Wicked Local Brookline reports that, according to police, a visiting bicyclist from Jamaica Plain got upset at a motorist going around him on Washington Street, apparently because he was riding in the middle of the street to avoid just that sort of thing, so he caught up with her at a light and smashed her windshield with his bike lock. Police then arrested him.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Actual U-Lock justice
By Ari0
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 1:54pm
Note to bicyclists: when someone almost kills you, it's sort-of okay to chase them down (kind of fun, too). And to talk to them. Nicely. When I recently did just this in Allston, the driver was very apologetic. I was disarmed, he put a face with the person he almost ran down, no one had their window smashed, and I didn't go to jail. Hooray!
Almost kills?
By anon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:01pm
Passing = almost killed? What if he had been in a bike lane, still almost killed or does the 2" stripe of white paint make the difference?
Passing too close can kill
By spin o rama
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:27pm
And often goes "unnoticed" by the drivers. Just look at several of the cycling deaths over the past year or so, a few were the result of someone being hit by a passing vehicle that did not notice the collision.
Some states have a 3 foot minimum passing distance, Mass. sadly does not, so drivers are told to "pass safely" and "wait until it is safe to do so." Yeah a lot of good that does, I still get passed daily at very close distances and its can clip my handlebars, causing me to fall under a tire.
Edit: I think it goes without saying that no one is justified in anyway to assault anyone on the road, regardless of how close someone passes you, etc. This something to be handled by the police and rule of law.
When the snow or anything
By DrewD
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 7:56pm
When the snow or anything else closes the bike lane cyclist are allowed the entire regular lane. While this may be rude under normal situations, with the narrow streets, if the cyclist was in the middle of the lane, it could have been dangerous. Or the cyclist may just have been a douche.
Yes, but...
By anon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 8:14pm
I get that and I'm not all trying to claim the driver was innocent. My point was that if someone normally accepts that they can ride in a bike lane, at the side of the road and have cars pass within a few feet of them, I don't quite get the rage of being passed when they are riding in the middle of the lane. It's an asshole move by the driver, just like it would be to pass a car on a city street by going over the center line but no more dangerous than normal bike/car passing.
Do you ride a bike in the streets of Boston?
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 10:30am
Not trying to be snarky but it might be why you don't quite get the rage of being passed. There is a big different between the space you have when a car is passing you and your in the bike lane compared to when your in the driving lane and they attempt to pass and over take you. Its the passing/over taking part that many drivers do too closely. And if you need to go over the center line to pass the cyclist, you are allowed to but often that doesn't happen and cars come too close.
Wider lanes needed
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 11:17am
This problem started around the late 1970's. There was a movement to narrow travel lanes and widen sidewalks. It still continues. Proponents thought it would slow traffic 1-2 mph and maybe make pedestrians safer. The bike boom of the 1970s had subsided, so they didn't think about bicycles sharing lanes with motor vehicles. So, with the next bike boom in the 2000's, cyclists are endangered by such "traffic calming" designs that include lane narrowing.
Competent drivers needed
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 11:33am
Sidewalks are already narrow, and Boston and environs put in a lot of lanes to squeeze them in where they never fitted to begin with.
HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEONE THAT THINKS BOSTON IS HOUSTON.
Your entire argument doesn't even apply to older cities in California, let alone MA.
Narrow like Comm Ave or Boylston St.?
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 5:00pm
Consider Commonwealth Ave. near BU. The sidewalks are so wide, there used to be diagonal parking on the south side! The North side is also so wide that there could be a bike track on a fraction of the sidewalk width!
Alternatively, add some more traffic lanes on Comm Ave. for when Storrow Drive regularly floods, has a stuck bus/truck, breakdown, accident, Sox game, concert etc..
Why? Traffic volume on
By anon
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 5:52pm
Why? Traffic volume on Commonwealth Avenue has been declining for over a decade now. The lanes were removed because they weren't needed.
Good try Mark
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 3:31pm
I love the mental gymnastics routine you've practiced in order to push the blame off drivers that pass illegally.
Regardless of the road widths and historical anecdotes you bring up, you are required to wait and pass at a safe distance. This includes merging into the adjacent travel lane or crossing the double line (of course waiting till it is safe to do so, so that you do not hit oncoming traffic.) You might have to wait a few seconds to make that move and I'll do my best to be as far to the right as is safe for me but you gotta stop making excuses for drivers that willingly pass too close.
