"Think Outside the Cage"
Or, for some us, we just can't muster the anti-car venom, even if we are car free or car light. Some of us might even feel that it's counterproductive to fight for banning of cars in cities, especially in big US cities, when even some more bike lanes and some more thoughts as to how to integrate biking into the cities, and "equal rights" would be great and would attract more cyclists all around.
Some go that extra step and becomes fundamentalists about things, and some of us don't. That is where the fundamentalists are called "anti-car", because that is what they are. They focus less on being car free and thus pro-cycle themselves, and more about being against cars on behalf of everyone else.
I know that cars will eventually be banned or strictly limited in most cities before much longer, for the simple reason that they are not a practical choice in dense urban areas. I don't have to try to make that happen because it will happen. I just want to make the transition as quick and painless as possible. And the best way to do that is not to be "anti-car" but to be in favor of better infrastructure and land use that makes it possible for people other than motorists to use the public roadways.
so really the only differences between you and me is that I'm more outspoken than you are, and you choose to label me with a negative term. Otherwise, our philosophies are very similar, but I'm a little snottier about it than you are.
"Think Outside the Cage"
Hmm, and since when does being pro-cycle (or even car free) mean that one has to be anti-car when, as you seem to say, it will happen naturally?I know that cars will eventually be banned or strictly limited in most cities before much longer, for the simple reason that they are not a practical choice in dense urban areas. I don't have to try to make that happen because it will happen. I just want to make the transition as quick and painless as possible. And the best way to do that is not to be "anti-car" but to be in favor of better infrastructure and land use that makes it possible for people other than motorists to use the public roadways.
No, there is a difference: I am not a fundamentalist, but a pragmatist. You seem to think that one has to be against cars in general to want to do without cars. I don't. So at a very fundamental level were are anything but alike.so really the only differences between you and me is that I'm more outspoken than you are,
No, the term is a more specific one, just like there is a difference between fighting for equal rights when it comes to gender (father's rights, equal pay and so on), and being a fundamentalist feminist or the male equivalent. Granted, things aren't black and white, and sometimes strange bed fellows emerge, but to claim that you and me are alike is akin to claiming I am the same as a fundamentalist feminist, when I am in fact not fighting against the "patriarchy" or anything like that, but fight for equal rights across the board.and you choose to label me with a negative term.
When it comes to bicycles, I have no lust for a car free society. I don't care. I would love it more people would ride bikes, but it's up to them. I have chosen for myself that I don't personally want or need a car, and have bought a cargo bike, not because of political ideology but because it is easier in so many ways, it is cheaper, and I get "free" exercise. My gf has a car, because she needs one for her job, and I sometimes ride with her. Do I think she, or even our neighbour, should do without? I don't care. With that said, my neighbour asked me the other day if she could get a ride on my (cargo) bike, and I was happy to let her have a go.
Perhaps she will buy one herself down the road, but she already has a bicycle, her daughter has a bicycle, but they also have a small car (a compact, I belive you guys call it). They probably use the car three days a week, and for the rest they bike around. I mostly bike (or take public transport - or both).
I don't have an ideologi that says cars should not be allowed. It might be easier to ban motorised boats/yachts as a starting point. No-one depend on those things to make a living. At least not the non-charter boats. They pollute like hell, take up nice areas where we could have much more active people going about, and when that utopia is reached, we could work on getting our "stuff" delivered without a polluting aircraft, truck, or train.
Yes, we still need to have all of those, as well as some taxi cabs and busses and whatnot.
In short, I don't see your position (or that of ironwood) to be any different pr any less sectarian than that of motorists who thinks that bikes should not be on the road at all.
Nope, just because we both like to have more people on bikes or less congestion in cities, doesn't mean our "philosophies" are very similar, and that the biggest difference is that you're "a little snottier about it". We differ at a fundamental level.Otherwise, our philosophies are very similar, but I'm a little snottier about it than you are.
I did some clean up. The ankle-biting and insults (thinly veiled or direct) need to stop, now. Anyone who continues will be asked to leave the thread.
I'm proud to be anti-car!
I've worked to limit their access to the city center in my town, which has reduced accidents, improved the air quality, reduced the emission of greenhouse gases and made our town more livable.
If this makes me a "fundamentalist" in the eyes of some, I respect their opinions. I realize that my ideas are not in line with the majority of people's, but I strongly believe that minority opinions should be allowed in a sub-forum such as this one.
I wouldn't be surprised if automotive traffic was restricted in some parts of Boston and Cambidge; A lot of motorists wouldn't object because it is next to impossible to drive there.
I don't know about DC, I've never really enjoyed walking there.
As they say, it's a start.
Okay, this is a special weather event, which seem to be more common now than ever, but it is an acknowledgement that personal cars can be such an inappropriate technology in an urban setting that they should be banned. Today the ban is for the snow and ice. However, I think Roody is correct that there will be bans for other reasons, like we simply want to use that space for something less destructive, in the not-so-distant future.Originally Posted by NY Times
Some time later (after I left the mods for my own reasons), Utility Cycling was created, presumably so that people could have sensible discussions on the practicalities of doing things with your bike without all the flame wars. Of course, UC had very few posts, while the same flame wars that characterised LCF continued unabated. Proving once again, that most people really wanted the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they wanted a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals.
The question here is whether we really need a third proof that most people really want the "excitement" of a good flame war more than they want a sensible discussion with like-minded individuals.
Last edited by Chris L; 01-22-14 at 03:08 AM.