What Does This Mean for Cycling?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/27635186-452/could-rahm-lose-rac...

The thing is that Bike Lane's aren't the problem, but they are an obvious change upon which the drivers can blame their problems.   But if someone beats Rahm, they will, no doubt, give a great deal of credence to the Anti-Bike forces.   I am afraid that the mis-advocating of the ATA is coming back to roost.  We need that political capital that they threw away on that horrible Ashland Abomination, the Berteau "No Way", and a number of other badly thought out projects at the expense of real and useful projects.   Oh, and Critical Mass, I am looking at you too.   Once a month you deliver the message that Bicyclists think that they are better than the rest and don't have to follow any of the social conventions.    And that enters into the mix on these comments as well.  

Here's what we all need to do.   Dress and act respectfully (i.e. no naked bike ride, no bright flowery helmets with shirts that say "can you see me now asshole"), follow the primary traffic rules (right way on streets, stop at lights) and try to make people realize that we are part of the solution.  For if we don't, we are an election away from getting swatted hard.

Views: 2608

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 28, 2014 at 2:19pm
I mean... I took a history minor and in it we oddly enough never studied anyone who just politely coexisted with an oppressor and expected things to get better.

This is not a call to violence or even really a call to break ALL the laws.

But it is a call that maybe we shouldn't just take this bullshit sitting down, and maybe we should expect better of drivers than they expect of themselves, and fight to get that.

Maybe you don't think critical mass helps with that. But I think it has and will continue to do so.
Permalink Reply by globalguy on May 28, 2014 at 2:58pm

+1. And with all do respect, Anne, "protected" bike lanes & "Divvy" do not a "good" transportation policy make ...


peter moormann said:

E-manual  has failed to maintain west side Bike Lanes on Washington and Lake St.

Madison Lane ends abruptly at Central.

Augusta Lane .....shameful.

Rahm yer Fired!

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on May 29, 2014 at 3:13am

You need to ask for a refund of your tuition.   Many social changes have been brought about through politely coexisting with people with other views (charged terms like oppressor don't help) and things actually got better.    Let's take, for example, the recent positive trends in same sex marriage.   What finally brought about the change?   The realization by the majority that this was not the "great evil" that they had seen and that these couples were just like the rest of us.   It wasn't forced upon us be large scale protests.  

In fact, a strong argument can be made that the Viet Nam War protests, for example, actually increased the length of the War.  The original opposition to the War was in the "grandmother" contingent.   The "anti-war" protests were viewed by this group as "anti-american" (flag burning, people not "like" us) and this caused them to re-think their position.    The only time that a "protest" movement can really be effective is when it is the "majority" that is protesting the actions of a minority controlling them.   The thing is that, in the case of Bicyclists, it is the super-majority of non-Bicyclists that are being annoyed to the point of perhaps wanting to lash-back.  

And, of course, you keep denying that all evidence is "anecdotal".  Not really.    Its the kind of evidence that shows trends.  People don't write letters to the editor unless an issue is really important to them.   The numbers of letters to the Editor condemning Critical Mass is more than anecdotal.  In any event, we have "real" evidence that Bicycling is in trouble.   As noted in the Sun Times article, bike lanes were the number one "problem" raised by the people being polled -- unprompted.   This is a very strong, and very worrisome indicator.

We have ways to be effective and productive.   Critical Mass is not one of them.  Its highly counterproductive.  It may "feel good", but in the long term its bad for you.  And more importantly, its bad for the rest of us as well.  

Michelle Milham said:

I mean... I took a history minor and in it we oddly enough never studied anyone who just politely coexisted with an oppressor and expected things to get better.

This is not a call to violence or even really a call to break ALL the laws.

But it is a call that maybe we shouldn't just take this bullshit sitting down, and maybe we should expect better of drivers than they expect of themselves, and fight to get that.

Maybe you don't think critical mass helps with that. But I think it has and will continue to do so.
Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on May 29, 2014 at 3:15am

I support bicycling.  The difference is that I believe in effective advocacy, not childish actions that simply make the majority mad at the rest of us.   One of our problems is that a portion of the time is spent on controlling the "bomb throwers" on our side, rather than setting forth effective positions.



Michelle Milham said:

Said every single person who ever just say down and gave up on an ideal.I
Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 29, 2014 at 3:26am

What advocacy do you believe is effective, if you don't believe that exerting our rights as a group is effective? You are basically telling anyone who wants to do anything more than write a letter to the editor to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way of cars. We are advocating for ourselves. Anti bike people aren't beyond whining to newspapers and pollsters and MAYBE voting. I am confident that a 16 year old 1 time a month tradition actually has LITERALLY nothing to do with the people who complained about bikes. They didn't complain about critical mass specifically. They complained about bikes existing on the road at all. People do this all the time, everywhere. 

