Walter S

You find crazy people if you explore almost any topic. Don't discount the whole movement because of some extreme members. The definition of the movement as a whole is rather tame and inclusive.

Mobile 155

Perhaps, that however is their political face. The links suggest their heart. Just my opinion.

wolfchild

The problem with car-free movement is that it attracts fanatics and extremists of all types. Some people make car-free movement into an "-ism" and you end up with a bunch of people with radical ideas trying to stop economic progress and change an entire society just to accommodate their personal ideology....Don't get me wrong, I love bike lanes, I love to see more biking infrastructure being integrated into our existing infrastructure but all that anti-car and anti-oil and anti-progress and "us vs them" fanaticism needs to stop...One of the main reasons why I never joined any critical mass rides was because there are too many idiots who just want to stage a massive protest and block freeways and roadways.

Walter S

OK. But isn't it a pretty simple matter to just not get involved with crazy people and put your support behind plans and people that seem rational?

I-Like-To-Bike

I believe that people who cannot recognize craziness in the midst of their flock as long as the crazy/irrational/hysterical people wear the right colors/label, and even make excuses for the crazy talk, or make pretend they can't see it, are not to be taken seriously.

loky1179

The keyword is CHOICE. When the only choice is to drive, that is not a real choice.

I've been riding the light rail a lot this month, and I bumped into one of my former coworkers on the train a couple times. I had thought he had retired, but instead, he has taken a new job. Talking to him, it turns out it was in no small part due to driving vs. taking light rail. He used to work in downtown Minneapolis; he was transferred to a suburban location, for what was supposed to be a one year assignment. Five years later, he was still stuck in the suburbs, which forced him to drive. He said he had been in a couple of accidents, driving to work in snowstorms - an unavoidable reality in Minnesota.

He found a new job in downtown, and is now able to take the light rail in. Though he still has to drive to the lightrail park and ride since the train doesn't go across the river.

I'm guessing he doesn't think of himself as being part of the "Car Light Movement", but the actions he has taken are exactly that. And that is only possible because light rail is now an option. 15 years ago it wasn't.

Mobile 155

Maybe this little story will serve to lighten up the mood a bit. It made me smile anyway.

"Automobile Controversy of 1917" Historic Nantucket article from the Nantucket Historical Association

Mobile 155

So in effect if he didn't drive he would have to move or quit working? If they banned cars in his area it would have been the same boat for choice, move or quit? If you looked at the link on the car free movement you will see they have a term for jobs that move to the suburbs. Though in my area that is the norm. If you need a new location it is less expensive to build on cleared ground that to tear down and rebuild in town.

loky1179

I guess I must not be on the LCF movement's mailing list, but common sense tells me that choice means having a choice. Right now, to get to work, I can bike, take the bus, take light rail, or drive.

Within five years, they are planning on replacing the interstate 35W bridge over the Minnesota river, a river I need to cross every day to get to work. Currently, there is no bike/pedestrian lane on the bridge; it is for automobile traffic only. The new bridge is supposed to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. This means I'll have an additional choice in routes when going to work. Right now I have to ride more than 5 miles out of my way when biking home, compared to if I was driving an automobile.

Now, I suppose the bridge will cost more, since it includes this pedestrian/cyclist path. Is that an additional expense you'd support? It is an interstate highway, so I'm assuming federal tax dollars will be used in its construction. Isn't that where common ground is achieved? Where you say, "I'll probably never use it myself, but I think it is a good idea, and I support it"?

Mobile 155

I have gone to community meeting to plead the case for bike lanes and even bike racks for my community. Got some racks didn't get the bike lanes yet but it hasn't stopped me from riding. If there was a bridge I needed to cross I might support that as well.

But common ground isn't just supporting more access for bicycles it is not for banning other forms of transport. I question a movement that asks for more choice while supporting restriction on the choice others have made. I don't see banning cars as choice yet in the face of the link for the car free movement they talk about eliminating cars from some areas. A small city in Colorado did the same thing to bicycles and it had to go all the way to court to get it reversed. I think it was Black Hawk Colorado. I supported the lifting of the ban because I don't want to see the government making our transportation choices for us. So I don't support the banning of cars anymore than I support the banning of bicycles.

