Living Car Free - Republicans say walking & biking are wacky (Xpost from Commuting)

In a hotly contested House race, the Republican is attacking the Democrat (http://austinbikeblog.org/?p=1072) for advocating that people walk and bike to get places.

Last gasp for a Party out of ideas?

In a hotly contested House race, the Republican is attacking the Democrat (http://austinbikeblog.org/?p=1072) for advocating that people walk and bike to get places.

Last gasp for a Party out of ideas?
I doubt it's a deeply thought out philosophical position. For fear mongering purposes, "My opponent wants to take away your cars!!" is just about as good as "He wants to raise your taxes!!" or "His name rhymes with Osama so he's practically a terrorist!!".

Coming from the party chanting "drill baby drill" at their national convention? Nothing surprises me.

That chant probably guaranteed a straight ticket vote from me for at least four years. Idiots.

The clip talks about having to make sacrifices. That is something you seldom hear in a political campaign. Too bad, because that's what needs to happen. And, if China decides to rescind our line of credit, that might just happen sooner than you'd think.

I started the thread on "bikes in the energy bill debate" because I kept hearing congressmen complain about other congressmen saying that bike transportation might help the nation's energy problems. I'm not sure of the party affiliation, but it isn't just a part of a local debate. It might be good news that people are talking about using bikes for transportation instead of not even thinking of it. What I don't get is why it is being presented as a Party issue, a plank in the platform so to speak. I used to work on a military base and there were many bike users and some who I knew voted Republican. The Republicans might lose some voters if they paint people who use bikes for transportation as "wacky". They shouldn't go that far. If they want to discuss transportation and energy they should talk about the conditions that make bike transportation feasible and how their free market, pro business policies will magically create the transportation infrastructure lets people get around most efficiently-without any government intervention beyond tax breaks for large construction firms.

No, it shouldn't be a party issue, but every single politician I've seen laughing at the idea of cycling has been a Republican. They seem to be bitterly against any plan that doesn't center around reducing regulation on the oil companies.

Anything to get more support. They will gain more supporters who see bicycling and walking as impractical childish or liberal nonsense than bicycling proponents they lose.

Anything to get more support. They will gain more supporters who see bicycling and walking as impractical childish or liberal nonsense than bicycling proponents they lose.
Wow you guys make the Republican politicians seem like short sighted nincompoops who want to get votes from the most ignorant manipulable sectors of our society. But the Republican voters I know, who are also car free or use bikes for transportation, are thoughtful articulate people with good paying jobs. They are the kind of supporters any politician should want to keep because they can speak well of the party and have disposable income to contribute.

If you ask me, the walkers in that video appear to be living just fine; No wackiness there. Plus they are all much thinner and healthier-looking than Phil English, approver of this attack ad.

And, if China decides to rescind our line of credit, that might just happen sooner than you'd think.

Scary thought: China "decides to rescind our line of credit" and the U.S. economy starts to look as bad as rural china.

I wonder if the old saying "It takes one to know one" applies here. Those republicans!

Wow you guys make the Republican politicians seem like short sighted nincompoops who want to get votes from the most ignorant manipulable sectors of our society.

Well, a lot of them sure act like that. If you didn't notice the incredible insult to American intelligence that was picking Sarah Palin as a vice president...


Anyway, when the economy goes to hell we're all going to be on bikes, right or left.

Well, a lot of them sure act like that. If you didn't notice the incredible insult to American intelligence that was picking Sarah Palin as a vice president...
Is this the same 'American intelligence' that has kept George W. Bush as its president for the past 8 years?!

Unfortunately elections are an image and popularity contest with a completely disproportionate 'prize' for winning.

We know what to expect under a Republican led Department of Transportation. Just look to its current Secretary Mary Peters. She and her famous comment about spending on Bike Infrastructure causing the Minneapolis bridge to fall into the Mississippi River. Why would another Republican US Department of Transportation be any different. Yes, there are Republicans who are members of the COngressional Bike caucus, but why are they not offended by Mary Peter's anti bike rhetoric. For our one issue, cyclist voters, does this tell us how to vote. ?.
.........