At this point, Chicago has a choice: continue to attract the young and the bright, who want options like bike to work facilities, or run those people out of town due to some whiny assholes. Which do you think we can afford to lose: companies like Google? Or some whiny assholes? Even if people vote Rahm out of office because of bike lanes, it would still be politically/financially necessary to continue making cycling safer if we want to attract companies that matter to our state. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 29, 2014 at 3:29am

"do" respect.



Jeff Schneider said:

Due.

globalguy said:

+1. And with all do respect, Anne, "protected" bike lanes & "Divvy" do not a "good" transportation policy make ...



Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on May 29, 2014 at 3:34am



Michelle Milham said:

Critical Mass, when I rode it, met at 5:00 and left at about 6:15. Most people who saw us on Ride of Silence asked "oh, is it critical mass today?" but didn't get an answer because of... Silence. So I'd argue there really is no difference except that you have respect for one and not for the other. MOST drivers don't know either exist, and if they do, can't tell between the two. 

My Comment:    The thing is that if we only had the ride of silence (once a year) it could be better publicized and differentiated from CM.

2.   So have the thousands of happy bicyclists who enjoy Critical Mass, and newspapers/social media/"car" websites are STILL anecdotal. There are probably no scientific studies here, so any evidence we have is anecdotal. 

My comment:  You can choose to put a bag over your head and ignore the overwhelming evidence (as well as the common sense) that many drivers are incensed over CM.   That doesn't change the fact that CM hurts our case.  Badly.   It is important to note that the City with the Best Bicycle infrastructure, Portland, Oregon also doesn't have Critical Mass.

3.  'm not. I'm not saying "DEATH TO CARS!" like drivers are shouting "I'LL RUN YOU OVER ON YOUR STUPID BIKE YOU BITCH" to me. It's not my fault that they made themselves my enemy. 

My Comment:   And that's part of the problem.   Creating an "us" versus "them" mentality will ultimately result in "us" losing when the "them" represents a super majority.  

5. This is so far from plausible that it's actually silly. Smokers harm others. Bicyclists do not. No one has an asthma attack from seeing a bicycle, like they might from inhaling cigarettes. The only "right" smokers lost is to smoke inside and /or close enough to the door of a building that the smoke will travel right on inside. If there WAS an attempt to ban bikes would you just simply politely say "OK, if that's what you say, majority." Cos... that's pretty wimpy. And shows that you're not really a strong ally of bikes. 

My comment:   The "anti-bicycle" forces would argue that Bicycles are dangerous.   They would claim that they place pedestrians and cars at risk when they don't follow the traffic laws.    (Citing to those very rare cases when Bicyclists have killed Pedestrians).  They would also argue that Bicyclists place themselves at risk and are often uninsured (the bicyclists are not like the rest of us meme) -- raising the societal cost.  The "smoking" ban analogy is quite similar.  Its an activity that was engaged in by (and in fact is still engaged in by) a much larger share of the population.    The studies on "second hand" smoke are not as definitive as you might suggest, and yet bans were imposed.  If the Smoker's lobby, which had a lot more money behind it, couldn't stop the majority from acting, do you really think that an expanded ban is not possible if the political winds shift a bit more? 

6.    Bike the drive is not any more "offensive" than the Saint Patricks Day Parade. It's a planned annual tradition. It is not offensive to tell cars they can't drive on the street from 5-9 on one Sunday morning every year, when the majority of people in the city are still sleeping or drinking their coffee. If bike the drive were at rush hour? Then it MIGHT be offensive, but it's still so planned that it's basically no more offensive than say, construction. 

My comment:  Typo on my part.   BTD is a good thing.  CM is not.  I meant to refer to CM.

7.  I was not referring to the Civil Rights Movement in specific. Let's look at Religion instead. Everyone's free to chose their religion in this country. Unless of course you chose not-Christian, and then (while theoretically you have protection under the law...) you basically have no protection unless you fight tooth and nail for it, just like bikes.

My comment:  Religion is a bad place to go for your argument.    Religion is expressly set forth in the Constitution as a protected freedom.   Bicycling is not.  Using well established principles of Statutory Construction, since bicycling is not mentioned, it does not receive the same level of protection.

