Cyclists responsible for minniapolis bridge collaps??
 

got an email from a friend today, with some very interesting stuff... it will make you throw up in your mouth.


link
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ure_08-15.html


yes
the secretary of transportation has determined
that we cyclers
are singularly responsible
for the Minneapolis bridge collapse...

please take the time
and let your state and federal representatives know
what you think
this is the #1 issue
bikes belong is working on
and its a very serious issue indeed
when a member of the presidents cabinet
the secretary of transportation
publicly announces
"bicycles are not transportation"
all of this coming at a critical time regarding our own bicycle facilities
on a heavily federal funded project
yup the paseo bridge
as tim blumenthal of bikes belond told me
"we r at war"
i say

Your post title is incredibly sensationalist and does not properly represent what was suggested in the article you linked.


edit:

This is not suggested at all

Give us a break. She doesn't say this at all. Not even close. Stop engaging in hysterics.

- Mark

uhh, that's not what I read at all. What I got from that article is that she feels that money that should be going to fix bridges and interstate highways, is being diverted to other projects (specifically mentioning bike paths), but I did not feel that she was attacking cycling as a means of transportation. Let's not be reactionary here.

A gas tax increase has been on the table in MN for a long time. The current MN republican party has generally opposed it for a long time and this is just shifting the blame off of themselves.

A prime example of an infrastructure investment in a bike path is the Diagonal Bikeway. It is a separate paved bike only path along side a very busy crosstown in Northeast Minneapolis. It was built as part of an upgrade of a primary area artery. It significantly shortened traffic build up by removing the rather large number of bike commuters from the traffic lane. Win win situation, but politicians spin things how they want and even though it directly improved traffic problems it "wasn't an infrastructer inprovement".

Spinning a wheel is much more fun than a sound bite.

I think you need to look up the word singularly. Also, your logic is quite odd.

We all know it was crab people.

ouch, sorry people, I just pasted the email and title I was sent from a friend who was a bit enraged and was only able to read a bout 1/3 of it here at work... I am sorry I should have read the whole thing down..my apologies for the tone it may have rang.


j

she does open the door to cancel/scale back bike infrastructure plans though..

But still..
Im amazed that a person with that kind of power can say that cycling is not commuting and none of you stands up..
I´m sorry I must live on another planet..

*cough*troll*cough*

Upgrading/rebuilding the US road system may include bicycle infrastructure. A bike path is a term used to describe recreational roads, primarily. Not bike lanes.

If they keep on with the tact that 10-20% of the budget is spent on non-transport projects. (how does one lump museums, lighthouses and bike paths in the same concept?) Are we suppose to follow the bouncing ball logic that things would be much better if we spent 100% on roads? My thought was our western mindset of not inspecting anything beyond a cursory visual, until bloody great hunks of pavement/concrete start falling off is too blame. Not spending money on maintaining existing infrastructure is what led to this IMHO. In a similar vein, the aging water systems in our cities. If the pipe ain't gushing water through the middle of the intersection it MUST be fine.

In MN bike paths also refer to a bike only routes along major roads. It is in place of a bike lane on many roads which are too narrow to support a proper lane and the names are almost always XX Bike Path.

This use of path in the interview is just spin since most people hear bike path and assume it is a trail or such for recreational riding, but this is not the case.

The ****er cross posted this in the road forum too.

why would that be a bother to you? Unfortunately for me I didn't read the full article before cut and pasting it... so if their was/is a viable subject i think it appropriate to let as many people know about it as possible, due to it also may effect them as well... the only fault was in my trusting someone else's point of view and out look on the matter before posting it, and I have already apologized for it... not sure what else I can do?

so why does that make me a ****er?

The link had NOTHING to do with cyclists causing a major bridge collapse.

Well, in general, cross posting is a no no. You may not be a ****er but no pie for you.

oops, didn't know that..... i really wanted pie.

another thing learned for the day.

while i am in the __ithouse, i might as well ask what the term "troll" means... guessing not a compliment?

*cough*Idiot*cough*

Try reading a little.

yeah i'd like it if less money went into bike paths and more money went into making roads more bike-able. cool.

pill ain't a troll....he/she has been around....

so someone gets angry over something....if no one got angry over anthing, this world would probably suck worse than it does already.

Sensationalist innacurate title? Check.

Angry iconoclastic youth? Check.

Suspicion to incite riot? Maybe internet riot. Sounds like a troll to me.

You forgot the part where he is apologizing for the story and explaining himself. Way to be the internet police that no one called. My *cough*idiot*cough* still stands.