Transportation Secretary Against Bikes? Visit Link




SAN FRANCISCO, CA (BRAIN)—A Salon.com story went after U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters for anti-bike remarks she made on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."

Salon's Katharine Mieszkowski wrote:

"Peters spoke against a proposal to raise gas taxes to shore up the nation's aging infrastructure. The real problem, the secretary argued, is that only 60 percent of the current money raised by gas taxes goes to highways and bridges. She conveniently neglected to mention that about 30 percent of the money goes to public transit. She then went on to blast congressional earmarks, which dedicate 10 percent of the gas tax to some 6,000 other projects around the country."

"There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure," Peters said on the show. The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation."


http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/496.html

Is this the same 'American intelligence' that has kept George W. Bush as its president for the past 8 years?!
Touche

Still, the ones of us that half more than an ounce or two of functioning brain were insulted.



Unfortunately elections are an image and popularity contest with a completely disproportionate 'prize' for winning.
****in' A

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Drive-thru-night.jpg/180px-Drive-thru-night.jpg

http://www.planevue.net/Wal-Mart.JPG

Something about drive-thrus and parking lots never made sense to me.

-----

I realize we don't have enough parking in my town, but I don't care. Unlike everyone else, we have enough homes, enough businesses, and short commutes (via any means).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/Petrol_use_urban_density.svg/666px-Petrol_use_urban_density.svg.png

America, **** yeah! Freedom is the only way yeah!

Sort of hard to build freeways , when you have the density of a Hong Kong or Singapore, along with limited land availability. it's the cities with the spread out suburbs where energy is used so wastefully

Walking and Biking are important alternatives.


And also!


Don't forget to eat a good portion of vegetables every day.

You know...like Ketchup and Mustard :-).

Remember who came up with that one?

PW

if it snowed where i live, i would totally use dog sleds.

if it snowed where i live, i would totally use dog sleds.

Heck, you could do it year round! What's greener than dog sledding!?

https://secure.reservexl.net/wwwimg/img/tours/2788-3.jpg

What's up with knocking dog sledding also. I really don't like dogs or snow but if I ever go to alaska I am going dog sleding for sure that looks like some serious fun. But I am a whack walking and cycling citizen so what do I know.

Did that video actually use the word wacky? Maybe it's targeted at an older generation...

Republicans should be called Regressives!!

You know, I bet 99% of democrats think being car free is just as crazy. Maybe they are just polite enough to not say so in public :P

You know, I bet 99% of democrats think being car free is just as crazy. Maybe they are just polite enough to not say so in public :P

I don't really believe that many people of any party have a problem with those who choose to be car free. Live and let live. But 99% of all parties are probably in agreement about the silliness/offensiveness of the sanctimonious slice who gloat about some sort of moral superiority because of being car free.

One of the major reasons prices have come down is because the USA motorists and motorists in other parst of he world have been using less gasoline all summer since gasoline prices went up.

The most recent data shows a 10% decrease since this time last year. THAT is significant.

The price of oil came down by reduced consumption by people riding bicycles and making changes to their lifestyles. The price of gasoline didn't drop because we drilled for more oil.

Republican leadership today are so out of touch with modern man that it is difficult to belive we are living in the same country. It is no wonder they are losing power on all fronts.

Wacky bicyclist vote too. Unfortunate for wacky Republican politicians.

This is pure grasping at straws. It's hilarious that the party can claim to be all gung-ho about "energy independence" and at the same time try to paint transportation that does not require foreign energy as "wacky". As far as energy is concerned, all I've seen from Republicans is "keeping the cars running at all costs".

Remember to help spread the meme: the Republicans are The Party that Wrecked America.

Remember to help spread the meme: the Republicans are The Party that Wrecked America.

Indeed! We shall not soon forget what the Republicans have done to America.

Two more weeks and Bush is OUT! Yay! Somebody throw water on that Dude and watch him melt like the wicked witch of the west.

