I-Like-To-Bike

I don't really believe that many people of any party have a problem with those who choose to be car free. Live and let live. But 99% of all parties are probably in agreement about the silliness/offensiveness of the sanctimonious slice who gloat about some sort of moral superiority because of being car free.

mike

One of the major reasons prices have come down is because the USA motorists and motorists in other parst of he world have been using less gasoline all summer since gasoline prices went up.

The most recent data shows a 10% decrease since this time last year. THAT is significant.

The price of oil came down by reduced consumption by people riding bicycles and making changes to their lifestyles. The price of gasoline didn't drop because we drilled for more oil.

Republican leadership today are so out of touch with modern man that it is difficult to belive we are living in the same country. It is no wonder they are losing power on all fronts.

Wacky bicyclist vote too. Unfortunate for wacky Republican politicians.

kmcrawford111

This is pure grasping at straws. It's hilarious that the party can claim to be all gung-ho about "energy independence" and at the same time try to paint transportation that does not require foreign energy as "wacky". As far as energy is concerned, all I've seen from Republicans is "keeping the cars running at all costs".

Remember to help spread the meme: the Republicans are The Party that Wrecked America.

mike

Indeed! We shall not soon forget what the Republicans have done to America.

Two more weeks and Bush is OUT! Yay! Somebody throw water on that Dude and watch him melt like the wicked witch of the west.

AdrianFly

The elimination of the Republican party from office will be the greatest victory since Nazi Germany was defeated back in WW2.

linux_author

interesting thread here...

how many posters were even born when Carter was in office?

how soon we forget...

well, you may be getting what you wish for - but will life be any better? more important than energy conservation is the effect of cycling on the nation's health; many of your peers are overweight, out of shape, and facing a lifetime of health problems by not controlling weight and exercising...

but of course, that's not as exciting as whether or not to drill for oil off the coasts...

(btw, the title of this thread is disingenuous; this is a single representative's ad; not all party members support the issue - key state Republican reps voted 'no' on drilling with other state Democrats down here)

EatMyA**

NOT! gonna happen. They are far too commited already and have too much invested in the US. if we lose. THEY LOOSE.

Rowan

You don't honestly believe that a change in the presidency of the USA is going to create a "breakthrough" in cycling as a transportation alternative, do you? If you do, you are dreaming.

As I have stated before, cycling is a handy political plaything for any party when it suits them. But when it comes down to it, the public servants behind the government are the ones who decide what happens.

And because the cycling "lobby" is so disparate and impotent in both the US and Australia, reflecting the total lack of unity in the participants, Democrats/greens/environmentalists will unwittingly continue to set up transport cycling so the Republicans/capitalists can shoot it down.

Why should Mary Peters be criticised when the point she makes is very valid -- in most people's eyes, cycling infrastructure is just for recreational cyclists and rarely for transport? It goes to the very heart of why transport cycling advocates haven't been able to articulate their stand...

I can almost guarantee that in four years time, there will be little change in what the Federal administration -- president, senate, reps and public service -- think about cycling, and the same frustrations will be voiced again here because the spending will be chickenfeed, and what is spent will be on inappropriate facilities and policies.

By the way, how many commuters have received any benefit -- or even communication -- yet from the provisions of the bill that was supposed to bail-out the US economy?

Footnotes on the politics: Bush is being so isolated from the rest of the world on the "Made in America" economic meltdown, that I don't think you guys realise just how bad things are. When heavyweights like China and France (leading the rest of Europe) are calling for global financial reforms, Bush is twittering in the background calling for a "recommitment" to free enterprise, free markets and free trade. This from an administration that bailed out banks left right and centre instead of letting the free market take its course (disastrous though that might have been). Oh and Palin is now being set up as the fallguy for the McCain loss, so the election outcome is now beyond conjecture. The next 12 months will, in my estimation, determine whether the USA will remain as a first-world country.

mike

You are correct that no president is going to make bicycling an issue.

However, presidents of the USA do influence the mood of the country. The Bush years were ugly greedy bully years for the USA. It was reflected in excessive lifestyles of Americans. There was grotesque consumption of everything. Homes became mansions. Meals became feasts. Motorcars became Machines of Transport. Diplomacy turned to war. Lies were acceptable as truth.

While I do not expect our federal government leaders to promote bicycling, I believe that a more conservative and more humble president could reign in the "Bicyclists are Wacko" thinking that we see promoted in the Republican advertisement on this thread

bhkyte

[quote=Bike_UK;7675457]Is this the same 'American intelligence' that has kept George W. Bush as its president for the past 8 years?!

Did Americans "actually" vote for George W Bush for 8 years??

Does Micheal Moore ever write on this forum !?!!

linux_author

[QUOTE=bhkyte;7734468]the only thing Michael Moore rides is 5 lbs of fatback while on his couch...

kmcrawford111

I believe Barack Obama is more aware of the dire situation we're in more then he generally lets onto. He's expressed bits and pieces of it here and there: saying we've been living beyond our means, and continually making the point that we use a high % of the world's oil in relation to what we already have. But in a very recent interview on the "Morning" show, he was asked what sacrifices he believed Americans should make. He said, and this is paraphrasing from what I remember, that we need to comprehensively change the way we do transportation and use energy. And he wasn't talking about cars only. Again, I think he is holding back somewhat because he is trying to win a popularity contest. But if that's what it takes to defeat McCain, so be it.

