Advocacy & Safety - Does Dear Abby support cycling or not?

... I think not... she doesn't tell this guy he's wrong to commute by bike, but we're not supposed to encourage others to do so until we've got separate lanes and paths, thank you.

http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/?uc_full_date=20080817

I've responded...she's sometimes been educable...

yeap, she does not understand. for her a bicycle is a toy.

Well look at her. Everything about her picture says: "Shoes come without heels? That must be for poor people."

Sorry Abby, I'm sure you're a nice lady, but it's not 1945 anymore. Get a more casual picture ;).

Wow Geonz, I have the opposite impression of Mrs. Abbey after reading what she actually wrote.

Here is what she said

"DEAR GEORGE: I'm pleased that you are enjoying your healthy new lifestyle, and I'm all for physical fitness. However, I hesitate to encourage large numbers of people to embrace your challenge until both cyclists and motorists are better educated about the rules of the road.

Communities need to act now to provide safe bicycle lanes and paths for people trying to conserve gasoline. Awareness needs to be raised among drivers about the rights of bikers. The television and print media could be a significant help in this effort, and I hope they'll take the opportunity to inform their audiences."

Geonz writes: "but we're not supposed to encourage others to do so until we've got separate lanes and paths"

Um, no. If you want to summarize her statement, then "but we're not supposed to encourage others to do so until both cyclists and motorists are better educated about the rules of the road" is accurate and appropriate. Agree, disagree..whatever...but don't misconstrue a straw man in order to tear it down.

She advocates bicycle infrastructure and a tv/media campaign to educate motorists of cyclists' rights to the road. You're right. She doesn't support cycling at all.:rolleyes:

Congraulations, you've managed to play the victims again.

From the OP I expected a far less reasoned response from Dear Abby. I found her position relatively positive. She seems to be suggesting a combination of better bike infrastructure, cyclist and driver education and promoting awareness of cyclists rights (and responsibilities) on the road.

The OP seems to take issue with her reference to bike infrastructure as if it were the sole suggestion she were making.

Who gives a flying [insert your favourite expletive here]?

Abby's response is surprisingly good.

The OP's interpretation of what Abby said is a gross misrepresentation although fairly typical of the kind of knee-jerk negative reaction often seen at the mere mention of bicycling infrastructure.

If we're going to question the support of Abby for bicycling on the basis of what she said, then shouldn't we also question how much Forester-inspired foaming-at-the-mouth anti-facilities extremists, who complain about what they call more "butts-on-bikes," really support bicycling?

The position of the true believers is, "if you don't accept the gospel of facilities-hating Forester, then don't ride a bicycle (and if you do, we're going to call you names and ridicule you)."

If you want to see some real negativism regarding bicycling as a transportation alternative, then read the guru of VC-ist "only voluntary transportational cyclists count" elitism, John Forester, who has admitted he has never been a dedicated transportational cyclist.

I'll take Abby's attitude toward bicycling as a means of transportation over the negative "it can't be done" attitude of Forester and his lap-dog "one true way to ride" followers.

I have a new-found respect for Abby (who I had previously considered a relic of a different era).

Yea, Abby!
(her real name is Jeanne and she's the daughter of the original 'Abby' and the niece of the late 'Ann Landers')

Do John Forester and anti-facilities "one true way to ride" VC-ists support bicycling or not?

Oh Abbey seems to like bikes enough. She just offers a non-solution. Waiting to encourage people to bike until more bikers and drivers are educated would be like waiting to encourage people to vote until more citizens are educated. People don't learn something by not doing it.

I don't think her reply is bad at all. It's certainly better than the usual non-sense we hear each spring from the talk-radio cowards.




...If we're going to question the support of Abby for bicycling on the basis of what she said, then shouldn't we also question how much Forester-inspired foaming-at-the-mouth anti-facilities extremists, who complain about what they call more "butts-on-bikes," really support bicycling?

The position of the true believers is, "if you don't accept the gospel of facilities-hating Forester, then don't ride a bicycle (and if you do, we're going to call you names and ridicule you)."

If you want to see some real negativism regarding bicycling as a transportation alternative, then read the guru of VC-ist "only voluntary transportational cyclists count" elitism, John Forester, who has admitted he has never been a dedicated transportational cyclist.

I'll take Abby's attitude toward bicycling as a means of transportation over the negative "it can't be done" attitude of Forester and his lap-dog "one true way to ride" followers.

I have a new-found respect for Abby (who I had previously considered a relic of a different era).

Yea, Abby!
(her real name is Jeanne and she's the daughter of the original 'Abby' and the niece of the late 'Ann Landers')

Do John Forester and anti-facilities "one true way to ride" VC-ists support bicycling or not?

You have a very good point / question. I've wondered about this myself.

Forester does not believe at all in bicycling for transportation. This is perhaps the greatest of several points of disagreement between us. We do agree, however, on the value of lawful vehicular cycling.