Stand down, man. Your point is taken. For the good of all, we’ll ping each other later. This thread needs to end. - Little_Pig.
OK, I’ll admit, I haven’t been keeping up with Dan Savage’s column lately, so I’m not hip to the latest neologisms. What’s this pinging, and can I be invited? (Or at least see pictures?)
BorgHunter, If I could PHYSICALLY ping you, believe me, I would. Given you have read this post and I have responded means you have been “Pinged”. Now please, go away (tensions are bad enough as they are.) Jeepers Creepers!! Go cruize YAHOO for phantasy pix.
I’m sorry but I wasn’t alerted to this thread earlier. PLEASE everyone calm down immediately. This sniping needs to end here. If you cannot, please take your difference with another to the Pit. Any more posts of the “wassa matter, can’t you take it you big baby” variety will be warned.
So if you want to keep discussing this, be civil.
In CA drivers pay in thru gas taxes, sales taxes on gas, and registration fees. Not to mention sales taxes on cars. Drivers pay more in that is spent on roads, here drivers support the GF, not the other way around.
AFAIK, this is the way it is in most states. Drivers are a net income.
And when we spend millions building bike lanes? Sure cyclists don’t wear the pavement much, but those bike lanes cost a lot
Not to mention, some cyclists don’t own a car. They dont pay in, but use the roads.
How are you defining a bike lane? This is a bike lane.
That doesn’t cost millions.
“San Jose hopes to double its existing network of bikeways to 500 miles by 2020, investing over $20 million of funds to be provided mostly by federal, state, regional, and county grant programs.”
These buffered bike lanes cost. First you have to restripe. Then in many areas ban street parking. Or cut two lanes down to one. You also have to refinish the lanes.
You’ll need to prove that.
Every driver is convinced his state pays for its roads by gas taxes and registration fees. That simply has been shown to not be true over and over.
Multiple studies have shown that in almost all states the amount covered by gas tax & fees is closer to 50-60%. The rest is made up for by the general fund. This is almost entire to build roads that are overbuilt for bicycles, poorly serve cyclists, or are even unusable by cyclists.
http://www.thewashcycle.com/2010/07/standard-response-2-cyclists-dont-pay.html
http://wwbpa.org/2011/10/who-pays-for-our-roads/
http://thecaseforcycling.com/index.php?title=Who_Pays_for_Roads%3F
Not compared to conventional roads. Bike lanes and even the more expensive bike paths are a bargain.
I do not own a car. But I certainly pay taxes and part of those taxes are used to pay for the roads
Imagine if you could get 500 miles of new car lane for $20 million.
Yeah, maybe you should have thought twice before you started it.
So, what’s to stop a Critical Mass event from blocking an ambulance or other emergency vehicle? How about an on-call MD or nurse on their way to an emergency case? A CRNA going in to an emergency c-section doesn’t exactly get to have a siren on their car, but if they don’t get there in time, someone’s very likely to die.
It’s occurred but CM also has been the victim, too.
People do not have emergencies at 8:30pm, they have emergencies whenever. I have seen 7am gridlock that an emergency vehicle could not possibly get through. I have seen a town split in half for ten minutes by a long train, to where you could not get to the hospital without going eight miles around to an overpass, if you can manage to get out of traffic. Bikes, on the other hand, will let you through if you push just right.
Remarkably inflexible things, those automobiles, for all the speed and convenience they have to offer.
I dunno, I remember it happening during the Beijing Olympics.
None of those things are deliberate, but Critical Mass is, which makes it morally different from those other things.
There are an endless number of ways you can lose your computer. Yet, somehow, only the way where I steal it and grind it into powder results in me going to jail, even though that way has the same outcome as all of the others. It’s a fairly fine point, I admit, but we’ve made finer points in the past.
The whole point of Critical Mass seems to be that they don’t let you through unless you push hard enough to cause another emergency. Especially if you’re an on-call MD or APRN or similar and you don’t get to have a light and siren on your car.
Cyclists pay other taxes. And those other taxes are used towards the total cost of upkeep of the highway system. Gas tax may pay for most of road construction, but it doesn’t come close to covering other costs such as traffic law enforcement and cost to society of car ownership and use (>30,000 deaths per year in the US, many more injuries, pollution, environmental and social problems caused by urban sprawl, etc).
I am no fan of Critical Mass but I’d be willing to bet that an ambulance with its lights blazing would have a much easier time getting through a CM group than it would the standard car evening gridlock.
I’m a cyclist, in the sense that my primary vehicle is a bicycle, and I routinely spend ten hours on the road in a week. I applaud this decision, and can find nothing to disagree with in the first three posts (i.e., when Mr. Miskatonic made his comment about haters). Many car-drivers don’t treat us with the respect due to other vehicles, it’s true, and this is a problem. But the solution isn’t to insist on special privilege. The solution is for us to be subject to all the same rights and responsibilities as other vehicles.
Yes, I know that cyclists often blow through red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, drive without necessary safety equipment, and the like. This is also a problem. When I’m biking, I make it a point to never do these things, even when I can plainly see that it’s perfectly safe, because I’m trying to counteract drivers’ perceptions of bicyclists who ignore the law. This has actually itself gotten me some peculiar reactions from drivers: Twice, I’ve pulled up next to a car when both of us were stopped at a red light, and the driver has been actually irate at me for not going straight through the red light. I honestly can’t understand this behavior.
As for stop signs, I give them exactly the same deference as all other drivers in this city: I come to a complete stop at them if and only if it is necessary for safety. I’m not trying to be treated any differently from anyone else; rather, I’m just trying to be treated the same. Now, maybe better enforcement of stop signs would be a good idea, but if so, it needs to be applied to everyone.
I don’t understand why the vehicle drivers in this thread want all the cyclists to go away, therefore getting in to a car for transport, and adding to the gridlock volume I’m sure you already experience. In addition to riding for my health, I also do it because in many cases, it’s faster. The benefit to other drivers is that I don’t drive my car. If more people rode bikes, and there were more bike lanes built to accommodate bikes, there would be less cars on the road, and therefore less gridlock.
Also, I support cyclist licenses/registration. I agree that because cyclists are vehicles on the road, they should be subject to tickets when they don’t follow the rules (we do have bylaw on the bike paths occasionally handing out tickets for no bell/speeding, but none on the roads).
It is an excuse at the end of the day. Many drivers say they want cyclists to obey all the laws of the road, but when a cyclist does the drivers act out with frustration and annoyance at the law-abiding cyclists. Overall the law-abiding cyclist is much safer than the one riding illegally but in turn they have to put up with a lot more attitude shit from drivers who actually just wanted the cyclists out of their way, not merely obeying the laws.
So basically, it’s rank hypocrisy.