[urbanactivistTX]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/6529436.html

Angry bike riders target Perry
By GARY SCHARRER Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
July 14, 2009, 8:54PM

AUSTIN — Texas cyclists have turned their wrath toward Gov. Rick Perry into a petition drive asking voters to keep him in mind during the election — and not in a good way.

They want Perry to pay for his veto of a bill promoting safety for cyclists and others categorized as “vulnerable road users.”

Perry's veto last month was particularly puzzling because there was no formal opposition to SB 488, which passed the House 142-0 and 26-5 in the Senate.

Also, roughly 94 percent of more than 1,000 phone calls, e-mails and letters to Perry's office supported the measure.

“There has been an overwhelming community roar from Democrats and Republicans that used to call themselves Perry supporters,” said Leslie Luciano, who filed an open records request with Perry's office to obtain the correspondence.

“He underestimated the power of this community at a time when he should be grabbing any support he can as he heads to a close primary race,” said Luciano, community relations manager and advocacy coordinator for Austin's largest bicycle shop.

Perry faces U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, in the GOP gubernatorial primary next year.

Perry's office defends the veto, contending that protections in the proposed bill were unnecessary.

“Operators of a motor vehicle are already subject to penalties when he or she is at fault for causing a collision or operating recklessly, whether it is against a ‘vulnerable user' or not,” Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle said.

Nearly 3,000 Texans have signed the petition.

The bill would have required motorists to give cyclists and others, including pedestrians, runners, motorcyclists, construction and maintenance workers, at least 3 feet clearance when they pass.

Drivers of commercial vehicles would have had to stay at least 6 feet away. Violators could have faced a fine of $500 or a Class B misdemeanor in the case of injury.

Bipartisan support
Some Texans who encouraged Perry to veto the bill complained it would be impractical on two-lane roads. The bill applied only to roads with at least two lanes in the same direction.
SB 488 was written by two Republican prosecutors and had the support of law enforcement, Stallings said. The bill also had bipartisan support with Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, carrying in the House and Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston in the Senate.

“This bill had wide popular support and very little opposition,” Ellis said. “Simply put, there was no good reason to oppose it, and the governor made a mistake in vetoing it. ”

Cyclists plan to collect more than 10,000 petition signatures and would call it off only with some dramatic gesture on Perry's part.

“He would have to sit down and talk to us and come up with an actionable vision for bicycling — something that we should do and improve and make Texas a better place, a more inviting place, a safer place for cyclists,” said Robin Stallings, executive director of Bike Texas, an advocacy group that promotes bicycle access, safety and education.

Veto encouraged
Some Texans wanted Perry to veto the measure.

“You will have radical bikers taking license numbers of cars and reporting them because they thought they passed too close,” Kenneth Bain of Duncanville wrote Perry. “If you sign this bill you are letting a small minority rule the voting masses and it will not sit well at election time.”

Herman May of Garland told Perry in an e-mail: “Ignore the din of the uninformed masses. Stay the course and veto this bill knowing you have the support of lawful, competent vehicular cyclists.”

[urbanactivistTX]

Before you close/ move, here's the reasons why this thread needs to be in City Discussions....

-this one bill is a major step in the urban development of some of the nation's largest cities.

-this needs to be seen by people!!

-this article again proves how Texas is growing and changing into an urban-minded state, and Perry continues to fall out of line with the will of the people.



Perry = douche.

[glowrock]

Let me just say that while I agree that pedestrians and bicyclists need some protections from automobile and truck traffic, I'm not sure an automatic three foot barrier surrounding them is necessarily a good thing. On a narrow road, that would essentially result in one bicyclist potentially clogging up an entire road for a long period of time (ie: the road has no shoulder or the shoulder has parked cars in it, something like that).

I'm of the opinion that cars and bikes DO need to share the road, but there are some roads that bicyclists really shouldn't be riding on. There's a reason for those bike lanes, right? And let's just say that a bicyclist is riding the left edge of the bike lane. Do cars need to move over three feet, even though the bicyclist is at fault for hugging the left edge of the bike lane?

It's a lot more complicated than a simple three foot barrier, folks. There needs to be cooperation amongst the bicyclist community to weed out the bad apples, the ones that cause most of the problems between bikes and cars. And yes, drivers need to report other drivers behaving aggressively towards bicyclists as well, of course!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[lawfin]

Before you close/ move, here's the reasons why this thread needs to be in City Discussions....

-this one bill is a major step in the urban development of some of the nation's largest cities.

-this needs to be seen by people!!

-this article again proves how Texas is growing and changing into an urban-minded state, and Perry continues to fall out of line with the will of the people.



Perry = douche.

^^^I agree with you here...maybe a first


They can alway secede and from the BRT.....Bicyclist Republic of Texas

[lawfin]

Let me just say that while I agree that pedestrians and bicyclists need some protections from automobile and truck traffic, I'm not sure an automatic three foot barrier surrounding them is necessarily a good thing. On a narrow road, that would essentially result in one bicyclist potentially clogging up an entire road for a long period of time (ie: the road has no shoulder or the shoulder has parked cars in it, something like that).



I would suggest re-reading the article

[jtk1519]

Sometimes Perry gets veto-happy. This legislation sounds kinda dumb because most police forces are too busy doing other stuff to really bother paying attention to how much space was between a cyclist and the car that just passed him, but it also doesn't sound like it would cost anything. Ergo, no real reason to veto it.

[urbanactivistTX]

Let me just say that while I agree that pedestrians and bicyclists need some protections from automobile and truck traffic, I'm not sure an automatic three foot barrier surrounding them is necessarily a good thing. On a narrow road, that would essentially result in one bicyclist potentially clogging up an entire road for a long period of time (ie: the road has no shoulder or the shoulder has parked cars in it, something like that).

I'm of the opinion that cars and bikes DO need to share the road, but there are some roads that bicyclists really shouldn't be riding on. There's a reason for those bike lanes, right? And let's just say that a bicyclist is riding the left edge of the bike lane. Do cars need to move over three feet, even though the bicyclist is at fault for hugging the left edge of the bike lane?

It's a lot more complicated than a simple three foot barrier, folks. There needs to be cooperation amongst the bicyclist community to weed out the bad apples, the ones that cause most of the problems between bikes and cars. And yes, drivers need to report other drivers behaving aggressively towards bicyclists as well, of course!

Aaron (Glowrock)

The bill excludes narrow thoroughfares, and only applies to roads with at least two lanes each way... basically, it's mandating that when the room is available, you have to behave like there is a bike lane (whether it's there or not). And if you've seen/driven on most Texas roads... especially in the urban and suburban areas... you'd understand that this ain't rocket science to do. Very wide roads here.

[JMancuso]

perry can fuck up a wet dream. this is needed because most drivers are oblivious on anything with 2 wheels.

[TexasPlaya]

The bill excludes narrow thoroughfares, and only applies to roads with at least two lanes each way... basically, it's mandating that when the room is available, you have to behave like there is a bike lane (whether it's there or not). And if you've seen/driven on most Texas roads... especially in the urban and suburban areas... you'd understand that this ain't rocket science to do. Very wide roads here.

I don't know about that "very wide roads" statements in urban areas of Houston as the roads tend to be not very wide at all. There have been too many times where I have personally been in near collisions or have seen near collisions between cars and bikers because the roads aren't wide enough to accommodate both. I personally don't think this legislation is worthwhile.

[leftopolis]

Well, if I were a "radical biker", I'd be wondering if Mr. Douche-Perry has a home/office adress available where he could recieve old rusty bike parts...perhaps he'd enjoy a giant sculpture on his front lawn, made from old rust bike frames.

Wasn't there some hardware store owner in Dallas, who offered GWBush a job a a greeter(after his political retirement)? Maybe he can do the same for Perry?

[urbanactivistTX]

I don't know about that "very wide roads" statements in urban areas of Houston as the roads tend to be not very wide at all. There have been too many times where I have personally been in near collisions or have seen near collisions between cars and bikers because the roads aren't wide enough to accommodate both. I personally don't think this legislation is worthwhile.

Would you post some pics of these "narrow" 4-lane roads?? I've encountered a precious few (portions of Westheimer probably being the number one example), but most main streets in the city would be pretty accomadating to this bill. And I live in one of the oldest parts of town.

And why do you oppose this legislation? Did you also oppose the "slow down or move over" law that went into affect around cops and emergency vehicles?

[krudmonk]

I'm all for biking, but cyclists here would make 3 feet impossible. They love to straddle that line on the side of the road as if they're better off being clipped by huge cars than hitting the curb. I guess they're trying to assert themselves or whatever.

[TexasPlaya]

Would you post some pics of these "narrow" 4-lane roads?? I've encountered a precious few (portions of Westheimer probably being the number one example), but most main streets in the city would be pretty accomadating to this bill. And I live in one of the oldest parts of town.

And why do you oppose this legislation? Did you also oppose the "slow down or move over" law that went into affect around cops and emergency vehicles?

I am not going to take pictures or start ticking off the names of streets that fit "narrow" but I am going to say that most lanes in Houston are around 9 1/2ft in width unless the street has been completely redone (Kirby Dr.) and taking away 3 ft would greatly reduce that ability to pass and impede traffic.

From my experiences commuting on bike in the Austin and my limited experiences in Houston I've seen too many instances where the cyclist feels traffic laws don't apply to them and where motorists show little respect for cyclists. I personally avoid main roads and stick to neighborhoods and bike lanes as much as possible. Furthermore, I think better legislation would involve more education on safety for cyclists and motorists alike and more bike lanes.

Why would oppose "slow down or move over" law that went into affect around cops and emergency vehicles? This is totally different.

I don't think Perry has something against cyclists as he himself is an avid cyclist but if law enforcement and other groups think this legislation is vital for the public safety then I will take their word for it. I was merely giving my opinion on the matter.

[dchan]

I'm all for biking, but cyclists here would make 3 feet impossible. They love to straddle that line on the side of the road as if they're better off being clipped by huge cars than hitting the curb. I guess they're trying to assert themselves or whatever.

All sections along the width of the road are not created equal. As a bicyclist, I know from experience that the debris and other crap accumulates on the side of the road, towards the curb. That debris can range from branches and leaves, to metal pieces and broken glass. The accumulation of debris comes mostly from the fact that the sides of the road are slanted downwards towards the curb for rainwater-drainage purposes.

So yes, bicyclists are trying to assert themselves, but only because they want to ride on a better part of the road. Why should cars have the best part of the road, while bicyclists are forced to contend with tire-puncturing debris? All we're asking for is a little more space and a small section of better quality road to ride on.

I can also think of another reason why bicyclists tend to hug the outside line of bike lanes - the side where car traffic is. If there are parked cars on the other side of the bike lane, it can get dicey to stay right in the middle of the lane, in the path of an open car door. And believe me: there are plenty of moron drivers who don't even look at their mirrors when they open the door, swing it wide open, and stroll out into the street as if they're the only ones around in this world.

I've seen designs that go around this dilemma....by putting the bike lanes towards the curb and the parked cars towards the street. It feels like it's always going to be a Catch-22 with bike lane design.

[leftopolis]

I'm all for biking, but cyclists here would make 3 feet impossible. They love to straddle that line on the side of the road as if they're better off being clipped by huge cars than hitting the curb. I guess they're trying to assert themselves or whatever.

I hear ya...I've had that same experience countless times, and it's annoying as hell, as a motorist who IS aware of bicyclists amd their safety. In all honesty, the "asserting themselves" is far more common when there's a "gang" of 10,20,30 bicyclists--and they start riding 2-3 deep. I'm also somebody who didn't have a car on purpose for well over a decade of my adult life, and got around by bicycle and puplic transportation.

Having said that...there's a big difference between TX cities and Silicon Valley cities(not starting a "vs" meme):
Bike lanes have been ubiquitous here since the '70s! http://bikesiliconvalley.org/
(Texans, correct me if I'm wrong on that, but it's my understanding that's not the case in your fine State).