I firmly believe that Obama will set us on a more positive and responsible course than we have been accostomed to lately. We'll still going to be in a ****storm of problems, for certain, but I truly believe Obama will make a sincere effort at being a responsible leader.

Rowan

Having watched the "expose" on Michael Moore while flying between Los Angeles and Australia in August, I would suggest anyone who puts their faith in what he says is not entirely aware of the man's ethics -- or lack thereof.

unterhausen

I'm sure that was a "fair and balanced" look at the man.

I don't really want the Republicans to descend into total obscurity. One party rule is not a good thing, and there are plenty of cities that have suffered because of it, just as rural areas suffer under Republican dominance. But it has been noted many times that the Republicans have adopted an attitude that anything that makes liberals mad has to be a good thing. It's not going to help them going forward. The thinking and caring people that are Republican supporters are abandoning the party at a fairly rapid clip.

Jude

I don't think anybody worships the guy, what's relevant is if the stuff he points out is true or not.

gwd

Why not? Where are the Whigs? Or the Know-Nothings? ("Most ended up joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election."<-from wikipedia). Maybe a new environment and energy (biology and physics) oriented party can spring up and the Republicans can meld into the Democrats just as the know-nothings became Republicans. A new party focused on decision making based on factual evidence might be more friendly to car free living. The problem with such a party is that it would depend on a decent education system that encourages critical thinking. Until most voters acquire the ability to evaluate factual information, a party based on science would be out voted by the Republidems.

keiththesnake

Party affiliation doesn't mean crap. I know lots of elitist jackoffs who are Dems who laugh at riding a bike for transportation.

I cannot morally vote for Obama. McCain, therefore, has my vote. I could give two craps what people think about it.

timmhaan

why?

JeffS

Worded like that, you probably don't want to know.

keiththesnake

It's true. You probably don't want to know. So, I'll keep it to myself. Flame all you like.

I think it's silly to believe one party has a more pro-bike position than another when just about every elected official in either party think bikes are toys and that only loosers ride bikes for transportation.

bragi

Perhaps because things at the federal level in this country are so corrupt and incompetent at the moment, the commitment of many Americans to encourage a few alternatives to cars is far more serious than you may realize. Cities and counties across the country (except maybe in the South) are falling all over themselves to include bicycles and public transport in their planning, and the numbers of private citizens using non-car transportation has increased dramatically recently. This has been due in large part to increased fuel prices, but I think it's worth noting that even while prices have come down again recently, bicycling and public transit use rates have continued their upward trend.

I also think you've been unfair to bicycling advocates. My experience has been that they're frequently myopic (they don't seriously consider the perspectives of non-cyclists), but they're determined, well-organized and generally effective.

And as for the benefits of the cycling-specific pork attached to the bail-out bill: dude, it's been maybe three weeks since that thing passed, and most Americans, including cyclists, have a lot more to worry about right now than new bike lanes.

GOP = NSDAP

ndbiker

"The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation"

Paths and trails as a rule are recreational. Few use them to get from location to location. Most cyclists, runners, walkers, hikers etc. will drive to a trail or a path travel so far along it then turn around and return to their car then drive home. Logic can dictate that if we are using gas tax dollars to facilitate transportation (getting from place to place), investing in paths and trails is not a wise choice especially if the we have other aspects of our transportation infrastructure that need funding. However, if we are investing these dollars in parks or recreation then that is exactly what the money would be spent for when we're investing in paths and trails. I guess the question is should we be including MUP in our "transportation bills" or should they be funded through parks and recreation bills?

Having said that, designing roads which are friendly for cyclists, walkers, etc. should be a part of any transportation bill. I am going to wade into it big time and suggest licensing for cyclists. Recreational cyclists (those riding on residential streets, MUP etc. would not need a license. Those riding on main roads would need to pass a test, have their cycles inspected for safety items etc. This would "help" insure that those on the road would understand the rules, have safe bicycles (ie. headlamps and tail lights if riding in the dusk or dark) and would legitimize bicyles as vehicles (anyone gives you flack just show them your license). It would also validate demands for more cycling friendly streets (if we have license we should have safer and better access). No, I haven't thought this through beyond what I've posted, but if we want to have the rights to the roads then we should be able to prove we are responsible.

gwd

Since I sold the car almost all of my riding on MUPs is transportational. If the path doesn't go somewhere useful you probably won't see me on it. Sometimes I do cut through the park as part of taking the long way because it is fun, but since the parks are in the middle of an Urban area it would be difficult to build a bike path without it going toward a destination and you usually see someone with paniers or back pack even when you are going on a recreational ride. There are some paths that dead end, but the ones I know about could easily be joined with another route and perhaps serve as collector paths for commuters.

huhenio

You are harshing my buzz, man.

Saving Hawaii

Having declared walking and biking to be wacky, Republicans were soundly thrashed in the '08 election. America has spoken, and they've placed a mandate on the Presidency that bicycling isn't wacky. I mean, this is what it all comes down to right? War, energy, economy, etc... it all boils down bananas and bicycles.

By the way, good job Kathy.