Is Triple-A (AAA) anti-cyclist?
#101
Godfather of Soul
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,517
Bikes: 2002 Litespeed Vortex, 2010 Specialized Tricross Expert,2008 Gary Fischer Hi Fi Carbon, 2002 Specialized S-Works hard tail, 1990 Kestrel KM 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for the greater explanation - I now see what you mean.
I recall riding in and around Incline Village at Lake Tahoe in Nevada. There are places along Lakeshore Blvd where the trail crosses back and forth over the road, sometimes very frequently so that if anyone ever tried to ride a bike on it, they would constantly be crossing the street. It probably made some sense when the road had lighter traffic and most people used the trail for walking, but it was ridiculous for cycling. Now, all that being said, my brother lives there and was complaining to me one time about cyclists who refused to ride on the bike path...
I recall riding in and around Incline Village at Lake Tahoe in Nevada. There are places along Lakeshore Blvd where the trail crosses back and forth over the road, sometimes very frequently so that if anyone ever tried to ride a bike on it, they would constantly be crossing the street. It probably made some sense when the road had lighter traffic and most people used the trail for walking, but it was ridiculous for cycling. Now, all that being said, my brother lives there and was complaining to me one time about cyclists who refused to ride on the bike path...
I am certainly not trying to suggest that riding 'on trails' is in itself dangerous. The problem is more complex than that. Some accidents do happen on the trails themselves, often due to poor signage, inadequate trail width, mixed use, etc. But these are usually minor accidents. The things that make trails incredibly dangerous compared with even sidewalk riding are the points at which they intersect with roads. Unfortunately the folks who design trails have yet to learn that a trail is not a pedestrian way, so we get trails that end on the sidewalk whenever an intersection occurs. Most serious trail accidents happen at these crossing points, because often the trail entrance is hidden from drivers - essentially they are blind driveways. Trails could be made safe if only their intersection points were treated as road junctions, with a light like many traffic junctions. The fact that trail designers have a pedestrian mentality ends up killing cyclists.
One thing is certain, adding more of the same poor quality trails that are usually implemented will not improve conditions for cyclists. If trail planners are serious about making trails safe, they will have to do some serious thinking about how to make them safer. Simply dropping a 4ft wide strip of concrete from one sidewalk to the next will never cut it.
And that's not even getting to my earlier point, which is that most cycling is done on roads. Even if you live in a place like DC, with a vast network of trails, the reality is that most commuting is done off-trail. Many trails don't even attempt to serve commuters - they are for recreation. If trails are to become safe and widely useful, there needs to be a quantum shift in how and why trails are planned and implemented. I just don't see that happening now, and I see no impetus to change because the powers that be have so beaten down cyclists that most of them are just happy to see anything done in the name of cycling, no matter whether it makes sense or not.
London is about the only place in the English speaking world making a concerted effort to install commuter trails, and even there they still have this outdated 'pedestrian' view of cycling, so even the London bike highways, which are so forward-thinking in some ways, are still going to be dangerous places to cycle.
One thing is certain, adding more of the same poor quality trails that are usually implemented will not improve conditions for cyclists. If trail planners are serious about making trails safe, they will have to do some serious thinking about how to make them safer. Simply dropping a 4ft wide strip of concrete from one sidewalk to the next will never cut it.
And that's not even getting to my earlier point, which is that most cycling is done on roads. Even if you live in a place like DC, with a vast network of trails, the reality is that most commuting is done off-trail. Many trails don't even attempt to serve commuters - they are for recreation. If trails are to become safe and widely useful, there needs to be a quantum shift in how and why trails are planned and implemented. I just don't see that happening now, and I see no impetus to change because the powers that be have so beaten down cyclists that most of them are just happy to see anything done in the name of cycling, no matter whether it makes sense or not.
London is about the only place in the English speaking world making a concerted effort to install commuter trails, and even there they still have this outdated 'pedestrian' view of cycling, so even the London bike highways, which are so forward-thinking in some ways, are still going to be dangerous places to cycle.
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Path to Fredvana
Posts: 909
Bikes: Long Haul Trucker 2010 , Felt Z90 2008, Rans Rocket 2001, Specialized Hardrock 1989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
#103
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
1. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads--the ones most often used by cyclists--come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.
2. FWHA calculates that 92% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But 8% come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.