[urbanactivistTX]

I am not going to take pictures or start ticking off the names of streets that fit "narrow" but I am going to say that most lanes in Houston are around 9 1/2ft in width unless the street has been completely redone (Kirby Dr.) and taking away 3 ft would greatly reduce that ability to pass and impede traffic.

From my experiences commuting on bike in the Austin and my limited experiences in Houston I've seen too many instances where the cyclist feels traffic laws don't apply to them and where motorists show little respect for cyclists. I personally avoid main roads and stick to neighborhoods and bike lanes as much as possible. Furthermore, I think better legislation would involve more education on safety for cyclists and motorists alike and more bike lanes.

Why would oppose "slow down or move over" law that went into affect around cops and emergency vehicles? This is totally different.

I don't think Perry has something against cyclists as he himself is an avid cyclist but if law enforcement and other groups think this legislation is vital for the public safety then I will take their word for it. I was merely giving my opinion on the matter.

I'm certainly not an "avid cyclist"-- just a simple bike commuter (and a slow one at that). But because of driving patterns in Houston you have to be visible to drivers so that they won't just mow you down. People in their cars are doing anything but paying attention to the road in front of them-- texting, eating, yelling at kids, dropping stuff and reaching to the floor of the car to get it. And amongst all of this, going 10-15 miles above the speed limit even on side streets. Today's drivers are faced with a whole new world of technological distractions that warrant stricter rules to protect cyclists and pedestrians. I certainly don't ride in the middle of the road on purpose, but I do stay in the middle of the bike lanes (that is until I get to a patch of broken glass, nails etc... then I have to move into the car lane or sacrifice my tires). IMO, the more notice that drivers have to take, the better.

I guess it's entirely possible that my neighborhood has unusually wide streets (not talking about side streets here), but I have seen them in many other areas of the city...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=77023&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.444078,78.837891&ie=UTF8&ll=29.727201,-95.31958&spn=0.001668,0.002406&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.727241,-95.319604&panoid=ngM1aD6I8v0IPah453R0IQ&cbp=12,286.87,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=77023&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.444078,78.837891&ie=UTF8&ll=29.736056,-95.304422&spn=0.001668,0.002406&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.736236,-95.304341&panoid=H_VzML0fBbFSnBA9fN-TaA&cbp=12,354.5,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=77023&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.444078,78.837891&ie=UTF8&ll=29.732409,-95.327897&spn=0.001668,0.002406&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.732386,-95.327983&panoid=HgjOSdYF-EW27cdZOps3-A&cbp=12,343.15,,0,5

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=77023&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.444078,78.837891&ie=UTF8&ll=29.736587,-95.337027&spn=0.001668,0.002406&z=19&layer=c&cbll=29.736609,-95.336977&panoid=08wijxRlhASfahNQsW2MFg&cbp=12,316.21,,0,5

[fflint]

I'm all for biking, but cyclists here would make 3 feet impossible. They love to straddle that line on the side of the road as if they're better off being clipped by huge cars than hitting the curb. I guess they're trying to assert themselves or whatever.
Meanwhile, in reality, smart cyclists ride in the left portion of the bike lane to avoid car doors that suddenly swing open.

The most common cycling injury in America is getting "doored" by a motorist who didn't check the mirror.

[Hill Country]

A bike should only be in the street when there is no sidewalk. Anything that cannot go the minimum legal speed limit should not be on a public road for everyone's safety.

I know the haters will be replying shortly...

[The Chemist]

A bike should only be in the street when there is no sidewalk. Anything that cannot go the minimum legal speed limit should not be on a public road for everyone's safety.

I know the haters will be replying shortly...

It is illegal in most places for bicycles to ride on the sidewalk - not to mention dangerous. There is enough space on public roads for cyclists AND drivers, as long as both are courteous.

[krudmonk]

Meanwhile, in reality, smart cyclists ride in the left portion of the bike lane to avoid car doors that suddenly swing open.

The most common cycling injury in America is getting "doored" by a motorist who didn't check the mirror.
So what's your sarcastic excuse for the ones that flirt with traffic on country roads? If a cyclist on a city street is in my way, he/she is probably going about the speed I should be, anyway. No big deal there.
A bike should only be in the street when there is no sidewalk. Anything that cannot go the minimum legal speed limit should not be on a public road for everyone's safety.

I know the haters will be replying shortly...
It makes sense that a bike hitting a person will not be fatal like a car hitting a cyclist, but the rules of the road (when followed) make the flow much more smooth. There are no rules for the sidewalk; it's just a mess of people going any which way.

[fflint]

So what's your sarcastic excuse for the ones that flirt with traffic on country roads?
You made a false and biased claim. I explained the reality to you. You responded by grasping for some question that you think justifies retaining your snotty attitude, and you failed to acknowledge the inconvenient truth. Clearly, you're not here to learn or inform--so why would anyone respond to you as if you were seriously interested in an answer to a question?

[krudmonk]

You made a false and biased claim. I explained the reality to you. You responded by grasping for some question that you think justifies retaining your snotty attitude, and you failed to acknowledge the inconvenient truth. Clearly, you're not here to learn or inform--so why would anyone respond to you as if you were seriously interested in an answer to a question?
Do you ever not reply in that tone? I pointed out that some bicyclists will venture too far out into dangerous traffic for reasons unclear. You countered with an explanation pertinent to a certain case. I didn't dispute it, just took issue with your demeanor.

Now, it remains unknown why cyclists choose to ride that white line when there are no cars parked along the side of the road. If you have the answer to this query, please provide it instead of pretending to psychoanalyze me over an internet forum.

[TexasPlaya]

I'm certainly not an "avid cyclist"-- just a simple bike commuter (and a slow one at that). But because of driving patterns in Houston you have to be visible to drivers so that they won't just mow you down. People in their cars are doing anything but paying attention to the road in front of them-- texting, eating, yelling at kids, dropping stuff and reaching to the floor of the car to get it. And amongst all of this, going 10-15 miles above the speed limit even on side streets. Today's drivers are faced with a whole new world of technological distractions that warrant stricter rules to protect cyclists and pedestrians. I certainly don't ride in the middle of the road on purpose, but I do stay in the middle of the bike lanes (that is until I get to a patch of broken glass, nails etc... then I have to move into the car lane or sacrifice my tires). IMO, the more notice that drivers have to take, the better.

I guess it's entirely possible that my neighborhood has unusually wide streets (not talking about side streets here), but I have seen them in many other areas of the city...

I just don't trust motorists enough to get on many of the main thoroughfares during peak hours and take alternative routes (which is very easy using google maps). Where I live in Westbury/Fondren SW area, most of the riders stay on the sidewalks as there isn't much pedestrian traffic or stick to neighborhoods as there is somewhat of a grid pattern.

A bike should only be in the street when there is no sidewalk. Anything that cannot go the minimum legal speed limit should not be on a public road for everyone's safety.

I know the haters will be replying shortly...

I agree. I would bet that no cop would ever issue a citation for riding on sidewalks in Houston (not sure if its illegal to be the sidewalk in the first place) but you got to do what's safe for you and everyone around you.

[Myomi]

What exactly is the "minimum legal speed limit" on road that isn't a highway? I'm guessing you would outlaw horses and horse-drawn carriages on roads too? Man, the rural farmers are going to be pissed because they can't use roads to move their farm equipment on either. What about over-sized and over-loaded trucks? Construction equipment too? Or is this legislation just meant to get back at bikes?

Now, bikes many times annoy me too (though I am occasionally one of them and have lots of friends that rely solely on them). The thing is, if we have this legislation to protect bikes, then we should also have stricter enforcement of bikes breaking traffic laws (to protect them also). Stop at stop signs, don't glide through them. Don't pass cars sitting at an intersection (especially on the right when a car is about to make a right turn) and then run the red light. If we are going to make drivers follow more laws, we should at least make bikes follow the current laws. If that happened, I think a lot of the animosity drivers have for bikes would start to go away. But I guess I am preaching to the choir here, because all the bikers on this forum follow all the laws right? :rolleyes: Really, at least in my opinion, both parties are at fault in making this situation worse than it needs to be.

[fflint]

What exactly is the "minimum legal speed limit" on road that isn't a highway? I'm guessing you would outlaw horses and horse-drawn carriages on roads too? Man, the rural farmers are going to be pissed because they can't use roads to move their farm equipment on either. What about over-sized and over-loaded trucks? Construction equipment too? Or is this legislation just meant to get back at bikes?
And that's not all. If it's true bikes should be summarily banned from public roadways because they aren't fast enough, then it must also be true that there should never be parked cars on public roadways either. After all, parked cars are even slower than bikes!

Now, bikes many times annoy me too
You seem like a reasonable guy, so I trust you understand motorists' "annoyance" with cyclists oftentimes stems from a bias--a "windshield perspective"--that may or may not be justifiable in a particular circumstance.

Oftentimes on the forum, people complain about knee-jerk reactions and regional biases and forumers' bad attitudes about certain places, like Texas. So I'd like to use this space here as a starting point to engage the issues raised in this thread on their merits with as much clarity as I can manage at this late hour.

It really does appear--going on the veto and also on some comments by Texans in this thread--that Texans who choose to travel by bicycle face a real bias, and, considering the stakes involved, a bias that directs government to favor the auto-centric status quo at any cost.

Yet the cost of auto-centrism is very high. At some point, public policy should begin to promote cycling, even if at some reasonable expense to motorists, for health, safety and environmental reasons.

Why pass laws that benefit the cycling minority, and try to bolster their ranks, when the majority is happy making all trips by car? Because auto-centrism costs society so very much that government should vigorously promote alternatives like cycling.

What are the costs of motoring to society? Motorists kill 40,000 Americans annually and injure many thousands more; auto-centrism is a critical factor in our alarming obesity rate, which translates to more and more expensive obesity-related diseases (which the public may begin paying to treat after onset); the manufacture and use of cars directly and signficantly pollutes the air and water, and auto emissions are warming the globe. Cars require foreign petroleum, which in turn empowers despots and terrorists while also requiring our constant entrenchment in foreign wars and occupations.

What are the costs of cycling to society? Bikes produce no emissions, require no oil wars and don't fund terrorism, actively combat obesity and related diseases, and so rarely kill on the road that I cannot find any relevant statistics.

Obviously, cycling isn't a good option for everyone or for every trip. But there are already plenty of people ready to ride, especially in Austin from what I've read, and it's good for Texas government to make cycling safer and easier and more appealing to those inclined to give it a try.

The thing is, if we have this legislation to protect bikes, then we should also have stricter enforcement of bikes breaking traffic laws (to protect them also). Stop at stop signs, don't glide through them.
Yet it turns out that we may better protect bicyclists by allowing legal glide-throughs, as the state of Idaho has discovered. When the "Idaho stop" for bicycles was legalized, cyclist injuries dropped. So if you really want to protect cyclists and have cyclists follow the laws, then the laws may actually need to be rewritten to accomodate bikes in addition to cars, rather than cars only.

[dchan]

..... Stop at stop signs, don't glide through them. Don't pass cars sitting at an intersection (especially on the right when a car is about to make a right turn) and then run the red light. If we are going to make drivers follow more laws, we should at least make bikes follow the current laws. If that happened, I think a lot of the animosity drivers have for bikes would start to go away. But I guess I am preaching to the choir here, because all the bikers on this forum follow all the laws right? :rolleyes: Really, at least in my opinion, both parties are at fault in making this situation worse than it needs to be.

I don't think that most or any of the animosity that drivers exhibit towards bicyclists comes from not stopping at stop signs, or going through red lights. I mean, it doesn't really affect drivers, right?

No....I think the animosity comes from something else. Personally, I'm not that stereotypical bike messenger type who pedals through absolutely, and I mean absolutely anything - yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way, going though heavy opposing traffic, etc. If I reach a 4-way stop and see nobody waiting, I go through without stopping. If I see a pedestrian crossing the road, I either slow down or go wide around them. I never go around another car, towards their right side, if they have their right-turn signal on: going towards the right is just asking to get hit. All in all, I consider myself a courteous and safe bicyclist.

