The Chainlink

Another anti-biking screed. . .

The Trib published an anti-biking letter from one of "the people" today:  http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2010/11/chicago-tribune-publishes-rea...

Views: 39

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Davo on November 12, 2010 at 2:43pm
It seems to me that the guys rant stems from his wife getting hit by a cyclist and the cyclist riding off. Unfortunatley he doesn't go in to specifics about that incident. I'm wondering how a cyclist could hit a pedestrian, injure them, and be able to ride off with out them getting thrown off their bike. But if this actually is the case, this cyclist does us a great disservice. The guy's rant is about responcibility, licencing and stickering bikes is something that wont work so he is venting about that. I have seen worse articles about anti-biking.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on November 12, 2010 at 2:48pm
What exactly is objectionable about this letter? He says:

—Cyclists should be licensed (debatable, not crazy)

—"Some" bikers are unsafe and reckless (obviously true)

—Cyclists should be licensed (again, debatable, not crazy)

—His wife was the victim of a hit and run cyclist on Milwaukee Ave. two months ago (I'd be mad too!)

—Cyclists should be licensed, not because of the 90% of cyclists who are responsible but because of the 10% who are dangerous lunatics (the licensing thing is debatable, that at least 10% of city cyclists are dangerous lunatics is not)

I've almost been killed or paralyzed by enough selfish, inconsiderate assholes who are too cheap or lazy to put lights on at night (or ride with traffic, etc) to have some real sympathy for a licensing requirement. I just don't think it's practical. But this guy hardly strikes me as the enemy.
Permalink Reply by S on November 12, 2010 at 2:56pm

There's a cl posting about an incident that seems similar. It was in rants and raves so it might be exaggerated a bit but it doesn't look too good if it's at all accurate.



Asshole cyclist ran down a oldlady at montrose harbor broke her leg (and drove off he was in blue spandex)

Date: 2010-11-06, 5:05PM CDT
Reply To This Post

when daley gone so will those dam bike paths

Location: and drove off he was in blue spandex
it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests




Davo said:
It seems to me that the guys rant stems from his wife getting hit by a cyclist and the cyclist riding off. Unfortunatley he doesn't go in to specifics about that incident. I'm wondering how a cyclist could hit a pedestrian, injure them, and be able to ride off with out them getting thrown off their bike. But if this actually is the case, this cyclist does us a great disservice. The guy's rant is about responcibility, licencing and stickering bikes is something that wont work so he is venting about that. I have seen worse articles about anti-biking.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on November 12, 2010 at 5:05pm
Note to CL poster: This line makes no sense. A cyclist in blue spandex (mostly nylon, thank you) should give you a ride-by beating with a dictionary. And when did we get dams with bike paths running over them?

when daley gone so will those dam bike paths



Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on November 12, 2010 at 5:22pm
Licensed = TAXED. It's all there is to it. The only reason to license a bike is to collect $50-100 (or even more) every year from every poor sucker who happens to own a bike. And if they license each bike those of you with multiple bikes will be paying EVEN MORE.

Again, licensing = TAXATION and it's a sucker's bet.
Permalink Reply by mike w. on November 12, 2010 at 11:13pm
Licensing?
Unenforceable.
End of story.



James Baum said:
Licensed = TAXED. It's all there is to it. The only reason to license a bike is to collect $50-100 (or even more) every year from every poor sucker who happens to own a bike. And if they license each bike those of you with multiple bikes will be paying EVEN MORE.

Again, licensing = TAXATION and it's a sucker's bet.
Permalink Reply by Joe TV on November 12, 2010 at 11:51pm
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."
Permalink Reply by Vilda on November 13, 2010 at 12:58am
There is a licensing program, it's called a driver's license. If you don't have that then you get a state ID. Are we actually speaking about registration for bikes? It won't happen. Really. Even if there are pro's. I have 3 bikes. I know i won't do it. Others have more bikes, they won't either. and BTW a bike doesn't do the damage to the street that a car does. if everyone rode a bike they could pave it once and leave it for quite a bit longer. Besides, the registration and plates and all that phoney baloney that drivers pay for doesn't actually pay for much other than the perpetuation of it's own system. Drivers that use this argument should be punched in the face.