(The above factoid comes from https://www.baltimorespokes.org/artic...81028210742853 )
You can get more detail here that breaks down Fed, State and local revenue sources: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/pdf/hf10.pdf
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Path to Fredvana
Posts: 909
Bikes: Long Haul Trucker 2010 , Felt Z90 2008, Rans Rocket 2001, Specialized Hardrock 1989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
The "money in question" I referred to is the Highway Trust Fund, which is the pot AAA and Rails to Trails are talking about. The pie chart shows how that particular fund is funded. The two articles you cited are referencing road funding more generally, not the Highway Trust Fund.
#105
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The Path to Fredvana
Posts: 909
Bikes: Long Haul Trucker 2010 , Felt Z90 2008, Rans Rocket 2001, Specialized Hardrock 1989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Note that the Highway Trust Fund is only one part of how roads are funded, so your larger point that cyclists pay more than their fare share, is certainly not something I am arguing against. Furthermore, I think the argument that gasoline taxes should only go to pay for motorized transport is totally without merit, hence the "tobacco tax funding cigarette machines and smoker's lounges analogy".
#106
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
My organization, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) has a petition up right now in response to comments made by the president of AAA Mid-Atlantic that Highway Trust Fund dollars should only go to highways... rolling back to pre-1991 trail, walking and bicycling infrastructure levels. The petition is generating huge online interest, with more than 20,000 responses to date. I'd encourage everyone to sign the petition at:
www.railstotrails.org/AAA
There's also a link on that page to learn more about AAA's response to this petition, their comments, and why we find them disingenuous.
Thanks,
Kartik Sribarra
Policy Outreach Manager
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
www.railstotrails.org/AAA
There's also a link on that page to learn more about AAA's response to this petition, their comments, and why we find them disingenuous.
Thanks,
Kartik Sribarra
Policy Outreach Manager
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
#107
Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
PS, ghettocruiser - do you have any background references to your CAA comments? I'm searching online but would love to see if you have anything in particular. Thanks.
#108
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
The "money in question" I referred to is the Highway Trust Fund, which is the pot AAA and Rails to Trails are talking about. The pie chart shows how that particular fund is funded. The two articles you cited are referencing road funding more generally, not the Highway Trust Fund.
#109
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Greater Greater Washington has more appropriate info for the mid-Atlantic region IMHO (People should still sign the RTC petition.)
https://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=7281
https://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=7281
#110
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
A few years ago, before my wife gave up driving, we belonged to AAA. The Pacific Northwest affiliate must have been feeling the heat from some of the new roadside assistance organizations because it began to offer roadside assistance to cyclists. I'm not sure what the assistance consists of, but I find it interesting that it occurs at all.
In spite of that isolated program, I do feel that to be pro-car is to be anti-bike. It it like the people I met years ago who belonged to the KKK. they were offended if you called them anti-black (or brown or whatever); they considered themselves to be pro-white. In the end, it is the same thing.
In spite of that isolated program, I do feel that to be pro-car is to be anti-bike. It it like the people I met years ago who belonged to the KKK. they were offended if you called them anti-black (or brown or whatever); they considered themselves to be pro-white. In the end, it is the same thing.
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not convinced of that. I am certainly pro-bike and anti-car, which is part of the reason I've never driven a car. My wife, on the other hand, is both pro-bike and pro-car. But then she doesn't really have any strong feelings on the matter. I suspect it's when a person has strong feelings that the amount of 'pro' (car or bike) becomes so great that it automatically goes into 'anti' territory on the opposite vehicle. The KKK certainly fit with that, since even they would admit that they are 'fanatically' pro-white.
I live in hope that one day I'll bring my wife completely over from the dark side and we can both live in a perfect state of bike love and car hatred.
I live in hope that one day I'll bring my wife completely over from the dark side and we can both live in a perfect state of bike love and car hatred.
Last edited by ianbrettcooper; 09-28-10 at 03:16 PM.
#112
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
AAA seems ok to me.
They certainly aren't anti bicyclist.
They certainly are pro car-and I'm pro car also- drive one everyday, and so do most of you.
Cars aren't going to die off in the USA. They are going to become much much greener once we switch to more renewable and less net CO2 producing energy sources( wind turbines, moving water sources, NUKES, perhaps even cleanish coal with the CO2 being used to grow oils and carbs-the cleanish coal is a big stretch, but since we-USA- have so much, we will figure a way to use it) We-USA- have huge wind resources-so we are f going to exploit it.
