Get 'em off the street

[LittleBigMan]

The official stance of the "automotive industrial complex" (GM, Amoco and Government transportation planners) is that bicycling will never be a serious alternative to motoring.

Historically, car companies have systematically conquered and driven off all competition, including street cars and trains. Cars rule. :bday:

But if bicycles pose no threat to car transport, why are they trying so hard to get bikes off the road? :confused:

Think about it: one convert to bicycle commuting may never buy a second family car again. Over his/her lifetime, that could mean
thousands and thousands of dollars of lost profits for car companies, oil companies and corrupt politicians. Now multiply that by a million cyclists. Now multiply that million times their children, then their children's children.

If bicycles are ever banned from using the roads, I might give up cycling completely. :cry:

[Allister]

If cyclists were ever banned from the road, I'd go outlaw. They won't get me without a fight.

[Chris L]

Originally posted by Allister
If cyclists were ever banned from the road, I'd go outlaw. They won't get me without a fight.

I'd do the same. This is why we have to fight this move to build impractical off road "bike paths". I can just see the tossers who call themselves "leaders" saying "We built you a path, so you should use it".

[ViciousCycle]

Although the political deck may seem stacked in favor of cars over bicycles, bicycle advocates do have one distinct advantage. Decision-makers and politicans can support bike-friendly policies at low-cost. Meanwhile, decision-makers and politicans who endorse big-money highway projects can get accused of wasting money on pork barrel projects, etc.

Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, a bicycle advocacy group, has been responsible for a number of things that were low-cost, yet helped out bicyclists considerably:

* Worked as members of the the Chicago Department of Transportation's Streets for Cycling Plan. This meant that bicycle advocates had direct input on where bicycle lanes were to be established. (Painting bike lanes is much cheaper than any road construction project.)

* Worked with the Chicago Transit Authority to allow bicycles on the El train. Just a few years ago, this program started out as just allowing bicycles on summer weekend months. Today, the program allows bicycles on all weekends throughout the year, as well as during certain restricted hours on the weekdays.

* Produced Chicago bicycle maps funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation.

* Work with Chicago alderman, politicans, in different contexts. This involves both positives volunteering to take part in city bicycle programs as well as providing advocacy against non-bicycle friendly laws.

Amusingly enough, a high percentage of CBF's staff and members are Chicago Critical Massers, though some people tend to think of Critical Massers as outlaw types. Perhaps the difference between bicycle outlaw and bicycle advocate is just one of perception.... :D

[D*Alex]

Does the CRTA still restrict the El train hours for cycle-carrying riders to only those hours between morning and evening rush hours? It might be nice to use the El for a litttle shopping trip to the loop, or a mid-day ride around O'Hare, but what good is it for commuters? If you can't bring your bike to and from work at rush hour, then this program does nothing for commuters!

[chewa]

Cyclist are prohibited from using the Edinburgh City bypass in places evn though it is a dual carriageway and not a motorway. This is for safety reasons.

The authorities obviously think it's easier to ban cyclists than ensure motorists take care.

I prefer cycling on the road but and don't mind cycle paths as a safe option but not as a mandatory one.

By the same car minded thinking, when the tolls were placed on only one side of the Forth Bridge for motorists rather than both, they were placed on the side of the road which made it very dangerous for cyclists as cyclists have to cross 4 lanes of traffic, now not slowed by the tolls, to get on to the dual carriageway to Edinburgh.

If the tolls were on the other side it would be much safer as the run in for cyclists to the bridge is much straighter.

We are definately becoming 2nd class citizens.

[John E]

My firmly-held political position is that moving under one's own power is an unalienable right, whereas motoring is a privilege. In California, home of many very dedicated and effective cycling advocates, a street cannot be closed to bicycles unless there is a safe and convenient alternate route. Everyone who cares about cycling should work with his/her respective local and regional government to ensure that we have safe and convenient accommodations. Be politely assertive on the road and off.

[JonR]

Meanwhile, bad news from Kansas City: here is the text of an email I received from the person in city government who's tried to get extensive improvement for on-street cycling. For a while it even looked like there was a chance.

"The legislation adopting bicycle routes into Kansas City's Major Street
Plan will not be heard on October 24, 2001. The cancelation of the
hearing is due to the opposition some council committee members have
expressed in regard to an on-street bicycle transportation network.

Accordingly, Ordinance #011288 will be held indefinitely in the committee
(Plans, Zoning & Economic Development) until additional feedback can be
obtained indicating broader support from the City Council. City staff
intend to discuss the matter with the full council during a council
business session some time in late November or December.

The decision to "hold" the legislation was made as a result of a meeting
staff held October 17 with Councilman Ed Ford, chairman of the committee.
Mr. Ford spoke candidly regarding his views of on-street bicycle
facilities. He is opposed for two reasons:

(1) Safety - Mr. Ford is adamant that bicycles on the street are
"inherently dangerous." While he acknowledges that cyclists have the
legal right to use city streets, he did not concur with the view that
existing cyclists could be more safely accommodated through the
establishment of bike lanes (on arterial roads) or signed bike routes (on
residential streets). He said he supports bicycle usage on trails or
paths, but not on roads.

(2) Cost - Mr. Ford feels that comparatively few cyclists currently use, or
would ever use, the streets for cycling and he is unwilling to support the
costs associated with developing bike facilities. He was not sympathetic
to the view, as articulated in FOCUS, that bicycles should play a greater
role in the mix of transportation choices. Mr. Ford is not persuaded by
the argument that the lion's share (80%) of the cost of implementation is
proposed to paid with federal funds.

