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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on
-
Our mode share in cities is... slowly... approaching 10% right?
Didn't many of the 20-something's parents here grow up riding bikes around the city? I know mine did - he always finds it something of a wonderment that he grew up riding a bike around avondale, and now I'm riding my bike around Logan Square.
But you're right - until everyone can participate we can't grow, but not everyone can participate without infra, and we need people to participate in order to get more infrastructure.
Jeff Schneider said:Transportation cycling in the US is an example of catch-22. We need infra to get more people cycling, but we can't get support for infra without more cyclists.
The places with extensive cycling infra (you know, the usual suspects NL and DK), even in their darkest days, never had a cycling mode share lower than about 10 times greater than what we have now. There was always a large part of the population who did, or once had, used cycling for transportation. They were well aware of the practicality and benefits of it.
Here we have only the tiniest segment of the population who use cycling for transportation. Whether it is possible to ever get to a reasonable mode share, starting with a population that has had a couple of generations grow up always driving and being driven everywhere, is a real question.
-
-
Yes. If only because they happen on what are already very busy Friday afternoon Rush Hours when people are making getting home their highest priority. Does Critical Mass radically impact the commute time? Probably not, but the facts are not the question, it is the perception. People in cars know they are stuck in Traffic. They may not understand the "real reasons" for this, but they see CM and thus give it the blame.
Again, Adults don't take to the streets in a mass to "have fun" by disrupting traffic. CM reinforces the view that bicyclists are not real adults.
But trying to get most cyclists to see this is like trying to stop a Lemming in a Disney Nature film...
Michelle Milham said:DO Critical Mass rides hurt the publics view of cycling? Honest Question. Honestly? I think if we asked the public their opinion on Critical Mass... most would say "what's that?" and those that knew might say "Oh is that that thing I waited for once? That looked bizarre." - that's hardly "negative."
I've only been on one, mind you, but the one I went on was supported by police who were blocking a lot of intersections, was mostly organized and polite, contained families and children, and only a few fringe weirdos were angry/riding like asses. There was a lot of bell ringing and cheering, and people were coming out of their houses, leaning out their windows, and rolling down their car windows to shout hello. There were copious high fives and everyone was shouting "Happy Friday!" Whole families were greeting us in the streets. We rode to the food bank and paused there to donate. Honestly? It felt like a pretty fantastic way to MEET the community and be involved with it.
Were there a few laying on their horns? Sure, but they were few and far between compared to the people who were amused/asked who we were/thought it looked fun. I seriously rode with the cops and chatted a little with them, and they said they don't mind us at all.
I think Mass in Chicago used to be something very rebellious, judging from my research. But now? I think Mass is mostly an accepted monthly ride with hundreds of participants.
Also I have a question about this: "lycranauts schuss-bombing the LFP hurt the public view of cycling." -- may I ask, where, exactly, are people who would like to train supposed to go to ride? I'm not saying I think the LFP is the place, but it just seems like a) lycra gets some sort of really weird bad rap that doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever (I don't wear much of it, I prefer cheap old navy yoga clothes, but hey I can't argue that having pockets on your back isn't convenient) and b) there is literally no where that a serious cyclist can go ride full out that they won't get sh*t for it. So I wonder about that often when I hear that argument.
Reboot Oxnard said:Emmanuel has been a big benefactor to cycling but that largesse may represent a big threat, too. If cycling is identified with Emmanuel - and, right now, it is - and it becomes a factor in his defeat in the upcoming election, what will the impact on cycling be? Does it matter?
The reality is that sooner or later, if cycling doesn't cross over to the mainstream community, there will be a backlash against the current level of infrastructure expenditures and traffic disruption (both motor vehicle and pedestrian) that it has cost/caused. There certainly won’t be more money or political support. The increased support cycling has enjoyed simply isn't sustainable so long as it remains a fringe activity, especially when existing users are so heavily identified with the estranged.
Bicycling infrastructure is essential if cycling is to be a viable option yet that infrastructure must be widely utilized if society is going to continue to pour money into it. So what can the cycling community do to help cycling establish itself and expand its utilization factor?