And lets not forget that NOT everyone chooses to ride a bike. Maybe I do, and maybe you do, but for some people that is the most cost efficient way to get around, and they have a cheap bike, and even the monthly train pass or pay as you go is too expensive. It's not ALWAYS a choice.

My comment:  Bicycling is always a choice.   It may be the best choice, but it is a choice.  Its an economic resource allocation.  

And even if it is a lot of the time: wasn't aware that people who chose to do the less popular thing should always simply give it up at the whim of the more popular thing. This country was founded on the idea of protecting the rights of all, including (and especially) minority groups.

My comment:   Please show me where in the United States Constitution is says that Bicycling is a "right".   That's a pretty dangerous path to go down as, for example, one could argue that "driving a car" is also a right and thus regulations regulating drivers would be subject to attack.  And the concept of "rights" is not unlimited.  I do not have a "right" to marry more than one spouse at a time (even if my religion supports this).  I do not have the right to walk around naked in public.   I do not have the right to walk down the runway at O'Hare.  I do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  Going in this direction is going to get us squashed.  But then you have clearly demonstrated that you prefer to feel good rather than be effective.  

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on May 29, 2014 at 3:49am

Effective Advocacy can take many forms:

We used to have a very effective advocate in Chicago for Bicycling -- the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation.   But they have lost their way and are no longer an advocate for bicycling.   That would be the first thing that should be done -- the establishment of a "Federation of Chicago Bicyclists" for the purpose of advocating for bicycles.  

Secondly, a Political Action Committee should be formed to provide some financial support to those local candidates that are willing to support pro-cycling activities.

Thirdly, events such as "Bike to Work Week"  need to be expanded and supported.

Fourthly, an effective demonstration of the financial "clout" of bicyclists should be shown.    Pick a day and have all bicyclists pay for everything that day with either $2 bills or $1 coins.  

Fifthly, a strong outreach to the Bicycle Community should encourage following the most important traffic rules without exception.  (Lights, one way streets and the like)  Perhaps with T-Shirts that say "I follow the traffic laws, What about You".

That's a start of a program and that's a lot more effective than CM.

With respect to CM, traffic has gotten much worse.  It would have gotten much worse even if all cycling were banned.   But that fact is not relevant.  What is relevant is that cycling is a quick and easy scapegoat.   And CM gives them support for this.   

What has also changed is that Rahm has put a lot of "support" into obvious bicycle programs.   And some of these programs have gotten voters mad at him.  He has also earned lots of other enemies with other policies.  If he loses, which is not a given, those forces that lined up against him will all have a seat at the table.   And an "easy" and "noticeable" cut to the budget (even if it means nothing to the bottom line) will be to all of the bicycle programs.   The new Mayor will be able to show that she is cutting the budget by cutting things that are obvious.   And, of course, as always, the cuts will be for the benefit of the "children"......  (the Charter School companies...)



Michelle Milham said:

What advocacy do you believe is effective, if you don't believe that exerting our rights as a group is effective? You are basically telling anyone who wants to do anything more than write a letter to the editor to sit down, shut up, and get out of the way of cars. We are advocating for ourselves. Anti bike people aren't beyond whining to newspapers and pollsters and MAYBE voting. I am confident that a 16 year old 1 time a month tradition actually has LITERALLY nothing to do with the people who complained about bikes. They didn't complain about critical mass specifically. They complained about bikes existing on the road at all. People do this all the time, everywhere. 

At this point, Chicago has a choice: continue to attract the young and the bright, who want options like bike to work facilities, or run those people out of town due to some whiny assholes. Which do you think we can afford to lose: companies like Google? Or some whiny assholes? Even if people vote Rahm out of office because of bike lanes, it would still be politically/financially necessary to continue making cycling safer if we want to attract companies that matter to our state. 

Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on May 29, 2014 at 3:55am

Of course, the example of same-sex marriage cuts against your argument, since the most recent step came only after decades of in-your-face advocacy and generation-by-generation, individual-by-individual coming out to families, friends, and workplaces.

If we want car drivers to support bike infrastructure, we have to find ways to convince them that it's in their interest to do so, and achieving that requires somehow conveying that message to them in a convincing way. Good bike diplomacy - while always advisable - is not really a complete PR campaign. 

I am not really sure what the best strategy at this point in Chicago's maturation is. "We're here, we're cycling, get used to it," may not get us there, and I tend to agree that it could be counterproductive. But you can't organize a message or a campaign around a message like "be a good cycling diplomat" - it's just not a clear or salient enough message. We need cyclists to be proud, organized, and together, behind a message to drivers that says, "We're your allies: we're helping you reduce congestion, wear and tear on roads, and pollution; we're clearing seats on the CTA and parking spots downtown; you give us infrastructure, we'll use it and stay out of the lane" and so on. I'm not really seeing you suggest anything like that.