We will be twice as efficient-maybe 60 mpg equivalent for cars- we will drive less- and we will use less, much less precious fossil fuel in the future.
AAA knows this, and they know that the drivers and riders of the future will occasionally need a hand on the roads.
Charlie
They certainly aren't anti bicyclist.
They certainly are pro car-and I'm pro car also- drive one everyday, and so do most of you.
Cars aren't going to die off in the USA. They are going to become much much greener once we switch to more renewable and less net CO2 producing energy sources( wind turbines, moving water sources, NUKES, perhaps even cleanish coal with the CO2 being used to grow oils and carbs-the cleanish coal is a big stretch, but since we-USA- have so much, we will figure a way to use it) We-USA- have huge wind resources-so we are f going to exploit it.
We will be twice as efficient-maybe 60 mpg equivalent for cars- we will drive less- and we will use less, much less precious fossil fuel in the future.
AAA knows this, and they know that the drivers and riders of the future will occasionally need a hand on the roads.
Charlie
#113
Banned.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,325
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's just the breakdown of the source of user fees not the whole fund.
1. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads--the ones most often used by cyclists--come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.
2. FWHA calculates that 92% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But 8% come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.
(The above factoid comes from https://www.baltimorespokes.org/artic...81028210742853 )
You can get more detail here that breaks down Fed, State and local revenue sources: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/pdf/hf10.pdf
1. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA), 92% of the funds for local roads--the ones most often used by cyclists--come from property, income, and sales taxes. Bicyclists pay these taxes just like everyone else does.
2. FWHA calculates that 92% of federal highway funds come from user fees. But 8% come the general fund, so even a bicyclist who owns no car contributes to federal highway funds, too.
(The above factoid comes from https://www.baltimorespokes.org/artic...81028210742853 )
You can get more detail here that breaks down Fed, State and local revenue sources: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/pdf/hf10.pdf
You should read your own link, only 21% of the funding for the transportation system is generated from property/sales tax base... and a portion of that is used by the states.
Of course your own link indicates that 58% of the funding comes from user fees and curiously shows some of that going to local governments In fact about 8% of the local government revenue used for transportation come from gas taxes and toll....
#114
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I think the last question is what is funded with the Highway Trust Fund. Is SAFETEA-LU funds the same as the the Highway Trust Fund? There seems to be some confusion on this and I'm not finding the answers readily.
If Bike trail funding does not come from the Trust Fund (which comes from by in large motoring fees) then there is no issue, if it does then what is the "other" Federal program(s) doing and funding?
If Bike trail funding does not come from the Trust Fund (which comes from by in large motoring fees) then there is no issue, if it does then what is the "other" Federal program(s) doing and funding?
#115
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Optimism! I love it! I just don't share it, knowing how devastating the coming oil shocks are going to be. I simply don't see any way cars can be a part of our future, unless they look a lot more like bicycles than they do now. I just don't see how the coming energy crises will permit each commuter to drag around 3 tons of steel. I really think cars won't factor into the sort of power options we're going to have available. I really don't. The lucky thing, from my perspective, is that, as a guy who's pushing 50, I probably won't be alive for the worst parts of what's to come (unless even I am being too optimistic). My daughter won't be so lucky. People who are now 20 and under are going to be in a world of hurt, as the lights go out on our oil-based world. Without cheap oil, our world simply cannot sustain anywhere near 7 billion people, and it certainly can't keep them in automobiles when the energy cars use will be needed just to keep enough food on the table.
#116
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Hey,I'm 59.5-I'll be long dead before much of anything come to pass.
I calculated once that just 1-2 million biggish-5 megawatt- wind turbines and just 4-6 trillion( roughly 8 Iraq wars) $$ would be enough to supply all our electrical needs in the USA.It would take about 50,000 sq miles of footprint, but that really isn't much-just a corner of Texas for example.
The wind is free-more or less-and renewable. True we have to figure a way to store the extra energy- maybe our car batteries-for when the wind isn't blowing.
Of course we aren't going to build 1-2 million $2,000,000 turbines anytime soon, but it is a start.
Sure we will have to pay more and use less, but so what?
We get ZERO out of our current wars( and maybe 10,000 permanently disabled soldiers)-and have poured maybe $700,000,000,000 into them-surely we can pour $$ into something that will get us off foreign energy?
I'm optimistic-the energy is there- it just will cost more,and we will use maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we currently use.
