Subscribe in a reader
Friday, August 15, 2008
... oh, yea, from cycle-licious...
Feeling even more just-barely-insulated from the "real world" of corruption of power with this news from Denver. This pretty gory incident happened on April 4 but it's 'breaking news' now... .
No, it's not uplifting, especially considering this is just one that was caught on tape - how much other stuff have these guys blithely gotten away with... and then sent their *victims* to jail because their testimony gets believed?
Feeling even more just-barely-insulated from the "real world" of corruption of power with this news from Denver. This pretty gory incident happened on April 4 but it's 'breaking news' now... .
No, it's not uplifting, especially considering this is just one that was caught on tape - how much other stuff have these guys blithely gotten away with... and then sent their *victims* to jail because their testimony gets believed?
Labels: bicycle advocacy
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Dropped in at Kent's Bike Blog 'cause of the Day-hon reference; included random thoughts from the "toward car-free cities" conference. One of my favorites: we've got "ghost bikes..." - what about "ghost cars?" Of course there would be "too many." Soem people already put up roadside memorials... and I'm remembering somebody's "is this a spoof?" idea for putting out an "apology" memorial... I think Kent's skull & crossbone stencil idea has too many other associations. Perhaps, simply, a headstone with a car... words or not? ("R.I.P.", "one fewer passenger..." "Slow TF Down...")
Okay, time to see if I can figure out the camera thing...
Okay, time to see if I can figure out the camera thing...
Labels: bicycle advocacy
Friday, May 04, 2007
Last night's meeting for public input for the Bicycle Master Plan went well. WCIA reported on it - the visual header saying "bicyle safety" and I'm afraid the concluding phrase was something about when they could start building bike paths. I wish I had paid more exact attention; I may send a little letter imploring WCIA et al to consider that odd word "routes" since when I'm riding down John Street, nobody would say I was on a path.
Media aside, the meeting was well-attended with over 60 folks. Show of hands at the beginning indicated that 30+ people had heard about it via email; roughly 8 folks via fliers or bike hangers and about *3* via radio/TV. I would think this doesn't mean to forget the fliers - we want to be a *presence* that the general public is aware of, even if they don't come to meetings if they're not already invested enough to be on an email list. Recreational riders were also in the acute minority; over half the people there used the bike for practical purposes and had a green-looking lean. Hmmm.... can't remember any other questions (nobody asked "who's got more than 500 miels? 1000? ... :-)) The media didn't seem to notice that.
Then Ed Barsotti showed a good Powerpoint about different cycling route options. The media didn't seem to notice that.
Then we each colored in our personal copies of the regional map with our ideas. Of course, Ed's got my whole map that we spent a lot more time on... but I highlighted my favorite issues - overpasses, access over the RRs, and for my student, the downtown area.
Then we broke up into regional groups & I picked the NE because it has an overpass and there were just three of us there.
The nifty thing was that basically, the six groups were harmonious. ONly one table cited having "different kinds of bicyclists" - in other words, a fair number of people who thought bicycles Needed to Be Separated Completely, vs. experienced cyclists. (Ed Barsotti's p[resentataion addressed this. The media missed that, too.) Generally, there honestly weren't a lot of "we need bike paths! we need bike paths!" people there. The tone was more "these are the places we need safe bicycle acces to," and people actually focused a lot of attention on arteries, not teeny side roads that people could ride on for a half mile for their exercise and look like bike paths.
The other nifty thing was that so many different groups had priorities which were contiguous with the next group's. So, we noted access to downtown from NE... and downtown noted access to us.
We did have a brief commentary from a member of the previous bicycling commision, drily wishing us luck, stating that his nose was a bit out of joint because in the past, cycling commission contributions were simply ignored. I can't tell if it's freshly out of joint and/or why ... I'm glad to say that speakers were able to address the history brought up because actually, yes, they did know about the failed efforts to make California a bikes-only lane. I think the comments by Brandon Bowersox about that were on target (as opposed to political blather) when he noted that we simply know a *lot* more about what works and what doesn't work. What *I* don't know is what kinds of things those folks put forward... and how much effort they made in educating people, as we're going to have to persist in doing, to keep that "bicyclists want paths" mindset from paving over all efforts to do anything different.
I suppose we're also going ot have to figure out a way to prevent the public from being afraid of cyclists on the streets, too.
