Originally Posted by
Roughstuff
Over the years I have encountered so few rude and obnoxious drivers that I hardly am going to let such a 'privileged' minority push me into the radical-cyclist-as-antifossil fuel-luddite crowd. Some cyclists just cannot accept that a bicycle is a secondary user on our roadways, and uniquely vulnerable to even the most trivial accident because we lack so many of the safety features installed in vehicles. I accept the advantages and disadvantages of cycling, the benefits and the risks, with equal degree.
i too come from the 'alberta prairies' (well, technically 'aspen parkland / montain transitional ecosystem'... but that lacks a certain ring) and agree that the number of toxic/agro drivers here is surprisingly minimal, especially considering the reputation this province has for 'hicks and yeehaws' or whatever. heck, even just this morning i did a little dodge around an opening door and the driver got out of her car and chased me, on foot, to the stop light to apologize. and earlier this summer as i was climbing a particularly steep grade some dude in a pickup truck pulled up alongside me and asked if i wanted a tow to the top.
now, having said that i want to address a couple of your points:
1. pro-cycling and anti-car doesn't necessarily mean 'luddite'. okay, sure, there are some dudes on tallbikes with a zerzan or hakim bey book in their back pocket but that's far from the, uh, mainstream of radicalism (can you believe i just said that?). personally i think the key is the use of appropriate technology in the schumacher sense (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_is_Beautiful). there are lots of applications for fossil fuels. i like my house warm in the winter and would never advocate farmers give up their tractors for tandem-pulled plows. but, by the same token it's absolutely ridiculous for one person to be driving a hummer 20km to work. my philosophy is: if i can do it without fossil fuels i do, if i can't i try to be as economical as possible. sadly, in this society, that's a pretty radical viewpoint!
2. yes, bikes are secondary users on our roadways and all of our infrastructure is really geared to keep it that way. it's kind of a vicious cycle: cycling is hard in my city and, in some ways, also very scary. that barrier to adoption stops a lot of people from using bikes and, thus, guarantees the continued secondary nature of cycling. heck, we have these 'cycling lanes' that are demarked by a stencil of a bike on the pavement all over this town, but these so-called 'lanes' don't provide any clearly set-aside space and almost always run down the side a row of parking meters.
3. i think the primary objective of cycling advocates has to be to encourage people to get out of their hummers and onto a bike for that commute. kryptoniting a windshield probably isn't going to do that. what *is* going to do that is a much harder question to answer. the traditional approach of just making driving more expensive with toll roads or higher meter prices has proven time and again that it just doesn't work. people love their cars and are willing to pay exorbitant sums of money to run them. i think the key is to present cycling as safe, effective, fun and all-inclusive. the all-inclusive part is where the bike community really falls down -- there's a culture on the street that loves to deride cyclists if they don't have killer gear or are old or overweight or slow or whatever. the radical cycling community is really going to have to choose between the eliteism of the 'outsider' image or the sense of populism that has the potential to affect meaningful change.
other than that, i love the part about accepting the advantages and disadvantages. excellent sense of pragmatism!