Do you feel like biking makes you a loser?

Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/...e/swless01.htm


THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace

KingOfTheApes wrote:
Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/...e/swless01.htm


THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace



You are a Turing test and ICMFP

LN

THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

Yeah, look at how successful it's been in a small country like Cuba.

By the way, I don't feel that biking makes me a loser.
I'm a loser because I'm a loser, biking is my escape.

Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

Unfortunately, the most vocal cyclists tend to be the nutters such as
Spindrift, who tarnish the reputation of all cyclists. The majority
of cyclists are perfectly reasonable, but if they want to deal with
the image problem that cyclists have, they have to publicly disown the
anti-motorist, red light-jumping, inconsiderate, offensive buffoons
who claim to represent cyclists in general. Once cyclists have a
reputation for riding considerately, and campaigning for pro-cyclist
rather than anti-motorist measures, they will get the treatment that
they deserve. But at the moment, it's a case of doing as you would be
done by: while cyclists have a reputation for being ******* towards
other road users, other road users (including planners etc) aren't
going to be particularly well-disposed towards cyclists. It's just
the way life works.

You know I'm right, and anyone flaming me will just prove my point.

Nuxx Bar schrieb:
But at the moment, it's a case of doing as you would be
done by: while cyclists have a reputation for being ******* towards
other road users, other road users (including planners etc) aren't
going to be particularly well-disposed towards cyclists.

That's what administrative courts are for ...

On Jul 3, 6:08 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
[Unrelated groups rec.bicycles.rides [1] and uk.rec.cycling snipped]

KingOfTheApes aka Comendante Banana aka donquixote1954 aka WHO? wrote: ...
So how do you feel about it, jumping [off] the San Francisco bridge?

Was not considering it, but if I keep on reading these posts I might.

Please take a course on statistics so you will understand that cycling
is a relatively safe activity, even in the USA.

[1] This is for ride reports and discussion of routes, etc. dude.

Biking is so safe in America that as much as 0.4% of the commuting
population does so by bike.

Actually, it's pretty good on paper (and probably safer than doing the
tour in Afghanistan)...

Let's see what this folk has to say:

'Hi,

The Pennsylvania DOT has a website advocating what I believe is that
standard doctrine about narrow roads: take the middle of the lane. The
main advantage of this, aside from the fact that the road is better
and the car doors more easily avoidable, is that cars and really big
trucks are not encouraged to "share" the lane with you. So I tried it.

It's led so some pretty aggravating situations, with drivers leaning
on their horns under the impression, obviously, that you're doing it
to slow them down. (Like all brain surgeons and supreme court
justices, their time is obviously very important.)

On top of that, I actually worry more than anything else that people
drive without actually looking in front of them. That may be
(slightly) irrational, and I've never seen anyone mow a cyclist down
just because they weren't looking, but I've certainly seen them ignore
stop signs because they weren't looking (as opposed to not caring), so
lately I've moved back to the side of the road.

Unless there's a major information campaign and general change in
attitude I can't actually see the middle of the road position ever
being really that viable in this country. For the side of the road
position to work all (?) you really need is something to get people to
give you your rightful three feet of space. The only solutions I can
think of are (a) again, a public awareness campaign (b) those flag /
lollipop things (c) jerseys with "give me three feet please" on them.

Does anyone have any better ideas? I don't suppose the Leader of the
Free World reads the fora. Pity. '

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=437461

On Jul 4, 4:29*pm, wrote:
THE REVOLUTION WHERE SMALL IS BETTER
The chihuahua says: "Yo quiero revolution!"

Yeah, look at how successful it's been in a small country like Cuba.

By the way, I don't feel that biking makes me a loser.
I'm a loser because I'm a loser, biking is my escape.

Bike, bike, bike, meow,
ABS

I'd consider it an escape if I could do it on a bike path in the
middle of nowhere, but not in traffic.

Actually I'd feel myself like a cat among the dogs.

On Jul 5, 4:28 am, Tadej Brezina wrote:
KingOfTheApes schrieb:

Well, society doesn't hold cyclists in high esteem. Perhaps bicycles
are associated with homelessness if used with baskets that make them
practical, and bikers always risk the stigma of tree-hugger,
underemployed, immigrant, laborer, etc. among the general population
if used for other uses other than recreation.

So how do you feel about it, jumping the San Francisco bridge?

No, why should I?

No you shouldn't, but it's a metaphorical escape by those who can't
take so much humiliation riding a bike on American roads.


"Bicycles are often seen as having low status, associated with the
poorer classes or underdeveloped nations. Even in bicycle-friendly
Copenhagen and Amsterdam, pedestrian and bicycle officials talk about
difficulties in dealing with planners and engineers who think only in
terms of motorized solutions."

It's a matter of education and personal perception. For my country:
hardly any civil engineer will be found, that hasn't got a
car-dominating point of view, with just a little bit of recreational
cycling. Same is valid for politicians, so no one has to wonder, that
pro-cycling measures taken are hardly useful from the everyday cyclers
point of view.


Well, here it's the same but multiplied by 100. But there's hope the
situation will improve in the next century.

Originally Posted by crhilton
'Another way to do financial incentives is through gasoline. The
Europeans do this: Put a big tax on gasoline, pay for most of your
road construction with it, and then add an environmental tax. If $4
has people talking, $7 might have them doing.

I'm not offering any of these as a preferred solution. I'm simply
throwing out ideas. I recognize how distasteful and offensive $7 a
gallon sounds to most Americans: That's what makes it a powerful
incentive.

The stupid's dilemma: "How do you get a stupid to change if he doesn't
see the need for change because he's stupid?'


Some of these solutions make a lot of sense, but remember the stupid's
dilemma above. Likely Americans will fight to death among each other,
before considering a bike. That was the scenario put by a documentary
about the day oil runs out (in 2017), and the last SUV owners fight
for dwindling gas.

As you say, only solution may be coming from TV, and TV lives off big
money, which is not associated with bikes. Yep, the idiot's box holds
the last hope.

KingOfTheApes aka Comandante Banana aka donquixote1954 wrote:
...I don't suppose the Leader of the Free World...

Who is that?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful