The bicycle.

[Canadian_watcher]

Bicycles on city streets are a major fucking hazard

Burning fossil fuels indiscriminately until the oceans boil away is perhaps a bigger fucking hazard. In the overall scheme of things.

Depends who you talk to. Maybe talk to the family of these guys:

cyclist Killed Kidiminster
Cyclist Killed Queens
Cyclist Killed La Praire
Cyclist killed Camp Lejeune
Cyclist Struck by Car

Those are all from the last 20 hours. I could find hundreds more, no doubt, for the past 48 but I cannot make a career out of it. Yes, smart asses, it was 'cars' or 'trucks' that hit the cyclists, but that's because we do not have the proper infrastructure for bikes. Until we do, I say they shouldn't be for city riding. Unless of course you like hearing of people dying every day. I don't. (there, like that last bit? that bit was inspired by barracuda's mad debate skillz.)

Bicycles are no use as a person's only means of transportation, unless that person is a bona fide hobo, since most people can't go anywhere soaking wet or frozen like a popsicle.

Recent advances in garment science have resulted in warm, lightweight, waterproof outerwear.

[/quote]

Which I can just throw on over top of my work clothes and stick into the filing cabinet drawer in my office? Fantastic? What will my kid do with hers at schoo, though? And where do I put my lunch, her lunch, my purse, my change of footwear, her change of footwear, and her bookbag while on our warm, dry way? And how am I making sure I can see, again? Have you covered that part? Like, are there windsheild wiper goggle things that have a defogger?

[Canadian_watcher]

I do not have a bicycle, although I did covet one I saw recently. "Look at that!" I whispered breathily, and then: "I wish bicycles didn't hurt my ass so much and that I could conceivably ride one more than two weeks a year here where I live."

The point is, they don't have to hurt your ass. The technology exists to ride free of ass-pain, no matter the existing condition of your tired, old ass!

Streets are, and always have been, for vehicles other than bikes.

You seriously could not be more mistaken. City streets at the turn of the last century were dirt roads, and cycling clubs such as the American Wheelmen lobbied the government to pave them in order to accommodate bicycles. Cyclists created modern roadway infrastructure.

Oh, sorry! Colour me embarassed. I forgot (again!) that this was all about the US. Okay maybe you're right. I dunno. I don't care enough to look up the history of roads in the United States of America. I did, however, have a brief look at the history of roads in Canada and Britain. Nary a mention of bikes there.

[Feilan]

... 'protected' bike lanes. What a concept. Does that mean they aren't relegated to the crumbling gutter strip of road along the curb or ... if they are, at least assholes and assholes in cabs can't park in them / lie in wait to hand out a door prize to a passing cyclist...???

Here's a bit of irony for you -

In Denmark, thanks to measures like the superhighway, commuters choose bicycles because they are the fastest and most convenient transportation option. “It’s not because the Danes are more environmentally friendly,” said Gil Penalosa, executive director of 8-80 Cities, a Canadian organization that works to make cities healthier.

Does this Canadian organization work to make Canadian cities healthier or did it pack its bags after Ford Nation double-downed downtown Toronto and fuck off to Copenhagen? Sigh.

jfshade wrote:

Nothing distracts and calms a mind wracked by hopeless despair and impotent rage like a bike ride. At least for me.

I wish - I mean, "Yah!", but not exactly in my neck of the woods... May you never pedal the mean streets of Toronto and begin to associate those feelings with bike riding. Ride on, two-wheeler, ride on!!!

As for this ...

Bicycles hurt my ass bones. A lot.

Bicycles on city streets are a major fucking hazard, particularly in the winter, and ought to be banned unless infrastructure is built to accommodate them.

i get frightened every time i see someone on a bicycle pulling one of those huge kid carrier tents with wheels behind them. I mean, do they not realize their kid(s) are practically underneath trucks and SUVs when they stop at a light? Not to mention the FUMES - diesel fumes have been classed (finally) as a Group 1 carcinogen - right up there with asbestos.

Bicycles are no use as a person's only means of transportation, unless that person is a bona fide hobo, since most people can't go anywhere soaking wet or frozen like a popsicle.

... well, I don't want to pile on, but I can't just ride past it like I didn't see it.

Bicycles do not hurt ass bones - bad seats do. I had a country wide, padded, Schwinn spring seat on my old-school coaster that was THE SHIT. My ass never had it so good. By contrast, I borrowed my Dad's second bike once to go on a ride with him and my ass was shredded by it's merciless lack of any design principles relating to asses of any description that might perch upon it. I was wearing jeans and we went a helluva lot further than his proposed 20k which surely didn't help my ass.

Any sentence that begins with, "Bicycles on city streets are a major fucking hazard..." is not worth reading, but I read it anyway.

I share your concern about those kid-carrier trail-behind thingies but only because Canadian streets are presently devoted to cars and trucks while the Mayors Ford and their ilk putt-putt along crushing any attempt to include bicycles - not to mention pedestrians - and all their attendant wonders into urban planning principles. More's the pity. It's not impossible - obviously - as a few notable contributions to this as yet short thread attest.

This - "Bicycles are no use as a person's only means of transportation, unless that person is a bona fide hobo... " goes the extra extremist mile. Wow. Really? For great long stretches of time when I was incidentally not a bona fide hobo, a bicycle was very nearly my only means of transportation (occasional trips by subway and on foot notwithstanding), and I was happier than a pig in shit about it. I had a groovy poncho that would drape over the basket in the front to keep me and all my shit dry in the rain. I had lots of cozy riding gear for more inclement weather of the fall and wintry kind. I noted, as have many ardent riders, that right after a new snowfall can be the best time to ride (assuming you have sensible winter tires) because it's the ONE TIME you can expect a majority of city drivers to BE A BIT MORE CAREFUL. Jeezus. Around the world, in their millions, people rely entirely on their bicycles to get around and to make a living and they aren't hobos either - bona fide or otherwise.

Its a bit odd - all this whinging about the humble bicycle apparently in defense of the fossil fuel industry and all its attendant horrors as the superior solution to the quandry - how to get from here to there. Bicycles come with baskets and panniers and whatnot. You can put your lunch in there. I used to do all the grocery shopping for two - canned goods and everything! - with a basket on my bike and a pack on my back. I live downtown. Lots of respectable, ordinary folk who live downtown get around and do their shit on a bike at least 8 months a year and some do it all year round. Why the fuck do they not have as much right to use the public road with some measure of safety and security like the uber entitled gas burners from the 905 driving into the city alone in a giant dick mobile do every day? WHY? My taxes pay for roads too, EH? Yah. Who said anything about banning cars? Someone said something about banning bicycles though ...

Holy CROW. So... because as near as we can tell by a cursory google search, the roads in Canada were paved for suburbanites - ergo bicycles should be banned? Not - "...serious efforts should be made in the here and now to build cleaner, safer cities that include the option to transit by bicycle..." - nope. Ban the fuckers and the hobos that rode in on them.

Just - wow.

I'll say something else about bicycles ... they are at the top of a list I'm making of 'Thoroughly Unimpeachable Human Inventions' ... the bicycle is sublime, perfection. Learning to ride a bike is right up there with learning to walk and chew gum at the same time and adding words like 'defenestration' to my vocabulary - life changing.

[Canadian_watcher]

How can anyone disagree that bicycles on city streets are major hazards? If you are very dedicated to this idea, please answer me this:

Why aren't scooters and skateboarders allowed to ride in with vehicular traffic?

And why is my argument that there should be infrastructure built FOR bikes being ignored in favour of calling me a fossil fuel guzzling redneck climate change denying fat ass?

Finally (and this is key. no one is addressing it but like it or not it's reality, so someone should man up here)... Ya'll haven't tried to get kids off to school before work on a bike yet, have ya?

[compared2what?]

Oh, sorry! Colour me embarassed. I forgot (again!) that this was all about the US. Okay maybe you're right. I dunno. I don't care enough to look up the history of roads in the United States of America. I did, however, have a brief look at the history of roads in Canada and Britain. Nary a mention of bikes.

