Another anti-biking screed. . .

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike w. on November 13, 2010 at 10:29am

Sadly, i'm afraid that the actual reaction of governing bodies will be simply to ban outright any bicyles on the street. It's a cheap and easy alternative to any licensing or rider (or driver) education schemes.

It's already happened recently in a small Colorado town (already discussed in these fora recently,) and a closer to home example was the banning of bikes from the Sheridan rd. ravines section in Highland Park several years ago. I'm willing to bet that St. Mary's and Everett roads will be next on the list very soon. How soon before we lose Clark, Ashland, downtown, etc, etc...?

It's just easier for cities to ban us rather than license or regulate us.



Joe TV said:

A cyclist's licensing system is not anymore unenforceable than a driver's licensing system. Licensing of actual bikes is a different story, but riders? - very doable, given the political will, which seems to be growing.

Is it true that as numbers of cyclists increase, enforcement must eventually respond in order to keep otherwise anti-social cyclists honest and roadways safe for the rest?

OR:

Maybe added numbers of cyclists create a greater sense of community and shared responsibility, leading to a natural socialization (safer and more considerate norms), in terms of riding habits. What kind of enforcement is done in cycling meccas like The Netherlands?

The US/THEM dichotomy is dangerous. We all need to share the road. In the words of President Obama, "it's just us."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on November 13, 2010 at 10:31am

I don't think it needs to be down to the government to educate cyclists. Advocates managed to drill it into more or less everyone's heads that they need to wear a helmet. There isn't any reason similar efforts couldn't be mounted to get people to use lights at night, ride with traffic, stay off sidewalks and so on. It's just a question of priorities and funding. (If only Big Bicycle Lighting were as willing to bankroll propaganda efforts as Big Helmet is...)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jennifer james on November 14, 2010 at 12:11am

Better cycling infrastructure here would benefit pedestrians as fewer riders - especially children - would have to ride the sidewalk to use a bike for everyday activities. It would save" the people" plenty of money in public health costs if more Chicagoans could actually get on a bike and use it daily without feeling like they were going to get killed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dav on November 14, 2010 at 7:48am

If you read the actual letter you will notice that the author is one "Richard Cunningham". Clearly he is still jealous of The Fonz. AAAAYYYYEEEEEEEEE! (Thumbs Up)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Davo on November 14, 2010 at 1:51pm

I think that be real funny to see Chicago try to ban bicycles on any street that has bicycle traffic already on it. IMO the best way to possibly bridge the gap between car and bicycle relations is for the police to enforce the rules of the road very strictly for both cars and bicycles. The possible cost of tickets and fees should encourage both parties to act more recponcibly. Unfortunately we all know that CPD is already stretched thin and they have bigger problems than enforcing all traffic laws.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page