The elimination of the Republican party from office will be the greatest victory since Nazi Germany was defeated back in WW2.

interesting thread here...

how many posters were even born when Carter was in office?

how soon we forget...

well, you may be getting what you wish for - but will life be any better? more important than energy conservation is the effect of cycling on the nation's health; many of your peers are overweight, out of shape, and facing a lifetime of health problems by not controlling weight and exercising...

but of course, that's not as exciting as whether or not to drill for oil off the coasts...

(btw, the title of this thread is disingenuous; this is a single representative's ad; not all party members support the issue - key state Republican reps voted 'no' on drilling with other state Democrats down here)

Scary thought: China "decides to rescind our line of credit" and the U.S. economy starts to look as bad as rural china.

NOT! gonna happen. They are far too commited already and have too much invested in the US. if we lose. THEY LOOSE.

You don't honestly believe that a change in the presidency of the USA is going to create a "breakthrough" in cycling as a transportation alternative, do you? If you do, you are dreaming.

As I have stated before, cycling is a handy political plaything for any party when it suits them. But when it comes down to it, the public servants behind the government are the ones who decide what happens.

And because the cycling "lobby" is so disparate and impotent in both the US and Australia, reflecting the total lack of unity in the participants, Democrats/greens/environmentalists will unwittingly continue to set up transport cycling so the Republicans/capitalists can shoot it down.

Why should Mary Peters be criticised when the point she makes is very valid -- in most people's eyes, cycling infrastructure is just for recreational cyclists and rarely for transport? It goes to the very heart of why transport cycling advocates haven't been able to articulate their stand...

I can almost guarantee that in four years time, there will be little change in what the Federal administration -- president, senate, reps and public service -- think about cycling, and the same frustrations will be voiced again here because the spending will be chickenfeed, and what is spent will be on inappropriate facilities and policies.

By the way, how many commuters have received any benefit -- or even communication -- yet from the provisions of the bill that was supposed to bail-out the US economy?

Footnotes on the politics: Bush is being so isolated from the rest of the world on the "Made in America" economic meltdown, that I don't think you guys realise just how bad things are. When heavyweights like China and France (leading the rest of Europe) are calling for global financial reforms, Bush is twittering in the background calling for a "recommitment" to free enterprise, free markets and free trade. This from an administration that bailed out banks left right and centre instead of letting the free market take its course (disastrous though that might have been). Oh and Palin is now being set up as the fallguy for the McCain loss, so the election outcome is now beyond conjecture. The next 12 months will, in my estimation, determine whether the USA will remain as a first-world country.

You don't honestly believe that a change in the presidency of the USA is going to create a "breakthrough" in cycling as a transportation alternative, do you? If you do, you are dreaming.

As I have stated before, cycling is a handy political plaything for any party when it suits them. But when it comes down to it, the public servants behind the government are the ones who decide what happens.



You are correct that no president is going to make bicycling an issue.

However, presidents of the USA do influence the mood of the country. The Bush years were ugly greedy bully years for the USA. It was reflected in excessive lifestyles of Americans. There was grotesque consumption of everything. Homes became mansions. Meals became feasts. Motorcars became Machines of Transport. Diplomacy turned to war. Lies were acceptable as truth.

While I do not expect our federal government leaders to promote bicycling, I believe that a more conservative and more humble president could reign in the "Bicyclists are Wacko" thinking that we see promoted in the Republican advertisement on this thread

[quote=Bike_UK;7675457]Is this the same 'American intelligence' that has kept George W. Bush as its president for the past 8 years?!

Did Americans "actually" vote for George W Bush for 8 years??

Does Micheal Moore ever write on this forum !?!!

[QUOTE=Bike_UK;7675457]

Does Micheal Moore ever write on this forum !?!!

the only thing Michael Moore rides is 5 lbs of fatback while on his couch...

You don't honestly believe that a change in the presidency of the USA is going to create a "breakthrough" in cycling as a transportation alternative, do you? If you do, you are dreaming.

...