Mr. Ford also indicated that his colleague on the committee, Ms. Bonnie Sue
Cooper, is more opposed that he on this issue.

However, Mr. Ford suggested that the views of one council member should not
be the sole basis for deciding the outcome of the legislation.
Accordingly, in consultation with Mr. Ford, the staff felt it prudent to
hold the legislation in the committee, obtain the views of other council
members, and, if possible, allow the full council the opportunity to vote
on the subject.

For information on "BikeKC!," Kansas City's Bicycle Transportation
Initiative, please go to www.kcmo.org/pubworks.

Residents of Kansas City and organizations wishing to express their
particular point of view in regard to this issue (pro or con) are welcome
to contact their council members. Council members are easily accessible
via email. Please go to the City's web site (www.kcmo.org) where complete
contact information is available.

Paul Mohr
Street & Sidewalk Task Force"

(End of email text)

What's the use? You can't argue with a closed mind.

Wait till gasoline reaches $10 a gallon--or simply disappears. Then see where they think bikes belong.

Till then, I am totally pessimistic and have for all practical purposes given up on this issue.

[RonH]

JonR,
I'm happy :dance: to see you back on the Forum. You've been away for a while and I've missed your comments and opinions.

[Jean Beetham Smith]

I'll second that. Welcome back Jon. We've all missed you.

[mike]

Originally posted by Pete Clark


Think about it: one convert to bicycle commuting may never buy a second family car again. Over his/her lifetime, that could mean
thousands and thousands of dollars of lost profits for car companies, oil companies and corrupt politicians. Now multiply that by a million cyclists. Now multiply that million times their children, then their children's children.

Boy, that is for sure! When I started bicycling as my major transportation, going with only one family car was a no-brainer. I didn't have to "make the decision" to go car-less. The second car (my car) just sat in the drive-way un-used for so long that it seemed ridiculous to keep it.

The savings for our family have been tremendous. Not only do I avoid gasoline costs, and maintanance costs, we do not have ANY car payments. The money saved by not having the second car allowed us to quickly pay off the loan of the first car.

I strongly recommend families to try the one-car approach with bicycles being put to use whenever possible. It will make a tremendous contribution to your economic wealth.

[Joe Gardner]

Jon!!!! :D

Welcome back! I hope your feeling well and back on the bike! :)

[fubar5]

JONR!!!!!!!!!!! You're back!!!


HOOAH!!!!!

[Steele-Bike]

Oh, my! Is that the real JonR? You're a sight for sore eyes.

Three cheers for our long lost brother!!!:beer:

[Joe Gardner]

pete, sorry for taking over this thread ;)

Jon, we love ya :)

[Chris L]

Welcome back JonR. I tend to think a certain industry has the aforementioned "Mr. Ford" by the balls.

[John E]

JonR: 1) Welcome back!
2) To quote Winston Churchill, "Never, never, never, never give up."

Perhaps "everything is [not] up to date in Kansas City."

[Allister]

Mr Ford anti-bike?

I sense a plot. Did he come to these foolish conclusions after consulting with Mr. Chevrolet and Mr. Chrysler?

[John E]

The ultimate irony is that Lee Iacocca, a legend of the U.S. automotive industry [Ford Mustang, Chrysler K-Car and Minivan], is now manufacturing and marketing human/electric-powered bicycles, scooters, and golf-cart-sized neighborhood electric vehicles, including his personal favourite, a 25mph mini pickup truck. He now admits that it is absurdly wasteful to drive a gasoline-powered car (or SUV) on short, light errands. I applaud the NEV movement for its potential to bridge the gulf between cyclists and motorists. For example, since NEVs are permitted only on roads with 35mph or lower speed limits, their owners may join with cyclists in urging traffic planners to link neighborhoods together with such roads, or to institute traffic calming measures to enhance their safety and mobility.

[LittleBigMan]

Originally posted by JonR
Meanwhile, bad news from Kansas City...

"The legislation adopting bicycle routes into Kansas City's Major Street Plan will not be heard ...

Mr. Ford spoke candidly regarding his views of on-street bicycle
facilities. He is opposed for two reasons:

(1) Safety - Mr. Ford is adamant that bicycles on the street are
"inherently dangerous."
Agreed. If too many cyclists fill the streets, the insane American addiction to cars may be jeapordized.


(2) Cost - Mr. Ford feels that comparatively few cyclists currently use, or would ever use, the streets for cycling and he is unwilling to support the costs associated with developing bike facilities.

I concur. After blowing billions on roadways for cars, it would be unwise to spend a penny more.

Mr. Ford also indicated that his colleague on the committee, Ms. Bonnie Sue Cooper, is more opposed than he on this issue.
I can picture Ms. Bonnie Sue Cooper, simply beside herself with indignation at the mere suggestion of bicycles on the street, even so much so as to make it impossible for her to speak for herself.

However, Mr. Ford suggested that the views of one council member should not be the sole basis for deciding the outcome of the legislation.
(With all due respect to Mr. Ford: that's two council members, including Ms. Bonnie Sue. ;) )

JonR, don't keep these things bottled up for so long! :D

[aerobat]

Better late than never, (I've been off for a while myself), good to see you back JonR!!!