My analogy was not meant to compare severity of consequences, property damage, etc. It's about shaping public discourse and leading by example.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with you on the role the automobile has had in shaping our street scape. Mind you, I do think the age of the car is waning, mostly in the places that push for it. The percentage of young people in urban centres that own or use a car is plummeting, which is both a precursor to and product of creating walkable cities. KJ On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:55:55 PM UTC-4, Mark in Beacon wrote: > > I don't really buy into your analogy comparing bad cyclists to violent > anarchists. Compare the actual damage done by riders that disregard rules > of the road (rules made for motor vehicles, it should be noted) and ride > fast on crowded sidewalks ringing bells with the carnage wrought by driving > while drunk, driving while stoned, driving while texting, driving while > asleep, driving while not paying attention, driving while taking a selfie, > driving while doing the pokemon GO app, driving while angry. Then add up > what kinds of costs are involved--police, emergency, medical, rehab, > insurance, etc. Pay a fair share indeed. From every angle, right up to the > public bailout of the U.S. car manufacturing sector, car transport enjoys > the biggest subsidies there are, period. Without subsidies and > externalizing the costs and damages, there would be no cars, because they > don't make economic sense--unless you count, among other things, cleaning > up the mayhem as adding to your gdp, which, lucky for us, we do! No sense > in pointing out this fact though, because, well, that's the way it is! > Humans have lived this way for a hundred years! (It's true there is no > going back, but not for the reasons most people might suspect.) > > In terms of hooligan low-lifes, the majority of them have licenses. The > sheer number of motorists guarantees the number of jackasses in cars vs. on > bicycles is greater by an order of magnitude. > > In most places in the country, cycling infrastructure is not worth > investing in, and therefore it won't happen. That doesn't mean we should > not advocate for better conditions for cycling in our local communities. I > do. > But I think constantly being an apologist on the defensive doesn't help > the cause all that much. Let's play some offense. In any event, the three > most effective advocacy actions one can possibly take are ride your bike, > ride your bike, ride your bike. > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 3:58:56 PM UTC-4, Kieran J wrote: >> >> The apparent justification for this is (gasp) alleged lack of education >> and rule-following on the part of cyclists using city streets, along with >> the notion that cyclists need to pay their fair share of infrastructure >> capital and operational costs - especially when it comes to building new >> stuff meant exclusively for cycling. >> >> ...Continuing to characterize cyclists as law-abiding, decent people >> rather than hooligan low-lifes is an important part of legitimizing our >> place in society and convincing those that need convincing that we are >> worth investing in. Riders that blow through red lights, disregard the >> rules of the road, and ride fast on crowded sidewalks ringing their bell >> undo a lot of that work - the way a small group of violent anarchists can >> co-opt and completely derail a much larger, peaceful protest. >> >> KJ >> >> >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-4, Mark in Beacon wrote: >>> >>> Actually, badly behaving bicyclists are a tiny minority of what is a >>> teeny tiny miniscule minority in the first place. The truth is that bad >>> cycling etiquette is mainly that--bad etiquette, or at worst generally >>> mostly a danger to the cyclist. Whereas the radical monopoly that is our >>> transportation system breeds people that believe only motorized vehicles >>> belong on the roadways.Yesterday morning while on my way to work a van ran >>> me into the curb, on purpose, simply because he was offended by my >>> presence--the car in front of him was turning right, waited for me because >>> he thought I might go straight. I waved the car on and made my turn. >>> Apparently all too much for the van driver, who, as he was passing me after >>> the turn, veered his van into the shoulder directly in front of me, at >>> speed, just missing my front end. When I caught up with him two lights >>> later, his response was "Get on the f- sidewalk. You look like a f-ing >>> retard." Etc. So maybe he had just encountered a NYC messenger the other >>> day? I suppose that's a theory. >>> >>> Honestly, people can point to the bad behavior of some cyclists as the >>> reason for this or that, or why they ran me into the curb. And I certainly >>> believe it is important to maintain a civil and considerate approach to >>> riding my bicycle. My thoughts here are not meant to excuse cyclists who >>> ride like jackasses on public roads; I have little patience for it these >>> days. But do not kid yourself that bad cycling is why there is no >>> infrastructure money coming our way. >>> >>> It hardly needs to be said that we are all in on cars. Unfortunately, >>> the massive infrastructure this requires is getting to be too much now that >>> we are hitting diminishing returns in everything from extraction to >>> technology to our house of cards financial system. It is simply more than >>> we can afford at this point. Trying to retrofit this infrastructure to make >>> it "safe" for bicycles, a technology that, despite some headway, mostly in >>> compact city environments, we have decided is backward and not viable, and >>> an affront to progress, will never happen on a large scale. Many other >>> things are likely to happen meantime that will make it a moot point. >>> >>> The total centrality of cars in our lives, and our unshakeable belief in >>> the myths of eternal growth and eternal progress, blinds us to the ways the >>> radical monopoly transportation system corrupts everything, including time, >>> space, civility, resource allotment, and even the simple realization that >>> there are much more vulnerable road users out there. >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:08:14 AM UTC-4, Kieran J wrote: >>>> >>>> And yet, a small minority of extremists can have a disproportionate >>>> influence on the broader collective - negatively or positively. >>>> >>>> Bad cycling etiquette is an ongoing barrier in securing better >>>> infrastructure for all cyclists, influencing public perception of >>>> cyclists, >>>> and enhancing civic safety in a broad sense. A blasé attitude about it >>>> only enables the problem. >>>> >>>> Maybe not everyone cares about those things, which is a shame. Maybe >>>> messengers and other arsehat showboaters prefer riding in dense, dangerous >>>> conditions for a cheap thrill. I've been hit before - that's plenty for >>>> me, >>>> thanks! >>>> >>>> KJ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:09:20 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That a movie, group or individual represents or could even remotely >>>>> represent the infinitely diverse population of people who engage in >>>>> riding >>>>> a bicycle(let alone any activity) is a myth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