I believe Barack Obama is more aware of the dire situation we're in more then he generally lets onto. He's expressed bits and pieces of it here and there: saying we've been living beyond our means, and continually making the point that we use a high % of the world's oil in relation to what we already have. But in a very recent interview on the "Morning" show, he was asked what sacrifices he believed Americans should make. He said, and this is paraphrasing from what I remember, that we need to comprehensively change the way we do transportation and use energy. And he wasn't talking about cars only. Again, I think he is holding back somewhat because he is trying to win a popularity contest. But if that's what it takes to defeat McCain, so be it.

I firmly believe that Obama will set us on a more positive and responsible course than we have been accostomed to lately. We'll still going to be in a ****storm of problems, for certain, but I truly believe Obama will make a sincere effort at being a responsible leader.

Having watched the "expose" on Michael Moore while flying between Los Angeles and Australia in August, I would suggest anyone who puts their faith in what he says is not entirely aware of the man's ethics -- or lack thereof.

Having watched the "expose" on Michael Moore while flying between Los Angeles and Australia in August, I would suggest anyone who puts their faith in what he says is not entirely aware of the man's ethics -- or lack thereof.I'm sure that was a "fair and balanced" look at the man.

I don't really want the Republicans to descend into total obscurity. One party rule is not a good thing, and there are plenty of cities that have suffered because of it, just as rural areas suffer under Republican dominance. But it has been noted many times that the Republicans have adopted an attitude that anything that makes liberals mad has to be a good thing. It's not going to help them going forward. The thinking and caring people that are Republican supporters are abandoning the party at a fairly rapid clip.

Having watched the "expose" on Michael Moore while flying between Los Angeles and Australia in August, I would suggest anyone who puts their faith in what he says is not entirely aware of the man's ethics -- or lack thereof.

I don't think anybody worships the guy, what's relevant is if the stuff he points out is true or not.

I don't really want the Republicans to descend into total obscurity. One party rule is not a good thing, and there are plenty of cities that have suffered because of it, just as rural areas suffer under Republican dominance. But it has been noted many times that the Republicans have adopted an attitude that anything that makes liberals mad has to be a good thing. It's not going to help them going forward. The thinking and caring people that are Republican supporters are abandoning the party at a fairly rapid clip.

Why not? Where are the Whigs? Or the Know-Nothings? ("Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election."<-from wikipedia). Maybe a new environment and energy (biology and physics) oriented party can spring up and the Republicans can meld into the Democrats just as the know-nothings became Republicans. A new party focused on decision making based on factual evidence might be more friendly to car free living. The problem with such a party is that it would depend on a decent education system that encourages critical thinking. Until most voters acquire the ability to evaluate factual information, a party based on science would be out voted by the Republidems.

Party affiliation doesn't mean crap. I know lots of elitist jackoffs who are Dems who laugh at riding a bike for transportation.

I cannot morally vote for Obama. McCain, therefore, has my vote. I could give two craps what people think about it.

Party affiliation doesn't mean crap. I know lots of elitist jackoffs who are Dems who laugh at riding a bike for transportation.

I cannot morally vote for Obama. McCain, therefore, has my vote. I could give two craps what people think about it.

why?

why?

Worded like that, you probably don't want to know.

Worded like that, you probably don't want to know.

It's true. You probably don't want to know. So, I'll keep it to myself. Flame all you like.

I think it's silly to believe one party has a more pro-bike position than another when just about every elected official in either party think bikes are toys and that only loosers ride bikes for transportation.

I can almost guarantee that in four years time, there will be little change in what the Federal administration -- president, senate, reps and public service -- think about cycling, and the same frustrations will be voiced again here because the spending will be chickenfeed, and what is spent will be on inappropriate facilities and policies.

By the way, how many commuters have received any benefit -- or even communication -- yet from the provisions of the bill that was supposed to bail-out the US economy?


Perhaps because things at the federal level in this country are so corrupt and incompetent at the moment, the commitment of many Americans to encourage a few alternatives to cars is far more serious than you may realize. Cities and counties across the country (except maybe in the South) are falling all over themselves to include bicycles and public transport in their planning, and the numbers of private citizens using non-car transportation has increased dramatically recently. This has been due in large part to increased fuel prices, but I think it's worth noting that even while prices have come down again recently, bicycling and public transit use rates have continued their upward trend.