Only suggesting for cyclist safety
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 5:05pm
If you want to argue for narrow road lanes so you more likely get hit by a truck or bus, go ahead. They can't see you very well in their huge blind spots, but no matter. Gee, I wonder why cyclists are getting hit by trucks and buses in about half of accidents despite the small percentage of vehicle traffic they represent compared to cars. When you are dead, go ahead and tell those drivers they needed to move over more for you.
There you go again Mark
By spin o rama
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 5:27pm
You aren't suggesting this for cyclist safety, its a matter of inconvenience for you because you have to wait to pass a cyclist in front of you. You put a lot statements in their that didn't come from me. When did I say I advocate for smaller lanes?
Where did you pull this data from? Regardless, you wonder why cyclists are getting hit? Because drivers refuse to pass safely, refuse to signal when turning, refuse to check mirrors AND blind spots.
Its really simple Mark. If I get hit by a passing car/truck/bus, they passed me too close and thats illegal. End of story.
There you go again!
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 11:46pm
Wrongly thinking that more than a small fraction bike accidents are from vehicles passing them while traveling in the same direction. Stats show far more involve turning movements.
Near hits man
By spin o rama
Fri, 12/20/2013 - 10:41am
You keep talking about stats and yet you haven't been able to point to any real data. I've made no claims to the number of accidents that occur around here with regards to passing. However we've had a few cyclists killed by vehicles that have passed too closely.
And I get buzzed daily by cars that are too impatient to pass legally. Now of course I don't have any data to back this up because near hits don't get reported but you know what my initial issue was about. Cars knowingly passing cyclists illegally.
Car drivers vs. bicyclists: Douchebaggery on both sides;
By mplo
Thu, 01/09/2014 - 12:03pm
Unfortunately, when it comes to car drivers vs. bicyclists, there is a pretty equal amount of douchbaggery on both sides. The above-mentioned horrific incident is proof of that.
Yeah, okay
By anon
Thu, 01/09/2014 - 12:19pm
Only one set of douchebags is encased in a lethal weapon and excused from responsibility by police for anything they do with their weapon.
Speak nicely, but carry the u-lock
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:10pm
I find that works best. Save the U-Lock for when somebody actually physically threatens you.
Talking helps
By spin o rama
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:48pm
Most of time I talk to drivers, they are totally unaware of the accident they almost caused. Be it getting cut off or being passed too close, they are sometimes too unaware of their surroundings to begin with, locked in their little metal boxes, fumbling on their phones.
That being said, I can share the frustration that obviously got the better of this rider. I was passed far too closely by a truck last winter in Allston Center and let him know with a solid "Hey, you're too close!" His response? Let me pull in front of your path and slam my brakes, hoping I rear-ended him. I didn't and was able to quickly pass along his side, at which point he opened his door into my path, which I again was able to dodge. As I looked back to get my bearings and take down his license plate, he began walking agressively towards me, screaming at me to start a fight with him. I had no interest in this so I started riding on, he followed me and I decided to ride up towards the police station near my house in Brighton Center. He followed me, keeping along side me saying "I'm right here waiting for you." I grt into the police station, give my story calmly and I was asked this right away. "Did he touch you physically?" Well no sir, he did not. "Eh not a lot we can do there, you might be able to file a complaint with the truck company." Well I don't know who he is and I couldn't get a plate number but he drove up here, so hes in Brighton somewhere right now. Shoulder shrug from the officer.
Anecdotal yes but my point is, if a car passes me illegally and puts my safety at risk, I've got nothing to protect me, both physically and with regards to law enforcement. Stay safe everyone.
Advocating assault on women?
By anon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 7:28pm
Advocating assault on women? Adam, I thought these sort of unregistered threats were supposed to be filtered out!!
Over/under on this making 100 comments?
By 413
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:07pm
Gotta be good odds.
I would take the over if
By anon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:49pm
it happened in Southie and the car was driven by a Yuppie who had just saved a parking spot with a space saver but did not shovel it properly.
99...
By Judy
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 4:48pm
Just one more!
