Here in Toronto, our municipal councillors (and by extension, the city's various public works and planning committees) are responsible for setting the agenda for building net new infrastructure and maintaining what already exists. I recognize this is not the arrangement in all parts of the world; I think the USA has more of a State-level governance structure, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyways, some of these council members recently (once again) dragged out the old, dusty idea of licencing bicycles, even though the idea has been studied and rejected numerous times. This is, of course, an obsolete and largely discredited policy tool sometimes used by elected officials appealing to their car-centric constituents. It's not "infrastructure" per se, but it's in the same policy scope. The apparent justification for this is (gasp) alleged lack of education and rule-following on the part of cyclists using city streets, along with the notion that cyclists need to pay their fair share of infrastructure capital and operational costs - especially when it comes to building new stuff meant exclusively for cycling. Public debate here on cyclist/driver/pedestrian interaction and friction is palpable and never-ending. I really do think that public perception does play a role in how our city evolves, and will in a roundabout way eventually determine our everyday experience as cyclists. Continuing to characterize cyclists as law-abiding, decent people rather than hooligan low-lifes is an important part of legitimizing our place in society and convincing those that need convincing that we are worth investing in. Riders that blow through red lights, disregard the rules of the road, and ride fast on crowded sidewalks ringing their bell undo a lot of that work - the way a small group of violent anarchists can co-opt and completely derail a much larger, peaceful protest. KJ On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 2:57:52 PM UTC-4, Mark in Beacon wrote: > > Actually, badly behaving bicyclists are a tiny minority of what is a teeny > tiny miniscule minority in the first place. The truth is that bad cycling > etiquette is mainly that--bad etiquette, or at worst generally mostly a > danger to the cyclist. Whereas the radical monopoly that is our > transportation system breeds people that believe only motorized vehicles > belong on the roadways.Yesterday morning while on my way to work a van ran > me into the curb, on purpose, simply because he was offended by my > presence--the car in front of him was turning right, waited for me because > he thought I might go straight. I waved the car on and made my turn. > Apparently all too much for the van driver, who, as he was passing me after > the turn, veered his van into the shoulder directly in front of me, at > speed, just missing my front end. When I caught up with him two lights > later, his response was "Get on the f- sidewalk. You look like a f-ing > retard." Etc. So maybe he had just encountered a NYC messenger the other > day? I suppose that's a theory. > > Honestly, people can point to the bad behavior of some cyclists as the > reason for this or that, or why they ran me into the curb. And I certainly > believe it is important to maintain a civil and considerate approach to > riding my bicycle. My thoughts here are not meant to excuse cyclists who > ride like jackasses on public roads; I have little patience for it these > days. But do not kid yourself that bad cycling is why there is no > infrastructure money coming our way. > > It hardly needs to be said that we are all in on cars. Unfortunately, the > massive infrastructure this requires is getting to be too much now that we > are hitting diminishing returns in everything from extraction to technology > to our house of cards financial system. It is simply more than we can > afford at this point. Trying to retrofit this infrastructure to make it > "safe" for bicycles, a technology that, despite some headway, mostly in > compact city environments, we have decided is backward and not viable, and > an affront to progress, will never happen on a large scale. Many other > things are likely to happen meantime that will make it a moot point. > > The total centrality of cars in our lives, and our unshakeable belief in > the myths of eternal growth and eternal progress, blinds us to the ways the > radical monopoly transportation system corrupts everything, including time, > space, civility, resource allotment, and even the simple realization that > there are much more vulnerable road users out there. > > > On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 10:08:14 AM UTC-4, Kieran J wrote: >> >> And yet, a small minority of extremists can have a disproportionate >> influence on the broader collective - negatively or positively. >> >> Bad cycling etiquette is an ongoing barrier in securing better >> infrastructure for all cyclists, influencing public perception of cyclists, >> and enhancing civic safety in a broad sense. A blasé attitude about it >> only enables the problem. >> >> Maybe not everyone cares about those things, which is a shame. Maybe >> messengers and other arsehat showboaters prefer riding in dense, dangerous >> conditions for a cheap thrill. I've been hit before - that's plenty for me, >> thanks! >> >> KJ >> >> >> On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 9:09:20 AM UTC-4, Garth wrote: >>> >>> >>> That a movie, group or individual represents or could even remotely >>> represent the infinitely diverse population of people who engage in riding >>> a bicycle(let alone any activity) is a myth. >>> >>> >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
