Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Living Car Free
Reload this Page >

Do we really want this to be more popular?

Notices
Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Do we really want this to be more popular?

Old 11-27-05, 02:27 PM
  #1  
Every lane is a bike lane
Thread Starter
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Do we really want this to be more popular?

"More bikes less cars". It's the sort of phrase we hear often from cycling advocates. Indeed, Bicycle Victoria has been using the ol' "More people cycling more often" for a number of years as their slogan. After all, with so many benefits, getting people out of their cars and onto their bikes can only be a good thing, can't it? Or can it? Certainly, as a car-free transportational and recreational cyclist I know the benefits of cycling both in my own life and it's effect on the environment around me. However, I also worry about what else needs to happen to facilitate this, and what might follow.

Much of what you will read here may appear slightly selfish, but it's worth bearing in mind that most human desires of any kind are motivated by selfishness (or at least self-preservation) at least to some degree -- including many of those put forward as reasons for wanting "more people cycling more often". Bear in mind that I write this not as a new "convert" suddenly feeling guilty about what I've been doing to the world all this time, this is not a motorists whining about cyclists, this is coming from a car-free cyclist for my entire adult life (and indeed before that).

People talk about the environmental benefits of cycling and the reduction of resource consumption. A very notable aim. However, what is often forgotten is that cycling in and of itself, is not the sole solution to all of the world's environmental problems. Yes, it's part of the solution, but there are a whole range of other things that go into living sustainably which go along with it. I'm also a pragmatist. I realised some time ago that cycling was never going to have the mass appeal of driving simply because people generally are afraid of anything that requires any effort (or perceived effort) at all. Personally I think the development of cleaner fuels for cars is going to have a greater impact on saving the environment than any attempts to convert people to cycling.

People talk about cycling reducing traffic congestion, and this appears to be a valid point. After all, one person sitting on a bike takes up far less space than one person driving a big 4WD/SUV. Granted, I'd hate to be the poor bugger who suffered a heart attack and had to wait for an ambulance to get across the Sundale Bridge or anywhere along Bundall Road during the afternoon gridlock, so in that respect, perhaps I can't argue against reduced traffic congestion with any conviction. However, has anyone critically considered the alternative in this case?

Car gridlock may appear intimidating, but for a sprightly and moderately skilled cyclist, it really isn't a problem. Every day my current ride to work takes me along Bundall Road, passing gridlocked cars for several kilometres on end. At the squeeze point at the Sorrento Shops, I actually change lanes, passing between the lanes of traffic, simply because that's where I have more space to pass. Traffic doesn't get much heavier than this, yet the heavy, ponderous nature of the cars these people are driving makes them sitting ducks, easy to evade and pass. If all of these people were on bicycles, I fear that the traffic would be impregnable, even for a cyclist. Take a look at the early stages (i.e the first kilometre or so) of a mass ride like the Brisbane River Ride and you'll get some idea.

While we're on the subject of these mass rides, I've also noticed the skill level that many people have on bicycles and frankly, the thought of many of them taking up cycling without any training or even a clue in most cases is really frightening. Yes, they are also a problem when the get in cars, but that least there is a nominal training and licencing program to govern this to some degree. It's also worth noting that on these mass rides (or the rare occasions when I've used bike paths) I've seen plenty of instances of cycle rage, which bears a staggering resemblence to road rage.

The other thing that frightens me is the infrastructure that would be built to service this. Once there are a heap of unskilled and untrained cyclists on the roads, the government response is likely to be trying to build facilities to deal with it. Now this is all well and good, until a few people start making laws compelling cyclists to use these "facilities" that the government have spent big dollars putting there (this usually happens as soon as the opposition whines about "under-utilised facilities"). It becomes even more scary when one considers the extent to which a lot of these "new" cyclists are likely to support laws aimed at simply "getting cyclists off the road" (we've already had examples of this with the M1 debacle here in Queensland).

Frankly, I have no intention of being forced into using some dumbed-down infrastructure aimed at the above purpose. While The Netherlands is often spoken of as some kind of cycling nirvana by people who have never been there, I'm yet to hear any positive comments about it by people who have attempted to use those facilities for their day to day errands.