But....I still run into my share of loonies. Most recently, some redneck in a red pickup passed me by with a separation of no more than 2 feet, max - I'd say he was closer to 1 feet. And he yelled out of the open passenger-side window something to the effect of "get off the road!" or whatever.

This happened on the bridge connecting the North and South sides of Bethlehem, over the Lehigh River. The local bicycle advocate group recently painted pseudo bike lanes - just a drawing of the bicyclist and bicycle that you normally see on bike lanes, but without the dedicated lines marking a bike lane. And I took advantage of this pseudo bike lane for the reason I posted before - the sides of the road, where the drains are, tend to accumulate debris that can puncture tires. I'm not in the middle of the lane, but I'm further into the lane than normal.

The bridge was pretty empty at the time (as it normally is), and the truck could have passed me with a safer separation because it was a 4-lane bridge (2 in each direction). Yet....this lunatic chose to pass me with 1 foot of separation and yell at me.



IMO, much of the problem stems from the fact that many drivers feel they OWN the road. That is, they feel that they have absolute precedence when it comes to using the road - pedestrians and bicyclists be damned. The road, they feel, should be designed to accommodate cars, and cars only. Why else do drivers drive faster than the speed limit,

I heard a story, from a former colleague, of an angry minivan driver who encountered my former colleague's bicycle riding group on the road. She pulled right in front of them, stopped, got out of the car, and started yelling at them. I don't know why she did it, but I'm guessing that she thought they didn't belong on the road. It was a completely irrational reaction in my view.

But the flip-side of the coin comes from the reaction of the bicyclists: some of them started yelling back, and some told her to go get another cheeseburger. That's the kind of language that will get drivers angrier at bicyclists than they were before.



The fact is that drivers and bicyclists have to show respect to each other. Not every driver is a lazy, obese slob who wouldn't walk a mile if their first child was held at gunpoint. And not every bicyclist is a health nut who thinks he/she is superior to everyone else. And much of this rift is perpetuated...by the bicyclists, who can give off an aura of elitism and of "I know better than you".

Speaking of which, this superiority complex that many bicyclists show manifests itself in the way they bike - blazing through red lights, yelling at pedestrians to get out of the way, taking risks through traffic, putting themselves in positions that allow cars to potentially hit them without even seeing them. Just as many drivers feel they own the roads, many bicyclists feel they own the parts of the road not occupied by cars.

All in all, it's basically a matter of miscommunication. Bicyclists tend to ignore drivers, and drivers will only see bicyclists as an obstacle to avoid. Eye contact is important to establish communication - tinted windows and sunglasses worn by many bicyclists tend to keep this from happening. And it may be hard to achieve on crowded large city streets.

But here in Bethlehem, where the traffic is relatively light and the roads are wide (at least the ones I ride on), I see no reason why drivers and bicyclists can't share the road.

[TexasPlaya]

And that's not all. If it's true bikes should be summarily banned from public roadways because they aren't fast enough, then it must also be true that there should never be parked cars on public roadways either. After all, parked cars are even slower than bikes!

That's a terrible analogy. The damage done and legal ramifications caused by hitting a parked car compared to a bicyclists is greatly different.

It really does appear--going on the veto and also on some comments by Texans in this thread--that Texans who choose to travel by bicycle face a real bias, and, considering the stakes involved, a bias that directs government to favor the auto-centric status quo at any cost.

What other legislation are you aware of that affects Texan government to favor the auto-centric status quo at any cost?

Yet the cost of auto-centrism is very high. At some point, public policy should begin to promote cycling, even if at some reasonable expense to motorists, for health, safety and environmental reasons.

Why pass laws that benefit the cycling minority, and try to bolster their ranks, when the majority is happy making all trips by car? Because auto-centrism costs society so very much that government should vigorously promote alternatives like cycling.

What are the costs of motoring to society? Motorists kill 40,000 Americans annually and injure many thousands more; auto-centrism is a critical factor in our alarming obesity rate, which translates to more and more expensive obesity-related diseases (which the public may begin paying to treat after onset); the manufacture and use of cars directly and signficantly pollutes the air and water, and auto emissions are warming the globe. Cars require foreign petroleum, which in turn empowers despots and terrorists while also requiring our constant entrenchment in foreign wars and occupations.

What are the costs of cycling to society? Bikes produce no emissions, require no oil wars and don't fund terrorism, actively combat obesity and related diseases, and so rarely kill on the road that I cannot find any relevant statistics.

Obviously, cycling isn't a good option for everyone or for every trip. But there are already plenty of people ready to ride, especially in Austin from what I've read, and it's good for Texas government to make cycling safer and easier and more appealing to those inclined to give it a try.


Yet it turns out that we may better protect bicyclists by allowing legal glide-throughs, as the state of Idaho has discovered. When the "Idaho stop" for bicycles was legalized, cyclist injuries dropped. So if you really want to protect cyclists and have cyclists follow the laws, then the laws may actually need to be rewritten to accomodate bikes in addition to cars, rather than cars only.

This is becoming too geopolitical and too social. However, as someone who mainly uses a car to travel I am in great shape from running and working out. Having a car has in no way prevented me from keeping in shape. I would imagine that car dependency is one of many factors that keep individuals from getting 20 minutes of moderate physical activity as recommended by most fitness and nutrition experts.

Furthermore, America has the resources both renenwable and nonrenewable to become energy dependent and has the ability to make cars more fuel efficient and lower emissions as consumers/legislation demand it.

Finally, we need legislation that proposes a compromise that can safely and efficiently accommodate both automobiles and bicyclists commuters.

[leftopolis]

This is becoming too geopolitical and too social. However, as someone who mainly uses a car to travel I am in great shape from running and working out. Having a car has in no way prevented me from keeping in shape.

Yeah, it's a bitch thinking about all the ramifications of one's actions. By being someone who mostly travels by car--but works out, you think you're in good health. What about everybody else in your city who has to breathe? Other people's health is adversely affected by your propensity to mostly drive. Perhaps it's "too social" to respect other people's rights?

...And yes, everybody in the US who fills up a gas tank--supports the eternal military industrial complex. It's also why we don't even have the kind of HSR in the US, that Japan had a half century ago, or healthcare for all, which is commonplace in all the modern democracies in the world--all our $$$ goes towards global hegemony to keep the oil flowing.


Furthermore, America has the resources both renenwable and nonrenewable to become energy dependent and has the ability to make cars more fuel efficient and lower emissions as consumers/legislation demand it.

Really? Then why hasn't it happened? Are you one of those Americans demanding those changes? Evidently, in TX it didn't matter what the people and the legislature wanted--there was heavily lopsided support for the bike legislation--one asshat stopped it.

[mr jones]

Sidewalk riding is very dangerous, at least on the streets here. There are many driveways one after another (homes, apartments, retail stores, offices, etc). The vast majority of motorists pull out of these driveways fairly quickly using the sidewalks as their stopping grounds before pulling out into the road. There are many obstructions that could potentially block a motorists view of a cyclist/ped. (and vice versa) such a telephone poles, trees/bushes, signs, etc. Also a bicyclist most likely travels around 9mph. That's what, 3 times the speed of a pedestrian? There is a lot less time for a motorist and cyclist to react. That's just a disaster waiting to happen. A cyclist is much more visible riding on the road. Being visible is a very important thing...

Honestly, I don't think motorists will ever understand what cyclists has to deal with until they actually get on a bike for a week straight. I had some of the same notions about cyclists until I actually starting to bike.


A good read; "Pedaling Revolution" (IBSN: 978-0870714191)

[ChicagoChicago]

Let's not forget that the South is particularly unkind to riders. I can't tell you how many times I've been brushed by a car that clearly resented me using his road.

[urbanactivistTX]

And that's not all. If it's true bikes should be summarily banned from public roadways because they aren't fast enough, then it must also be true that there should never be parked cars on public roadways either. After all, parked cars are even slower than bikes!

Agreed... roadways that aren't freeways or expressways are meant to serve several purposes, and are not exclusively for the use of cars going at the maximum possible speed. City streets, regardless of the number of lanes, are meant to be used by several different types of vehicles.


Oftentimes on the forum, people complain about knee-jerk reactions and regional biases and forumers' bad attitudes about certain places, like Texas. So I'd like to use this space here as a starting point to engage the issues raised in this thread on their merits with as much clarity as I can manage at this late hour.

It really does appear--going on the veto and also on some comments by Texans in this thread--that Texans who choose to travel by bicycle face a real bias, and, considering the stakes involved, a bias that directs government to favor the auto-centric status quo at any cost.

So the fact that the measure was overwhelmingly approved in both legislative bodies means absolutely nothing??? Rick Perry is one individual (who happens to be a douche) who does not share the same opinion as many people in his state. It is sad and unfortunate event that Rick Perry is still our governor, but the point of the article was to show that everyone does not think this way in the state of Texas. So please, if you're going to use this situation as a means to "judge" the state, you absolutely must look at all of the information that is presented to you. And in this article, it clearly says that the vast majority of government representatives in the state support this measure.


Yet the cost of auto-centrism is very high. At some point, public policy should begin to promote cycling, even if at some reasonable expense to motorists, for health, safety and environmental reasons.

Per the statements above, sounds like from the article and record of the vote, that would have happened if Perry hadn't vetoed it. Of course this is just one simple law, but it could very well start a series of protections for cyclists and pedestrians. I'm pretty confident that it still will.

[urbanactivistTX]

This is becoming too geopolitical and too social. However, as someone who mainly uses a car to travel I am in great shape from running and working out. Having a car has in no way prevented me from keeping in shape. I would imagine that car dependency is one of many factors that keep individuals from getting 20 minutes of moderate physical activity as recommended by most fitness and nutrition experts.

What's the point of this statement?? Are you saying that the only reason for a bicycle to exist is for exercise, and that it is not a viable method of transportation? I'm not seeing what one's physical shape has to do with the need or ability to get from place to place.

I own a car, and I'm not in great shape (though obviously sufficiently mobile and able to ride a bicycle). But the distance from where I live to where I work is such that it's an even hand as to whether it's better to take my car or to ride a bike. Unfortunately, this time of year biking is difficult because of the heat, but thankfully Houston has this thing called a bus system which provides an efficient and reliable means of transporting myself sans personal auto.

[pj3000]

Bottom line is this: as cities across the nation are putting actual measures in place to become more bicyclist and pedestrian friendly (and becoming more desireable places to live in the process), Texas fights urban progress and does the opposite. But that's just the Lone Star way, right?

I guess it's kind of difficult to go against the main clause of the Texas state constitution though... "Never pass any legislation that encourages the burning of LESS fuel, no matter how small".

[glowrock]

Yeah, it's a bitch thinking about all the ramifications of one's actions. By being someone who mostly travels by car--but works out, you think you're in good health. What about everybody else in your city who has to breathe? Other people's health is adversely affected by your propensity to mostly drive. Perhaps it's "too social" to respect other people's rights?

...And yes, everybody in the US who fills up a gas tank--supports the eternal military industrial complex. It's also why we don't even have the kind of HSR in the US, that Japan had a half century ago, or healthcare for all, which is commonplace in all the modern democracies in the world--all our $$$ goes towards global hegemony to keep the oil flowing.



Really? Then why hasn't it happened? Are you one of those Americans demanding those changes? Evidently, in TX it didn't matter what the people and the legislature wanted--there was heavily lopsided support for the bike legislation--one asshat stopped it.

Dude, this kind of condescending bullshit is why I'm growing ever more weary of SSP nowadays. So people who choose to drive a car are suddenly environment-destroying, military-industrial complex loving, healthcare-hating, people-hating monsters? My god, the arrogance is getting simply astounding! :hell:

I hope you're being somewhat facetious, otherwise you're behaving like a boorish ass here, leftopolis!