A driver did something
By anon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:11pm
A driver did something similiar to a bicyclist, actually the president of MassBike, and the driver......was ordered to apologize.
not quite
By anon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 7:09pm
The driver repeatedly harassed him and then ran over his bike...
You're doing it all wrong
By Anonnnn Baby
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:17pm
As someone who has delivered some u-lock justice a few times, the key is to take the butt end of the U-lock and smash out the side mirror as you pedal by in one swift motion. But smashing the windshield? C'mon man, rookie mistake.
you're so cool man. Someone
By zetag
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:59pm
you're so cool man. Someone almost does something bad, so you destroy their property and ride away like a coward.
As a bike rider myself, I despise you.
I was walking down Broadway the other night and some A-hole on a bike comes flying up the side walk, against traffic, swerves around me and slams into an older gentleman stepping out a door way onto the side walk. The douche on the bike immediately gets up and starts screaming at the guy he just hit telling him he needs to open his eyes, and blaming him for the collision. I confronted the biker and he rode away like a coward. Maybe you two are related.
The laws protect motorists
By Anonnnn Baby
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:13pm
The laws protect motorists more than they do cyclists in u-lock justice situations. If a car cuts me off when I'm in the bike lane so it can speed ahead and make a right turn and forces me to fall, what is going to happen to the driver? Nothing. If I promptly remove aforementioned moron driver's side mirror with my lock, maybe next time they'll think twice before making the same move. That's not exactly cowardly.
And your little story when you were down in Broadway does not really apply. You're right, people that ride their bikes on sidewalks and/or against traffic are douches. Agree with you 100% there.
Good day, sir.
Incorrect
By Kaz
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:34pm
Getting right-hooked by a driver is a moving violation on them. The law protects the cyclist. Whether Johnny Law shows up to help you apply the law is a different question.
Also, the law doesn't protect your u-lock action. That's "willful and malicious destruction of property". If it's over $250 of damage (some of those mirrors come with some decent tech these days), then it's a felony. Johnny Law cares about felonies.
"If I promptly remove
By zetag
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:45pm
"If I promptly remove aforementioned moron driver's side mirror with my lock, maybe next time they'll think twice before making the same move. That's not exactly cowardly."
Or if they'll be less inclined to drive safely around me or another biker next time, because you just reaffirmed the belief that bikers are assholes. If a car cuts you off in another car you can't just rear end them because you're pissed off.
Escalating the situation and riding away so you can't be followed is more or less the definition of cowardly, by the way.
You must be trolling here because your logic makes absolutely no sense.
Well it still isn't cowardly.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:11pm
Running away is cowardly.
An attack carried out against
By zetag
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:26pm
An attack carried out against a person who is unable to retaliate is literally the definition of cowardly. Look it up. If you escalate the situation by causing destruction to someone else's vehicle while they are stuck in traffic and ride away you are a coward. Running away from a fight you don't want to be involved with is not cowardly, that's not what I'm trying to say, but if you take a cheap shot and run you are by definition a coward.
Try it to me sometime.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:38pm
I'll get out of the car and make you cry.
Read what I said. Running away is cowardly, not confronting someone in a car.
my bad
By zetag
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 10:02pm
i just read that wrong. i agree with you 100%
Fear and Anger = Adrenaline = Shit Happens
By BlackKat
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:19pm
It can be scary when someone gives you a close shave - especially in the winter when ice and wheel ruts in the road lower a cyclist's maneuverability. In an ideal world the biker would have been passed safely, and the motorist and biker would not have gotten into this confrontation. But when people feel threatened it can lead to rash decisions and violence. I am not really able to condone nor condemn anyone with such a sketchy understanding of what occurred. But I can understand why the biker confronted the driver, if indeed it was the result of a close shave pass. Words would have likely accomplished more than destruction. Especially since, if the biker was not summarily arrested by a nearby cop, the driver could have escalated the confrontation further. But we've all been in situations where we felt like acting rashly too. Of course it would be better if everyone just relaxed a bit thus avoiding the need for anything - harsh words or actions - or injuries.
No, you're doing it all wrong
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:13pm
or you are trolling
You make it clear to a person who is physically threatening you that you are saving that butt end for their non-butt end, with a "go ahead make my day" kind of smirk.