Additionally, has anyone considered the benefits of being a small minority, or the consequences of losing these? On slow news days, people in the media like to trot out the old "cyclists don't pay rego fees" as do a small minority of whining motorists. However, if there were ever enough cyclists on the road to make it economically viable, you can be sure such a tax would be implemented in a matter of days. As the only cyclist in my office, I get to use the undercover area to store my bike -- an area usually only reserved for people much higher up the corporate chain than myself. As the only one riding a bike to my local grocery store, I get to lock it up right near the door rather than have to trudge across a carpark, indeed, I've often deliberately "not seen" the bike rack just so I could maintain such a privilege.

So while everyone here seems to be running around trying to convert everyone else to cycling or more often trying to make the government do it for them, my advice is to be careful what you wish for. Make sure what you're asking for is what you really want.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 05:41 PM
  #2  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
I'm with you Chris. I notice more people riding around here, and most of them do not have any traffic handling skills whatsoever. Many of them avoid traffic, Thank God, but they often come close to bowoing over pedestrians on the sidewalks. Eventually these riders will attract the attention of the authorities and the ensuing crackdowns will be hell for all of us.

I also fear that these new riders, with their ignorance and fear of traffic, will lobby to have segregated facilities made mandatory for all cyclists. We could lose the easy-going freedom of movement that we now take for granted.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 08:50 PM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
attercoppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redding CA
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
That's a really interesting take, Chris. Some intruiging points there. If I may, as a sort of thought experiment, I've partially rewritten your post. Here's the set-up: it's back in "horse-and-buggy days," the car has only recently begun to come into use here and there and is not very popular yet. Of course those who have discovered the convenience of a car - the faster speed, the shelter from the weather, no need to care for it as one would a horse - are prone to encourage others to give up their horses and drive as well, for environmental as well as other reasons. (You may know that, especially in major cities, the excrement from all the horses in use daily was a significant pollution problem.) Here's a treatise from one such person:

"More cars less horses". It's the sort of phrase we hear often from driving advocates. After all, with so many benefits, getting people off of their horses and into cars can only be a good thing, can't it? Or can it? Certainly I know the benefits of driving both in my own life and it's effect on the environment around me, like reduced pollution in our streets and gutters. However, I also worry about what else needs to happen to facilitate this, and what might follow.

People talk about the environmental benefits of driving and the reduction of crops consumption. A very notable aim. People talk about driving reducing traffic congestion, and this appears to be a valid point. After all, one person sitting in a car takes up far less space than one person driving a big wagon pulled by a four-horse team. However, has anyone critically considered the alternative in this case?

Horse gridlock may appear intimidating, but for a moderately skilled driver, it really isn't a problem. Every day my current ride to work takes me along Bundall Road, passing gridlocked horses for several kilometres on end. At the squeeze point at the Sorrento Shops, I actually change lanes, passing between the rows of horses, simply because that's where I have more space to pass. Traffic doesn't get much heavier than this, yet the heavy, ponderous nature of the horses these people are riding makes them sitting ducks, easy to evade and pass. If all of these people were in cars, I fear that the traffic would be impregnable for any driver.

I've noticed the skill level that many people have on horses and frankly, the thought of many of them taking up driving without any training or even a clue in most cases is really frightening. Yes, they are also a problem when the get on horses, but that least there is a nominal training program to govern this to some degree.

The other thing that frightens me is the infrastructure that would be built to service this. Once there are a heap of unskilled and untrained drivers on the roads, the government response is likely to be trying to build facilities to deal with it. Now this is all well and good, until a few people start making laws compelling drivers to use these "facilities" that the government have spent big dollars putting there (this usually happens as soon as the opposition whines about "under-utilised facilities"). It becomes even more scary when one considers the extent to which a lot of these "new" drivers are likely to support laws aimed at simply "getting drivers on the new roads."

Frankly, I have no intention of being forced into using some dumbed-down infrastructure aimed at the above purpose.

As the only driver in my office, I get to park right up close to the building -- an area not used by people who ride horses. As the only one riding a car to my local grocery store, I get to leave it right up near the door rather than have to trudge across from the horse stables.

So while everyone here seems to be running around trying to convert everyone else to driving or more often trying to make the government do it for them, my advice is to be careful what you wish for. Make sure what you're asking for is what you really want.