I calculated once that just 1-2 million biggish-5 megawatt- wind turbines and just 4-6 trillion( roughly 8 Iraq wars) $$ would be enough to supply all our electrical needs in the USA.It would take about 50,000 sq miles of footprint, but that really isn't much-just a corner of Texas for example.
The wind is free-more or less-and renewable. True we have to figure a way to store the extra energy- maybe our car batteries-for when the wind isn't blowing.
Of course we aren't going to build 1-2 million $2,000,000 turbines anytime soon, but it is a start.
Sure we will have to pay more and use less, but so what?
We get ZERO out of our current wars( and maybe 10,000 permanently disabled soldiers)-and have poured maybe $700,000,000,000 into them-surely we can pour $$ into something that will get us off foreign energy?
I'm optimistic-the energy is there- it just will cost more,and we will use maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we currently use.
#117
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Optimism! I love it! I just don't share it, knowing how devastating the coming oil shocks are going to be. I simply don't see any way cars can be a part of our future, unless they look a lot more like bicycles than they do now. I just don't see how the coming energy crises will permit each commuter to drag around 3 tons of steel. I really think cars won't factor into the sort of power options we're going to have available. I really don't. The lucky thing, from my perspective, is that, as a guy who's pushing 50, I probably won't be alive for the worst parts of what's to come (unless even I am being too optimistic). My daughter won't be so lucky. People who are now 20 and under are going to be in a world of hurt, as the lights go out on our oil-based world. Without cheap oil, our world simply cannot sustain anywhere near 7 billion people, and it certainly can't keep them in automobiles when the energy cars use will be needed just to keep enough food on the table.
We may end up building a bunch of nuke plants, or building solar and wind along with the nuke... to power our various toys that we "cannot live without" as well as whatever we call "cars" in the future. The changes will be gradual, will likely include plug in vehicles and robot self drive vehicles and a transition period of mopeds and ebikes and other means of cheap transit. (the death of the Hummer is the first shot across the bow...)
Nukes have already been proposed by the current administration. Electric cars are in the works (Chevy Volt). I rather doubt there will be the "crisis and apocalypse" picture that some have in mind. Cost of energy will dictate the rate of change.
Your daughter will likely drive a small electric car by the time she is 45.
Public transit may even make a comeback.
#118
New Orleans
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,794
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Nissan has the Leaf coming out in a few months-
It is an all electric-battery-car with a claimed range of 80 miles between 4-8 hour recharges.
It won't have an 80 mile range-probably more like 50-60 in cold months- but plenty enough for around town use.
It will be a hefty $25,000 with the $7500 Tax Credit($32000 before credit).
20,000 people have sign up to reserve one- sure as heck not me-mainly affluent greenies-urban and Suburban will buy then as second cars.
The Volt is a different story-$32,000 after the TC- with a 40 mile plug in range, but unlimited range on the gasoline engine(acts as a generator to power the electric motor). Actual all electric range will be more like 25-30 miles in cold climates-plenty enough for most trips. Recharge is quicker since it has a smaller capacity batter pack.
They are a good start-not money makers-but a good start.
Yes, I suspect in 15-20 years most cars will be hybrid electric with some being all electric battery powered. It takes about 500-600 lbs of lithium ion batteries to get the 80 mile range now-maybe $10,000 or more just for the battery pack.
DIY folks have been getting 100 mile ranges for 20 years by stuffing 1500- lbs of lead acid batteries in tiny gutted late 80's Civics etc with small electric motors(30-40 hp or so).
Charlie
It is an all electric-battery-car with a claimed range of 80 miles between 4-8 hour recharges.
It won't have an 80 mile range-probably more like 50-60 in cold months- but plenty enough for around town use.
It will be a hefty $25,000 with the $7500 Tax Credit($32000 before credit).
20,000 people have sign up to reserve one- sure as heck not me-mainly affluent greenies-urban and Suburban will buy then as second cars.
The Volt is a different story-$32,000 after the TC- with a 40 mile plug in range, but unlimited range on the gasoline engine(acts as a generator to power the electric motor). Actual all electric range will be more like 25-30 miles in cold climates-plenty enough for most trips. Recharge is quicker since it has a smaller capacity batter pack.
They are a good start-not money makers-but a good start.