I wouldn't expect so. And yet, there they were, having a generally liberating and empowering impact on the lives of, among others, the poor and women:



That video's kinda on the lite side. And it just utterly fails to consider the issue from an ass-bone's eye view at all. So there's much more to it than that, obviously. But as far as it goes, it's pretty much right. Bicycles were a big deal. And probably could be again, if people wanted them to be, I'd say. They're just inherently well suited vehicles for the pursuit of freedom and autonomy.

They can sometimes cause impotence in men, though. Or, as pharma likes to say, "erectile dysfunction." I don't really remember the details well enough to say, but if -- for some reason -- you wanted to argue that contemporary bicycle-riding was just an evil promotional scheme cooked up by the makers of Viagra, you maybe might could.

[Feilan]

I don't really remember the details well enough to say, but if -- for some reason -- you wanted to argue that contemporary bicycle-riding was just an evil promotional scheme cooked up by the makers of Viagra, you maybe might could.

... nope. There's a seat for that...



I want to 'man up' (lol) and respond to your points, C_W ... but I just started watching a movie. I'll check in later on ... cheers!

FTR - I am not in favour of calling you {a fossil fuel guzzling redneck climate change denying fat ass} any of those things. We are just experiencing a difference of opinion, that's all.

[compared2what?]

How can anyone disagree that bicycles on city streets are major hazards?

I can do it because nothing in my experience, observation or general knowledge of the subject suggests that they're even minor hazards. People on bicycles have accidents and doubtless sometimes cause them. There might even be select cities in which an increase in the number of bicycles on the street corresponds to a net increase in accidents. For all I know. But they're either just not, in themselves, so hazardous that they're a menace in themselves or the evidence of it has been very thoroughly concealed from the citizens of every city I'm familiar with. Because I've totally never heard, seen or read a hint of it.

I can't even say I've seen any anecdotal evidence of it, frankly. And I live in a city with a pretty sizable vicious-bike-messenger population. To say nothing of the Chinese restaurant delivery bicyclists. I mean, they're there, taking up space I'm moving toward occupying quite frequently. But they're really in and out of it pretty quickly. So it's never been much of a problem.

Why aren't scooters and skateboarders allowed to ride in with vehicular traffic?

It would be hazardous.

And why is my argument that there should be infrastructure built FOR bikes being ignored in favour of calling me a fossil fuel guzzling redneck climate change denying fat ass?

I didn't do the latter two, and will now redress the other one.

Bicycle-infrastructure-building might, I guess, be a civic-enhancement in some places. It kind of depends on site-specific environmental factors. But it would always be costly, and probably also cumbersome.

What we do here is this thing called "bike lanes."

Finally (and this is key. no one is addressing it but like it or not it's reality, so someone should man up here)... Ya'll haven't tried to get kids off to school before work on a bike yet, have ya?

I don't ride. So no. As a means of transportation, bicycles are not an all-purpose answer for all needs at all times, though. If that's what you mean.

[MacCruiskeen]

What would the world be without women on bikes, in the summertime, in summer dresses? A poorer place, that's what.

[MacCruiskeen]

Also: There's no such thing as bad weather, just inappropriate clothing.

[compared2what?]

Detailed info on the hazards of bicycle-riding in NYC and what is/might be done about it here:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/p ... lities.pdf

[barracuda]

Finally (and this is key. no one is addressing it but like it or not it's reality, so someone should man up here)... Ya'll haven't tried to get kids off to school before work on a bike yet, have ya?

I've done it ever so fairly often ever since my child learned to ride. I live three blocks from my child's school and about two miles from my job, a bit closer the way people are going to eventually have to learn to live if we want a nice world, or, strike that, a world at all.

Feilan, great post. On your LEFT!!!

[barracuda]

Also:::: COMPARED TO WHAT!!!!!!

I must say you'd look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two.

[Canadian_watcher]

How can anyone disagree that bicycles on city streets are major hazards?

