The Chainlink

Streetcleaning: double edged sword for cyclists...

who own motor vehicles.

What I dislike about streetcleaning, like many other city services, is its guise.  Yes, it's a necessary service, especially for cyclists.  It's this very sweeping of debris that keeps us from getting more frequent flats.  It seems we get screwed more often though.  Well at least those of us who own motor vehicles, since we tend to drive less and often park on the street.

I have come to terms with the fact that streetcleaning is a means to acquire revenue for the city.  Yes they are doing a service, but they are also counting on motorists not moving their vehicles so that they can collect revenue.  If everyone moved their vehicles accordingly, I am sure the mayor would be fairly upset.  It's this opportunistic behavior I hate, yes hate!  Kind of like that guy in the earlier thread.  The one about the abandoned bike...you know he didn't want the owner to claim the bike, so he could take it as his own.   

So as I stare out my window and look at that bright orange ticket splattered on my windshield, I am upset.  So much so that I gave myself a headache.  Not at having to pay, but at having forgotten to move my car yet again.  I feel like the guy from memento, hopefully I wont get run down by a (insert mode of transportation here) as I am wandering on the (insert location here) aimlessly in a senile stupor one day.  rant over.   

Views: 241

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on August 8, 2010 at 9:52am
Cars are the past, not the future, Tom.
You can cling to your 1940s concept of what constitutes "progress" if you like, but please don't equate the desire to see our living space free of deadly speeding 2-ton hunks of metal with some sort of abstract or quasi-religious desire to return to the "simple life."
And I'm not sure who you're addressing with your "radical cyclist" slam, but my views are the views of a person who travels by various means and wants to live in a safer, cleaner place, and would be the same if I owned no bikes.


What forum do you frequent where they use the [IMG] tags?
Old Tom said:
There's an element of self righteous, finger wagging Puritanism to the radical cyclist view. Reminds me of a an old schoolmarm.
[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/gulch.jpg[/IMG]
Permalink Reply by Joel on August 8, 2010 at 10:20am
Roads are for travel, and travel has a destination. People don't just drive for the sake of driving. They drive to get somewhere and do something. Roads with no parking would be useless. The reality is that we have a society that uses cars, and the cars aren't going anywhere for a long time.

T.C. O'Rourke said:
Adriana said:
Huh...are you saying there should not be any public parking at all? !

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The roadway is public space set aside to enable the movement of people between private properties. TRAVEL. A goodly portion of this public space is taken up by motorists storing their personal vehicles, to the detriment of the system.

And removing parking from the street would open up all sorts of space for wider sidewalks and bicycle facilities.
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on August 8, 2010 at 10:33am
30 years ago you could have said the same for smoking, or home fires, or any of a number of things that we've seen decrease dramatically in just a few decades. I don't quite understand these "the reality is . . ." statements-- reality is not static- things change.

Joel said:
The reality is that we have a society that uses cars, and the cars aren't going anywhere for a long time.

T.C. O'Rourke said:
Adriana said:
Huh...are you saying there should not be any public parking at all? !

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The roadway is public space set aside to enable the movement of people between private properties. TRAVEL. A goodly portion of this public space is taken up by motorists storing their personal vehicles, to the detriment of the system.

And removing parking from the street would open up all sorts of space for wider sidewalks and bicycle facilities.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 8, 2010 at 11:21am
Hello straw man!

Let me give you hand here: Old Tom never said anything about cars in the post that you're responding to Howard.

Allow me to quote for you again: "There's an element of self righteous, finger wagging Puritanism to the radical cyclist view. Reminds me of a an old schoolmarm."

Looks to me that he's recognizing the "element of self righteous, finger wagging" in this thread (which has somehow gone from someone being upset that she got a ticket to the "fact" that automobiles were forged by Satan himself (or is that Santa?)).

Or has my reading comprehension disappeared overnight? I hope not because I'm in the middle of a good book.

H3N3 said:
Cars are the past, not the future, Tom.
You can cling to your 1940s concept of what constitutes "progress" if you like, but please don't equate the desire to see our living space free of deadly speeding 2-ton hunks of metal with some sort of abstract or quasi-religious desire to return to the "simple life." And I'm not sure who you're addressing with your "radical cyclist" slam, but my views are the views of a person who travels by various means and wants to live in a safer, cleaner place, and would be the same if I owned no bikes.

What forum do you frequent where they use the [IMG] tags?
Old Tom said:
There's an element of self righteous, finger wagging Puritanism to the radical cyclist view. Reminds me of a an old schoolmarm.
[IMG]http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92/Irishtom29/gulch.jpg[/IMG]
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 8, 2010 at 11:35am
Darling, darling dearest? Since when did we fall madly in love with each other?

No, money is not the point. Giving people a reason to move their cars for street cleaning is the point. The reason being to not get fined.

