Have your girlfriend and her friends stand behind an idling car for a few minutes and then have them stand behind your idling bike... :)

Whenever the subject of public funded transportation, light rail, buses, Amtrak etc comes up, the argument against is always along the lines that taxpayers shouldn't be expected to subsidize transport for others. "Amtrak should pay its own way" and the like. However, few seem to realize that freeways, surface streets, streetlights and all the other accoutrements of driving don't "pay their way". Or that if the car companies had to build and maintain the roads, as rail companies are expected to do with tracks, the cost of motoring would be significantly higher. Somehow it's just a given that the public should subsidize the car industry.

To me, that's just the same mentality being explored here. Motorists aren't selfish when they expect the whole world to pander to them, but anyone who uses another form of transportation is.

Exactly, driving is the most selfish thing however they don't see it that way!

Funny. I'm not saying it's wrong in every case, but there are times when making such a statement is intended to end the debate. To somehow make the opposing view seem guilty of something. In this case it's selfish to get in the way of the bus. But it isn't selfish to get in the way of progress from the viewpoint that the cyclist has equal rights to the road? In a courteous way of course.

In another sense I can see her side of it. I'm going to guess she reasoned that the bus' ability to carry so many more people somehow earns it a right to a road beyond simple courtesy. Two way street.

Harv

I hate to interject a disagreement here; however, under the law most cyclists are in the right in thinking that they have the right to be on the road. I can't speak for other states but I know here in Texas a bicycle is a vehicle and has rights to transit via roadway.

No disrespect to your girlfriend; however, most women are not the strongest of strategic thinkers. They focus on the immediate particularly when it comes to their own comfort/discomfort. So when it comes to the topic of cycling they focus on the inconvenience of being in a motor vehicle behind said cyclist and not on the benefits of if there were less cars and more bikers on the road.

I think your sarcasm meter is malfunctioning or you didn't read stapfam's post in its entirety :)

Adam

Heh, you said "women" when you meant "people," dude. :)

I got a lot of my friends thinking about bikes vs. cars with this article.

http://www.insidesaopaulo.com/2009/0...elicopter.html

Might be worth passing along.

In 2008 Transportation Alternatives in NYC held a short commuter race: a cyclist, a driver and a pedestrian taking mass transit. It was from somewhere in Brooklyn to Manhattan. The cyclist won, the driver was the second. I think they did that annualy, but not sure if it happened in 2009.

I think, however, that if they picked a longer and more complex route the cyclist would win by even larger margin.

Adam

They did that on top gear. In London, the cyclist won, public transport was 3rd and the car was last. (2nd (or it may have been 1st I can't remember) was a boat down the Thames but that doesn't really count does it!)