Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on March 27, 2010 at 7:18am

Probably. From the article, it sounding like another good-intentioned, badly thought out idea. The whole "equal treatment" idea is very vague. What exactly does that mean?

Brian Kennedy said:

First, the people in the picture are "salmoning". I love the idea and I fear it is going to be as ambiguous of a policy as the Bicycle Commuter Act.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Craig S. on March 27, 2010 at 7:48am

You can't legislate ignorance away. Congressman Steven LaTourette echos the sentiment of probably the vast majority of Americans (just my somewhat informed opinion). I doubt this initiative goes anywhere at all, it certainly won't appeal to city planners in Omaha, Des Moines, Hayes, Wichita, Cheyenne, Tulsa, Rapid City, etc...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 27, 2010 at 10:32am

Instead of nitpicking, cyclists should be collecting funds for a Ray Lahood statue to be erected in Daley Plaza. This gift horse is way too valuable to be looking in the mouth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heather s on March 27, 2010 at 11:09am

The comment thread for that article is really odd... normally NYT commenters are not quite so delusional or paranoid.

7.
John
Northampton, PA
March 26th, 2010
7:16 pm
So we'll all be riding around on bicylces? We're becoming more and more like communist China every day! Three cheers for Dear Leader!
11.
Hubbycap
Georgia, USA
March 26th, 2010
7:16 pm
The bad ole automobile paid for the roads that the pedestrians and bicycles claim such a right to. Since there is no fuel involved to walk or cycle, how about an extra $100 for sport/walking shoes and an extra $1000 per bicycle to pay for all these bike lanes and sidewalks that will be built for those specific uses. As the evil gasoline powered vehicle fades into the sunset so does its billion$ in tax revenues. If you want these nice paved pathways, cough up the cash folks. Gas or cash, no one rides for free.
21.
Madison
New York, New York
March 26th, 2010
7:17 pm
Gee, one more way for the government to impinge upon individual liberty!
25.
Jeb
OnTopOfYourMother
March 26th, 2010
7:17 pm
For the walkers and cyclists. I know of a good short pier you can walk or ride off.
27.
Geolama
San Diego
March 26th, 2010
7:17 pm
What happens if someone has a severe injury while on the bike paths that are well away from existing automobile infrastructure? Will we be using bicycle-based paramedics and ambulances?

If you really want good and well maintained bike paths then they should be owned and managed by private enterprise and cyclists should pay a monthly/yearly fee to ride. As bad as the government is with automotive and rail infrastructure, would you really want THEM to build and manage your bike infrastructure?
43.
BlueSpringsMo
Blue Springs Mo
March 26th, 2010
7:24 pm
La Hood, is that French or stupid? I am going to peddle 40,000 miles per year in all weather and be able to carry a trunk of goodies to show and tell along with a change of clothes? If the coasts want to bike hike for Obama, i say let them. As for me and mine, We drive!
But think about the glory days of dirt streets and the black plague! Oh, ya. Those were the days! It may be great if La Hood leads the way. That would mean that he would never bike to my part of the country! What a bargain!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on March 28, 2010 at 4:16am

I disagree with you naysayers. All it really takes to push new initiatives is the proper allocation of money and private industry to eat it up. If there is money to be made on equalizing the playing field between bikes and cars it'll happen. Without consumer demand for biking whatever infrastructure may be created from this will loose its funding immediately. So the real question is; Do we think there is an established market that can support this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 28, 2010 at 5:38am

The ignorant don't understand how much more bang for the buck you can get with bike and ped facilities vs. those for cars and trucks. That argument needs to be articulated. It would be a good follow-up from LaHood and others in positions of power.

I think this is the time to speak up and let the powers that be know that there IS a need. Hence, my bike parking thread.... and similar topics.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

I disagree with you naysayers. All it really takes to push new initiatives is the proper allocation of money and private industry to eat it up. If there is money to be made on equalizing the playing field between bikes and cars it'll happen. Without consumer demand for biking whatever infrastructure may be created from this will loose its funding immediately. So the real question is; Do we think there is an established market that can support this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam "Cezar" Jenkins on March 28, 2010 at 8:57am

Wow. Those comments just make me sad. Literally depressed. I would have liked one commenter to set them straight, just one.

I can't continue to read things like this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heather s on March 28, 2010 at 11:18am

Didn't mean to misrepresent the whole comment thread, there were certainly some positive ones (25 was the last comment at the time I read it). My point was only that the caliber of some of those comments is unusual for the New York Times.

Clark said:

Actually Adam, there were more positive comments than negative. To see them all, go to the original article and you'll see the comments appear below. Of over 40 comments, Heather picked up only the stupid ones...numbers #7, #11, #21, #25...etc See the numbers on the comments? I'll have to admit, those are the comments I look forward to reading...just for laughs...and that adrenaline high. As an example of one of the more favorable comments, I like this from a Brooklyn guy...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on March 28, 2010 at 5:51pm

If we as cyclists really wanted to make an impact we would get dirty and roll around with the swine in advertising. What we'll need to do is associate bicycling with sex. Sexual appeal and conquest is a favorite for driving consumer demand in the auto industry why not for cycling? Eh?

Let's all chip in and start contributing more to those bike porn threads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 28, 2010 at 6:26pm

I'm generally not an "ends justify the means" kinda guy, but I suppose that when ends = more support for cycling and means = sex, well, I'll make an exception.


Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

If we as cyclists really wanted to make an impact we would get dirty and roll around with the swine in advertising. What we'll need to do is associate bicycling with sex. Sexual appeal and conquest is a favorite for driving consumer demand in the auto industry why not for cycling? Eh?
Let's all chip in and start contributing more to those bike porn threads.

• ▶ Reply