Why the hell can't there be a simple respect for others here? I swear, SSP is becoming a place where, unless you're someone who lives in a 600 square foot condo in the middle of downtown with a roommate, do not own a car and have not owned one for 10 years, so far left-wing it makes the current Democratic Party look like a bunch of right-wingers, is gay, and of course despises anywhere that isn't a mile or so from the middle of the city!

Since when did SSP become so fucking elitist???

Aaron (Glowrock)

[texcolo]

There is a fine line between criticism and ass-hattery. I think in at least the last three threads relating to the state of Texas that line has been crossed in abundance.

[urbanactivistTX]

Bottom line is this: as cities across the nation are putting actual measures in place to become more bicyclist and pedestrian friendly (and becoming more desireable places to live in the process), Texas fights urban progress and does the opposite. But that's just the Lone Star way, right?

I guess it's kind of difficult to go against the main clause of the Texas state constitution though... "Never pass any legislation that encourages the burning of LESS fuel, no matter how small".

Texas... all of Texas?? All 25 million people in the state?

Please read the article so that you can be informed on the facts surrounding the situation.

[glowrock]

There is a fine line between criticism and ass-hattery. I think in at least the last three threads relating to the state of Texas that line has been crossed in abundance.

I agree with you, texcolo. But I doubt this will ever change here, since anyone from Texas is automatically considered to be a second-class citizen around here! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[dchan]

Why the hell can't there be a simple respect for others here? I swear, SSP is becoming a place where, unless you're someone who lives in a 600 square foot condo in the middle of downtown with a roommate, do not own a car and have not owned one for 10 years, so far left-wing it makes the current Democratic Party look like a bunch of right-wingers, is gay, and of course despises anywhere that isn't a mile or so from the middle of the city!

Since when did SSP become so fucking elitist???

Aaron (Glowrock)

Don't forget the atheists amongts us. :) I actually find the atheists here to be much less tolerable than most on this forum. I mean, they push their "religion is the root of all evils" mantra as if....it's another religion. :(

[pj3000]

Texas... all of Texas?? All 25 million people in the state?

Please read the article so that you can be informed on the facts surrounding the situation.

jeez... I guess I should have made it more clear by saying "the Texas governor" fights urban progress and does the opposite. I guess the part about "never pass any legislation" was lost on you.

Please don't assume that I did not read the article and am uninformed.

Obviously, I was not referring to all 25 million people in the state. I used to live in Texas (Dallas and Houston) in the late 90s/early 00s, and was encouraged by the development starting to take hold in both urban cores. Given the long-needed urbanization movement now occurring in major Texas cities, this type of buffoonery by Perry is all the more disappointing.

Perry should stick with what he knows best, like subverting environmental regulations and discouraging public awareness in his drive to build a dozen more coal-fired power plants in the state (again, talk about fighting progress and doing the opposite of what trends are in the rest of the nation). Ahhh, texas governors... your last two have been a couple of real dandies.

[fflint]

I agree with you, texcolo. But I doubt this will ever change here, since anyone from Texas is automatically considered to be a second-class citizen around here! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)
At some point, you yourself have got to stop enabling and assisting the derailment of threads like this. You are as guilty as anyone in this thread of namecalling, stereotyping, and fanning the flames of regional and social resentment--all of which are off-topic. If you wanted to discuss the issues raised by the article, you had a lot to work with. If not, why post at all?

[pj3000]

Since when did SSP become so fucking elitist???

Aaron (Glowrock)

Advocating safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and construction/emergency workers (as well as supporting measures that work to improve living conditions in urban areas) is about as far from "fucking elitist" as one can get.

[glowrock]

Advocating safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, and construction/emergency workers (as well as supporting measures that work to improve living conditions in urban areas) is about as far from "fucking elitist" as one can get.

Dude, I was referring to leftopolis's post about hot people who drive don't care about the environment, don't care about others' safety, etc... etc... Please, stop with the bullshit, bud. I said nothing about advocating safety for ALL people who use the roads and sidewalks, period.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[JMancuso]

perry represents and only cares about a very small portion of the population but the masses are asses and they will keep voting for him. and they have. he is one of the longest serving TX governors.

@leftopolis: kinda pointless bitching about cars at this point. you're dollar late and a dollar short. should have said something when henry ford was still cranking out model-t's. our economy is dependent on its people traveling by car, not bikes or walking. this is not to say we need laws protecting cyclists that governor zoolander just vetoed. as someone who has been run off the road and clipped with a side mirror on my bike, i welcome such a law.

[glowrock]

At some point, you yourself have got to stop enabling and assisting the derailment of threads like this. You are as guilty as anyone in this thread of namecalling, stereotyping, and fanning the flames of regional and social resentment--all of which are off-topic. If you wanted to discuss the issues raised by the article, you had a lot to work with. If not, why post at all?

Sorry fflint, but I get increasingly annoyed at some people here on the forum who think horribly of anyone who dares drive a car. It's annoying as hell!

I have said it many times in the past, drivers and bicyclists need to have some common decency and respect towards one another on the roads. I don't like rules like this three foot barrier surrounding a bicyclist. In most situations, I'm sure this will work out just fine in most cases, but I don't like the idea that a bicyclist can suddenly swerve to the left edge of the bike lane or shoulder, meaning vehicles suddenly have to slam on their brakes or move into the other lane of traffic suddenly.

I'm just sick and tired of bicyclists having no respect for drivers, and drivers having little to no respect for bicyclists.

I'm also sick of certain people here who proudly proclaim their bicycling habits like a badge of honor, rubbing it in everyone else's faces like a puppy who just soiled the carpet.

And come on, fanning the flames of regional and social resentment? Where the hell do you see me doing this on the forum, other than occasionally in jest? Sheesh, that's more than a bit over the top, don't you think?


Aaron (Glowrock)

[TexasPlaya]

Yeah, it's a bitch thinking about all the ramifications of one's actions. By being someone who mostly travels by car--but works out, you think you're in good health. What about everybody else in your city who has to breathe? Other people's health is adversely affected by your propensity to mostly drive. Perhaps it's "too social" to respect other people's rights?

Actually I am in great shape, training for the Houston Chevron Marathon (yes oil companies actually sponsor worthwhile causes) . However, I forgot that where you live no one drives and everybody takes a bike or rides mass transit everywhere they go and sings kumbayah around a drum circle.

...And yes, everybody in the US who fills up a gas tank--supports the eternal military industrial complex. It's also why we don't even have the kind of HSR in the US, that Japan had a half century ago, or healthcare for all, which is commonplace in all the modern democracies in the world--all our $$$ goes towards global hegemony to keep the oil flowing.

You are really living up to Leftoplois name. Did the oil companies have JFK assassinated too?

Really? Then why hasn't it happened? Are you one of those Americans demanding those changes? Evidently, in TX it didn't matter what the people and the legislature wanted--there was heavily lopsided support for the bike legislation--one asshat stopped it.

Why hasn't it happened? Because we have all but stopped building nuclear power plants, most every coastline won't allow oil and natural gas to be drilled, and Obama's climate change plan would have our electricity to be generated from wind and solar to rise from a whooping <1% to <2% of the total.

As regarding this legislation, it's not over. Hopefully they will come together (try reading the whole article) with Gov Perry and hash out a better piece of legislation. In my opinion, this wasn't good (not bad though) legislation and could be much better and much of the uproar is over the fact that the vetoing of the bike legislation was mostly symbolic.

At one point I thought you were sincere and different, Leftopolis, when you said you wanted to learn about different places. Now you just broke my heart.

I agree with you, texcolo. But I doubt this will ever change here, since anyone from Texas is automatically considered to be a second-class citizen around here! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

I agree. Personally I am in the middle of political spectrum but this site has been increasing hostile to anything that doesn't meet the expectations of the urban elite around here. It reminds of that Southpark episode where everyone starts buying a prius, moves to San Francisco, and starts basking in their own farts.

The problem is, as sure as the sun rises when a Texas thread gets posted the more urban posters have to rely on stereotypes, bias, and pretentiousness to get jab in and derail the thread. It's frustrating and amusing to hear all these enlightened and progressive individuals rely on bias, stereotypes, and close mindedness when it deals with something they don't agree with and/or don't understand.

[pj3000]

Why the hell can't there be a simple respect for others here?

Aaron (Glowrock)

Maybe you should follow your own advice. You are the one who seems to have gotten riled up and proceeded with the profanity and name-calling.

Dude, I was referring to leftopolis's post about hot people who drive don't care about the environment, don't care about others' safety, etc... etc... Please, stop with the bullshit, bud. I said nothing about advocating safety for ALL people who use the roads and sidewalks, period.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I know that you were responding to leftopolis' post. If the vetoed legislation is a sticking point with leftopolis and he sees it as part of a larger issue, then it's his right to express his take on it. And you're welcome to disagree. But there is no need to hold contempt for the entire SSP forum as being "fucking elitist" because of it.

[glowrock]

Maybe you should follow your own advice. You are the one who seems to have gotten riled up and proceeded with the profanity and name-calling.



I know that you were responding to leftopolis' post. If the vetoed legislation is a sticking point with leftopolis and he sees it as part of a larger issue, then it's his right to express his take on it. And you're welcome to disagree. But there is no need to hold contempt for the entire SSP forum as being "fucking elitist" because of it.

It's not just this freaking thread, pj3000. Anytime a thread comes up involving transportation funding, anything about cars in general, anything about urban vs. suburban, anything involving someone saying they just don't want to live in the middle of the city, these threads become nothing more than a chorus of people insulting and belittling those who don't believe exactly what they do.

My god, I get treated like a goddamned pariah here sometimes, just because I live in a place where I NEED a car to get around! I see no reason why an urbanist can't own and drive a car, they're not mutually incompatible. But damn, to many people here, that's somehow against the rules!

Yes, this forum IS "fucking elitist", at least sometimes! Unfortunately, the attitude is getting worse, and has been for quite some time. I remember when years ago, the situation wasn't anywhere near as bad as it is right now. Maybe it's because there's so little in the way of new construction going on in general because of the economy, maybe it's because so many people have become unemployed recently (myself included), maybe it's just that the new generation of SSPers are a bit more, uhm, radical than the old schoolers, I don't know. All I know is that I never felt the same kind of arrogance, the same sort of elitist nonsense, back in the early days of SSP as I do now...


Aaron (Glowrock)

[alexjon]

The problem is, as sure as the sun rises when a Texas thread gets posted the more urban posters have to rely on stereotypes, bias, and pretentiousness to get jab in and derail the thread. It's frustrating and amusing to hear all these enlightened and progressive individuals rely on bias, stereotypes, and close mindedness when it deals with something they don't agree with and/or don't understand.

You haven't visited our fabulous California threads, have you? Stop in, kick off your shoes and stay a while. You might be surprised as to why anyone would ever have a negative opinion of Texas in the context of this forum.

[TexasPlaya]

You haven't visited our fabulous California threads, have you? Stop in, kick off your shoes and stay a while. You might be surprised as to why anyone would ever have a negative opinion of Texas in the context of this forum.

I have been to many of the different subsections of the forum, including CA. There's no problem with people having a negative opinion about Texas, it's how people convey their negative opinion is what makes it inappropriate, ignorant , or childish.

[pj3000]

It's not just this freaking thread, pj3000. Anytime a thread comes up involving transportation funding, anything about cars in general, anything about urban vs. suburban, anything involving someone saying they just don't want to live in the middle of the city, these threads become nothing more than a chorus of people insulting and belittling those who don't believe exactly what they do.

My god, I get treated like a goddamned pariah here sometimes, just because I live in a place where I NEED a car to get around! I see no reason why an urbanist can't own and drive a car, they're not mutually incompatible. But damn, to many people here, that's somehow against the rules!

Yes, this forum IS "fucking elitist", at least sometimes! Unfortunately, the attitude is getting worse, and has been for quite some time. I remember when years ago, the situation wasn't anywhere near as bad as it is right now. Maybe it's because there's so little in the way of new construction going on in general because of the economy, maybe it's because so many people have become unemployed recently (myself included), maybe it's just that the new generation of SSPers are a bit more, uhm, radical than the old schoolers, I don't know. All I know is that I never felt the same kind of arrogance, the same sort of elitist nonsense, back in the early days of SSP as I do now...