Media aside, the meeting was well-attended with over 60 folks. Show of hands at the beginning indicated that 30+ people had heard about it via email; roughly 8 folks via fliers or bike hangers and about *3* via radio/TV. I would think this doesn't mean to forget the fliers - we want to be a *presence* that the general public is aware of, even if they don't come to meetings if they're not already invested enough to be on an email list. Recreational riders were also in the acute minority; over half the people there used the bike for practical purposes and had a green-looking lean. Hmmm.... can't remember any other questions (nobody asked "who's got more than 500 miels? 1000? ... :-)) The media didn't seem to notice that.
Then Ed Barsotti showed a good Powerpoint about different cycling route options. The media didn't seem to notice that.
Then we each colored in our personal copies of the regional map with our ideas. Of course, Ed's got my whole map that we spent a lot more time on... but I highlighted my favorite issues - overpasses, access over the RRs, and for my student, the downtown area.
Then we broke up into regional groups & I picked the NE because it has an overpass and there were just three of us there.
The nifty thing was that basically, the six groups were harmonious. ONly one table cited having "different kinds of bicyclists" - in other words, a fair number of people who thought bicycles Needed to Be Separated Completely, vs. experienced cyclists. (Ed Barsotti's p[resentataion addressed this. The media missed that, too.) Generally, there honestly weren't a lot of "we need bike paths! we need bike paths!" people there. The tone was more "these are the places we need safe bicycle acces to," and people actually focused a lot of attention on arteries, not teeny side roads that people could ride on for a half mile for their exercise and look like bike paths.
The other nifty thing was that so many different groups had priorities which were contiguous with the next group's. So, we noted access to downtown from NE... and downtown noted access to us.
We did have a brief commentary from a member of the previous bicycling commision, drily wishing us luck, stating that his nose was a bit out of joint because in the past, cycling commission contributions were simply ignored. I can't tell if it's freshly out of joint and/or why ... I'm glad to say that speakers were able to address the history brought up because actually, yes, they did know about the failed efforts to make California a bikes-only lane. I think the comments by Brandon Bowersox about that were on target (as opposed to political blather) when he noted that we simply know a *lot* more about what works and what doesn't work. What *I* don't know is what kinds of things those folks put forward... and how much effort they made in educating people, as we're going to have to persist in doing, to keep that "bicyclists want paths" mindset from paving over all efforts to do anything different.
I suppose we're also going ot have to figure out a way to prevent the public from being afraid of cyclists on the streets, too.
Labels: bicycle advocacy, bicycle commuting
Monday, November 27, 2006
Going through emails and found this one, which I don't *think* I ever blogged out:
Why do so many drivers think "roads were made for cars, don't you know that??"
It's a natural social condition, but one that can be changed (though some people will always persist in thnking the big guy has the rights). For example, for the longest time, higher education was for the able-bodied only, as was access to many public buildings and businesses.
Think of any exclusionary situation or any powerful vs. powerless situation; the ones in the position of power simply don't understand what the problem is. It's no problem for them, so why should it be a problem for anybody else? WHy are we disrupting the "natural" "right" hierarchy of things?
With bicyclists in the minority, any time drivers are hangin' round they're going to be agreeing with each other about those annoying cyclists and building their own, self-supporting definition of rights and privileges.
CHanging laws has a seriously limited effect when the public opinion is ingrained (think South and segregation). I'm ready to meet and strategize for becoming a slow but inexorable force towards changing that "roads are for cars and bikes aren't vehicles" mindset :-) Think about the stuff that's worked for other minorities. We have one significant advantage over many other minority groups - the non-cyclists can become cyclists.
Why do so many drivers think "roads were made for cars, don't you know that??"
It's a natural social condition, but one that can be changed (though some people will always persist in thnking the big guy has the rights). For example, for the longest time, higher education was for the able-bodied only, as was access to many public buildings and businesses.
Think of any exclusionary situation or any powerful vs. powerless situation; the ones in the position of power simply don't understand what the problem is. It's no problem for them, so why should it be a problem for anybody else? WHy are we disrupting the "natural" "right" hierarchy of things?
With bicyclists in the minority, any time drivers are hangin' round they're going to be agreeing with each other about those annoying cyclists and building their own, self-supporting definition of rights and privileges.
CHanging laws has a seriously limited effect when the public opinion is ingrained (think South and segregation). I'm ready to meet and strategize for becoming a slow but inexorable force towards changing that "roads are for cars and bikes aren't vehicles" mindset :-) Think about the stuff that's worked for other minorities. We have one significant advantage over many other minority groups - the non-cyclists can become cyclists.
Labels: bicycle, bicycle advocacy