There are two fronts to address:
1. Promote the positives. Cycling can be a viable mode of travel, one that presents a wide range of benefits including cost, health, congestion, economic development, etc. We’ve done a reasonably good job of that.
2. Suppress the negatives. Cycling has high negatives in the community and we need to start addressing them before they become our Achilles heel. You can argue the pro’s and con’s of Idaho stops until you’re blue in the face but lack of respect for traffic laws hurt the public view of cycling. You can argue that Critical Mass rides are fun and not a significant inconvenience but they hurt the public view of cycling. Likewise, lycranauts schuss-bombing the LFP hurt the public view of cycling. Hell, arguments about mandating helmets hurt the public view of cycling. It is in our interest, as a community that has been receiving funding and support far in excess of our due from the community, to begin the process of policing ourselves. The process needs to start right here, on thechainlink. We have not done a very good job of that.
The challenge the cycling community faces is to begin conforming to the standards of the mainstream or lose the support/tolerance of the larger community. Acting out is an effective tool for getting attention but we’ve done that. Now, it’s imperative to demonstrate that we can behave and offer a net benefit to the community or that public attention will become our worst enemy.
-
-
I'm not replying to your comment to cut down the gigantic wall of text.
However: you ignored most of what I said: I didn't see many people upset over "Traffic" who could see the mass. Most seemed amused, happy, laughing, waving, like they were at a parade. Those who COULDNT see the mass may be stuck in momentary traffic... but honestly how often do you know the cause of traffic unless you can see it? On a Friday at that time, there is going to be traffic critical mass or no. most people who do see the mass seem to find it whimsical, most who do not won't know it's happening. I fail to see how that causes any issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Reboot Oxnard on
-
I think Mass in Chicago used to be something very rebellious, judging from my research. But now? I think Mass is mostly an accepted monthly ride with hundreds of participants.
There is room for two truths regarding Critical Mass. For the riders, it’s a good time. For the spectators hanging out on the street or looking on from their balconies, it’s a good time – or at least marginally entertaining. For the hundreds of motorists corked at dozens of intersections, it’s a disruption, an imposition and an inconvenience, even absent the vandalism and intimidation that occurs/occurred. Whether CM has less of a negative impact on the community than it once did is less relevant than the the poll data showing cycling has a negative perception problem and we need to be doing whatever we can to avoid that.
where, exactly, are people who would like to train supposed to go to ride?... there is literally no where that a serious cyclist can go ride full out that they won't get sh*t for it
The short answer to your question is probably: nowhere; at the very least, not along the lakefront. We get mad at motorcycles and cars when they race up and down the streets because they are a dangerous nuisance. Ditto for cyclists: too fast for conditions is too fast and lack of alternatives never excuses unsafe or rude behavior. Training facilities for the Lycranauts (whether Spandex clad or not) is about 5,289 on the list of infrastructure projects likely to happen, in the meantime the LFT is not the place for it. Those who insist cause community relationship problems for the rest of us and invite the backlash.
If we're going to expand the mainstream support we need in order to grow cycling, we need to start being better neighbors.
-
-
OK... here's the thing. It's no less an imposition than a freight train. If people are blowing a gasket over critical mass once a month, perhaps they should spend some time in Des Plaines where freight trains stop and "Cork" intersections for a half hour at a time, multiple times a day. It was my frequent excuse to be late home from dropping off my bf in HS and I never even got caught. But no one is going to ban trains.
The fact of the matter is... drivers really just need to learn to use the highway, or suck it the eff up sometimes. The world doesn't revolve around them, bikes, trains, and busses exist too.
Perhaps a pedestrian only path on the LFT would solve all the issues there: it works in Minneapolis wonderfully, and there's plenty of room.
-
-
+
With respect to training, lots of places still exist for this. They just don't exist in the heart of the City. Nor, frankly, do places in the heart of the City exist where one could take a car and "burn out the carburetor" or "take off your clothes and run naked in the Sun" or "fly a hot air balloon" or any other variety of activities that some group on another perceive as "normal".
If we are going to expand mainstream support and not force contractions, we need to start being better neighbors...
Reboot Oxnard said:I think Mass in Chicago used to be something very rebellious, judging from my research. But now? I think Mass is mostly an accepted monthly ride with hundreds of participants.