My point here is that "the change," if it happens quickly, is liable to happen very quickly, due to peak oil or some sort of minor apocalypse; or it will happen slowly, so slowly that I don't forsee us having a huge issue with infrastructure changes. Or there may never be such a change. If enough people eschew autos for bikes to necessitate a major infrastructural change, the change (I hope) will have to be accommodating to this new large group. Just my opinion, though. Hope you liked my changes to the infrastructure of your post.
attercoppe is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 09:54 PM
  #4  
Every lane is a bike lane
Thread Starter
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by attercoppe
That's a really interesting take, Chris. Some intruiging points there. If I may, as a sort of thought experiment, I've partially rewritten your post. Here's the set-up: it's back in "horse-and-buggy days," the car has only recently begun to come into use here and there and is not very popular yet. Of course those who have discovered the convenience of a car - the faster speed, the shelter from the weather, no need to care for it as one would a horse - are prone to encourage others to give up their horses and drive as well, for environmental as well as other reasons. (You may know that, especially in major cities, the excrement from all the horses in use daily was a significant pollution problem.)
The thing about it is, many of those things you pointed out in the revised post became reality pretty quickly (although it may be a function of the way that piece was worded). Yet for all the "benefits" of driving, I don't notice very many smiles among all the drivers that I pass in the daily gridlock. I also see people writing letters to newspapers from time to time asking governments to do something about the number of cars on "their" roads (as long as it doesn't affect them, of course). In fact, it would appear as though many of the benefits of having one of these new-fangled cars were lost as soon as they became popular.

Have you ever heard the saying "popularity corrupts"?


Originally Posted by attercoppe
If enough people eschew autos for bikes to necessitate a major infrastructural change, the change (I hope) will have to be accommodating to this new large group. Just my opinion, though. Hope you liked my changes to the infrastructure of your post.
This was actually a big part of my concern, and it was echoed by Roody above. Getting more people on bikes is fine if we educate them in how to use them effectively. The trouble with the current way in which advocates go around trying to promote cycling is that it generally misses out on this element. In the past I've even had local "advocates" e-mailing me asking me to use bikepaths that simply don't serve my needs in any way simply so that we can convince the council to build more of them.

Now just imagine if a heap of uneducated and unskilled cyclists took up this attitude (at least in greater numbers than now). Here in Queensland we've already had so-called "cycling groups" supporting the ban of cyclists from a particular road. Over in Advocacy and Safety a little while ago someone reported being abused by another cyclist for riding on the road. When it comes to people like this, I tend to take the view of let them sit in the traffic, let them go into debt for a never ending sequence of car repayments, and let them suffer from the "obesity epidemic".

Personally, I'd rather hold on to what I have.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 10:00 PM
  #5  
xyz
Banned.
 
xyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Midwest
Posts: 2,023
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6072 Post(s)
Liked 894 Times in 712 Posts
A greatly increased number of women with nice butts would make it all worthwhile.
xyz is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 10:08 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
attercoppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redding CA
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris L
The thing about it is, many of those things you pointed out in the revised post became reality pretty quickly (although it may be a function of the way that piece was worded). Yet for all the "benefits" of driving, I don't notice very many smiles among all the drivers that I pass in the daily gridlock. I also see people writing letters to newspapers from time to time asking governments to do something about the number of cars on "their" roads (as long as it doesn't affect them, of course). In fact, it would appear as though many of the benefits of having one of these new-fangled cars were lost as soon as they became popular.
Very true, I think that if the attitude in my remix of your piece ever existed, it likely didn't last long. It's certainly not the case now.


Originally Posted by Chris L
Have you ever heard the saying "popularity corrupts"?
I haven't heard that, but I agree. There are just so many people nowdays, and word spreads so quickly, fads are co-opted and super-popularized in a "lowest common denominator" form. Biking as many of us see and treat it would not spread in that same form.


Originally Posted by xyx
A greatly increased number of women with nice butts would make it all worthwhile.
Word.
attercoppe is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 10:43 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times in 10 Posts
>>>>>>>So while everyone here seems to be running around trying to convert everyone else to cycling or more often trying to make the government do it for them, my advice is to be careful what you wish for. Make sure what you're asking for is what you really want.<<<<<<<<

I don't think we have anything to fear because transportation cyclist are rare birds and until gas becomes unafforable (in the next 75 years!) I won't be alive to see the waves of cyclist on city streets. In fact, the only female utility cyclist I've seen in my neighborhood was doing so because she was probably living in a homeless shelter.

I can deal with government madated bike lanes like in Holland, but what I don't want is all the bike theft that goes on in that country and goes unpunished! I'm afraid when more people start taking up cycle commuting, theft will increase as the bicycle will be seen as transportation instead of a toy.