A few years ago I got ticketed for riding down the sidewalk for a couple blocks along Sheridan. It cost me $25. I seriously doubt the police that ticketed me were at the corner of Touhy and Sheridan says to each other, "Let's see how much money we can raise for the city." They were probably thinking more along the lines of preventing the possibility of me clipping someone walking along the sidewalk or someone turning into me(chainrings marring flesh are a bit painful).

Adriana said:
oh ryan, my darling, darling dearest...you seriously believe to the very root of your core that money is not a motivator? If this is the case, why did the city lower the number of outstanding tickets to two in order to make your car bootable? The City wants its money! Not that there's anything wrong with that and I do check, I do...I just have the short term memory of a goldfish.
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on August 8, 2010 at 11:54am
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Hello straw man!
Let me give you hand here: Old Tom never said anything about cars in the post that you're responding to Howard.

In that post? No, but this is a "discussion" and his meaning was understood in the context of his past contributions.
Glad to provide you with so much excitement.
Permalink Reply by T.C. O'Rourke on August 10, 2010 at 3:03am
For the record, I never said my lifestyle was superior to yours.

All I asked was that you explain exactly you should be able to keep your private property in space that belongs to everyone. That, and why I should pay for your transport choice.

I didn't get an answer, I just got called an extremist-- which is the easiest way to dismiss someone who's ideas are unpopular, without actually addressing said ideas. Oh... and that there is no use going against the status quo. And how every one should own a car because "Old Tom" might be called to far off places for a job.

Very well. Allow me to retract all my previous statements: Yes, EVERYBODY can afford a motor vehicle, driving/parking those motor vehicles has NO impact on public transit, walking or cycling, and if the majority (false) of people do something then it must be ok.

So keep parking in the street, as it is your God given right as an American citizen; just quit your bitching about the fucking parking tickets.



Adriana said:
Car use is already elitist, Only those who can afford one can store it in the roadway, while those who cannot sit on buses crawling through the same narrowed roadway.

I own a vehicle. I am not elite. I was once 17, pregnant and pulling a laundry cart up 3 flights of stairs...

Or thread their bicycle through the scraps of space between fast moving autos and parked autos.

I do this now. What does this make me...a masochist?

It is true that my position, when taken to the extreme, could be used to argue against public bike racks as well, amongst other things. Personally, with bike parking being far more compact and cheaper than auto parking, I feel that providing storage for bikes on the *public* way constitutes a reasonable use of municipal resources-- one that benefits the general *public*. Since bicycling far more accessible to the average person than car ownership, this use of municipal resources would far more equitable as well. Providing bike parking reduces the clutter of bikes locked to random posts/fences/street furniture as well, so I'll argue that its practicality merits the allowance. Regardless, to eliminate automobile parking in the public way and the relocation of this space for bicycling, walking and public transit --all modes that all serve the greater good-- I would gladly accept the loss of public bike parking as well.

This is why extremism, in any form and when applied to any situation is very dangerous. It could be argued that alcohol goes against the greater good; we know what the prohibition accomplished, or that other recreational drugs should be made legal. It's all about perspective. The majority of the "public" uses motor vehicles; therefore, they would consider this against the "public's" greater good. Society should be encouraging of a citizen's effort to limit their dependence on oil, not judge them for the amount they use.

“Businesses” would provide both, likely at a better ratio than we have now.

Small businesses do not have the space or means to provide parking lots, they rely on public parking.

And as for “private social gatherings”, people could walk, bike or take the massively improved public transit system, should they be unable to afford private parking nearby.

Does this apply to every geographic location? Personal vehicles are still the only way to transport in many places. This is not about Chicago. Your solutions are short sighted and narrow minded and very, very biased. I choose to minimize my vehicle use. I am able to make my own decisions. There are no simple solutions, the only solution is for everyone to do their best and limit use...balance.

The fact that storing private automobiles in the public way is convenient for those who own them is not at issue. Tell me why I should subsidize your transportation costs and just except that you should be able to keep your stuff in the street we own equally. And the mere fact that you have arranged your life in a way that necessitates auto-ownership while I have not – ie: “because I need to”-- isn't going to do it. While you’re at it, feel free to explain why I should pay for the resurfacing of the roads you destroy or the cops to manage the traffic you create or the wars to fuel your vehicle or…