Siu Blue Wind

I deleted the comment about religion. If you would like to continue that topic, please discuss it in our Politics and Religion section. Thank you

cooker

Thanks. I've clicked on lots of your links as you should know because I've often critiqued or quoted them, but in a multi-page thread I'm not going to see or follow up on every one. Besides, it wouldn't be obvious it was the same link, as you cited it as exemplifying the attitudes found in LCF while I-L-T-B was holding it up as an example of people he considers more rational than some of the ones he finds here.

cooker

And yes, that link on the supposed car-free movement is very much focussed on urban issues. So what would you like to see in a more rural car free movement?

EDIT - I see you did finally address that a bit in post 135.

cooker

Lots of traffic is restricted. Cyclists can't ride on most interstates (alhough they certainly help pay for them) and are blocked from some key bridges. Some major streets don't have sidewalks. There are lots of places where highway crossings are far apart, greatly inconveniencing cyclists or pedestrians who need to cross over. There's nothing sacred about cars that says only they have to have unrestricted access everywhere. If you look at the grand scheme of things, car-centric design has created far more obstacles for other modes of transportation than the reverse, so if occasional counter measures are taken where parts of cities or some routes are designated not for cars, it is only a tiny incursion into a vast territorial dominance by cars.

Roody

That's exactly what I said earlier. Being carfree in a small town is a piece of cake, as long as you work in the same town you live in. And using a bike is particularly wonderful in a small town.

But someday, you will want to leave the town, even if you work there. You'll want to shop in a nearby city, or go to a play, or need to visit a hospital. And then you can run into major transportation problems if you don't own a car. Small towns in much of my country are very poorly connected to the outside worldby anything other than a car. It really can be a nightmare.

cooker

I was thinking about this post, because it does illustrate more common ground than you seem to think. You want what most urban cyclists probably want - society to give some attention - and funding - to your priorities (and those of a hypothetical cohort of other exurban cyclists).

Any ideas why the lanes were turned down?

Walter S

^^^exactly^^^

Restricting cars in some limited cases is not about limiting cars for the sake of limiting cars. It's to make room for some other modes. A "redistribution of wealth" with a tad more balance.

Walter S

I agree. Where do you see this?

Mobile 155

Sure, at least the excuse. Cost and business resistance. The lanes would have hurt on street parking or so they say. Plus once the lanes were installed they would have to budget maintenance. The city was looking to farm out services at the time and they couldn't justify the expense. Doesn't really effect most of the cyclists I know because we avoid the Main Street. But I thought it would be nice to have. But when things are tight and the funding isn't there that is how things go.

cooker

It's interesting that you speculate it might be an "excuse". Any thoughts on alternate, unstated reasons? Prejudice, classism, territorialism?

Mobile 155

Nope, I am just not sure of the reason. One consideration I might speculate on is dealing with the state. The Main Street through the little town is designated a state highway. Used to be a farming community. Attending the meetings showed my fellow citizens are willing to give out great moral support but few will risk a tax increase to support the same cause. That is just the way the system works.

cooker

In fairness to them, you also mentioned in an earlier thread that you specifically moved there for low taxes.

But, ironically, I honestly believe that continuous road building to accommodate unrestrained car traffic ends up creating a much higher tax burden than other types of transportation infrastructure would.

I-Like-To-Bike

Continuous road building to accommodate unrestrained traffic? Continuous? Unrestrained traffic? Hyperbole Much?
No doubt you believe your construct, any credible to support your belief, especially for implementation without massive changes in lifestyles and population migrations to suit your fancy?

I-Like-To-Bike

I can think of at least three regular posters of pixie dust, and several facilitators who encourage it on this list. I suspect you would name the same folks and are probably embarrassed to be associated with their attitudes and flaky theories just because you choose to live car free, ride a bicycle for transportation or both.

wolfchild

That sounds a lot like communist and socialist ideology.