Then you watch as they shut their fat mouths and retreat into their vehicle before they start a fight they can't finish. So they can go home and tell stories about "violent cyclists" or "the one they scared away".
Sorry Swirly
By Anonnnn Baby
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:30pm
I usually like your insights, but can't agree with you here. You seem like you bike as well, so you can understand situations where motorists pull some crap that either immediately put your life in danger, or end up injuring you. I'm not going to stand by and let a moron behind the wheel who doesn't like checking his side mirrors before he turns, or doesn't like using his/her signal get a free pass unless they physically threaten me.
I am the judge, I am the jury, the u-lock is my gavel that I use to dole out justice.
you wouldn't have the balls
By zetag
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:33pm
you wouldn't have the balls to try that if the car wasn't stuck in traffic behind another one ensuring your getaway. Of this I am sure. Coward.
Done it. I ain't ever scared
By gotdatwmd
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 6:01pm
Done it. I ain't ever scared
The point is not to get
By Anonnnn Baby
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 6:18pm
The point is not to get arrested while doling it out. If that makes me a coward, so be it.
If you maneuver your vehicle in a way that puts my life in danger, and I have an assurance that you won't call the cops if I confront you for your stupidity...I'll be more than happy to throw down.
This is why...
By Baby Anonnnn
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 7:45pm
... motorists couldn't give a shit about cyclists, because of cowards and keyboard warriors like the baby above and the wretched, know-nothing know-it-all SwirlyGoon. For every responsible, law-abiding cyclist, there are tens of others maliciously breaking the laws and personal property or acting like they're doing everyone such a big damned favor by cycling everywhere and judging those who don't - or in my case, cannot.
Anonnnn - I drive down Columbus Ave. every day around 7:00 p.m. Hope to "bump into you sometime!"
I live in Mission Hill
By Anonnnn Baby
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 9:26am
Keyboard warrior? Hardly.
I live in Mission Hill my man so I'm always around Columbus Ave on my bike (black Mercier Kilo TT with a white back wheel) so feel free to say "hello" if you ever see me.
Just go away dude. You sound
By zetag
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 9:52am
Just go away dude. You sound like an ass and you've contradicted yourself this entire post. You started by saying " the key is to take the butt end of the U-lock and smash out the side mirror as you pedal by in one swift motion." but then you went on to say that if "I have an assurance that you won't call the cops if I confront you for your stupidity...I'll be more than happy to throw down."
You don't even get a chance for the car driver to give that assurance if you smash their mirror as you're riding by. You've proved yourself to be a scummy human being and the type of biker that everyone hates, all the while making the rest of us who just want to bike to work look bad.
Clealy
By Anonnnn Baby
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 10:34am
You're missing my entire point. But it's alright, Z. Enjoy your 7PM rides down Columbus, and if fate allows, we can calmly debate this hot topic in person!
Know-nothing know-it-all?
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 10:00am
Make up your mind.
BTW, this is my 31st year cycling the streets of the Boston Area. So, I guess I can't know anything, right?
Thank you Baby!!!
By tenfortyseven
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 8:28pm
I'm glad you said it, someone had to.... "know-nothing know-it-all SwirlyGoon".....I LOVE IT.
Oh, heck
By whyaduck
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:17pm
I would of just followed him and honked my horn every 10 seconds or so.
Two sides to a story
By AntiMarkkk02744
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:27pm
We have read one side that makes the vandalism seem totally unprovoked. That in itself leads me to wonder if there is more to the story. Did the driver previously throw something out the window at the bicyclist? We just don't know the complete story to go and make assertions. It really seems unlikely that bicyclists use U-locks to smash in car windows with zero provocation. Perhaps the driver already spoke to the bicyclist after she forced him off the road? Perhaps the driver swore at the bicyclist or said she wished she'd killed him. There is more to the story.
or there's not
By flyingpertyhigh2
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:46pm
or there's not
Parody Troll
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:34pm
This is basically transposed from a comment that MarkK made when a motorist violently attacked a cyclist at an intersection last week for no apparent reason.
Love this
By spin o rama
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:29pm
I could become a great fan of a novelty account like this, keep up the good work! Markk might not be too happy though.
Bike People
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 2:39pm
seem angry. Perhaps its the non-uniformly fitting spandex causing an unwelcome increase in blood pressure.