Today, I can hide my bicycle and feel secure it will be there upon returning. However, if masses of people were to use bicycles for utility purposes, no beater bicycle will be safe from the predators!
Dahon.Steve is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 10:51 PM
  #8  
Lentement mais sûrement
 
Erick L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Yes, I'd like bicycles to be a more popular form of transportation. I think we're a long way of being so popular that it becomes a problem. Plenty of people have said positive things about the cycling infrastructures in the Netherlands, even on this site. BTW, not every lane is a bike lane. Freeways and some bridges are off limits to bicycles and I'm affected by the lack of bicycle infrastructure around these motor-vehicule-only roads on a daily basis.
Erick L is offline  
Old 11-27-05, 11:02 PM
  #9  
.
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: .
Posts: 3,094

Bikes: .

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This was my feeling early on, is an era of history with less cars really worth looking forward to? And I pointed out that we'd have more bike thieves, perhaps commuting peloton bullies, all kinds of hassles not imaginable now. But, all in all, I think there's safety in numbers even numbers of strangers and even numbers of bikers.

Here's my parallel: In the US car drivers are the vast majority. For all the complaining about rude drivers, automobilists are amazingly civil with each other. Heck we have the things clad in the shiniest, most perfect paint to be found on any object, when really they ought to be clad in that rubber stuff they pave gyms with. Car drivers help each other out easily over a million times a year in the US and think nothing of it. Cars suck, but 99% of their drivers see no other way to get along in life and scoff all you like, but there's a feeling of "we're all in this together".

Now translate this to bikes. I notice riding a bike I'm a person, because any person on a bike is in fact 80 or 90 percent person, arms, legs and torso. People remark they're used to seeing me, and we all know the various body types and pedaling styles are far more individual than any paint job from Detroit. There will be much more interaction on a personal level. A person won't be a large piece of gaudily painted metal, they'll be a human body on a bike. With a face, and a personality.

A couple of years ago I tried moving back to that wonderful hellhole in the Pacific I had the misfortune to grow up in. I figured with all I know now, it would be a piece of cake to make it there, and I'd have surfing and palm trees too. I lasted 4 months. It was hang myself or leave - a choice a lot of ppl there make. But while there, I figured that I could buy a used scooter a year (meaning I could get my used scooter stolen once a year) and still come out better financially than using DaBus. Getting a bike stolen is a pain in the butt, but it amazes me that people have this as their primary fear of a bike-centric future.
lilHinault is offline  
Old 11-28-05, 02:34 AM
  #10  
Every lane is a bike lane
Thread Starter
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Erick L
Plenty of people have said positive things about the cycling infrastructures in the Netherlands, even on this site.
But none who actually live there, or who have used them for transportational purposes as distinguished from recreational purposes.

Originally Posted by Erick L
BTW, not every lane is a bike lane. Freeways and some bridges are off limits to bicycles and I'm affected by the lack of bicycle infrastructure around these motor-vehicule-only roads on a daily basis.
Yeah, there's one road around here like that, too (thanks in part to some so-called cycling "advocates" who supported the ban). That said, the law is rarely enforced, and I've got away with using it for various errands whenever it's suited me.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 11-28-05, 02:48 AM
  #11  
Every lane is a bike lane
Thread Starter
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by lilHinault
Here's my parallel: In the US car drivers are the vast majority. For all the complaining about rude drivers, automobilists are amazingly civil with each other. Heck we have the things clad in the shiniest, most perfect paint to be found on any object, when really they ought to be clad in that rubber stuff they pave gyms with. Car drivers help each other out easily over a million times a year in the US and think nothing of it. Cars suck, but 99% of their drivers see no other way to get along in life and scoff all you like, but there's a feeling of "we're all in this together".
I've heard this before, but I just haven't seen any evidence of it. The majority of "interactions" drivers have with each other around here are either abuse or fisticuffs -- oh and the occasional gawking at a car crash (something I still don't understand). Sure, if a car breaks down, someone will eventually help them out, but they'll be waiting there for quite a while.