Crazy David 84 Furlongs said:

You need to ask for a refund of your tuition.   Many social changes have been brought about through politely coexisting with people with other views (charged terms like oppressor don't help) and things actually got better.    Let's take, for example, the recent positive trends in same sex marriage.   What finally brought about the change?   The realization by the majority that this was not the "great evil" that they had seen and that these couples were just like the rest of us.   It wasn't forced upon us be large scale protests.  

In fact, a strong argument can be made that the Viet Nam War protests, for example, actually increased the length of the War.  The original opposition to the War was in the "grandmother" contingent.   The "anti-war" protests were viewed by this group as "anti-american" (flag burning, people not "like" us) and this caused them to re-think their position.    The only time that a "protest" movement can really be effective is when it is the "majority" that is protesting the actions of a minority controlling them.   The thing is that, in the case of Bicyclists, it is the super-majority of non-Bicyclists that are being annoyed to the point of perhaps wanting to lash-back.  

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 29, 2014 at 3:57am



Crazy David 84 Furlongs said:



Michelle Milham said:

Critical Mass, when I rode it, met at 5:00 and left at about 6:15. Most people who saw us on Ride of Silence asked "oh, is it critical mass today?" but didn't get an answer because of... Silence. So I'd argue there really is no difference except that you have respect for one and not for the other. MOST drivers don't know either exist, and if they do, can't tell between the two. 

My Comment:    The thing is that if we only had the ride of silence (once a year) it could be better publicized and differentiated from CM.  --- so here, you are actually admitting that they are exactly the same thing, but that you approve of one and don't approve of the other. It won't matter really, if it causes traffic, people won't like it. 

2.   So have the thousands of happy bicyclists who enjoy Critical Mass, and newspapers/social media/"car" websites are STILL anecdotal. There are probably no scientific studies here, so any evidence we have is anecdotal. 

My comment:  You can choose to put a bag over your head and ignore the overwhelming evidence (as well as the common sense) that many drivers are incensed over CM.   That doesn't change the fact that CM hurts our case.  Badly.   It is important to note that the City with the Best Bicycle infrastructure, Portland, Oregon also doesn't have Critical Mass.  - Neither does Minneapolis, but I think the key term you're missing here is "anymore" - they had one until such time that they deemed it unnecessary because they were being represented and taken care of as a group. Once infrastructure was safer, they deemed it UNNECESSARY - not because it hurt the cause, but because it had accomplished it's goal. Would you argue that we have accomplished our goal in Chicago? Because I certainly would not. 

3.  'm not. I'm not saying "DEATH TO CARS!" like drivers are shouting "I'LL RUN YOU OVER ON YOUR STUPID BIKE YOU BITCH" to me. It's not my fault that they made themselves my enemy. 

My Comment:   And that's part of the problem.   Creating an "us" versus "them" mentality will ultimately result in "us" losing when the "them" represents a super majority.  - I'm not creating the us vs them mentality. Drivers are. I would much rather they just shut up and we all got along, but I will fight for my right to the road until they do, by any means possible short of violence (btw... there are like 10 y/os at CCM so where you continue to compare it to protests like the Vietnam War protests... you're not correct. It's far more civilized and orderly. Instead of the cops beating us or gassing us, they're hanging out with us, blocking streets for us, and chatting with us. Pretty much not the same tone at all.) 

5. This is so far from plausible that it's actually silly. Smokers harm others. Bicyclists do not. No one has an asthma attack from seeing a bicycle, like they might from inhaling cigarettes. The only "right" smokers lost is to smoke inside and /or close enough to the door of a building that the smoke will travel right on inside. If there WAS an attempt to ban bikes would you just simply politely say "OK, if that's what you say, majority." Cos... that's pretty wimpy. And shows that you're not really a strong ally of bikes. 

My comment:   The "anti-bicycle" forces would argue that Bicycles are dangerous.   They would claim that they place pedestrians and cars at risk when they don't follow the traffic laws.    (Citing to those very rare cases when Bicyclists have killed Pedestrians).  They would also argue that Bicyclists place themselves at risk and are often uninsured (the bicyclists are not like the rest of us meme) -- raising the societal cost.  The "smoking" ban analogy is quite similar.  Its an activity that was engaged in by (and in fact is still engaged in by) a much larger share of the population.    The studies on "second hand" smoke are not as definitive as you might suggest, and yet bans were imposed.  If the Smoker's lobby, which had a lot more money behind it, couldn't stop the majority from acting, do you really think that an expanded ban is not possible if the political winds shift a bit more? -Please, by all means, tell me again how smoking doesn't cause asthma attacks. That's funny. And the difference is that the enormous smoking lobby couldn't win because the facts were against them. The facts, like, the actual, rock solid, undisputable, scientifically backed facts are on the side of bicyclists. So these situations are not really as comparable as you think they are. 