There is room for two truths regarding Critical Mass. For the riders, it’s a good time. For the spectators hanging out on the street or looking on from their balconies, it’s a good time – or at least marginally entertaining. For the hundreds of motorists corked at dozens of intersections, it’s a disruption, an imposition and an inconvenience, even absent the vandalism and intimidation that occurs/occurred. Whether CM has less of a negative impact on the community than it once did is less relevant than the the poll data showing cycling has a negative perception problem and we need to be doing whatever we can to avoid that.
where, exactly, are people who would like to train supposed to go to ride?... there is literally no where that a serious cyclist can go ride full out that they won't get sh*t for it
The short answer to your question is probably: nowhere; at the very least, not along the lakefront. We get mad at motorcycles and cars when they race up and down the streets because they are a dangerous nuisance. Ditto for cyclists: too fast for conditions is too fast and lack of alternatives never excuses unsafe or rude behavior. Training facilities for the Lycranauts (whether Spandex clad or not) is about 5,289 on the list of infrastructure projects likely to happen, in the meantime the LFT is not the place for it. Those who insist cause community relationship problems for the rest of us and invite the backlash.
If we're going to expand the mainstream support we need in order to grow cycling, we need to start being better neighbors.
-
-
Where do they actually exist though? This is a serious question. Do they exist in Illinois? A safe place where your not asked to keep your bike under 10mph (aka sloth pace/barely even peddling/a small hill or a tailwind could push me faster?)
-
-
So we shouldn't have ride of silence with police escort then either? There really wasn't much difference except in intention... Police escort, and the ride did cut through lights because it was too big not to without splitting, and the cops helped us out.
Also all your "stewing drivers" are also purely anecdotal so how do you know who's right here?
Not to mention: cars will be infuriated at any bicycling on any road at any time, and if we get on the sidewalk or even a mup, peds will be pissed.
Cars frequently are aggressive towards cyclists on mke in the morning, even though they can probably see the motive of a commuting biker pretty clearly.
Cars cause traffic, not bikes. That's pretty much the end of the story there. Maybe critical mass gums up a road every month, but that's nothing compared to having to sit through multiple lights just to turn left at an intersection due to car traffic.
If we were to extend this "lets not offend drivers because we're the minority" point to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't be allowed to cycle. No matter how "polite" we are, drivers will hate on us.
Quite frankly, the failure in this country to stick up for minorities of any type is infuriating, and cyclists are no exception.
-
-
1. Ride of Silence does not go at 5:30 on Friday in the teeth of rush hour. It goes at 6:30 pm, is much smaller and is much more organized with the organization shared. And, of course, its like a funeral procession, it tends to get at least a pass, if not sympathy, from those that see it.
2. The "stewing drivers" have been all over the newspaper and social media for quite a long time. Its interesting that the best bicycling city in the country also doesn't have Critical Mass. Some "car" sites even put out warnings about Critical Mass in less than polite tone.
3. Sure some cars are going to be mad if Bicycles use the road. You can't make everyone your friend, but the idea is also to avoid making everyone your enemy.
4. Yes, some cars are very aggressive on Milwaukee Avenue in the morning. Just because a driver acts like an asshole, does that justify us acting like assholes? This is why we need to respect things like Red Lights. It gives us the moral high ground to demand our rights.
5. Yes. Cars do cause traffic. And, like it or not, right now society says that Cars are the dominant form of transport. The rest of us, to some degree, are there at the "pleasure" of the car driving community and they could revoke the right to do so if they wished. The US has a lot more smokers than bicyclists and they saw their rights taken away.
6. There is a difference between acting intentionally offensive (Bike the Drive) and being "offensive" because we exist. The former makes a lot more enemies than the later.
7. I find the comments about the Civil Rights movement offensive. In one case you are dealing with a "suspect class", someone with a characteristic or trait that they did not choose (or, in that one unique case, religious freedom) versus a choice as to a method of transportation. The two do not equate. The way to "protect" the rights of the bicyclists is to encourage more people to ride. Not to act like assholes and demand the right to ride. All the later is going to do is get us banned.
Michelle Milham said:So we shouldn't have ride of silence with police escort then either? There really wasn't much difference except in intention... Police escort, and the ride did cut through lights because it was too big not to without splitting, and the cops helped us out.