I also think you've been unfair to bicycling advocates. My experience has been that they're frequently myopic (they don't seriously consider the perspectives of non-cyclists), but they're determined, well-organized and generally effective.

And as for the benefits of the cycling-specific pork attached to the bail-out bill: dude, it's been maybe three weeks since that thing passed, and most Americans, including cyclists, have a lot more to worry about right now than new bike lanes.

GOP = NSDAP

"The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation"

Paths and trails as a rule are recreational. Few use them to get from location to location. Most cyclists, runners, walkers, hikers etc. will drive to a trail or a path travel so far along it then turn around and return to their car then drive home. Logic can dictate that if we are using gas tax dollars to facilitate transportation (getting from place to place), investing in paths and trails is not a wise choice especially if the we have other aspects of our transportation infrastructure that need funding. However, if we are investing these dollars in parks or recreation then that is exactly what the money would be spent for when we're investing in paths and trails. I guess the question is should we be including MUP in our "transportation bills" or should they be funded through parks and recreation bills?

Having said that, designing roads which are friendly for cyclists, walkers, etc. should be a part of any transportation bill. I am going to wade into it big time and suggest licensing for cyclists. Recreational cyclists (those riding on residential streets, MUP etc. would not need a license. Those riding on main roads would need to pass a test, have their cycles inspected for safety items etc. This would "help" insure that those on the road would understand the rules, have safe bicycles (ie. headlamps and tail lights if riding in the dusk or dark) and would legitimize bicyles as vehicles (anyone gives you flack just show them your license). It would also validate demands for more cycling friendly streets (if we have license we should have safer and better access). No, I haven't thought this through beyond what I've posted, but if we want to have the rights to the roads then we should be able to prove we are responsible.

"The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation"

Paths and trails as a rule are recreational. Few use them to get from location to location. Most cyclists, runners, walkers, hikers etc. will drive to a trail or a path travel so far along it then turn around and return to their car then drive home. Logic can dictate that if we are using gas tax dollars to facilitate transportation (getting from place to place), investing in paths and trails is not a wise choice especially if the we have other aspects of our transportation infrastructure that need funding. However, if we are investing these dollars in parks or recreation then that is exactly what the money would be spent for when we're investing in paths and trails. I guess the question is should we be including MUP in our "transportation bills" or should they be funded through parks and recreation bills?

Having said that, designing roads which are friendly for cyclists, walkers, etc. should be a part of any transportation bill. I am going to wade into it big time and suggest licensing for cyclists. Recreational cyclists (those riding on residential streets, MUP etc. would not need a license. Those riding on main roads would need to pass a test, have their cycles inspected for safety items etc. This would "help" insure that those on the road would understand the rules, have safe bicycles (ie. headlamps and tail lights if riding in the dusk or dark) and would legitimize bicyles as vehicles (anyone gives you flack just show them your license). It would also validate demands for more cycling friendly streets (if we have license we should have safer and better access). No, I haven't thought this through beyond what I've posted, but if we want to have the rights to the roads then we should be able to prove we are responsible.
Since I sold the car almost all of my riding on MUPs is transportational. If the path doesn't go somewhere useful you probably won't see me on it. Sometimes I do cut through the park as part of taking the long way because it is fun, but since the parks are in the middle of an Urban area it would be difficult to build a bike path without it going toward a destination and you usually see someone with paniers or back pack even when you are going on a recreational ride. There are some paths that dead end, but the ones I know about could easily be joined with another route and perhaps serve as collector paths for commuters.

I don't really believe that many people of any party have a problem with those who choose to be car free. Live and let live. But 99% of all parties are probably in agreement about the silliness/offensiveness of the sanctimonious slice who gloat about some sort of moral superiority because of being car free.


You are harshing my buzz, man.

Having declared walking and biking to be wacky, Republicans were soundly thrashed in the '08 election. America has spoken, and they've placed a mandate on the Presidency that bicycling isn't wacky. I mean, this is what it all comes down to right? War, energy, economy, etc... it all boils down bananas and bicycles.

By the way, good job Kathy.