Oh, and back on that ABC news story some idiot posted that fantastic "roads were made for cars" line. My fav. Walking, Horses/Elephants/Carriages, Bikes, Cars...That guy should have to punch himself in the face.

I'd at least get a laugh if someone said the roads were made for elephants. ;-)
Permalink Reply by Dan Korn on November 13, 2010 at 2:20am
If you want to make the streets more dangerous, more crowded, and more expensive, then by all means, enact regulations that discourage people from cycling.

Highly questionable anecdotes and countless "almost" stories aside, the real danger on our roads, regardless of what percentage of cyclists are scofflaws, is cars. One pedestrian a week is killed by a car in the city of Chicago alone. Guess how many pedestrians are killed by bikes.

That's why bikes and cars are held to different standards, because cars kill people. If the cyclist in the letter writer's story had been driving a car instead of riding a bike, then yes, maybe the driver would have been caught (although plenty of hit-and-run drivers aren't). But that would be cold comfort, as his wife would probably be dead.

And despite the licensing of drivers, they break the law with more frequency than cyclists:
http://overthebarsinmilwaukee.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/scorchers-an...

Also, cyclists already pay more than their fair share for roads:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-why-an-additional-road-tax-...

Basically, everything in that op-ed letter is wrong, both the asserted facts and the conclusions.
Permalink Reply by Dr. Doom on November 13, 2010 at 9:57am
People are allowed to operate vehicles on incredibly dangerous roadways without having to demonstrate any knowledge at all of how to operate them or of the applicable laws, and the results show in the incredibly stupid cycling you see on the streets.

Obviously licensing and registration schemes are a dead letter, but the broader point—that there needs to be much more cyclist education—is absolutely correct.

The point is that if you want the kind of cycling infrastructure I and a lot of other people would like to see, part of the tradeoff is going to be that the second half of "Same rights, same responsibilities" is going to get emphasized more. Also, more people are going to point out that saying that cars are more dangerous is a non sequitir.
Permalink Reply by mike w. on November 13, 2010 at 10:17am
Unfortunately, in this country, the bicycle is still and ever will be considered to be a child's toy, just something to hold the place until its owner can get a drivers' license. Safe cycling programmes aren't widely available or even taken seriously because bicycling isn't taken seriously by the majority of the US population.

Also there is this: in the current climate of "the government should keep out of our life" and general anti-public-spending attitude, how does a safe cycling educational programme even get established? The schools cannot do it in these times that leave them begging for books and decent infrastructure, let alone decent teachers.

i hate to be so pessimistic, but bicycles and cyclists will never be taken seriously in this country by enough people to make a difference..


Dr. Doom said:
People are allowed to operate vehicles on incredibly dangerous roadways without having to demonstrate any knowledge at all of how to operate them or of the applicable laws, and the results show in the incredibly stupid cycling you see on the streets.

Obviously licensing and registration schemes are a dead letter, but the broader point—that there needs to be much more cyclist education—is absolutely correct.

The point is that if you want the kind of cycling infrastructure I and a lot of other people would like to see, part of the tradeoff is going to be that the second half of "Same rights, same responsibilities" is going to get emphasized more. Also, more people are going to point out that saying that cars are more dangerous is a non sequitir.
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on November 13, 2010 at 10:27am
Why does EVERYTHING need to be done only by the government?

We can't get off of our fat asses and do something ourselves with a group of like-minded people as a public service? -or do we need a bunch of cops with badges and guns standing behind to FORCE other people to think and act the way you want them to?

If it is question of $ then form a charity and get people to donate to it. If people really want more bike education then it'll get done. If not then it is because nobody cares. You can't FORCE people to care...

Education can be done just as well (perhaps 100000% better) than anything some wasteful government program can do -and with a lot less fuss and people getting stomped on and rolled over.



mike w. said:
Also there is this: in the current climate of "the government should keep out of our life" and general anti-public-spending attitude, how does a safe cycling educational programme even get established? The schools cannot do it in these times that leave them begging for books and decent infrastructure, let alone decent teachers.

i hate to be so pessimistic, but bicycles and cyclists will never be taken seriously in this country by enough people to make a difference..


RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service