6.    Bike the drive is not any more "offensive" than the Saint Patricks Day Parade. It's a planned annual tradition. It is not offensive to tell cars they can't drive on the street from 5-9 on one Sunday morning every year, when the majority of people in the city are still sleeping or drinking their coffee. If bike the drive were at rush hour? Then it MIGHT be offensive, but it's still so planned that it's basically no more offensive than say, construction. 

My comment:  Typo on my part.   BTD is a good thing.  CM is not.  I meant to refer to CM.  - Great. But they're essentially the same thing, only one is slightly more planned than the other. And only slightly more. CCM changes route to route every month, but is no where as large of an undertaking. Really, drivers should be more inconvenienced by Bike the Drive than they ever will be by CCM, since their chance of actually running into the mass is slim to none. 

7.  I was not referring to the Civil Rights Movement in specific. Let's look at Religion instead. Everyone's free to chose their religion in this country. Unless of course you chose not-Christian, and then (while theoretically you have protection under the law...) you basically have no protection unless you fight tooth and nail for it, just like bikes.

My comment:  Religion is a bad place to go for your argument.    Religion is expressly set forth in the Constitution as a protected freedom.   Bicycling is not.  Using well established principles of Statutory Construction, since bicycling is not mentioned, it does not receive the same level of protection. 
- Our right to bicycling on streets is not enshrined in the Constitution, no. But our right to peacefully gather and protest, as we do at CCM, is. Contrary to your belief, it is peaceful.  And our right to the streets is enshrined in other laws. Precedent is for us, not against us. You may have forgotten who streets were originally built because of... that hasn't changed. Our right is enshrined in highway code as well. Maybe not our right to bike lanes/infra, but certainly our right to be there. Unless you think that drivers are capable of overturning more than 100 years of precedent in highway codes... pretty much we have a right to be on the road. And rights are in place to protect minorities, and any judge worth their seat knows that removing minority rights at the will of the majority goes against everything this country stands for. 

Also: do you REALLY think that no one protested for gay marriage? Honestly? Yeah... everyone just had an epiphany an that just happened. Totally. Ugh. 

And lets not forget that NOT everyone chooses to ride a bike. Maybe I do, and maybe you do, but for some people that is the most cost efficient way to get around, and they have a cheap bike, and even the monthly train pass or pay as you go is too expensive. It's not ALWAYS a choice.

My comment:  Bicycling is always a choice.   It may be the best choice, but it is a choice.  Its an economic resource allocation.  
- I hope you never have the "Choice" between walking 10 miles to get to work or riding them. That is the choice some people face, which isn't much of a choice at all. 

And even if it is a lot of the time: wasn't aware that people who chose to do the less popular thing should always simply give it up at the whim of the more popular thing. This country was founded on the idea of protecting the rights of all, including (and especially) minority groups.

My comment:   Please show me where in the United States Constitution is says that Bicycling is a "right".   That's a pretty dangerous path to go down as, for example, one could argue that "driving a car" is also a right and thus regulations regulating drivers would be subject to attack.  And the concept of "rights" is not unlimited.  I do not have a "right" to marry more than one spouse at a time (even if my religion supports this).  I do not have the right to walk around naked in public.   I do not have the right to walk down the runway at O'Hare.  I do not have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.  Going in this direction is going to get us squashed.  But then you have clearly demonstrated that you prefer to feel good rather than be effective.  

-See above. Precedent and highway code.

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 29, 2014 at 4:05am

http://bikeportland.org/2012/09/28/its-the-20th-anniversary-of-crit... 

Also, here is an article about why Portland no longer has a Critical Mass. It's because their right to protest peacefully as a group was taken away by local police. Lets just be glad that's NOT what's happened here. 

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 29, 2014 at 4:06am

Thank you for expressing this specifically. I was too irritated to even get out something eloquent.

Simon Phearson said:

Of course, the example of same-sex marriage cuts against your argument, since the most recent step came only after decades of in-your-face advocacy and generation-by-generation, individual-by-individual coming out to families, friends, and workplaces.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service