Aaron (Glowrock)

Okay, I guess I have a better idea of where you're coming from and where your frustration lies. I didn't realize you were speaking to a history of threads with topics like this one. You're right that many threads dealing with transportation/cars end up reading like the same old nonsense (primarily Texas ones). I'm still not in agreeement that the forum is elitist as a whole, though. I still think there is a pretty good cross-section of views represented. But, you may be on to something as far as the change in overall tone of SSP goes.

[Steely Dan]

I'm also sick of certain people here who proudly proclaim their bicycling habits like a badge of honor
why shouldn't i proudly proclaim my bicycling habits? bike commuting in america is the difficult path, but it's ultimately a more rewarding one and if we can get more people into it, the better off our society and planet will be.

i do not wish to demonize you for driving a car, but i do want to tell everyone on the planet how freaking awesome biking is. i'm like a cycling fundamentalist, everyone must hear the gospel according to bikes, and accept bikes into their hearts as their own personal savior. bikes completely rule the universe!

bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, i like bikes.

[pj3000]

why shouldn't i proudly proclaim my bicycling habits? bike commuting in america is the difficult path, but it's ultimately a more rewarding one and if we can get more people into it, the better off our society and planet will be.

i do not wish to demonize you for driving a car, but i do want to tell everyone on the planet how freaking awesome biking is. i'm like a cycling fundamentalist, everyone must hear the gospel according to bikes, and accept bikes into their hearts as their own personal savior.

bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, i like bikes.

:haha:

I still own two cars, but I'm a proud bicyclist, too. And I try to influence others to rediscover the joy of riding a bike to get around. You really don't know your city until you traverse it by bicycle, and it makes you feel like a kid again!

[fflint]

The word "elitist" in this thread really just means "uppity minority," doesn't it? Because it sure doesn't refer to any real-world "elite"--bike riders, inner-city dwellers, atheists and gays sure as hell aren't this society's "elites." In fact, it's quite the opposite. And the idea that only uppity minorities are insulting or obnoxious on this forum? Please.

Anyone who likes skyscrapers enough to visit this forum, let alone post, does not share the majority's ambivalence to highrise buildings--so, going on glowrock's definition, if you can read this...then you are an elitist.

[TexasPlaya]

why shouldn't i proudly proclaim my bicycling habits? bike commuting in america is the difficult path, but it's ultimately a more rewarding one and if we can get more people into it, the better off our society and planet will be.

i do not wish to demonize you for driving a car, but i do want to tell everyone on the planet how freaking awesome biking is. i'm like a cycling fundamentalist, everyone must hear the gospel according to bikes, and accept bikes into their hearts as their own personal savior. bikes completely rule the universe!

bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, i like bikes.

And that is awesome. However, on this forum and people in general get this attitude that their actions make them better. I too have a passion for riding bikes but my current situation makes commuting using bike or public transportation nearly impossible. I could bike to work but it would take around 40 minutes and there are no showers. I could take bus but it would also take at least 40 minutes to get to work. Or since I work during nonpeak hours I could drive my car and take about 15 minutes to get to work and carpool whenever I can. People tend to forget about the compromises people have to make when choosing where they live and where they work.

[TexasPlaya]

The word "elitist" in this thread really just means "uppity minority," doesn't it? Because it sure doesn't refer to any real-world "elite"--bike riders, inner-city dwellers, atheists and gays sure as hell aren't this society's "elites." In fact, it's quite the opposite. And the idea that only uppity minorities are insulting or obnoxious on this forum? Please.

Anyone who likes skyscrapers enough to visit this forum, let alone post, does not share the majority's ambivalence to highrise buildings--so, going on glowrock's definition, if you can read this...then you are an elitist.

I think what glowrock meant/should have said is that this forum is becoming more pretentious.

[dchan]

The word "elitist" in this thread really just means "uppity minority," doesn't it? Because it sure doesn't refer to any real-world "elite"--bike riders, inner-city dwellers, atheists and gays sure as hell aren't this society's "elites." In fact, it's quite the opposite. And the idea that only uppity minorities are insulting or obnoxious on this forum? Please.

Anyone who likes skyscrapers enough to visit this forum, let alone post, does not share the majority's ambivalence to highrise buildings--so, going on glowrock's definition, if you can read this...then you are an elitist.

IMO, the term "elitist" does not connote being a part of the absolute Elite. Rather, it connotes a person's belief in the superiority of the activity/cause/whatever that he/she partakes in. And it also connotes that this person rubs this supposed superiority in the face of others who don't, can't, or don't want to partake in whatever that happens to be.

[JMancuso]

yeah, pretentious would be a better word. maybe not this specific thread but the constant rants towards christians, texas, republicans, cars, suburbs, wal-mart, etc...is turning this place into the daily koz with buildings.

[pj3000]

... the constant rants towards christians, texas, republicans, cars, suburbs, wal-mart, etc...is turning this place into the daily koz with buildings.

Well... I'm not advocating any of it, but it pretty much is gonna come with the territory... considering that this is a forum dedicated to skyscrapers and urban issues, it is going to see wider participation by those parties interested in and passionate about those issues. By and large, Christians, Texas, Republicans, cars, suburbs, and Wal-Mart represent antithetical themes to urbanism.

[JMancuso]

the name of this forum is skyscraperpage.com. not snootyurbanistspage.com. i came here for the buildings, not to listen to a bunch of amateur jane jacobses ripping on where i live on a routine basis.

[TexasPlaya]

Well... I'm not advocating any of it, but it pretty much is gonna come with the territory... considering that this is a forum dedicated to skyscrapers and urban issues, it is going to see wider participation by those parties interested in and passionate about those issues. By and large, Christians, Texas, Republicans, cars, suburbs, and Wal-Mart represent antithetical themes to urbanism.

Still not an excuse to be pretentious and rude. It has almost gotten to a point where there can only be discussions about how bad ass urbanism is and even that usually devolves into my urban d*ck is bigger than your urban d*ck.

How does it help the situation to be rude and pretentious to ideas and things you don't agree with. Do two wrongs make a right?

[pj3000]

the name of this forum is skyscraperpage.com. not snootyurbanistspage.com. i came here for the buildings, not to listen to a bunch of amateur jane jacobses ripping on where i live on a routine basis.

From the front page: "Welcome to SkyscraperPage.com, the world's finest resource for skyscraper and urbanism enthusiasts."

Again, I don't advocate people ripping on where others live, but it's gonna come with the territory given the nature of the forum. Maybe it's gotten worse on here over the years, but it seems to me that Texas threads in particular have always had an uphill struggle on this forum.

[glowrock]

why shouldn't i proudly proclaim my bicycling habits? bike commuting in america is the difficult path, but it's ultimately a more rewarding one and if we can get more people into it, the better off our society and planet will be.

i do not wish to demonize you for driving a car, but i do want to tell everyone on the planet how freaking awesome biking is. i'm like a cycling fundamentalist, everyone must hear the gospel according to bikes, and accept bikes into their hearts as their own personal savior. bikes completely rule the universe!

bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, i like bikes.

I'm just so glad I know you're just kidding around, Steely Dan! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Okay, I guess I have a better idea of where you're coming from and where your frustration lies. I didn't realize you were speaking to a history of threads with topics like this one. You're right that many threads dealing with transportation/cars end up reading like the same old nonsense (primarily Texas ones). I'm still not in agreeement that the forum is elitist as a whole, though. I still think there is a pretty good cross-section of views represented. But, you may be on to something as far as the change in overall tone of SSP goes.

Okay, replace elitist with pretentious. Is that better? :haha:

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Still not an excuse to be pretentious and rude. It has almost gotten to a point where there can only be discussions about how bad ass urbanism is and even that usually devolves into my urban d*ck is bigger than your urban d*ck.

How does it help the situation to be rude and pretentious to ideas and things you don't agree with. Do two wrongs make a right?

:haha:

I think I have a new favorite SSPer, TexasPlaya!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[pj3000]

Still not an excuse to be pretentious and rude. It has almost gotten to a point where there can only be discussions about how bad ass urbanism is and even that usually devolves into my urban d*ck is bigger than your urban d*ck.

How does it help the situation to be rude and pretentious to ideas and things you don't agree with. Do two wrongs make a right?

Absolutely not, it's not an excuse at all. The bickering back and forth on this stuff is ridiculous. The "your city sucks" crap that goes on is BS. But since this is an open forum, we're going to get all kinds of garbage. Those posts just need to be ignored, but never are.

[leftopolis]

yeah, pretentious would be a better word. maybe not this specific thread but the constant rants towards christians, texas, republicans, cars, suburbs, wal-mart, etc...is turning this place into the daily koz with buildings.

Oh please! This is an international forum--not a US only furum--thus the tendency is for it to gravitate towards an intenetionalist/global perspective. The US is a far Right country, politically speaking. The Democratic Party would be a minor Right-wing Party in most of the world's modern democracies, while the Republican's ideology would be so extremist, they'd have trouble getting 5% representation...

...Now can we get back to bikes and how all legislation not promoting bike use and safety--while concurrently encouraging automobile use--is regressive, selfish thinking worthy of the last century and not the solution?

[JMancuso]

From the front page: "Welcome to SkyscraperPage.com, the world's finest resource for skyscraper and urbanism enthusiasts."

fair enough, but i don't think present attitude here is what dylan had in mind when he created that message. and it has turned away a lot of people.

Oh please! This is an international forum--not a US only furum--thus the tendency is for it to gravitate towards an intenetionalist/global perspective. The US is a far Right country, politically speaking. The Democratic Party would be a minor Right-wing Party in most of the world's modern democracies, while the Republican's ideology would be so extremist, they'd have trouble getting 5% representation...

the US is far right? are you kidding? it's more like center right but perhaps from your perspective, it's so rightwing, it fell off the edge. we are not europe so comparing our politics to theirs is apples and oranges. europeans also elect openly xenophobic politicians where that would never fly over here. two words: le pen. he got 20% of the vote during the last french presidential election. look it up. the US will never have a BNP who want a white-only britain.

...Now can we get back to bikes and how all legislation not promoting bike use and safety--while concurrently encouraging automobile use--is regressive, selfish thinking worthy of the last century and not the solution?

weren't you the one went off on a tangent about the military industrial complex?

[pj3000]

fair enough, but i don't think present attitude here is what dylan had in mind when he created that message. and it has turned away a lot of people.

I agree 100%

[urbanactivistTX]

Well... I'm not advocating any of it, but it pretty much is gonna come with the territory... considering that this is a forum dedicated to skyscrapers and urban issues, it is going to see wider participation by those parties interested in and passionate about those issues. By and large, Christians, Texas, Republicans, cars, suburbs, and Wal-Mart represent antithetical themes to urbanism.

The problem is, are we really dedicated to the improvement of these issues, or do we just like to bitch about how crappy certain areas and situations are, and then state how we would never want to live there so we can claim superiority for our area??


Guess I'm gonna have to quote myself from another thread...


But again let me say this... right now we're just bitching about it. Insulting the city of Houston [state of Texas] isn't going to solve the problem. This thread is certainly good for bringing up issues, but we also need to discuss solutions. Otherwise if you're going to complain, please direct them to the following sources (which CAN enact citywide [statewide] improvement)...

Houston City Council...
http://www.houstontx.gov/council/index.html

[http://www.governor.state.tx.us/]

Congresswoman Sheila Jackon Lee (represents part of the inner loop)...
http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov/

Congressman Gene Green (represents part of the inner loop)...
http://www.house.gov/green/



Whether you're from Houston [Texas] or not, please put your frustrations to use instead of just bashing the city [state]. Write to these people and let them know that the citizens of Houston [Texas] deserve consistency from their city planning and maintenance officials [laws that promote various forms of transportation, and protect citizens that choose to partake in them] . I have written all of the above parties in regards to similar issues, and I'm going to write to Congresswoman Lee [actually I'm not going to write Le Douche, but I'm going to write Sen. Hutchison who is his main opposition for the upcoming Governor's race] today (with links from GoogleMaps) about the sidewalks [taking away his vito power]. Please put your bitching to work, and don't just hate on the city [state].