Where to begin...people are a direct result of their environment, both nature and nurture. Not everyone lives in a beautiful, bike friendly, urban environment with public transportation. If it was up to me, there would be no corrupt government, hard core drugs or blah blah blah... I posted an issue that affects people who bike, (especially those who commute) and own a vehicle. It's a catch 22, since it is the people who limit their car use that are affected the most. The majority of those who work business hours jump in their car and their car will not be parked Monday through Friday between 9 am and 3 pm. I was not arguing the existence of cars or public parking. You can't pick and choose which technology benefits you. Considering that "I" myself pay...and limit my use, then there is nothing to justify. I mean, I could take apart your life and decide self-righteously, which parts I support and which ones I am against, right? I am a citizen, I am a pedestrian, I am a motorist and I am a bicyclist! This is my forum. Life is finite...don't lose sight of the big picture, empathy and tolerance.
Permalink Reply by tzizzle on August 10, 2010 at 9:57am
Owning a car comes with responsibilities. If you can't be bothered to move it off of public property at a set time, then perhaps you shouldn't own one in the city. If it's a hassle, it's not the city's fault: it's simply part-and-parcel of owning a car. Cars are hassles. Tell me you like going to get the oil changed. Tell me you like scraping the ice off the windshield in the morning when it's 10 below.

It's not a conspiracy or a strange anomaly: this is the truth of owning a car in the city.
Permalink Reply by Rick norris on August 10, 2010 at 11:04am
" All I asked was that you explain exactly you should be able to keep your private property in space that belongs to everyone..."

It seems no one answered this directly so I will...A city sticker costs at least $75 state plates I think about $90 a year, some areas require parking permits there goes a few more bucks, and add all the taxes on gasoline in cook county. And the sales tax involved, even if you buy a used car from a private party...no one is paying sales tax (yet) on used bikes from private parties

Now I'm not sure but it would seem to me some of that money is, or at least should be, used in part, to pay for the bike racks we all use.
Like it or not cars generate a lot more money for the city and state than bikes do, if EVERYONE rode a bike instead of drive we all would complain about the taxes we would have to pay for them.

Yeah owning a car is a PITA but they are here to stay in some form or another
Permalink Reply by GabeW (not the other Gabe) on August 10, 2010 at 11:26am
tzizzle is right, owning a car is a hassle and a responsibility. However, I can honestly say I enjoy oil changes. When I had my regular shop do it, it was a good time to socialize during their early-bird-while-you-wait special. It was technically before the shop opened so the guys weren't too busy and they'd usually let me back into the garage while they worked if I needed to do something. Now I switched to synthetic and did my last change myself. Also put new performance brake pads on last weekend. Busted knuckles never felt so good.

I have to say I was glad, as I lay under the car at the edge of the driveway, that I wasn't sitting in broken glass and debris on the shoulder of the road. Thanks street sweeper man!

I also love it when my car gets covered in snow and ice, cleaning the windshield off is just something that goes along with that


and I'm glad Rick brought up the sticker and plate fees...basically taxing your car so you can put in on city property. Your home gets taxed so you can have it on city property (the lot you bought and made your own private property is on city land, right?)
Permalink Reply by David on August 10, 2010 at 11:54am
Simple answer: because you live in a democracy and how to utilize public space is something we decide on collectively (within the confines of representative democracy, obviously).

Personally, I'd prefer that the public space infrastructure in Chicago be much more amenable to biking than it is now. There's good policy arguments for that and you make some of them. I have no argument with much of what you say.

But moral statements about who has the right to public space and who doesn't, and phrases like "why are my tax dollars going to support x?" where x is something you don't like, are generally guaranteed to generate more heat than light. Roads are public spaces paid for by tax dollars spent by all of us and parking is allowed on them not because of some general philosophical principle but simply because a majority of the citizens want street parking to be available.

There's a lot of places in Chicago where I wish street parking were at least partially banned (e.g., Milwaukee Ave.). That's a policy preference based on my opinion of the most advantageous use of public property; it's not because people with cars have less right to public space or because *my* tax dollars should only be spent on things I approve of.

T.C. O'Rourke said:
Tell me why I should subsidize your transportation costs and just except that you should be able to keep your stuff in the street we own equally. And the mere fact that you have arranged your life in a way that necessitates auto-ownership while I have not – ie: “because I need to”-- isn't going to do it.

While you’re at it, feel free to explain why I should pay for the resurfacing of the roads you destroy or the cops to manage the traffic you create or the wars to fuel your vehicle or…
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on August 10, 2010 at 12:14pm
But moral statements about who has the right to public space and who doesn't, and phrases like "why are my tax dollars going to support x?" where x is something you don't like, are generally guaranteed to generate more heat than light.

Tough beans-- T.C. has as right to present his views as anyone else, and I happen to agree with them.
We're not going back into the "rejects car ownership" closet just because our views make you uncomfortable, sorry. We need to change the culture, and the way to do that is not to remain silent because tireless defenders of the status quo think "the time is not right" for a particular message.

Your abstract "policy decisions" affect our lives most minutes of most days. I think any citizen is within his or her right to push back when they find themselves marginalized and disadvantaged by "policy."

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service