|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On 3/10/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/ Yikes! Tea party is our enemy. Only Obama can save us. NY Times must be believed. This sort of article and post makes me want to destroy my bicycle and deny ever having ridden it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On Mar 10, 12:48*pm, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-... Let's merge ALL the non-TECH threads. DR |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On 3/10/2011 1:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/ Not a mention of the real arguments against paint on the ground: ghettoization of cyclists and that vehicular cycling works better. -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On 3/10/2011 5:27 PM, slide wrote:
On 3/10/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/ Yikes! Tea party is our enemy. Only Obama can save us. NY Times must be believed. This sort of article and post makes me want to destroy my bicycle and deny ever having ridden it. Right! The problem, as I see it, is that we ever let our meddling, over-reaching communist government start building roads in the first place. If we need roads, the free market system will provide! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On 3/10/2011 10:14 PM, Fred Fredburger wrote:
On 3/10/2011 5:27 PM, slide wrote: On 3/10/2011 12:48 PM, Peter Cole wrote: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...the-tea-party/ Yikes! Tea party is our enemy. Only Obama can save us. NY Times must be believed. This sort of article and post makes me want to destroy my bicycle and deny ever having ridden it. Right! The problem, as I see it, is that we ever let our meddling, over-reaching communist government start building roads in the first place. If we need roads, the free market system will provide! +6.02x10^23 -- Tēm ShermĒn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On Mar 10, 11:48*am, Peter Cole wrote:
http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-... Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so- called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities, don't ride bikes. I think these unidentified bike advocates have ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few examples: 1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices 2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving. Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more abatement than calming) 3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise). Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests. As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote:
On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter wrote: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-... Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so- called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities, don't ride bikes. That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence to back it up? I think these unidentified bike advocates have ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few examples: 1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite, that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a bad thing (either). 2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving. Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't. Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen. I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there. If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may even reduce congestion by improving net throughput. Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more abatement than calming) It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may (theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area, those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes. Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the need for conspiracy. 3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise). Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental "micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area, building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc. Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local than global issue. Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests. Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians -- historically, a more serious problem. As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling. You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On Mar 11, 7:11*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote: On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter *wrote: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-.... Let's face it. *I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so- called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities, don't ride bikes. That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence to back it up? I think these unidentified bike advocates have ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. *Here are a few examples: 1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite, that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a bad thing (either). 2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving. Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't. Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen. I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there.. If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may even reduce congestion by improving net throughput. Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more abatement than calming) It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may (theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area, those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes. Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the need for conspiracy. 3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has little to do with the environment. *Primarily I do it because it's a good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise). Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental "micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area, building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc. Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local than global issue. Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer than normal streets) is reprehensible. *It's really not any different than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests. Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians -- historically, a more serious problem. As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling. You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself. Having been one of the original board members on the fledgling (now 800lb gorilla) Bicycle Transportation Alliance, I can say that damyth is basically right. Without getting in to the merits of environmentalism, traffic calming, etc., etc., it is true that my board co-horts had numerous and sometimes conflicting super-agendas (e.g. empowering women, de-powering police, fighting the power, conserving power -- lots of power issues). Environmentalism was a big one. A later added board member was the congressional candidate for the Pacific Green Party. Conflicting agendas resulted in a lot of wasted time, IMO, but then again, I am more of a results person than a process person. Volunteer boards are typically populated by people who like process -- and lots of it. More to the point, all of the issues regarding traffic calming, environmental improvement, decreased motor vehicle traffic are not part of some hidden agenda -- they are addressed specifically in designing bicycle infrastructure, usually by planners or businesses like Alta. I like Mia, but you can't ignore the fact that designing bicycle infrastructure is a paying business. Not a lot of money in painting simple stripes or "vehicular bicycling." -- Jay Beattie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJD83KXNg4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM60DqAM6bQ http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...dams_bike.html http://newurbannetwork.com/article/b...d-travel-13959 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Merging two topics for efficiency