Originally Posted by lilHinault
Now translate this to bikes. I notice riding a bike I'm a person, because any person on a bike is in fact 80 or 90 percent person, arms, legs and torso. People remark they're used to seeing me, and we all know the various body types and pedaling styles are far more individual than any paint job from Detroit. There will be much more interaction on a personal level. A person won't be a large piece of gaudily painted metal, they'll be a human body on a bike. With a face, and a personality.
I'm not so sure about that either. The reason cyclists stand out now is because they're such a small percentage. If the streets were clogged with cyclists they way they're now clogged with cars, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be long before my only interest in them was simply picking a gap between them through which I could pass to get to work on time. Incidentally, it was only last Tuesday as I was limping away from a nasty bike crash in which I sustained a nasty back injury when a passing cyclist showed no interest in my predicament beyond a greeting based on formal politeness. Maybe this is already happening.

Incidentally, where was that Pacific hellhole that you mentioned? I won't be offended if you say Australia -- in fact, I might even agree with you.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 11-28-05, 08:26 PM
  #12  
1. e4 Nf6
 
Alekhine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: 78º44`W, 42º46`N
Posts: 872

Bikes: Mercian KoM with Rohloff, Bike Friday NWT, Pogliaghi Italcorse (1979)

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I honestly don't care who I influence and who I don't, but I do think a lot more people might stand to find themselves happier if they cycled more often, so yea, I would like to see more folks get into it.

My only selfish reason for not wanting an increase in cyclists would probably be the possibility of an increase in bike thefts, because I've become pretty keen on the idea of building a stable of nice ones.
Alekhine is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 01:35 AM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Thor29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I don't get the point of this post.
Bicycles don't need special "facilities", the roads are already here.
I've ridden in Critical Mass with hundreds of people, and I've ridden with hundreds of Chinese commuters in China - everyone gets used to it and learns how to ride in large groups. No big deal.

If you try to commute by bike in a city where almost no one rides bike (like Atlanta or Houston), car drivers either don't see you, don't know how to react to you, or are outright hostile. If you ride in a city like San Francisco, where there are a lot of bike commuters, car drivers tend to be more polite and accommodating. Also, the large number of bicyclists allows a group like the SFBC to be a political force for making cycling easier and safer.

Of course replacing cars with bikes won't solve the world's environmental problems, but it is a step in the right direction. Actually, unless we replace our economic system with something better, all the green consumerism in the world won't stop the coming ecological meltdown. It will just slow it down a little. But in the meantime, if more people rode bikes, the air would be cleaner, fewer people would be killed in car accidents, people would be healthier, cities would become more interesting, etc., etc.

Seems like your whole point is the opposite of what most car free advocates are about. You want to be the only cyclist in town so you can play bike ninja, while most of the rest of us are considering our impact on the world and what would be better for everyone.
Thor29 is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 03:55 AM
  #14  
Every lane is a bike lane
Thread Starter
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Thor29
Seems like your whole point is the opposite of what most car free advocates are about. You want to be the only cyclist in town so you can play bike ninja, while most of the rest of us are considering our impact on the world and what would be better for everyone.
No, it was just an attempt to bring some balance to the "more people cycling more often" slogans that we hear all the time. The sort of change that people on this forum talk about is going to require a lot more than simply getting people on bikes.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 07:58 AM
  #15  
put our Heads Together
 
cerewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: southeast pennsylvania
Posts: 3,155

Bikes: a mountain bike with a cargo box on the back and aero bars on the front. an old well-worn dahon folding bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The sort of change that people on this forum talk about is going to require a lot more than simply getting people on bikes.
I'd rather have dummies on bikes than dummies in cars. The lack of common sense of some current motorists/hypothetical cyclists doesn't change the fact that

bicycles pollute less than cars, can leave more labor and natural resources available for non-transportation uses, and can (through exercise) reduce the incidence of heart disease, stroke, cancer, and depression.
cerewa is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 09:11 AM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Out there, on my bike
Posts: 5,421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
More bikes, FEWER cars!

The least we can do is get the grammar right!

Get back on your bike!
tulip is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 09:38 AM
  #17  
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,870

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3939 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times in 87 Posts
Chris L, I think you're wrong. Thinking ahead to the societal changes that will occur as oil becomes scarcer, I think things may unfold like this:

First of all, no infrastructure needs to be built to accomodate large-scale switching from cars to bikes...it is already overbuilt. Roads can handle far more bicycles than cars. If the roads get as congested as the Don Valley Parkway on "Ride for Heart Day" then cyclists can demand that whole streets be reserved for bikes and barred from car use, and, besides what car driver would dare to drive on streets like that anyway? So the remaining car drivers may well want to allow some streets to be converted to bike-only ways, in the hope that they will have their own space to drive.