I can do it because nothing in my experience, observation or general knowledge of the subject suggests that they're even minor hazards. People on bicycles have accidents and doubtless sometimes cause them. There might even be select cities in which an increase in the number of bicycles on the street corresponds to a net increase in accidents. For all I know. But they're either just not, in themselves, so hazardous that they're a menace in themselves or the evidence of it has been very thoroughly concealed from the citizens of every city I'm familiar with. Because I've totally never heard, seen or read a hint of it.

I gave evidence of the hazardousness above. I did a google search of just the last 24 hours and if I hadn't gotten bored to death of copy and pasting urls my five item list could have been at least a 25 item list. Dead cyclists - a great many of them just in the last 20 hours or so. That isn't hazardous? None of them were out on a country road, a bike path, or other infrastructure built for bicycles and NOT for cars/trucks/etc.

I can't even say I've seen any anecdotal evidence of it, frankly. And I live in a city with a pretty sizable vicious-bike-messenger population. To say nothing of the Chinese restaurant delivery bicyclists. I mean, they're there, taking up space I'm moving toward occupying quite frequently. But they're really in and out of it pretty quickly. So it's never been much of a problem.

this cannot be true. You mean to tell me that you've never heard anyone tell a tale of nearly being clipped by a bike messenger or other cyclist? Never? And, obviously, you haven't glanced at the other thread: observations from a normally oblivious guy And I guess my own anecdotal expressions in this thread don't count..?

Why aren't scooters and skateboarders allowed to ride in with vehicular traffic?

It would be hazardous.

But why? Why so hazardous?

And why is my argument that there should be infrastructure built FOR bikes being ignored in favour of calling me a fossil fuel guzzling redneck climate change denying fat ass?

I didn't do the latter two, and will now redress the other one.

Bicycle-infrastructure-building might, I guess, be a civic-enhancement in some places. It kind of depends on site-specific environmental factors. But it would always be costly, and probably also cumbersome.What we do here is this thing called "bike lanes."

Yes - I would consider bike lanes, if done properly, to be infrastructure, although far from perfect infrastructure. We have them here. You know what they are? They are white painted lines. No road widening ever occurred, and no paving of the enourmous potholes within the bike lane did, either. Not to mention that they are utter shite when riding up a two-lane one way street and wanting to turn across the other lane of traffic where there isn't a stop sign or traffic light.

Finally (and this is key. no one is addressing it but like it or not it's reality, so someone should man up here)... Ya'll haven't tried to get kids off to school before work on a bike yet, have ya?

I don't ride. So no. As a means of transportation, bicycles are not an all-purpose answer for all needs at all times, though. If that's what you mean.

Yes, that's what I mean. In fact, I mean something a wee bit MORE than that. I mean that for some people relying on a bike would mean the loss of their livelihood, even if they did radical things like move closer to their work since there's no way work AND the babysitter AND the grocery store AND the doctor would be close together and also affordable. And of course the weather thing.

I'm keeping it real. These are real life concerns. Everyone wants to respond by making it seem silly to want to get my child to the babysitter and then myself to work safely, on time and with my clothes and lunch dry. Like it's all 'so easy if you want to ride badly enough' but man, it just ain't so.

[Canadian_watcher]

Finally (and this is key. no one is addressing it but like it or not it's reality, so someone should man up here)... Ya'll haven't tried to get kids off to school before work on a bike yet, have ya?

I've done it ever so fairly often ever since my child learned to ride. I live three blocks from my child's school and about two miles from my job, a bit closer the way people are going to eventually have to learn to live if we want a nice world, or, strike that, a world at all.

You're very lucky to have a situation where it works. lots of people can't find an affordable home near to their jobs which is also near to their child's babysitter and the child's school.

[Luther Blissett]

Feilan, our protected bike lanes here are a full auto lane, with the two-thirds furthest from traffic and closest to the curb dedicated for cycling, and the remaining third closest to the auto lane filled with two parallel white lines filled with diagonal white lines. I think they're pretty effective. Often used by moving vans, but they're not so bad (I used to be a mover). Never used by vehicular traffic.

I used to do all my grocery shopping by bike too, though my one and only crash involved trolley tracks and a full pack of groceries.