On 3/11/2011 1:13 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:11 am, Peter wrote: On 3/11/2011 8:18 AM, damyth wrote: On Mar 10, 11:48 am, Peter wrote: http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/20...enage-cyclist-... Let's face it. I wouldn't have any issues if these so-called advocates are at least honest about their true motives. I'm willing to wager my whole bike collection that a significant membership of so- called "bike advocacy groups" that uncritically favor bike facilities, don't ride bikes. That's quite an accusation, and one I haven't heard before. Any evidence to back it up? I think these unidentified bike advocates have ulterior motives other than cycling promotion. Here are a few examples: 1. Using bike facilities as motor traffic calming devices As opposed to unsegregated cycling? I've heard claims to the opposite, that by removing slow moving vehicles (e.g. bikes) allows higher traffic speeds. I often feel like a traffic calming device when I ride in traffic, particularly when "taking the lane". Not that I consider that a bad thing (either). 2. Reduce vehicular congestion (or alternatively, discourage driving. Any alternative will reduce congestion (e.g. mass transit). Discouraging driving can be more directly achieved by adding congestion fees, raising tolls and parking costs. Those measures have the added benefit of raising revenue with little, if any, additional expense. Discouraging driving economically is regressive, providing cheap alternatives, isn't. Cycling is cheap for both the city and the citizen. I have no doubt that urban administrations and planning agencies view cycling favorably as a congestion reduction mechanism, who wouldn't? Who likes congestion? If there's any common ground, it would seem to be there. If a universal good in transportation (by whatever mode) is delay, then reducing congestion is good in itself. If traffic calming introduces additional delay, as is claimed, then there's a trade-off. The data I've seen indicates that traffic calming doesn't cause significant delay in urban areas since average speeds are modest to begin with. What it does do is reduce maximum speeds which has little effect on average. It may even reduce congestion by improving net throughput. Somewhat intertwined with the first motive, yet different, more abatement than calming) It's difficult to "untwine" these things. If more people cycle, one must assume that usage is reduced in other modes. While cycling may (theoretically) cause more delay to motorists via loss of lane area, those possible losses are offset to some degree by reduction in motorist numbers and reduction in "negotiation" of shared lanes. Those competing factors may provide a wash, or an increase or decrease in motorist transit delay, but who cares if it is a goal or merely side effect? Both the EPA and many urban civic organizations are pressing to reduce motor traffic in dense urban areas, cyclists may be natural allies in that initiative, but I doubt they are major players. If you are merely accusing cycling advocacy groups as being "fronts" for anti-motorist cabals, I'm skeptical to say the least, I don't see the need for conspiracy. 3. "Environmentalists." I consider myself as "green"as any card carrying member of the Sierra Club, but the reason I ride bikes has little to do with the environment. Primarily I do it because it's a good way to get around while getting some fresh air and exercise). Urban environments, like NYC, are unique in their environmental "micro-climate". Many typical sources of air pollution can be mitigated for residents. Power stations can be located outside of the area, building heating emissions can be vented far above street level, etc. Motor vehicle traffic generates a variety of pollutants at street level that significantly degrade urban air quality and mitigation is difficult. This has received a lot more attention in recent years as studies have linked gaseous and particulate emissions to serious disease with elevated rates in urban areas. It's specifically more of a local than global issue. Cyclist safety is way down their list of priorities. Using cyclists as unwitting foot soldiers (especially if facilities are not any safer than normal streets) is reprehensible. It's really not any different than the "Tea Party" co-opted by corporate interests. Careful, I think Frank K may have trademarked the "unwitting foot soldiers" phrase. As for safety, the data from NYC and Portland seems to indicate a net overall positive effect of providing bike facilities. In the case of NYC, not only for cyclists, but also for pedestrians -- historically, a more serious problem. As an ex-New Yorker who rode my bike in the city religiously I find those curbed islands to be a total travesty to safe cycling. You're entitled to your opinion, but so far the collected evidence doesn't seem to support your outrage. I'm a secular rider myself. Having been one of the original board members on the fledgling (now 800lb gorilla) Bicycle Transportation Alliance, I can say that damyth is basically right. Without getting in to the merits of environmentalism, traffic calming, etc., etc., it is true that my board co-horts had numerous and sometimes conflicting super-agendas (e.g. empowering women, de-powering police, fighting the power, conserving power -- lots of power issues). Environmentalism was a big one. This is not what damyth was claiming, he was claiming that a "significant portion of bike advocacy groups don't ride bikes" -- a rather different thing. I would expect there to be a great deal of overlap between bike advocacy and "green" issues. I don't see a conflict of interest -- far from it. A later added board member was the congressional candidate for the Pacific Green Party. Conflicting agendas resulted in a lot of wasted time, IMO, but then again, I am more of a results person than a process person. Volunteer boards are typically populated by people who like process -- and lots of it. What kind of "conflicting agendas"? Do you agree that a big subset of the bike advocates didn't ride bikes or have any interest in bikes except to exploit cycling for other agendas? More to the point, all of the issues regarding traffic calming, environmental improvement, decreased motor vehicle traffic are not part of some hidden agenda -- they are addressed specifically in designing bicycle infrastructure, usually by planners or businesses like Alta. So what? Is this "guilt by association"? If so, what's the crime? Is traffic calming incompatible with cycling advocacy? "Environmental improvement"? That's a fuzzy term. The EPA has been quite involved in reducing air pollutants, which are particularly (pun intended) a problem in dense urban environments like NYC. Street runoff is also a problem for the pollution of local waterways, prominent in both Portland and NYC. Water born pollution via the storm water collection system is just another way that motor traffic and parking is subsidized by general taxation. It makes perfect sense that some part of the sewer budget should be made available to the mitigation of the problem at the source. If that's also favorable to cycling interests, fine. I like Mia, but you can't ignore the fact that designing bicycle infrastructure is a paying business. Not a lot of money in painting simple stripes or "vehicular bicycling." Is there any reason why it shouldn't be a paying business? Are streets or homes or businesses or yards designed for free in Portland? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWJD83KXNg4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM60DqAM6bQ http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/i...dams_bike.html http://newurbannetwork.com/article/b...d-travel-13959 I didn't see anything conflicting or conspiratorial in any of those clips. Bicycle boulevards, even Frank likes those. Bioswales, reducing the stormwater runoff problem -- hardly controversial, except perhaps for the fact that it's the square miles of impermeable (paved) surfaces that create most of the problem in the first place. If the two innovations can be combined in the same space in a complementary fashion, and one that pleases the local residents, I don't see the big problem. Neither, apparently, does anyone else. Tempest in a tea pot, much ado about nothing, not creeping socialism. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
100 000 topics listed by google for this group | Nick L Plate | Techniques | 0 | March 26th 09 11:44 PM |
merging forks | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | November 8th 07 05:28 AM |
I am sorry for all of the topics. | ReptilesBlade | General | 2 | November 1st 05 11:01 PM |
topics/animals | Frank P. Patterson | Recumbent Biking | 0 | December 1st 04 05:35 AM |
Unmentionable topics | Peter B | UK | 2 | December 20th 03 09:43 PM |