The Spokesmen #104 – The Bikes vs. Cars Controversy

Listen now by clicking here:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

8 comments to The Spokesmen #104 – The Bikes vs. Cars Controversy

  • Clay

    Our best argument for cycling as transportation may be related to the problems discussed in this article:
    http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-state-of-the-unions-roads-an-investigative-report-feature
    In summary, we can’t afford to keep roads maintained much less build new roads. Alternatives to “auto – bus – truck” are critical. Mass transit MUST be addressed. Motorists should be thankful every time they see someone commuting by bicycle as they are not wearing out the road and they are disrupting traffic less than if they were driving. If half of the people in cars were on bikes in a bike lane or better, a separate bikeway, traffic could flow much better than it does now in most cities. Sadly it will take total gridlock before our auto-centric nation (USA) learns this.

  • John the Monkey

    I’ve only been able to listen to this one in fragments, so maybe that’s why, but David seemed either to be playing Devil’s Advocate, or applying to be a leader writer at the Daily Mail at times.

    I found it quite dispiriting to hear someone on “our side” arguing our collective responsibility for poor cycling, and misunderstanding presumed liability in much the same way that our cheaper tabloids do.

  • Macky

    Just to say I really enjoyed this discussion and the topic. Nice to get away from the racing talk for awhile. Interested in what the Recreation Law guy would have to say on this topic.

  • David, I realize you may have been playing devil’s advocate – but Carlton hit the nose on the head:
    1. Cyclists are a diverse group. To treat it as some homogeneously influenced group doesn’t make sense.

    2. Obeying the traffic laws to the letter will not buy us one iota of respect – except at the individual level and only by specific motor vehicle drivers. The ones that run us off the road, throw things at us and scream obscenities will only be satisfied if we leave entirely.

    Also – over the weekend I observed *many* cars breaking laws of all sorts on a regular basis. Coasting through stop signs, running red lights, speeding, not signaling, texting (illegal in CO). I think that we’ve all just gotten so used to seeing such infractions that they’ve just blended into the scenery.

    On a positive note; I’ve focused through the years on recognizing those drivers that *are* courteous. When a driver yields a turn to let me pass – I wave and mouth ‘thank you’ – I figure that will go a lot further than worrying about the d-bags that won’t ever change unless they are forced.

  • Jeff A.

    One of you mentioned skinny hipsters. If you haven’t seen the piece from “Portlandia”, I think you might enjoy it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvV8ugiSeaM

  • Jeff A.

    On a more serious note, I can see 2 approaches to consider for improving the rights of cyclists.
    1 – Look at the tactics used in the past by minority groups to win human rights and apply them as needed. I think the recipe is there.
    2 – Use the old tactic for better roads where numerous small groups with an similar interest joined together as a single, larger group too big for politicians to ignore. I think I heard about this in an interview with Mr Reed. For example, it is also legal or barely illegal to kill a motorcyclist with a car if you say, “I’m sorry. It was an accident”. The law is simply insufficient in these cases.

    Four wheels good, two wheels bad?

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>