Happiest commuters out there
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:36pm
http://grist.org/news/cyclists-are-the-happiest-of...
http://road.cc/content/news/31477-cycle-commuting-...
Which says a lot for the nasty depths of the impotent violent rage demonstrated by drivers on a daily basis, now doesn't it?
Goes both ways, doesn't it?
By GTCv Deimos
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:37pm
http://www.universalhub.com/2013/bicyclist-smash-p...
Which says a lot about violent rage demonstrated by bicyclists on a daily basis, now doesn't it?
How about those drunk drivers though?
By spin o rama
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:08pm
Seems like a week doesn't go by where we don't hear about them killing someone.
http://www.universalhub.com/2013/dorchester-woman-...
http://www.universalhub.com/crime/20131126/drunk-d...
http://www.universalhub.com/2010/repeat-drunk-driv...
http://www.universalhub.com/2009/drunk_driver_susp...
Lets not make this an anecdotal pissing contest, we know there are asshole on both sides of the road.
funny you should say that...
By GTCv Deimos
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:25pm
A) not sure why you singled me out here
B) YOU'RE.LITERALLY.ON.A.WEBSITE.THAT'S.NOTHING.BUT.ANECDOTES! DO YOU NOT SEE THE SHEER LUNACY OF YOUR OWN STATEMENT!? THAT'S LIKE JUMPING ON A FOOTBALL BLOG, AND TELLING SOMEONE TO STOP TALKING ABOUT FOOTBALL!
Wow, that was an effective counter arguement, now wasn't it?
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:36pm
Do you have any other evidence - like a scientific study with different findings? The impotent rage causing great stress amongst solo commuters who drive was an actual study finding, you know.
Or do you just have the ability for rational discourse normally found in living room furnishings?
oy...
By GTCv Deimos
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:27pm
ZOMG, U REDZ IT ON ZE GOOGLEZ, IZ LEGIT!
2nd one interesting
By Markk02474
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 3:55pm
The second article eventually links to a Lancet published study of heart attack precipitators. "Traffic" is one of them, though well below doing cocaine. What would be useful for public health is an analysis of how many lives would be saved by reducing traffic congestion, or the reverse, how many lives risked by increasing congestion for 85% of travelers by various ways including: replacing a travel lane with bike lanes, and "livable streets" features. Then subtract the risk reduction for the 0.5-3% (0.9% average) who cycle and 1-15% who walk (excluding a small number of outlier locations). Has anybody looked at the cost/risk benefits impartially? I just see the one sided view of promoting walking/cycling without examining the health costs of making a place more "livable" on the much larger population using motorized transit.
In her defense...
By GTCv Deimos
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:00pm
She read it on the interblag! therefore, it must be true!
Sc.D. Epidemiology 2006
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:39pm
I'm plenty able to evaluate research studies regarding public health, but thanks for playing. Both articles directly link to the original research documents ... but that's far too sophisticated an interblag maneuver for you, obviously.
You don't say?
By TheNon
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:06pm
I had no idea you were a PHD. Have you mentioned this before?
You shouldn't argue
By tenfortyseven
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 7:25pm
with the mentally ill.
The preferred traffic removal method
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:32pm
Especially in the old cities of Europe: fewer cars in the city
It isn't a one-sided view, but a reality of there not being enough room in most cities for any other sort of measures. That's why so many cities like Cambridge have stopped pretending they can fit more cars in - it isn't physically possible. So, if you want to move more people through an area, making more space for cars is highly inefficient, but making more space for public transit, cycling, and walking is highly efficient.
It simply didn't happen that people lobbied for these things you hate. It happened that planners realized that no more cars would fit, existing schemes were not working, and they had to try other ways of mobility.
You can look into the entire Dutch experience of removing cars from their environments once they realized that their cities and lives and children were being destroyed by attempts to wedge them into a human-scale landscape.
The most effective keywords to search on google scholar, etc.: mobility, urban mobility, future of mobility (I recently did a lit search for this stuff)
Context sensitive
By Markk02474
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 4:36pm
Sorry, I was more concerned with the US than Europe. Even within the US, there is a vast difference between NYC and Newton. I'm not finding data on how much the replacement with a slip turning lane with a tight corner turn saves lives vs. how much traffic congestion and stress to drivers it adds. Or how much lane narrowing increases congestion by not allowing cars to go around turning vehicles, resulting in more stress, and how many lives it purportedly saves. CMF (crash modification factor) data is largely absent for promoted, yet unproven, changes.
