BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

So, that Sicklick woman from a couple of months ago, whose protest had like 5 people?, got space in the Times. Amazing.

Very interesting.

30 years ago, when there were protests from drivers, the bike lanes were promptly removed. I don't think that will happen now.

I suspect this kind of thing will get worse.

Even if they make lanes that interfere in no way with traffic, I think there would be protests.

For example if there were a bike path from the Greentree intersection of the Parkway, though the Wabash tunnels and into town, the cagers would be furious that bikes had rapid acces to town that cars lack. The traffic delays on the Parkway would suddenly change from a minor irritation, to a top priority, election-changing political issue.

My lifetime impression is that no non-car transportation alternative is permitted - under any circumstances - to be more rapid that the automobile.

I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms of political corruption by which this rule is enforced.

It's one reason you won't see mega parking-lots at the stops of the busway.

We have a few ultra pasenger trains with top speeds surpassing 100 mph, but somehow the scheduled trips take (surprise, surprise!) a bit longer than a car stuck in traffic.

Couldn't have it going faster than that. No. Never.

I read this earlier and picked out this quote from one of the protest organizers.

“He’s taking away my rights as a driver.”

I guess we have a right to park for free and drive our cars at unlimited speeds. Who knew! What a silly thing to be against. I really don't understand it.

I suspect this kind of thing will get worse.

That's more or less what I was thinking. The more bike infrastructure you have, the louder and more vehement the protests will become. But perhaps only up to a point. Maybe eventually you hit a point where the gas price gets too high or people just get used to bikes on the road and the protests diminish. Don't know. But I found myself wondering if all the new sharrows etc. in Pittsburgh might start causing complaining letters to the editor to pop up etc. But I guess I'll hope not.

It hasn't happened yet, but it will once we do something drastic that affects how should I say... spoiled people. The biggest change we have had so far were East Liberty and Forbes Ave uphill after CMU.

i think bike lanes are the completely wrong approach. we need to create special lanes to segregate those dangerous tanks from the rest of traffic. we can call them "car lanes".

"I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms of political corruption by which this rule is enforced."

Campaign finance.

I like nick's "car lanes" idea.

I read that article with some benign interest, long desensitized to the fantastic infrastructure we don't have, put in at speeds we can't get (250 miles in 4 years? We've got... 6 miles or so? in... how many years? oi!). I wasn't even too concerned about that "taking away my rights as a driver" comment (it smacks of Entitlement Freakitude and thus media money making but not actually worth anything). Until I got to the phrase "something as dear as asphalt", said by a cycling advocat, and thus I'll assume slightly smarmy/sarcastic. But still.

I lived in a country, coincidentally with the same size population as NYC, that had exactly 4 paved roads, each 1.5 lanes wide (yeah, passing involved a game of chicken). THERE asphalt is dear. Not in this country. Difference is number of people trying to share that asphalt and with what vehicles (if any) and animals (if any).

I seriously can't wait until gasoline is $10/gallon.

BTW, the "taking away my rights" quote came from the protest-organizing, urban-dictionary-named moron that edmonds referred to - not from a normal person.

And, I read "...as dear as asphalt" as mocking the protesters.

BTW, I really love how the fact there were 3x the number of pro-cycling supporters as "protesters" is merely a footnote to the article. The important part is that there's a "backlash".

salty - I try and remember that, but sometimes the hub-bub gets my attention. "backlash" sells. "supporters" is ho-hum.

CITY PEACEFULLY AND VOLUNTARILY MOVES TOWARDS HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE, LESS POLLUTION, SAFER STREETS. in other news, 573 people enjoyed a conversation with a loved one today, and 4,892 yawned at an inappropriate time...

Good news is no news. Bad news, however packaged, sells.

BTW, I really love how the fact there were 3x the number of pro-cycling supporters as "protesters" is merely a footnote to the article.

The presence of an anti-cycling movement is news, while the fact that there are lots and lots of folks in favor of more cycling infrastructure is now so expected and commonplace there that it's no longer news. There's something encouraging about that.

In NYC, asphalt is precious to a lot of groups - including cyclists. In Manhattan, there are only a few situations like, say, the jail trail, where asphalt for a bike trail doesn't take away from asphalt for cars. Asphalt for moving cars takes from asphalt for parked cars, etc.

For us transportation bicyclists, ashpalt is probably our major use of petroleum products.