[leftopolis]

fair enough, but i don't think present attitude here is what dylan had in mind when he created that message. and it has turned away a lot of people.
...so with 15,000 posts, your opinion's been squelched, here?


the US is far right? are you kidding? it's more like center right but perhaps from your perspective, it's so rightwing, it fell off the edge. we are not europe so comparing our politics to theirs is apples and oranges. europeans also elect openly xenophobic politicians where that would never fly over here. two words: le pen. he got 20% of the vote during the last french presidential election. look it up. the US will never have a BNP who want a white-only britain.
So "modern democracies throughout the world" = an example from a couple of countries in Europe?


weren't you the one went off on a tangent about the military industrial complex?
Tangent? You're welcome to your opinion:
--Do you deny that a nation with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of global oil?
--Do you deny that the US has been a global hegemon for generations, in order to maintain this imbalance?
--Do you deny that even under the first Obama budget, the "defense" spending went up?
--Do you deny that the US went broke with it's trillion $ war for oil in Iraq?
--Do you deny that our military has bases in 160 countries?
--Do you deny that everytime someone drives a car, they contribute to global climate change, air pollution and continuance of hegemony?
--Do you deny that US culture and legislation has been geared towards continuing the oil economy through war, andn tax breaks for gas guzzlers, as opposed to sustainability and promoting public transit and bike-riding?
--Do you deny that if we hadn't spent all our $$(more than the rest of the world combined)--on the MIC, that we might actually have the kind of HSR that's been in Japan for 50 years?

[alexjon]

Hegemon! Gotta catch 'em all!

[TexasPlaya]

...so with 15,000 posts, your opinion's been squelched, here?


So "modern democracies throughout the world" = an example from a couple of countries in Europe?


Tangent? You're welcome to your opinion:
--Do you deny that a nation with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of global oil?
--Do you deny that the US has been a global hegemon for generations, in order to maintain this imbalance?
--Do you deny that even under the first Obama budget, the "defense" spending went up?
--Do you deny that the US went broke with it's trillion $ war for oil in Iraq?
--Do you deny that our military has bases in 160 countries?
--Do you deny that everytime someone drives a car, they contribute to global climate change, air pollution and continuance of hegemony?
--Do you deny that US culture and legislation has been geared towards continuing the oil economy through war, andn tax breaks for gas guzzlers, as opposed to sustainability and promoting public transit and bike-riding?
--Do you deny that if we hadn't spent all our $$(more than the rest of the world combined)--on the MIC, that we might actually have the kind of HSR that's been in Japan for 50 years?

May I subscribe to your newsletter please?

[Dan Denson]

I am not going to take pictures or start ticking off the names of streets that fit "narrow" but I am going to say that most lanes in Houston are around 9 1/2ft in width unless the street has been completely redone (Kirby Dr.) and taking away 3 ft would greatly reduce that ability to pass and impede traffic.

From my experiences commuting on bike in the Austin and my limited experiences in Houston I've seen too many instances where the cyclist feels traffic laws don't apply to them and where motorists show little respect for cyclists. I personally avoid main roads and stick to neighborhoods and bike lanes as much as possible. Furthermore, I think better legislation would involve more education on safety for cyclists and motorists alike and more bike lanes.

Why would oppose "slow down or move over" law that went into affect around cops and emergency vehicles? This is totally different.

I don't think Perry has something against cyclists as he himself is an avid cyclist but if law enforcement and other groups think this legislation is vital for the public safety then I will take their word for it. I was merely giving my opinion on the matter.

I've been hearing a lot of talk that many of those who normally disagree with Perry actually support him on this, solely because of the close to 100 percent disregard of traffic laws by bicyclists. It's like "why should we do anything for bicyclists who exhibit such arrogance"? Not that drivers of 4-wheeled vehicles are all that much better.

[Dan Denson]

the name of this forum is skyscraperpage.com. not snootyurbanistspage.com. i came here for the buildings, not to listen to a bunch of amateur jane jacobses ripping on where i live on a routine basis.

The problem is that while many of us review this forum's posts and leave pissed off, we come right back for more, which is exactly what the forum owners and advertisers want. In that respect, it's an extremely successful forum. I've thought about how nice it would be to have a forum that sticks to the facts, shows great photos, and where forum policies are actually enforced. But I'm betting few people would visit more than once. People by their very nature thrive on conflict, and that's what this and many other forums are all about.

[texcolo]

One of the tenets of conservatism is not having more laws on the books than necessary. For instance, the bicycle law could just as easily be covered with existing laws such as reckless driving, endangerment or possibly attempted vehicular homicide. That, and it's pretty much unenforceable.

I'm just throwing that out there. I don't necessarily agree with that. But, that's probably what Perry's thinking.

As for the Texas grudge... any Texan who visits this forum on a regular basis is probably pro-urban, pro-city, and maybe even a little to the left of the politcal mean. All we ask for is a little respect. When you go on tirades against Texas in this forum you are essentially abusing the converted. Go to the forums at FauxNews.com or the National Review to vent your spleen.

[glowrock]

...so with 15,000 posts, your opinion's been squelched, here?


So "modern democracies throughout the world" = an example from a couple of countries in Europe?


Tangent? You're welcome to your opinion:
--Do you deny that a nation with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of global oil?
--Do you deny that the US has been a global hegemon for generations, in order to maintain this imbalance?
--Do you deny that even under the first Obama budget, the "defense" spending went up?
--Do you deny that the US went broke with it's trillion $ war for oil in Iraq?
--Do you deny that our military has bases in 160 countries?
--Do you deny that everytime someone drives a car, they contribute to global climate change, air pollution and continuance of hegemony?
--Do you deny that US culture and legislation has been geared towards continuing the oil economy through war, andn tax breaks for gas guzzlers, as opposed to sustainability and promoting public transit and bike-riding?
--Do you deny that if we hadn't spent all our $$(more than the rest of the world combined)--on the MIC, that we might actually have the kind of HSR that's been in Japan for 50 years?

So, what the hell does any of this shit have to do with bicycling or Perry's veto of the bill in Texas?

My god, talk about a hundred and one red herrings!

Aaron (Glowrock)
Contributing to global climate change, air pollution and continuance of hegemony since 1994! :)

[urbanactivistTX]

...so with 15,000 posts, your opinion's been squelched, here?


So "modern democracies throughout the world" = an example from a couple of countries in Europe?


Tangent? You're welcome to your opinion:
--Do you deny that a nation with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of global oil?
--Do you deny that the US has been a global hegemon for generations, in order to maintain this imbalance?
--Do you deny that even under the first Obama budget, the "defense" spending went up?
--Do you deny that the US went broke with it's trillion $ war for oil in Iraq?
--Do you deny that our military has bases in 160 countries?
--Do you deny that everytime someone drives a car, they contribute to global climate change, air pollution and continuance of hegemony?
--Do you deny that US culture and legislation has been geared towards continuing the oil economy through war, andn tax breaks for gas guzzlers, as opposed to sustainability and promoting public transit and bike-riding?
--Do you deny that if we hadn't spent all our $$(more than the rest of the world combined)--on the MIC, that we might actually have the kind of HSR that's been in Japan for 50 years?

Whoa whoa whoa... what the hell is all of this??? Dude, you can't condemn every other person on the planet... unless you
-live on Mackinac Island or somewhere that automobiles aren't allowed
-grow your own food using exclusively natural materials (nothing prepackaged please)
-make your own clothes, and don't even buy the materials to make them
-generate your own electricity (lawd knows you don't wanna be powering your computer thanks to coal fire)
-have never seen or touched plastic, industrial glass, cardboard or rubber

Then you're contributing to the degredation of the earth as well.

BTW I'm a liberal... but you don't change a person's behavior by condemnation... you live your own life by setting good examples so that others will listen to your point of view. It's good that you care about these issues as many people on here do, but if accusation, misconception and condemnation for everyone else is the way that you are trying to change the world... you're going to do much more harm than good.

[glowrock]

For the record, leftopolis's ranting and raving post supposedly showing the moral superiority of him over others is the kind of thing that really, really irks me nowadays about SSP!

This kind of over-the-top insanity is exactly the kind of crap that doesn't belong here!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[JMancuso]

...so with 15,000 posts, your opinion's been squelched, here?

mine personally no but i tend to avoid posting in city discussions for this very reason but there are other texas forumers who tire of seeing texas maligned at any possible opportunity.

So "modern democracies throughout the world" = an example from a couple of countries in Europe?

would you like more examples? look up geert wilders. you mentioned europe, i gave you a few european examples and how their politics would not fly over here.


Tangent? You're welcome to your opinion:
--Do you deny that a nation with 5% of the world's population, uses 25% of global oil?
--Do you deny that the US has been a global hegemon for generations, in order to maintain this imbalance?
--Do you deny that even under the first Obama budget, the "defense" spending went up?
--Do you deny that the US went broke with it's trillion $ war for oil in Iraq?
--Do you deny that our military has bases in 160 countries?
--Do you deny that everytime someone drives a car, they contribute to global climate change, air pollution and continuance of hegemony?
--Do you deny that US culture and legislation has been geared towards continuing the oil economy through war, andn tax breaks for gas guzzlers, as opposed to sustainability and promoting public transit and bike-riding?
--Do you deny that if we hadn't spent all our $$(more than the rest of the world combined)--on the MIC, that we might actually have the kind of HSR that's been in Japan for 50 years?

i don't deny any of that but that has nothing to do with our asshat governor vetoing some bicycle safety bill. as for the US being the global hegemon, i'm not ashamed that this country is where it is nor do i think we are doing anything any other country wouldn't do in our situation. you think the french, british, chinese, japanese or russians would not seize the opportunity to capitalize on their superpower status?

[leftopolis]

JMancuso:
Actually, here's what I said:
Originally Posted by leftopolis
Oh please! This is an international forum--not a US only furum--thus the tendency is for it to gravitate towards an intenetionalist/global perspective. The US is a far Right country, politically speaking. The Democratic Party would be a minor Right-wing Party in most of the world's modern democracies, while the Republican's ideology would be so extremist, they'd have trouble getting 5% representation...
You came back with mentioning Europe, specifically, in response to my "most of the world's modern democracies", and then insisted a 2nd time

... you mentioned europe....
It's simply not true--the record is there--but then this thread is rife with wild accusations just like that example.

Not that it really matters--You obviosly don't see the ramifications of policy, culture, politics--in connection with anything promoting bike-riding, yet it seems glaringly obvious to me. Funny thing is, I gave you Texans a pass on personal responsibility, that is until you all started whining about having to have a mature discussion that didn't include baseless, personal insults.

[glowrock]

Not that it really matters--You obviosly don't see the ramifications of policy, culture, politics--in connection with anything promoting bike-riding, yet it seems glaringly obvious to me.

God, what an ego, leftopolis! Glaring obvious to you? Oh, Oracle of Light, Oracle of All Things Urban, Leftist, and Good in the World! Please show me the light! Oh please, fine Oracle of Light, please inform this poor automobile driver of his Ultimate Sins! Can I have a Halleljuyah? You have converted this Sinner! Praise Be With You, Leftopolis!

:rolleyes:

My god, it must be nice walking around smelling your own farts! The smug factor is on high alert with your post, in fact it's on Code Level Red! So people who ride a bike are suddenly thinking of policy, culture, politics? Maybe they just want to ride a bike?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[texcolo]

JMancuso:
Actually, here's what I said:

You came back with mentioning Europe, specifically, in response to my "most of the world's modern democracies", and then insisted a 2nd time

It's simply not true--the record is there--but then this thread is rife with wild accusations just like that example.