Yes, I suspect in 15-20 years most cars will be hybrid electric with some being all electric battery powered. It takes about 500-600 lbs of lithium ion batteries to get the 80 mile range now-maybe $10,000 or more just for the battery pack.
DIY folks have been getting 100 mile ranges for 20 years by stuffing 1500- lbs of lead acid batteries in tiny gutted late 80's Civics etc with small electric motors(30-40 hp or so).
Charlie
#119
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NorCal
Posts: 310
Bikes: 2005 LeMond Reno, old beater Diamondback Outlook - under heavy construction
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't have an idea how the NorCal chapter of AAA is towards bikes. I'm a car nut too and I think more can be done to allow both cars, bikes and buses to live in harmony. I'm not a hardcore "liberal" or "conservative" but some people are trying to get a $10 addon to the VLF to help fund road improvements and transit/bike routes here struck down by voters - I support the "tax" as they call it.
I'm an AAA Premier member too - just because I have an older Lexus that I take up to Tahoe in the wintertime and I want to be able for it to be towed home if something happens.
I'm an AAA Premier member too - just because I have an older Lexus that I take up to Tahoe in the wintertime and I want to be able for it to be towed home if something happens.
#120
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There is an upside. Bicycle repair shops are going to be in great demand and We're all going to be going into backyard organic farming in a big way. That is, as long as we can find seeds that don't have Monsanto or ADM kill switches in them, LOL. If we can't, we're REALLY screwed - but at least obesity won't be a problem anymore.
Last edited by ianbrettcooper; 10-04-10 at 07:52 PM.
#121
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13659 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
But where is the money going to come from to fund electric cars in an economy that is no longer supported by cheap oil? In 30 years, the world will barely have enough food to feed everyone even if oil can still be used for fertilizer, pesticides etc (which it won't be able to). Most people don't realize that oil-based fertilizers and pesticides are what gives us the high crop yields we currently get. A world without oil cannot possibly sustain the 9 billion people it will contain in 30 years. There will be famines even if we find some way to have what they call an economic 'soft landing'. And with the oil shocks will come massive economic depression, so a soft landing is not on the cards. We're way beyond the point at which government can help - the alternative fuel infrastructure is simply not there, and cannot be there in time. Nuclear power plants take decades and huge amounts of money to install. Only a select few are going to have money to spend buying electric cars, because most people will be finding it hard just to put food on the table, what with higher food prices caused by massive transport and production costs. The rest of us will be trying to find alternatives, and if electric mass transport isn't available (currently it's mostly diesel), there are going to be masses of people on bicycles because bikes will be the only affordable form of transport left, other than hitching our cars to horses.
There is an upside. Bicycle repair shops are going to be in great demand and We're all going to be going into backyard organic farming in a big way. That is, as long as we can find seeds that don't have Monsanto or ADM kill switches in them, LOL. If we can't, we're REALLY screwed - but at least obesity won't be a problem anymore.
There is an upside. Bicycle repair shops are going to be in great demand and We're all going to be going into backyard organic farming in a big way. That is, as long as we can find seeds that don't have Monsanto or ADM kill switches in them, LOL. If we can't, we're REALLY screwed - but at least obesity won't be a problem anymore.
Heck, I have both a bike and a sailboat... I'm ready for Waterworld... Bring it on.
#122
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm not saying it's going to be a complete societal breakdown, but a lot of people in the third world are going to die, and we aren't exactly going to have things easy here either. My point is that, unless we did something ten years ago to ensure we're fine after cheap oil is gone (and we didn't), we aren't going to get a utopia of green energy alternatives and everyone commuting to work in electric cars. We're just not.
#123
-=Barry=-
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
My favorite thing to do at (MPO) planning meetings is say "What's the projected cost of gasoline in 10 years, isn't something like $10?" And just watch the focus shift from cars and more cars to "You know we really should think more about mass transit and cycling."
#124
Arizona Dessert
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,029
Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times
in
1,288 Posts
https://www.aaaexchange.com/Main/Defa...ubContentID=9&
"Bicycles are a legitimate form of transportation and bicyclists are legal drivers of vehicles, with laws and regulations established for their use"
"Bicycles are a legitimate form of transportation and bicyclists are legal drivers of vehicles, with laws and regulations established for their use"
#125
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
When a road is too narrow for cars and bikes to ride safely side by side, bicycles should take the travel lane, which means riding in or near the center of the lane.
Last edited by billdsd; 05-25-11 at 08:42 AM.