Can you tell the difference between the above, and this:
Can you tell the difference between the above, and this:
That's bicycle advocacy at it's best (or worst, depending on how you look at it). How about some cyclist advocacy?
Only if you can tell me the difference.
And why it matters. I am curious.
Cyclist advocacy: Encouraging those who ride (or want to ride) bikes to do so in a safe and cooperative manner
[Note: these aren't exhaustive definitions by any means, just a few words off the top of my head to distinguish the activity of cycling from the people who are cyclists.]
Why it matters [to me]: Traffic cycling in the US currently has a bad enough reputation as a dangerous activity and adding fuel to that fire by encouraging uneducated people to just jump on a bike and ride in traffic isn't going to help that image.
Now, if you combined the two messages, I'd have much less of an issue with it (depending on how it's presented of course).
So as far as I am concerned, "bicycling advocacy" (that which encourages people to ride) is cycling advocacy.
You want to teach the how to ride, try to get government to bring cycling education back to public schools.
What we have now is a downward trend... bikes are bought, bikes aren't ridden, bikes are stored in garages, people get fat, cars get fat, roads become crowded, few people ride bikes.
Find a way to reduce that trend. Telling people "how to ride a bike" isn't going to do it, and hasn't done it.
Cycling advocacy? You people call yourselves bicycle advocates, and this video portrays your bicycle advocacy views exactly. Nothing about cycling, all about anti-motoring. And inaccurate as always.
And BTW even the president has stated "we are addicted to oil," perhaps a bit of "anti-motoring" is what this obese country needs. Personally I don't think it is anti-motoring any more than a book on hiking is anti-motoring.
But like I've said, your allegiance is obvious.
You state: "[I]f more people are cyclingcycling, to run errands, as identified in the video ... then naturally they will be motoring less.". Joseph Goebbels, great liar that he was, would have been utterly ashamed of the technical absurdity of this effort that you all appear to praise so much. The whole object of the video is to oppose motoring, with cycling mentioned as a minor sideline. Your words here indicate that not only are you bicycle advocates unable to understand the meaning of the words that you read, as mentioned before, you also cannot understand even a simple video. You make cycling into a dreary duty to be performed as part of the anti-motoring war, and regardless of the danger to those whom you affect.
that is rich, john.
It's readily apparant you are pro-motorist and anti-bicyclist. maybe you've slipped so far you cannot see it yourself.
Do you mind telling us when banning bicyclists from 'freeways' for the conveinence of motorists isn't going to be enough for your buddies over at the ADC?
Can you share the timetable for when unveil your master plan to ban bicyclists from all high-speed roads for the conveinence of motorists?
You really have a chip on your shoulder about this. I am pro-motorist and pro-bicycle--- and I even WALK places (as transportation). Can those concepts coexist exist? I certainly do not believe cars will be outlawed from the road anytime soon. I bike to work--- all year long-- no matter what the weather. I bike because I like to. There is no dogmatic reason behind it other than it keeps me in shape. I have a massive carbon footprint because I fly so much. In my perfect world we would only have planes and bikes--- but that will never happen.
How is it that you make the leap in your argument "against" John about bikes on freeways? You are likely digging up an irrelevant reference from another post.
Do you really believe that two miles is some magic distance that will change people's behaviors? When I lived in the US, I commuted 20 miles each way-- by bike. Even that took marginally more time than driving in heavy rush hour traffic.
The real issues regarding cycling advocacy really have nothing to do with building a supporting infrastructure in the US. The issues center on how car-centric attitudes are. I could write a lengthy rant at the absurdities in the US in this area-- ranging from extremely lax drinking and driving laws, extreme ease in obtaining drivers licenses, how little actual training is associated with licensing, the fact that a basic license entitles someone to drive up to a 13 ton vehicle, low gas and vehicle taxes, no vehicle safety inspections, the epidemic of speeding, the proliferation of road rage, lack of disincentives to drive fuel efficient vehicles, lack of public transportation, and on and on and on.
that isn't a leap in argument, it's an aside.
but thanks for pointing our other flaws in America's autocentrism, filtersweep.
john's firmly wedded to an advocacy group whose work is pro-motoring, and some of us feel is correspondingly anti-bicycling.
2 miles is a minor step, a first step if you will. Likely the bikes exist... now how to get folks just doing this minor step?
Imagine if just 10% of all trips were shifted from auto to bike... the reduction in auto traffic alone would be fantastic.
There are other ways of decentralizing the auto without even mentioning biks. Around here, it is impossible to live further than walking distance of a grocery store--- or post office. Most city centers are pedestrian only. There are all sorts of green buffer zones, and agriculturally zoned land that can't be developed for 100 years. These are packaged as quality of life issues, and have nothing to do with cycling, anti-vehicularism, or anything else. The fundamental cultural value from the 1950s remains to this day: a car is a LUXURY --not a necessity or a right.
The instant people start using Nazis in their rhetoric, I quit listening. Said person has just demonstrated how utterly ridiculous they are.
I think the reason cycling advocates are always so angry with Forester is they think he is an advocate for cycling, and then are disappointed to discover he isn't. Advocates for cycling think cycling is a social good that should be encouraged and accomodated by society. Forester doesn't hold those views. He's an advocate for very limited aspects of cycling. He doesn't care why people ride, he doesn't care who rides, or how many people ride. He doesn't care about whether cycling has wider social implications. He only cares about where they ride (on normal roads) and how they ride ("vehicularily").
I don't believe I am being silly.
I do believe I am sick of listening to people invoke Nazis to make points. Maybe I have Nazi overload thanks to this White House and Faux News.
But using Nazis as metaphors and rhetorical devices is cheap, fallacious, and intellectually dishonest. You use the example not just for the record...but also to caricaturize and even lampoon the opposition...in this case genec and the video. Nazis as a rhetorical device is an effort to invalidate the opposing argument (or validate your own) by simple virtue of a terrible and arbitrary/fictitious attribution.
You could indeed have mentioned Edward Bernays...or you could have simply made your point about the propagandistic (in your view) elements of the video, and sought to prove that point. However, you chose Goebels for the attribution. It's "dirty pool" to use an old saying. It also makes me disregard you and your arguments because you resort to such rhetoric. And by the way, I'm not one of those who are inherently against your arguments (until possibly now) because I don't/didn't know enough about them. However, now my motivation to learn more is dead...why should I care about the opinions of someone who tries to make a point through bad rhetoric? Now I also wonder how many straw men and appeals to authority you use on a daily basis.
Cheap, dishonest, and intellectually weak.
So, to paraphrase the two sites; the only advantage motoring has over cycling is the amount of time saved in covering a specific distance, but under certain conditions we all know this is not true; cycling has numerous other advantages over motoring, but sometimes the amount of time required is unrealistic.
Dance dance dance...and I shan't even bother to illustrate conundrum you came close to tap dancing your way into...close but not quite, though it would have been a funny thing indeed to find you defending genec without meaning to as you tried to explain yourself away...
interesting that john, a fella that appears to never bicycle anymore, would consider the clif bar campaign to encourage bicycling one of his 'enemies'