It's striking how pedestrians are willing to be cowed about jay-walking. Just about everyone does it, but it is officially frowned upon and dangerous.

For example, my bus stop is on the other side of a 4-lane street. I do jay-walk to get to the other side, because it would make the trip a half mile long otherwise. But you won't catch me posting on any pedestrian forums (is there even a pedestrian forum anywhere in cyberspace???)

Cyclists as a group seem to be somewhat militant on issues that affect them, but pedestrians..... Automakers and owners will rue the day when that lot finally wakes up!!!

Agreed. What I find particularly objectionable is when cities erect "No Pedestrian Crossing" signs and barricades blocking one of the sides of an intersection. A pedestrian who wants to go from the NE corner to the NW corner might therefore be blocked from going directly across but must instead make three crossings - from NE to SE, SE to SW, and SW to NW while waiting for the traffic light to change each time. All so that car drivers wanting to make turns from E to N or W to N can do so unimpeded by pedestrian traffic.

There is one of these intersections left in our city, and it is soon to be slated for a revamp in the near future in order to let pedestrians cross without all the hassle.

Walkers of the world--Unite!! You have nothing to loosen but your laces!

Now that you mention it, it is weird that there is so little pedestrian activism. I believe that walking is the leading hobby, the leading form of exercise, and the second or third leading mode of transportation. A hell of a lot of people are affected. There are a lot more walkers than cyclists, for example. And they have a lot of common issues and problems. So why no walker movement?

New urbanist groups like Complete Streets are active in advocating for better pedestrian infrastructure. Senior groups, especially AARP have also done a lot of pushing for sidewalks and traffic solutions, as well as promoting awareness of walking as a healthy form of exercise for their members. In my region, AARP has coalitioned with Complete Streets and local activists to push for passage of sidewalks and snow clearing measures among other things.

Old-timey web page:
Pedestrian Activism

By a nice coincidence, the New York Times has a series about walking right now:

NY Times Magazine - The New York Times

There are advocacy groups. The Alliance for Biking and Walking is the largest one I know.

"No Pedestrian Signs"? Cities putting up those signs are amateurs. Here in MN, home to Mall of America, we are not afraid of spending 4 MILLION dollars to keep pedestrians from crossing a street. For safety donchaknow.

Then we are going to spend 6 MILLION dollars to keep Vikings fans from getting hit by light rail.

The Met Council is Spending $6,000,000 on this Unnecessary Pedestrian Bridge? | streets.mn

https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/engine...bridge-project

You betcha ha ha!! Like your esteemed metropolis, we southerners will spend gazillions on raised Pedestrian walkways so people can get to their cars without experiencing harsh weather....

You really get a picture of how degraded quality of life has become when you visit Midwest cities in winter. If it snows, homeowners should remove snow from the sidewalks in front of their homes. Which of course they never do... so it's almost impossible to walk to the grocery store.

Unless you get out in the street where the city has burned lots of your tax dollars to keep automobiles from skidding around.

Oh my!

Its an evolution Vs. creation debate, no amount of critical thinking will sway the cycling creationists.

Your ideas seem very interesting, and I do have my own doubts about the "myth" that the road network was created largely for bicycling.

However, so far you've only expressed an opinion, stated as fact. bikemig and I asked for details out of genuine interest, and you provided nothing. So sorry, I can't get behind what you're saying at this point. I hope you'll provide more details to support your interesting opinion.

[HR][/HR]

Are you saying that history doesn't help explain the world we live in today and that interest groups don't mobilize to push their goals in the public arena? The historical story may be wrong in which case I'd love hear some particulars as to why you think this interpretation is wrong.

The idea that interest groups don't mobilize to push their views is, I'm afraid, an intellectual non-starter. They do. Just watch the upcoming presidential elections.

We're not talking about religion and about belief. If we were, the mods would push this off to the netherworld of forums on BF like trollheim,

I don't question that there were special interest groups throwing about their two cents, just their actual influence on how it effected the world of transportation as it exists today.

Special interest groups come into being to represent those who are being excluded from the will of the majority, or to discredit the efforts of those who try to force their will on the majority.
The will of the majority determined the evolution of transportation, while the disenfranchised and opportunists published opinions..

You think so? There would hardly be anything left on the LCF list if OT Foo, Trollheim, Blogger and/or P&R threads were push offed to a more appropriate BF netherworld.

A whole new discussion list could be devoted to CarTalk subjects that are posted on the so-called Living Car-Free discussion list

Um, this thread is about walking--clearly listed in the subforum blurb as an appropriate topic for discussion.

I would love to live in the world that you do where majorities always win and special interests are just a bunch of sore losers. The billionaires throwing money into the upcoming presidential election no doubt hope your account of democracy is mistaken. I hope you're right and they're wrong.

But most times, the majority opinion started out as a special interest opinion. For example, at one time, car owners were a minority and worked as a special interest group to push governments into making changes that were favorable to car owners. One interpretation is that the car owners' efforts were successful-- and changes they pushed through eventually made it possible for car owners to grow from a minority special interest group into a majority.

The advantages motor vehicles offered to most people is what determined its ascension to dominance. The efforts of invested special interest groups countering the efforts of Luddite special interest groups were nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

Efforts that hasten the inevitable are irreverent and of little consequence, and its disingenuous to take credit or assign blame for that inevitability.

I like it. It is a less than honest enterprise to figure out what happened in the past and questioning the wisdom of relying on automobiles for transportation makes one a Luddite.

My problem is that I'm all about irreverent.

Yeah sure it is, just as every thread with the word "car" in it is about being car free.

The Luddites I was referring to were those opposing new ways of doing things, which were automobiles at the time in question.

The efforts of opportunists who use snippets of history out of context to capitalize on the fears, frustrations, and insecurities of some cyclists need to be exposed for what it is. Dredging up and focusing on the hyperbolic rhetoric of the past to define todays needs will destroy the credibility of genuine advocacy.

All this nonsense is nothing more than a distraction that's an embarrassment to cyclists who want to move forward, addressing todays needs for a better tomorrow, and an insult to the intelligence of the non cycling majority we need to coexist with.

Speaking of insults, dredging up and focusing on the hyperbolic rhetoric and alleged half baked conspiracy theories of the past to define today's needs is also an insult to the intelligence of the majority of cyclists too.

When cars first came out, they were owned by members of a special interest group. The majority required the interest group to drive at walking speed, and even to have a person on foot with lamp or flag precede the car. There were few paved roads and no parking lots for car storage. The members of this interest group of car builders and drivers fought for special rights to have government-paid infrastructure provided for them. Before construction of this infrastructure, cars were nearly useless and not owned by many people.

You like to call others ignorant, but you are ignorant of the most basic theories of political science and economics. Both studies are primarily about how property and resources are allocated and used. There is always a struggle among people about how to use resources and divide property. There are ever-changing winners and losers in the struggle. IMO. history isn't about a peaceful adoption of new technology due to "the will of the majority." People fight about allocation and somebody (car owners) wins and somebody else (walkers and cyclists) loses.

And please, grow some manners. I would love debating issues with you, but your insults and air of superiority are very off-putting. Also, you don't explain yourself in enough detail to make your interesting ideas comprehensible. (At least, not for a slow study like myself.)

That's the problem, its the tone that the "car free" cabal has set by constantly parading their self proclaimed virtue, and moral superiority, while at the same time castigating those who do or think otherwise, more often than not calling them fat, lazy, selfish, immoral, and/or thieves.

Being car free doesn't make me better than anyone else.