Also all your "stewing drivers" are also purely anecdotal so how do you know who's right here?
Not to mention: cars will be infuriated at any bicycling on any road at any time, and if we get on the sidewalk or even a mup, peds will be pissed.
Cars frequently are aggressive towards cyclists on mke in the morning, even though they can probably see the motive of a commuting biker pretty clearly.
Cars cause traffic, not bikes. That's pretty much the end of the story there. Maybe critical mass gums up a road every month, but that's nothing compared to having to sit through multiple lights just to turn left at an intersection due to car traffic.
If we were to extend this "lets not offend drivers because we're the minority" point to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't be allowed to cycle. No matter how "polite" we are, drivers will hate on us.
Quite frankly, the failure in this country to stick up for minorities of any type is infuriating, and cyclists are no exception.
-
-
Crazy David 84 Furlongs said:1. Ride of Silence does not go at 5:30 on Friday in the teeth of rush hour. It goes at 6:30 pm, is much smaller and is much more organized with the organization shared. And, of course, its like a funeral procession, it tends to get at least a pass, if not sympathy, from those that see it. 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.
2. The "stewing drivers" have been all over the newspaper and social media for quite a long time. Its interesting that the best bicycling city in the country also doesn't have Critical Mass. Some "car" sites even put out warnings about Critical Mass in less than polite tone. 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.
3. Sure some cars are going to be mad if Bicycles use the road. You can't make everyone your friend, but the idea is also to avoid making everyone your enemy. I'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.
4. Yes, some cars are very aggressive on Milwaukee Avenue in the morning. Just because a driver acts like an asshole, does that justify us acting like assholes? This is why we need to respect things like Red Lights. It gives us the moral high ground to demand our rights.
5. Yes. Cars do cause traffic. And, like it or not, right now society says that Cars are the dominant form of transport. The rest of us, to some degree, are there at the "pleasure" of the car driving community and they could revoke the right to do so if they wished. The US has a lot more smokers than bicyclists and they saw their rights taken away. 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.
6. There is a difference between acting intentionally offensive (Bike the Drive) and being "offensive" because we exist. The former makes a lot more enemies than the later. 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.
7. I find the comments about the Civil Rights movement offensive. In one case you are dealing with a "suspect class", someone with a characteristic or trait that they did not choose (or, in that one unique case, religious freedom) versus a choice as to a method of transportation. The two do not equate. The way to "protect" the rights of the bicyclists is to encourage more people to ride. Not to act like assholes and demand the right to ride. All the later is going to do is get us banned. 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. 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. 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. We have strayed VERY far from that concept. Biking may not be the most IMPORTANT example, but it IS an example.
Michelle Milham said:So we shouldn't have ride of silence with police escort then either? There really wasn't much difference except in intention... Police escort, and the ride did cut through lights because it was too big not to without splitting, and the cops helped us out.
Also all your "stewing drivers" are also purely anecdotal so how do you know who's right here?
Not to mention: cars will be infuriated at any bicycling on any road at any time, and if we get on the sidewalk or even a mup, peds will be pissed.
Cars frequently are aggressive towards cyclists on mke in the morning, even though they can probably see the motive of a commuting biker pretty clearly.
Cars cause traffic, not bikes. That's pretty much the end of the story there. Maybe critical mass gums up a road every month, but that's nothing compared to having to sit through multiple lights just to turn left at an intersection due to car traffic.
If we were to extend this "lets not offend drivers because we're the minority" point to it's logical conclusion, we wouldn't be allowed to cycle. No matter how "polite" we are, drivers will hate on us.
Quite frankly, the failure in this country to stick up for minorities of any type is infuriating, and cyclists are no exception.
-
-
Michelle, even if you have the moral high ground in the bike -v- car fight, the poll data says you are probably going to need to choose between being right and being effective. These are your neighbors and if you want to get along with them, especially if you want them to provide funds and support for developing cycling infrastructure, you are going to have to learn how to play nice with them. It doesn't matter who started your war, what matters is that putting an end to it means that you are going to have to be the one to sue for peace.
-
-
Said every single person who ever just say down and gave up on an ideal.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
