The resemblance is uncanny

John Kass:

Jack Ass:

Views: 1516

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 4:53am

So while researching John Kass' bike antipathy, I stumbled across this article . I'm actually ok with licensing bike commuters who ride into the central business district. I'm willing to ante up a few bucks a year if it will help increase overall safety and improve our infrastructure. Along with taxation comes representation. Our collective voice will be amplified and given greater respect. What took Amsterdam 30 years to do can be done here within a decade. 

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 5:24am

And in that article he mentions "Mr. Joe the bike guy". I can't help but take that personally. Oh yeah? So you think just because you have this slick recipe for beer can chicken that I can't counter with my patent pending beer can frijoles? This grill is big enough for the both of us. Are you up to the challenge?

Permalink Reply by curt(is) locke on October 7, 2016 at 5:38am

"Licensing bike commuters who ride into the central business district" -- how the hell would that actually work?! The devil is in the details / enforcement. How about biking tourististas -- would they need licensing? What if a dedicated Lake Front cyclist wanted to slip into the CBD for a bite to eat or do some shopping - would they need to get a license or risk a fine?? Actually, I won't waste anymore energy contemplating/arguing how utterly stupid or impractical this proposal is -- I'm going out for a ride.

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 6:01am

I lock up my bike in a stall just west of the Board of Trade. They repainted them last week. They're covered, protected from the elements, and I appreciate them being there. Now, it would be possible to ticket bikes parked in those stalls that weren't registered with let's say the building management or the city of Chicago, just as we regulate car parking through fees. The fee (and we're talking about millicents on the dollar) can built into the municipal licensing structure for Divvy bikes. 

In Singapore drivers pay a surcharge for driving their vehicles into the central business district if they have fewer than 4 passengers. It used to be enforced with uniformed officers who visually monitored all traffic. They probably do it now with cameras. 

There's this old pseudo adage that Ben Franklin never really said and in fact he meant the opposite about exchanging a little bit of freedom for a little more security and getting neither, but I'll leave that as a homework assignment for the reader.

An enlightened tax policy can change the world. What France achieved through a revolution, England achieved without overthrowing their monarchy, which I leave as another homework assignment for the reader. 

My idea is neither impractical nor stupid and I don't appreciate your insults. Enjoy your ride.

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 6:06am

There is no free lunch and there is no free ride. The tradeoff is a lack of infrastructure and a lack of awareness. Both kill cyclists. 

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on October 7, 2016 at 6:16am

There is no free ride. It's a myth. Cyclists pay for the infrastructure we use. And we are much easier on the roads than cars and trucks. 

http://www.teamestrogen.com/pages/cycling-myths-debunked

http://www.bicycling.com/training/tips/best-responses-anti-cyclist-...

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 6:30am

Forget about roads. Let's talk about parking. I used to park my bike indoors downtown and I paid $150 a year for that privilege. I do it for free now. Now if that $150 were paid to the city for the same parking privilege, I'd be more than willing to do it if the tradeoff were one less ghost bike along my commute.

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 6:19am

Now to answer your original question, we treat bike parking in the central business district the same way we treat vehicle parking. Pay to play. A short term bike parker can use the same payment kiosks that vehicles use and the meter watchers that issue tickets to vehicles are given the same responsibility to do so for bicycles. Now you may howl in rage but if the revenue results in greater safety and fewer lives lost then your rage is misplaced.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on October 7, 2016 at 5:46am

I feel like at the root of every angry anti-cyclist is an unhappy motorist that would be so much more happy if only they'd go ride a bike every once in a while. 

I don't agree with licensing. I think it would be hard to enforce, children also ride bikes, and it will make it difficult for tourists to use Divvy and ride in Chicago. Boo.

Permalink Reply by Joe Guzzardo on October 7, 2016 at 6:37am

For all day parkers like me, it would be easy to enforce. Small bikes need no licensing. We can exclude Divvy bikes from paying parking fees. This is not rocket science.

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on October 7, 2016 at 6:57am

Here's another reason I disagree with paying for parking downtown as the answer to our safety - there is already a huge missed revenue stream. The majority of the vehicles that park, drive, and stop in the bike lane are not ticketed. This is one of the biggest safety issues and could provide the city with extra revenue. Motorists have learned to avoid meters because they will have less of chance of a ticket if they just park in the bike lanes. I am not sure how more money will make us safer as a general statement. Sure, we could always use more infrastructure but if the laws are broken and not enforced, we are still in danger and forced to merge into traffic regularly. 

Trucks should be required to have the necessary guards and mirrors to cover blind spots. That is also another huge source of danger. Not something that will be solved by throwing more money to the city to make us more safe. 

And then there is the issue of distracted drivers. Lack of enforcement.

Also, a lack of enforcement when motorists open their doors - hitting cyclists or forcing them into the streets unexpectedly. Many times motorists aren't ticketed - even when the cyclist is hit and injured or killed.

I think the best way to approach bike safety is to look at the root causes for the recent deaths and injuries rather than a grand sweeping plan to throw money at the problem. 

And then there is the matter of the large number of pedestrian deaths each year. The problem is with the motorists and to deflect that responsibility, making it the cyclist's responsibility seems misguided.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on October 7, 2016 at 7:10am

+1

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service