What Right-Wing Governance Does For Cycling

On Mar 3, 4:23 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 4:14 pm, Peter Cole wrote:



I didn't bring up the topic of safety, Jay did.

Yes, Jay pointed to some hazards of particularly weird bike
facilities. But you were the one who brought up comparative
statistics envy. "I wish we had Portland's safety stats," IIRC.

I find facilities more
pleasant, and there doesn't seem to be a safety downside.

That's whitewashing with a very broad brush. Safety downsides of
various badly-conceived facilities have been discussed here often.

You're one small step away from "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility," which is no more sensible than "If Portland is safer,
Boston must be too dangerous." At least, qualify your enthusiasm.


I thought he was plenty clear that Boston and other places could
benefit from progressive examples.

On 3/3/2011 10:14 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
[...]
Are you advocating wasting money? Sharrow money could be put to
other, more productive use -- which would be just about anything.
[...]

Real life Spike Bike patrols would be my choice.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 3/2/2011 11:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 2, 5:28 pm, Peter wrote:
On 3/2/2011 12:24 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
I don't need no
stink'n lanes. I need smooth asphalt. -- Jay Beattie.

You probably don't in Portland, most of it anyway, but people seem to
like them.

People tend to like what people are told they should like. Ask any
advertising professional.

As further proof: People used to like bell bottom pants and afros on
white dudes.

I hated those things back when they were popular.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 3/3/2011 8:15 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
Mo[t]e. Beam. Eye.[...]

How does the Kentucky bourbon fit in?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 3/3/2011 11:31 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 12:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:22 am, wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:57 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
Bicycle farcilities (sic) were originated as a way to confine cyclists
to an area inferior to the motor vehicles, which is hardly a left-wing
position.

False, bicycle facilities were originated by bicyclists before motor
vehicles existed. But don't let that stop ya.

You mean those facilities called "paved roads"? Bicyclists lobbied
for them, but very few of them were segregated, bike-only
facilities.

Yes, we've made significant progress since then.

Yes, progress in herding cyclists into separate and unequal ghettos.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Mar 3, 5:44 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 3/2/2011 11:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 2, 5:28 pm, Peter wrote:
On 3/2/2011 12:24 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
I don't need no
stink'n lanes. I need smooth asphalt. -- Jay Beattie.

You probably don't in Portland, most of it anyway, but people seem to
like them.

People tend to like what people are told they should like. Ask any
advertising professional.

As further proof: People used to like bell bottom pants and afros on
white dudes.

I hated those things back when they were popular.


I like(d) bell bottoms. You'd think they'd catch in the chain more,
but you could flap them out and the airflow would hold them there; and
when they *did* catch you could still move your foot so far laterally
to clear the pedal and roll them right around and out without even
getting off the bike. (Mine got to be pretty gnarly looking at the
cuffs.)

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/3/2011 11:31 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/3/2011 12:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:22 am, wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:57 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
Bicycle farcilities (sic) were originated as a way to confine cyclists
to an area inferior to the motor vehicles, which is hardly a left-wing
position.

False, bicycle facilities were originated by bicyclists before motor
vehicles existed. But don't let that stop ya.

You mean those facilities called "paved roads"? Bicyclists lobbied
for them, but very few of them were segregated, bike-only
facilities.

Yes, we've made significant progress since then.

Yes, progress in herding cyclists into separate and unequal ghettos.


With significantly fewer horseshoe nails stuck in horse poop
on our roads now.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 3/3/2011 9:02 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 3/3/2011 11:31 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
Yes, we've made significant progress since then.

Yes, progress in herding cyclists into separate and unequal ghettos.


With significantly fewer horseshoe nails stuck in horse poop on our
roads now.


http://www.bunbag.com/
http://www.equisan.com.au/

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

"Tºm Shermªn™ °_°" " wrote in
message ...
[...]
The advocacy for deregulation is based on ideology and not economics - the
corporate barons do not want any restrictions put on them by the working
peasants.

Mr. Sherman could learn a few things by listening to Muzi and Cole, but
there are none so blind and deaf as an ideologue. When working peasants rule
the roost, all is disaster. Nope, small town lawyers make the best rulers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On 3/3/2011 7:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 3, 4:14 pm, Peter wrote:

I didn't bring up the topic of safety, Jay did.

Yes, Jay pointed to some hazards of particularly weird bike
facilities. But you were the one who brought up comparative
statistics envy. "I wish we had Portland's safety stats," IIRC.

Yes, that's accurate.


I find facilities more
pleasant, and there doesn't seem to be a safety downside.

That's whitewashing with a very broad brush. Safety downsides of
various badly-conceived facilities have been discussed here often.

You're one small step away from "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility," which is no more sensible than "If Portland is safer,
Boston must be too dangerous." At least, qualify your enthusiasm.

No, I'm not. All I'm saying is, that with all it's flaws, Portland is
still safer than Boston, which has virtually no facilities.