Not that it really matters--You obviosly don't see the ramifications of policy, culture, politics--in connection with anything promoting bike-riding, yet it seems glaringly obvious to me. Funny thing is, I gave you Texans a pass on personal responsibility, that is until you all started whining about having to have a mature discussion that didn't include baseless, personal insults.

:sly:

I'm fully aware of the ramifications of bike-riding policy. I moved from Dallas to Denver. I moved from a town with two biking trails to a town with the best cycling trail system in the country. Like I said, you're preaching to the choir... or more likely yelling at the choir.

And as for Glowrock's opinion, yes, you are smug.

[JMancuso]

JMancuso:
Actually, here's what I said:

You came back with mentioning Europe, specifically, in response to my "most of the world's modern democracies", and then insisted a 2nd time

It's simply not true--the record is there--but then this thread is rife with wild accusations just like that example.

well, if you toss in the rest of the 'world's modern democracies', then we come out right smack in the middle or even to the left. at least, using europe as an example was somewhat compelling that the US leans rightwing.

Not that it really matters--You obviosly don't see the ramifications of policy, culture, politics--in connection with anything promoting bike-riding, yet it seems glaringly obvious to me. Funny thing is, I gave you Texans a pass on personal responsibility, that is until you all started whining about having to have a mature discussion that didn't include baseless, personal insults.

no, i don't. i see this particular issue being about bike safety something which our governor is not overly concerned about. texas already has a thriving cycling community but most are in it for the enjoyment, not to make a political statement or a means of transportation. bikes are not a viable form of transportation in most US cities for the majority and never will be. in case you haven't noticed, cities around the country are expanding plans for mass transit and the auto-industry is speeding up development of alternative fuel cars.

[fflint]

no, i don't. i see this particular issue being about bike safety something which our governor is not overly concerned about. texas already has a thriving cycling community but most are in it for the enjoyment, not to make a political statement or a means of transportation.
And those riders have as much a right as, say, car drivers to instruct their government to enact laws that better protect their safety on shared public roadways. The viability and potential safety benefits of this vetoed law are fair game for debate; not so the claim there is no good reason to enact such a law. Clearly, one side of this debate thinks this law is needed--people don't try to solve problems they don't have.

bikes are not a viable form of transportation in most US cities for the majority and never will be.
Well, what about a significant minority then? It's already viable for short local trips. In the older cities, cycling was once an integral part of the transportation mix and is steadily on the rise again. And we only need look to modern-day Copenhagen and Amsterdam, which became majority-cycling cities in the last couple decades, to see the possibility of similar long-term transitions in US cities, towns and campuses.

Are bikes a good way to travel 30 miles to work on a clogged suburban highway? No, I don't think so. But cycling can still become a viable form of transportation for a large number of people for some of the trips they make, even if not for those 60-mile roundtrips.

A full 40% of all trips made in the US cover less than 2 miles. It's that simple. A bike can cover that distance in 10 minutes. In technological terms, for short nearby trips in decent weather, bicycling is already a viable form of transportation for healthy individuals.

IMO the real crux of the viability matter isn't the technology, it's the willpower. Does your average American want to hop on a bike instead of sliding into the car seat? To me it's pretty clear most don't. But conditions change over time, as do perceptions. A huge surge in bicycling--everywhere--could be triggered by something as simple as a shift in the way people think about transportation and its unseverable connections to personal health and exercise.

Whatever the motivation, cycling is on the rise in the central cities already, and this isn't the first time, either. Time was, bicycles were omnipresent in US cities--in downtown Minneapolis, 1/5th of all traffic was bicycles. Manhattan's avenues were clogged with bikes at all hours. There's a YouTube video of a 1906 cable car trip down SF's Market Street in which bicyclists swarm in and out of view throughout. The old central cities not only can be suitable for bicycling, they have already been--and, this decade, are getting more so every day.

We don't have cycling majorities as they do now in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, but urban bike commuting is on the rise in NYC (35% increase between 2007 and 2008), SF (43% increase since 2006; 6% of all trips), Seattle, Portland, Austin, Chicago, Minneapolis, and so many other cities. What has changed? Minds, mostly. And with that change in thinking comes investment in bike infrastructure (200 new miles of bike lanes in NYC since '06), which in turn draws more new cyclists onto the roads.

The suburban areas built in the 20th century aren't as suitable to cycling as the old central cities, at least as they exist in their present form, but because bikes can cover a mile every 6 minutes or so, they are suitable for short local trips to school, the store, the park, the pool, and friends' houses (remember--kids can ride bikes but need mom and dad to shuttle them in cars--even low-emissions cars require adult drivers). Roads in today's suburbs can be fairly easily converted to accomodate bikes for short local trips with little cost. Bikes can then become viable, in that local context, in much of suburbia.

Don't want to bike? Fine. Many do, and many others are interested in doing so but are held back by safety concerns. This vetoed law was aimed (theoretically) at better protecting those people already riding, and drawing in not those inveterate motorists, but the ones who are interested in cycling but afraid of getting clipped and injured by motorists. Whatever this veto accomplished, it didn't likely make anyone in Texas feel like cycling just got safer. If cycling didn't have strong societal benefits, it wouldn't matter how government handled the issue. But it does matter.

[urbanactivistTX]

Whatever the motivation, cycling is on the rise in the central cities already, and this isn't the first time, either. Time was, bicycles were omnipresent in US cities--in downtown Minneapolis, 1/5th of all traffic was bicycles. Manhattan's avenues were clogged with bikes at all hours. There's a YouTube video of a 1906 cable car trip down SF's Market Street in which bicyclists swarm in and out of view throughout. The old central cities not only can be suitable for bicycling, they have already been--and, this decade, are getting more so every day.

We don't have cycling majorities as they do now in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, but urban bike commuting is on the rise in NYC (35% increase between 2007 and 2008), SF (43% increase since 2006; 6% of all trips), Seattle, Portland, Austin, Chicago, Minneapolis, and so many other cities. What has changed? Minds, mostly. And with that change in thinking comes investment in bike infrastructure (200 new miles of bike lanes in NYC since '06), which in turn draws more new cyclists onto the roads.



Bike ridership has more than doubled in Houston's inner loop also as more people move back into the central city, and gas prices continue to fluctuate. This article on METRO is from last year, but the bike boardings haven't come down at all since that time...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/moveit/5839406.html

So we in Texas also know that bike ridership is a viable mode of transport. I wish I could ride to work right now, but it's too hot and I haven't felt like bringing a change of clothes with me lately. I know it's just heresay until next year's census, but I think many people will be surprised at the density changes of the Sunbelt's staple cities. I see evidence of it everyday.

[JMancuso]

And those riders have as much a right as, say, car drivers to instruct their government to enact laws that better protect their safety on shared public roadways. The viability and potential safety benefits of this vetoed law are fair game for debate; not so the claim there is no good reason to enact such a law. Clearly, one side of this debate thinks this law is needed--people don't try to solve problems they don't have.

indeed. i've been run off the road and clipped while on my bike...the reason why i rarely ride now.

Well, what about a significant minority then? It's already viable for short local trips. In the older cities, cycling was once an integral part of the transportation mix and is steadily on the rise again. And we only need look to modern-day Copenhagen and Amsterdam, which became majority-cycling cities in the last couple decades, to see the possibility of similar long-term transitions in US cities, towns and campuses.

Are bikes a good way to travel 30 miles to work on a clogged suburban highway? No, I don't think so. But cycling can still become a viable form of transportation for a large number of people for some of the trips they make, even if not for those 60-mile roundtrips.

A full 40% of all trips made in the US cover less than 2 miles. It's that simple. A bike can cover that distance in 10 minutes. In technological terms, for short nearby trips in decent weather, bicycling is already a viable form of transportation for healthy individuals.

IMO the real crux of the viability matter isn't the technology, it's the willpower. Does your average American want to hop on a bike instead of sliding into the car seat? To me it's pretty clear most don't. But conditions change over time, as do perceptions. A huge surge in bicycling--everywhere--could be triggered by something as simple as a shift in the way people think about transportation and its unseverable connections to personal health and exercise.

Whatever the motivation, cycling is on the rise in the central cities already, and this isn't the first time, either. Time was, bicycles were omnipresent in US cities--in downtown Minneapolis, 1/5th of all traffic was bicycles. Manhattan's avenues were clogged with bikes at all hours. There's a YouTube video of a 1906 cable car trip down SF's Market Street in which bicyclists swarm in and out of view throughout. The old central cities not only can be suitable for bicycling, they have already been--and, this decade, are getting more so every day.

We don't have cycling majorities as they do now in Copenhagen and Amsterdam, but urban bike commuting is on the rise in NYC (35% increase between 2007 and 2008), SF (43% increase since 2006; 6% of all trips), Seattle, Portland, Austin, Chicago, Minneapolis, and so many other cities. What has changed? Minds, mostly. And with that change in thinking comes investment in bike infrastructure (200 new miles of bike lanes in NYC since '06), which in turn draws more new cyclists onto the roads.

The suburban areas built in the 20th century aren't as suitable to cycling as the old central cities, at least as they exist in their present form, but because bikes can cover a mile every 6 minutes or so, they are suitable for short local trips to school, the store, the park, the pool, and friends' houses (remember--kids can ride bikes but need mom and dad to shuttle them in cars--even low-emissions cars require adult drivers). Roads in today's suburbs can be fairly easily converted to accomodate bikes for short local trips with little cost. Bikes can then become viable, in that local context, in much of suburbia.

Don't want to bike? Fine. Many do, and many others are interested in doing so but are held back by safety concerns. This vetoed law was aimed (theoretically) at better protecting those people already riding, and drawing in not those inveterate motorists, but the ones who are interested in cycling but afraid of getting clipped and injured by motorists. Whatever this veto accomplished, it didn't likely make anyone in Texas feel like cycling just got safer. If cycling didn't have strong societal benefits, it wouldn't matter how government handled the issue. But it does matter.

well, for one thing, we need the infrastructure to accommodate bikes as a means of transport. i've only had one job that allowed me to bring my bike into the office so it wouldn't get stolen. otherwise, i am going to drive rather than taking a gamble that my bike will still be there when i leave work...even if it is chained up. in most public places, there is almost no place to park a bike and secure it. so yeah, i can ride to the grocery store up the street but what do i do with the bike once i get there?

[fflint]

well, for one thing, we need the infrastructure to accommodate bikes as a means of transport.
Right. And maybe some cyclist-friendly changes to the rules of the road, too, so guys like you will feel safe cycling again someday.

so yeah, i can ride to the grocery store up the street but what do i do with the bike once i get there?
If Houston can justify giving away one or both curbside lanes of the streets to motorists to store their cars, then Houston can and should provide similarly cheap and viable public storage for bikes.

Racks on sidewalks generally work well in terms of the technology, and covered racks are the best. The city should install them, but also there is a capitalist solution--shops and restaurants can pay to install them on their own properties.

But yeah--social aspects can make outdoor bike parking undesirable, as with your fear of crime. This is where cycling intersects with another current of American life--crime. Here, cyclists pressure our police department for better protection from theft and vandalism. I'm not sure how much it has helped, but they did make a rare press release this week regarding a bad bike accident earlier in the month.

Also, again there is a capitalist solution for the lack of safe bike parking where city governments fail to act. I'm pretty sure the secure covered parking facility in Chicago's Millennium Park was paid for by a big company like McDonald's, and here in SF there's a company that built and runs a patrolled indoor facility at the Caltrain commuter rail terminal. Bike parking companies. In some cities (I'm looking at you, New York), I'd wager that would be a decent investment opportunity.

Yesterday there was a 65-mph police chase through the Tenderloin that ended up sending a cyclist to the hospital. The SUV had been stolen, ground units from two police departments gave chase, and the CHP had a helicopter on scene. A bit misguided, perhaps, but it really does illustrate how seriously the police take car theft--and cyclists deserve to be protected just as zealously. Well, maybe slightly less than that. But you know what I mean.