The search terms you suggest are all one-sided, biased, opinion finders.
Not Really
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:03pm
Part of my foundation's funding comes from the auto industry, actually. And that's where I did the literature searching. These terms are absolutely not limited to "anti-car" types - hence the auto industry's insistence on the use of "mobility".
You familiar with this? ACEA Sustainability Statement? http://www.acea.be/news/news_detail/sustainable_mo...
European car manufacturers don't seem to see it as an all/nothing, car-haters vs car-lovers situation like you seem to do:
There is actually an organization, heavily funded by Volvo and entirely industry funded, that is grappling with mobility issues on a global scale. For some reason I can't find the exact name of it, but I'll update if I do (something like the Global Movement for Sustainable Mobility ... but I think I need the German or French translation to find it).
This is all ultimately about moving people and stuff in efficient ways that don't kill us and keep our cities vibrant and liveable. Roads and cars aren't necessarily the answer to that need.
Car maker motivations
By Markk02474
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 6:35pm
From that web page, car makers are quite interested in people buying new cars that are more eco-friendly than their current vehicle. US car makers loved the cash for clunkers program paid for by taxpayers to boost new car sales while removing old cars from the used market. Much of the support for "livable streets" is by design firms that profit from more expensive road rehab projects - they then deceive potential activists into thinking that the expensive extras actually accomplish anything. The extras are perceived as safer, but the reality is no real safety increase to offset added cost and reduced mobility.
The site does make many good points, including:[quote]Freely flowing traffic is one of the most important measures to cut unnecessary road transport emissions. Investment in infrastructure is therefore paramount. Well-designed roads and traffic management systems help cut accidents and lower CO2 and other harmful pollutants.[/quote]
As far as automotive interests supporting anti-automotive programs - its tribute. AAA has gotten abused by bike lobbyists for years. Last year they were one of the sponsors of the D.C. based, League of American Bicyclists annual lobbying summit.
Definition of "bias"
By jeoffrey
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 6:53pm
Bias: something that doesn't agree with MarkK.
US auto industry: not biased.
Pedestrians groups: biased.
Bicycle industry: biased.
But my favorite is the idea what we must work to protect the health of motorists by reducing the stress caused to them by their driving, but ignore the huge impact to their health caused by their generally unhealthy mode choice, not getting exercise, etc. And of course there's the hopping up and down about the misbehavior of cyclists (which pisses me off, too) while simultaneously not even acknowledging the danger drivers pose to other people, especially those not in an automobile. Maybe we need little teensy automobiles to use when we're on the sidewalks or in crosswalks?
Also, those mode choice numbers? Shown repeatedly to be a huge underestimation of mode choice thanks to the way mode choice is ascribed to mixed mode trips and how some trips are counted while others aren't.
I pointed out auto bias
By Markk02474
Thu, 12/19/2013 - 1:47am
You missed where I pointed out how the auto industry is biased - they advocate people buy new cars before they wear out because new cars are more eco-friendly, which was also the cash for clunkers corporate welfare program for the auto industry. So, how am I not claiming auto industry bias?
Note though the auto industry mostly focuses on selling more cars, not selling cars AND places to use them. People already want places to drive, so no need to pump up demand. Bicycling and skateboarding need promoting to sell both the product and places to use it. Recent weather makes me wonder why there isn't a big lobby to promote cross-country skiing as transportation, skiing paths, and skiing lanes for winter, giving them to cyclists the other 3 seasons - that's not asking for much.
Lots of mixed-mode happens, like walking to/from parking lots. In the burbs most people drive to reach public transit for jobs in the city, then walk from it to their office. In Arlington, side streets get used as free MBTA parking even for those taking the bus, not just the typical parking to take commuter rail and subway. Promotion of carpooling is considered a failure, yet still much more popular than bicycling.
Modest proposal
By Drunk
Wed, 12/18/2013 - 5:52pm
Maybe we could reduce traffic by having fewer people in cars.
Naah, it'd never work.
Pages
Add comment