Secondly, saving the environment and solving other car-related problems by producing cleaner fuel is highly unlikely. All fuel has environmental costs, and car users to date have simply seen cleaner-burning cars as giving them permission to drive more miles, and in bigger vehicles. Besides, cars wreak much more havoc than just tailpipe admissions. They're manufactured using highly toxic processes, they demand freeways and parking lots, they generate junkyards and tire dumps, and they kill people by the tens or hundreds of thousands. But fuel generated in any manner is going to get more expensive, so driving is inevitably going to become less popular.

Thirdly, bicycles are not the only answer to the car problem, and of course they aren't for everyone...they have to be paired with public transit. (Or, if you prefer, private mass transit). Again, the existing roads have far more capacity than is needed to accomodate this switch, but as fuel becomes expensive, municipal bylaws will have to be passed permitting infill construction and mixed use zoning in current single-family residential suburban areas, to acheive densities that make public transit feasible. Again, the public will likely support that, because it will be too expensive to drive everywhere, and too inconvenient to live in low density suburbia. Property values may very well rise in areas that are quickest to make it permissable to sell your ranch bungalow to someone opening a small galleria, or building a low rise apartment block, since people will welcome the services being brought into their communities as a result.

Last edited by cooker; 11-29-05 at 12:00 PM.
cooker is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 09:56 AM
  #18  
more ape than man
 
timmhaan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nyc
Posts: 8,091
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 1 Post
i think there is one flawed assumption here. and that is that there will be swarms of unskilled riders clogging the roads who will be a danger to themselves and everyone else. we all were unskilled riders at some point, but quickly got the gist of it. in new york, which is crowded with everyone doing everything, even relatively new riders manage quite well - despite heavy traffic. it takes only a couple of days to acclimate to it. people are fairly adaptable and like mentioned above they can learn how to ride in large groups quickly.
timmhaan is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 05:58 PM
  #19  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by timmhaan
i think there is one flawed assumption here. and that is that there will be swarms of unskilled riders clogging the roads who will be a danger to themselves and everyone else. we all were unskilled riders at some point, but quickly got the gist of it. in new york, which is crowded with everyone doing everything, even relatively new riders manage quite well - despite heavy traffic. it takes only a couple of days to acclimate to it. people are fairly adaptable and like mentioned above they can learn how to ride in large groups quickly.
There is a noticeable increase in cyclists here, but no increase in their quality. I'm not a snob. By "quality" I mean the roadworthiness of the bikes and their riders. Most of these new cyclists have no idea how to ride on streets, and they don't seem to be picking up skills very fast.

And why would they? Nobody is given a car and turned loose on the streets. You are required to take some lessons and pass some tests before driving. This is not true of cycling. When people say no changes in infrastructure are needed, they are correct if they are referring to the physical infrastructure. But infrastructure also includes (or should) training, education and competence. We have a huge educational and bureaucratic infrastructure devoted to motor vehicles. Something similar will be called for if cyclists increase dramatically in number.

And that would be a mixed blessing, as far as I'm concerned. On the one hand, as others have posted, it would be great to have more biking company and fellowship. However, I don't relish giving up my freedom and independence. I dread the day when I'm required to pass a road test and get a card from Big Brother before I ride. I don't want to pay insurance and pay to register and license my bike. But if a lot of incompetent riders start jamming the streets and getting themselves and others killed, that is all too likely to happen.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 08:50 PM
  #20  
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,870

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3939 Post(s)
Liked 112 Times in 87 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
I don't want to pay insurance and pay to register and license my bike. But if a lot of incompetent riders start jamming the streets and getting themselves and others killed, that is all too likely to happen.
I doubt it. Unless I'm mistaken, those "Beijing throngs" mentioned by Andy Bower in Slate magazine (in another thread) don't need a license and don't die by the dozens. My guess is that the more bikes there are on the street, the more car drivers will have to behave...sort of a traffic calming effect. And of course, after the "petrocalypse" (Like it? I made it up. It sounds cute, when in fact it will be a tough age to live through) there will be fewer cars to watch out for, and bike-on-bike crashes aren't as lethal.
cooker is offline  
Old 11-29-05, 09:22 PM
  #21  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by cooker
I doubt it. Unless I'm mistaken, those "Beijing throngs" mentioned by Andy Bower in Slate magazine (in another thread) don't need a license and don't die by the dozens. My guess is that the more bikes there are on the street, the more car drivers will have to behave...sort of a traffic calming effect. And of course, after the "petrocalypse" (Like it? I made it up. It sounds cute, when in fact it will be a tough age to live through) there will be fewer cars to watch out for, and bike-on-bike crashes aren't as lethal.
Well I don't know. I wiped out yesterday to avoid hitting my stepson who wiped out just in front of me. It didn't feel so good, but obviously wasn't lethal.