[johnnypd]

the US is far right? are you kidding? it's more like center right but perhaps from your perspective, it's so rightwing, it fell off the edge. we are not europe so comparing our politics to theirs is apples and oranges. europeans also elect openly xenophobic politicians where that would never fly over here. two words: le pen. he got 20% of the vote during the last french presidential election. look it up. the US will never have a BNP who want a white-only britain.


not wanting to go off topic again but you are deluded if you think there is not similar right-wing sentiment in the US. the reason the US doesn't have a party like the BNP is because of the two-party system. and even then the consitution party is the third biggest party in the US (so it seems you do have a BNP equivalent after all!). the BNP only performs 'well' (around 6% at most, less than the green party) during elections that include multiple voting and proportional representation, along with low turn-out (34% for the recent euros), all skewering results in favour of small protest parties. at the general election the BNP secured only 0.5%, and the UK general election is far, far more of a multi-party vote than the US presidential election will ever be.

not to mention that the dynamics of society are totally different so that like-for-like comparisons are difficult to make. for instance Geert Wilders who you mentioned as an example of something that wouldn't fly in the US (hahaha, ever listen to right-wing talk radio or hear minor members of the republican party?) is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-euthanasia, pro-legalised drugs, pro-animal rights etc. this makes him less right wing than the republicans are, and even obama on certain issues. and the previous dutch loony pim fortyn was himself homosexual, something you could say that would "never fly" in national level US politics. you also have to take into account that some euro countries have followed more multi-cultural policies than the US and that guys like Wilders are advocating stuff that has gone on the in the US for decades - flag waving everywhere, immigration, history, language tests, public oath ceremonies etc. i just travelled on a highway sponsored by the ultra-racist minutemen today on the way back from san diego. you wouldn't see that in the UK. but im not going to make bizarre generalisations based on that fact.

switching this back to cycling. i've recently started cycling round here (Orange County). On the main roads (6-7 lanes) i cycle on the typically deserted sidewalks. it's just too dangerous to be alongside 6 lanes of fast SUVs. whereas on neighbourhood streets i am generally fine on the road, but as others have pointed out, debris and parked cars represent difficulty. also where the bike lane should be is often just street parking, which doesn't help. the one thing i utterly hate, as both a cyclist and a pedestrian, is cars turning right on a red light. this is frustrating at the best of times but actually becomes dangerous at night.

[JMancuso]

talk show hosts and the minute men as well as some crackpot sheriff are not on the same level as a national level politician. anyway, i highlighted that the two different places are just too different to compare.

[BTinSF]

And those riders have as much a right as, say, car drivers to instruct their government to enact laws that better protect their safety on shared public roadways.

They do. But the most effective thing they could do to protect their safety on shared roadways is to obey the laws that exist for all vehicles. I have trouble taking laws intended to protect bike riders seriously as long as most bike riders ignore laws meant to protect every user of the roadway; things like stop signs and traffic lights, one-way streets, laws against riding bikes on sidewalks and so on.

[BTinSF]

On the main roads (6-7 lanes) i cycle on the typically deserted sidewalks. it's just too dangerous to be alongside 6 lanes of fast SUVs. whereas on neighbourhood streets i am generally fine on the road

So to protect your safety, you are perfectly comfortable endangering that of pedestrians (and breaking the law to do it). Good to know.

Ever think about the results of a 180 lb guy on a bike careening into a 90 lb little old lady on the sidewalk? I know, I know. YOU are careful. So only YOU should be riding on the sidewalk.

[llamaorama]

Ideally common courtesy says you keep a clearance between you and a pedestrian, which is what should be written in the law. That's whats funny about cyclists on streets blowing through cross-walks, they may or may not be breaking law but are still being a pain.

this is why I am favor in bike lanes, even if hardcore cyclists dislike them due to the inherent risk intersections and driveways pose because apparently stopping and looking both ways like a pedestrian would isn't kosher(read "I can't go fast")

[fflint]

If cyclists should obey all traffic laws, then many traffic laws should be re-written to protect cyclists from physical harm. For example, Idaho passed a law allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and injuries actually decreased 14.5%:

----------------------
'Idaho Stop' is a go for bicycle safety
Joseph Rose
The Oregonian
April 06, 2009
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/04/idaho_stop_is_a_go_for_bicycle.html

A couple of Sundays ago, my 9-year-old daughter caught me bicycling in my own private Idaho.

"Daddy!" she yelped as we pedaled through a quiet neighborhood on our bikes, "You didn't stop!"

The kid knows what a stop sign looks like. So do I. But the uncomfortable truth, as a parent and someone who dishes out weekly commuting advice, is that I tend to treat those red octagons as yield signs when on my bike.

On busy roads and at red lights, I come to complete stops. But on side streets dotted with stop signs, I slow, look and roll.

Write me a ticket. Send hate mail. Call me a bad example.

But if I lived in the Great Potato state, I could tell my little girl that I was simply following the law. And after taking a hard look at the history of the so-called Idaho Stop, I'd tell her it's a darn good law.

Of course, we live in Oregon, where the Legislature is once again caught in a debate over the merits of adopting the Idaho Stop here. Under the proposal, bicyclists wouldn't have to fully stop at a sign or blinking red light, provided they slow to a safe speed and yield to traffic or pedestrians.

Supporters say it legalizes what is already safe and rational behavior. Opponents counter that bikes should follow the same laws as cars and that it sends a dangerous message to kids.

"Listening to some people," said Karl Rohde, who was the Bicycle Transportation Alliance's government relations director before leaving the organization Friday, "you'd almost think there are no living children left in Idaho -- that kids are being run down left and right."

Actually, the children of Idaho are riding happily and unscathed.

In fact, according to new research from the University of California's School of Public Health in Berkeley, the law has made roadways safer, while getting more people to commute by bike.

Carl Bianchi, a retired administrative director of Idaho's state courts who is widely considered the father of the Idaho Stop, said it was traffic judges -- not cyclists -- who pushed for the idea in 1982.

Police were ticketing bike riders for failing to come to a complete, foot-down stop. Judges, however, saw "technical violations" clogging up their courts.

"We recognized that the realities of bicycling were a lot different than driving a car," Bianchi said.

Sure, Idahoans had many of the same concerns that are now popping up in Salem. But the year after the Idaho Stop became law, bicycle injuries in the state actually declined by 14.5 percent.

Meanwhile, in the past 27 years, Idaho motorists and police have grown to accept the legislation as sensible public policy, said Jason Meggs, a UC-Berkeley researcher who spent last summer crunching years of traffic data, conducting interviews and observing cyclist behavior in the state.

Boise, home to Idaho's biggest bike population, "has actually become safer for bicyclists than other cities which don't have the law," Meggs said.

And what about the children?

Mark McNeese, the Idaho Transportation Department's bicycle and pedestrian coordinator, said legislators removed an education requirement in the original law in 1988 because special training quickly became unnecessary. "The kids were quick to adapt," he said. "The bottom line is that when this thing passed, there wasn't one doggone thing that changed."

Beyond the politics, getting around effectively on a human-powered vehicle demands defensive maneuvering and momentum.

Still, I wasn't about to dump a physics lesson about energy, body mass and distance on my daughter. Instead, I promised her that I would stop at every stop sign with her.

Kim Whitney, youth programs coordinator for Portland Community Cycling Center, said that was probably the best approach. Most adult cyclists, she said, tend to slow and roll through stop signs.

"But we really try to teach children to stop, to put a foot down and to look around them," Whitney said. "We want them to learn to use the different senses they have to know if it's safe to go or not."

And that won't change if Idaho Stop comes to Oregon. "It's something," she said, "they can adapt to later."

[johnnypd]

So to protect your safety, you are perfectly comfortable endangering that of pedestrians (and breaking the law to do it). Good to know.

Ever think about the results of a 180 lb guy on a bike careening into a 90 lb little old lady on the sidewalk? I know, I know. YOU are careful. So only YOU should be riding on the sidewalk.

i come across peds maybe once every ten or fifteen minutes on a busy day. i slow down and there's enough space to pass freely. i'm also a pedestrian far more than i am a cyclist round here and i have absolutely no problem if someone rides on the sidewalk, if anything i sympathise. not an issue unless you whip yourself into a rage and invent one where one doesn't exist.

[pj3000]

http://www.bikestation.com/

[urbanactivistTX]

Right. And maybe some cyclist-friendly changes to the rules of the road, too, so guys like you will feel safe cycling again someday.


If Houston can justify giving away one or both curbside lanes of the streets to motorists to store their cars, then Houston can and should provide similarly cheap and viable public storage for bikes.

Racks on sidewalks generally work well in terms of the technology, and covered racks are the best. The city should install them, but also there is a capitalist solution--shops and restaurants can pay to install them on their own properties.



Again, maybe I live on an island that most Houstonians don't come in contact with, but I never have a problem finding a bike rack area to safely store my bike in. My two places of work are the University of Houston, and HGO (in downtown), so bike racks are a given in those areas. Safety can be an issue at UofH, but only at night. All METRO busses now have either bike racks installed or a storage compartment where a bike will fit (this is for the Express and Park-n-Ride busses). I live in the East End where there is a fairly large group of bike users and pedestrians, and the main areas of town that I frequent are places like Montrose, Midtown and Downtown where the percentage of bike users is even greater. The only place I've seen "covered racks" is in downtown though.

I didn't realize that the "yield rule" for cyclists was law in Idaho... very cool. Since I am not a fast rider, I try to follow traffic laws as much as possible. Drivers in Houston are simply going too fast to be able to react to something that pulls out in front of them... so most of the time when I'm at a red light, I go ahead wait with everyone else. I agree that cyclists are vehicles too, and they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

[VivaLFuego]

I have trouble taking laws intended to protect bike riders seriously as long as most bike riders ignore laws meant to protect every user of the roadway; things like stop signs and traffic lights, one-way streets, laws against riding bikes on sidewalks and so on.

Amen, amen, especially the bolded parts. Very dangerous behavior that all sorts of careless bicycle clowns engage in with no repurcussion (though some streets near me have signs posted saying that bike-riding on the sidewalks is subject to arrest). It's unfortunate, because I sympathize strongly with cyclists - even when obeying all laws, cyclists run the constant risk of getting creamed by moronic oblivious drivers, which is why I rarely ride my bike except when going to or from the lakefront trail.

[pj3000]

Bikers should absolutely obey traffic laws, no question. As an avid bicyclist, it angers me when I see other bikers riding dangerously (and sometimes arrogantly) on city streets.

However, the numer of bicyclists I see on a daily basis breaking traffic laws pales in comparison to the number of drivers I see breaking traffic laws and driving dangerously. The thing is, when a bicyclist disobeys traffic laws or rides dangerously fast, he is the only one who dies. The same can obviously not be said for drivers of automobiles.

[John R]

I am also an avid bicyclist and I was for the passage of the bill. Even though it was probably unenforceable until someone was actually hit, any laws that are to the benefit of cyclists are good in my opinion. The passage of the bill might also helped to raise awareness of cycling in Texas.

I'm in agreement with pj3000 and others, cyclists should obey all traffic laws. It also angers me when I see cyclists breaking laws in mass and riding dangerously. I believe that the police should give tickets to cyclists for breaking traffic laws and they should also enforce those same laws with motorists.

As a general rule, I try to ride as far to the right on roads and in bike lanes as possible. However, when those lanes are full of glass and debris, I'm forced to ride closer to the left side of the bike lane in order to keep from having a flat or flats.

Most of my in-town riding is on the Trinity Trails, which are paved bike trails that run all through Fort Worth. I live about 3 miles from the trail system and I use residential streets to make my way from home to the trail and back. However, on the weekends, I ride the country roads outside of Fort Worth, where there is less traffic.

[John R]

In case you are wondering, I put in around 5,000 miles per year on my bicycle. All of it is recreational cycling or short errands. I wish that I could commute to work by bike, but my office will not allow it. I live about four miles from where I work.