycling. Nearly two weeks ago, Joe Pastore allegedly mowed down 20 members of the combined St. Petersburg Bike Club and the St. Pete Mad Dog Triathlon Club with his Lincoln Continental. Some say Pastore was angry because the cyclists took over the road and would not relent. I was not at the scene, but I am convinced that at least some of the cyclists in question - although within their legal rights as they followed the written "rules of the road" - did something to infuriate Pastore.

And for all you folks that like to think that going for a ride is NOT Political, remember that your very right to use the road and in fact the roads themselfs was gained by laws written by politicians through the lobbying of the League of American Wheelman.

Articles like this one serve to futher an 'ANTI-BIKE' agenda. The motoring lobby wants us off 'their' roads.
Now you can deny this is so, but when one of your cycling brothers or sisters is mowed down, and no charges are filed, or funding is dropped for bike enhancements, you can thank the lack of political movement by cyclists and the political power of our opponents.
Now how we make this political movement happen is up to us all, be it advocacy groups or Critical Mass.
But to say there is nothing 'Political' in this article is complete head in the sand denial. :confused:

Originally posted by scarry
Excuse me, but article IS political.

But to say there is nothing 'Political' in this article is complete head in the sand denial. :confused:

It may be political but it is not partisan which is what you were trying to do. That my freind is for the political forum.

Originally posted by scarry
The motoring lobby wants us off 'their' roads.


I would say they want us on the road, but in the cars, as their customers.

scary, of course, you are right. The article is political all right.

At the same time, cycling is also fun and adventure.

Remember as in Beatles' "Hey Jude" - "Don't carry the world upon your shoulders."

Maybe they are right, a cyclist, commuting to work modestly, does more than the Green Peace boss coming to the office in the SUV.

After all there are only 35 cubic miles of oil on Earth, now humans burn one cubic mile per year. In 20 - 30 years we will be alone on the roads.

Hippies in 60s were not politic. At the same time they changed the world.

I do not idealize the hippies, still their message was (and is) very strong.

In politics the cyclists will be beaten by professionals (as they are with that cancelled funding, for instance).

Maybe indeed we just should cycle more, commute, gain and share experience? And enjoy it? Instead of repeating the obvious things.

You will not prove anything to such a man as, say, Tony Blair. There is only one philosophy they subscribe - Greed. I still remember how his spouse used the service of the convicted con man, to buy 2 luxury apartments. That con man had been selling fraudulent pills to lose fat. What can you explain to such people? That cycling is good for health? They sell the fraudulent pills!

It may be political but it is not partisan which is what you were trying to do. That my freind is for the political forum.

Not partisan??? Well it is not overtly partisan, but it is still part of the 'ANTI-BIKE' agenda. And I am sure there are anti-bike folks on both wings. But it is my contention that the motoring/oil lobby is expecially cozy with the current conservative goverment. Must be because most of the administration is former oil industry officials. They want us in cars, only.


The Bush Administration’s proposed transportation bill, introduced in both the House and the Senate as part of the Safe and Flexible Transportation Equity Act, “SAFETEA,” includes a provision, Section 1617, captioned indemnification on Certain Railbanked Projects. This provision was included in the transportation bill at the request of the U. S. Department of Justice. Its purpose is to stop states from using TE or any other federal dollars for railbanked trails. It does so by requiring them to reimburse the federal government for any such investment, plus attorneys’ fees, if such a corridor is the subject of a winning takings claim. Its affect would be to stop railbanking in its tracks.

My point is that so called journalism such as this serves an agenda, the marginalizing/demonizing of any non motor car type of transportation and folks who are not in cars.

Originally posted by scarry
Excuse me, but article IS political.


Not in the way you were referring to. Even if one does accept the argument that it's part of a conspiracy (which I don't), it has nothing to do with the left vs right crap posted in this thread. The fact is that people from all points of the political spectrum ride, and people from all points of the political spectrum don't. To say this article is part of some kind of "Bush conspiracy" is to draw a very long bow indeed.



Originally posted by scarry
The author tries to say that the victims somehow 'had it coming'.

Which is not, in anyway, a political statement.


Originally posted by scarry
Articles like this one serve to futher an 'ANTI-BIKE' agenda. The motoring lobby wants us off 'their' roads.
Now you can deny this is so, but when one of your cycling brothers or sisters is mowed down, and no charges are filed, or funding is dropped for bike enhancements, you can thank the lack of political movement by cyclists and the political power of our opponents.

None of which will have anything to do with the text or intentions of the article. If you actually read the article you will see that he's not even mentioned the old "get cyclists off the road" crap that often get's bandied about. He's merely tried to preach about the way we should behave on the road. Disagree with him if you like, but please don't bring out the old "conspiracy from the right" spiel. It's not even relevant. Go and start a thread in political discussions if you want to discuss that.


Originally posted by scarry
Now how we make this political movement happen is up to us all, be it advocacy groups or Critical Mass.
But to say there is nothing 'Political' in this article is complete head in the sand denial. :confused:

There's more to cycling advocacy than mere politics. Perhaps if a few more advocates realised that, our efforts might be a bit more successful.