You say the car drivers will have to behave. I'm a lot more worried about the bike riders. Around here they don't ride too well, most of them. My concern is that if a lot of them get hurt, or even if they just irritate the hell out of others, the government is going to step in to regulate us. It could be the old story, if you don't police yourselves, somebody else will police you.

Yeah, "petrocalypse" is cute. How bad it turns out to be depends a lot on how we respond to it.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 11-30-05, 03:41 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Thor29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
There is and will never be any reason to require bicyclists to get licenses or to register bicycles. It is quite obvious that requiring drivers licenses for cars doesn't keep idiots from driving, at best it slows them down a little when they have to take the test multiple times. So far every car in existence can be started up and driven whether or not you have a license to drive. Bicycles are not as lethal as cars and it would be a complete waste of money and yet another needless restriction on individual freedom to regulate them in the same way. A better solution would be to require cycling/pedestrian traffic instruction to kids in school. Might as well learn something useful in those prison cells they call "classrooms".
Thor29 is offline  
Old 11-30-05, 05:35 PM
  #23  
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Thor29
There is and will never be any reason to require bicyclists to get licenses or to register bicycles. It is quite obvious that requiring drivers licenses for cars doesn't keep idiots from driving, at best it slows them down a little when they have to take the test multiple times. So far every car in existence can be started up and driven whether or not you have a license to drive. Bicycles are not as lethal as cars and it would be a complete waste of money and yet another needless restriction on individual freedom to regulate them in the same way. A better solution would be to require cycling/pedestrian traffic instruction to kids in school. Might as well learn something useful in those prison cells they call "classrooms".
In an ideal world I would agree with you. It's true that requiring licenses doesn't prevent idiots from driving, but it does probvide minimum standards and a means of tracking offenders. There are fewer idiots driving than riding, according to my careful observations. I observed 60 riders from my window and noted that 2 rode vehicularly, while 10 rode on the wrong side of the street and the rest rode on the sidewalk, often swerving into the street. We need to improve that, or accident rates will rise and the government will step in. In the time I observed those bikes, I did not see one cager break a law, although they were far more numerous than cyclists.

And a "waste of money" to register bikes? No, because registration and license fees are revenue for governments, not expenditures. Bikes not as lethal as cars? Not usually, but they can be.

I agree about requiring education on cycling. Any ideas on how this could be implemented? How much will it cost? How will we pay for it? With user fees on bikes?

The last thing I want to see is license fees, registration, mandatory education for cyclists. But if a massive influx of unskilled riders occurs, what other choices will there be?
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline  
Old 11-30-05, 09:21 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
attercoppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Redding CA
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
The last thing I want to see is license fees, registration, mandatory education for cyclists. But if a massive influx of unskilled riders occurs, what other choices will there be?
In my nightmares I see roving bands of violent, skilled cyclers bringing frontier justice to the noobs.
attercoppe is offline  
Old 11-30-05, 09:43 PM
  #25  
Every lane is a bike lane
Thread Starter
 
Chris L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia - passionfruit capital of the universe!
Posts: 9,663
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
Originally Posted by Thor29
There is and will never be any reason to require bicyclists to get licenses or to register bicycles. It is quite obvious that requiring drivers licenses for cars doesn't keep idiots from driving, at best it slows them down a little when they have to take the test multiple times.
The main reason governments implement registration fees for cars is simply to raise revenue. The only reason they don't do the same thing for bicycles now is that cycling just isn't sufficiently popular to generate enough revenue to cover the administrative costs. Governments have already looked into it (I can think of about three State governments in this country alone), and will probably do so again. The thing we need to remember here is that government policy is not driven by morals or concerns about what "should" happen. It's driven by votes first and revenue second.

At present there aren't enough cyclists to raise sufficent revenue for registration fees to be ecomomical, or cause sufficent concern for people to start demanding licencing or registrations in large numbers. However, a whole heap of unskilled people taking up cycling would change that in a hurry.
__________________
I am clinically insane. I am proud of it.

That is all.
Chris L is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.