DU bicyclists: the Bush Administration hates you (this is INSANE!)

The Minneapolis bridge collapse on Aug. 1 led Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters to publicly reflect on federal transportation spending priorities and conclude that those greedy bicyclists and pedestrians, not to mention museumgoers and historic preservationists, hog too much of the billions of federal dollars raised by the gas tax, money that should go to pave highways and bridges. Better still, Peters, a 2006 Bush appointee, apparently doesn't see biking and walking paths as part of transportation infrastructure at all.

In an Aug. 15 appearance on PBS's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," Peters spoke against a proposal to raise gas taxes to shore up the nation's aging infrastructure. The real problem, the secretary argued, is that only 60 percent of the current money raised by gas taxes goes to highways and bridges. She conveniently neglected to mention that about 30 percent of the money goes to public transit. She then went on to blast congressional earmarks, which dedicate 10 percent of the gas tax to some 6,000 other projects around the country. "There are museums that are being built with that money, bike paths, trails, repairing lighthouses. Those are some of the kind of things that that money is being spent on, as opposed to our infrastructure," she said. The secretary added that projects like bike paths and trails "are really not transportation."

Peters' comments set off an eruption of blogging, e-mailing and letter-writing among bike riders and activists, incensed that no matter how many times they burn calories instead of fossil fuels with the words "One Less Car" or "We're Not Holding Up the Traffic, We Are the Traffic" plastered on their helmets, their pedal pushing is not taken seriously as a form of transportation by the honchos in Washington, D.C.

This is goddamned NUTS! At a time when bicycling ought to be encouaraged as a way of fighting pollution and obesity, the bush Administration is BLAMING the Minneapolis bridge collapse, and pork proliferation on US, those who depend on our bikes to get us from place to place.

If you're like me and you rely on your bike to get around, this should come as the ultimate slap in the face from this administration.

Well, at least they're consistent - anything, ANYTHING, that cuts into their petro-profits is gonna come under fire. :eyes:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/14/bike_paths /

And I thought precisely the same thing--WTF is your problem with bike trails?

Not that it's unexpected. Here in GA, there's a huge contingent of asshole motorists who feel castration anxiety by the presence of bikes on the road and bitch incessantly about it in the online forums.

The mayor actually ENCOURAGES the people to ride bikes, take public transportation, etc. There are bike trails here, bike lanes...

And yet, still, like you say, motorists sometimes act as if we're underfoot skunks.

One of these days I'll get one just so I can hit the trails with my kid, but street biking is insanely difficult in my neck of the woods. GA does have its biking advocates, and many miles of trails, but they're not connected in any rational manner and there are just too many over-loaded two-lane blacktops with no shoulder to work with.

Which sucks, because I've had 10-mile-or-less commutes that I'd love to be able to bike, at least once or twice a week.

and the biker is not using it. There are people out there that will intentionally hit you (it happened to my husband); why would a biker risk riding in the road when we've spent money on bike paths to protect them?

and even those who bike don't always have their heads screwed on too tight.


But most bicyclists adhere to the rules, unless they're fools.

rollerbladers, dog walkers, etc. on the bike paths. It doesn't bother me to cycle on a path, but a lot of serious cyclists want to go faster than that.

Chicago's Lakefront Trail is a great bike path for those, like me, serious about using their bikes to work out - but in the warmer months, during the day it's choked with oblivious toursits, pedestrians, rollerbladers, and people who refuse to travel in single file, thus blocking our path and slowing us down - and icreasing the chances of some sort of collision. In the summertime, I usually use the trail in the very early morn or at night, unfortunately - this sucks, because the view of the lake and the city's beaches during the day is GORGEOUS.

But in the fall and winter (um...brrrr!), it's ideal for maintaining a high speed.

Road bikes aren't designed to go across the loose gravel and large broken spaces in the asphalt that are common on "bike paths". Cyclists have a right to use the roadway.

They're selfish fantasists. MacArthur Blvd in DC used to be marble smooth. There really was a difference in speed compared to the bike trail paralleling it. (I experimented briefly when there wasn't auto traffic around.) So the tour de France poseurs would tie up traffic while they played pretend. Sometimes, I would pass them using the trail. Then up ahead, I'd stop and let them pass, then take off and pass them again. It never twigged with them. Since then, the roadway has been resurfaced. The bike trail is now marble smooth. But the poseurs are still flaunting the selfishness and self-centeredness.

No offense, but the fact that you can pass a road cyclist for a brief stretch on your comfort bike doesn't really prove much.

In fact, nothing is more annoying than cyclists (or motorists for that matter) who speeds up when someone is trying to pass. It's passive-aggressive behavior, and by your admission, you can't keep up with them over the long haul on whatever you're riding.

Why not just buy a road bike? You might enjoy it, and you will be able to keep up with road cyclists *over the long haul*, where it counts.

Nowhere did I mention that I couldn't keep up with them. In fact, when I was through, I left them far behind. Also, note that I said the bike trail paralleled the roadway. I do have a road bike that is ridden daily, year around in lieu of a car.

that, all things being equal, you can't keep up with a 17 lbs. road bike with 700c x 23mm tires on a 28 lbs mountain bike with 26" x 2.25" tires over the long haul.

More to the point, what difference does it make? Why fuck with people who have the audacity of getting out and getting some exercise? I honestly don't get it. :shrug:

Those clowns are blocking traffic with a long parade of cars creeping behind them, when there's a prefectly good surface a couple meters to the side. They're conspicous consumers who don't ride all that well, saying "Look At Me!". There are too many dickhead drivers already without unecessarily converting more against cyclists. Look at the big fucking picture, mate.

the next time you see a bike trail, you might try going down it. lots of them don't go anywhere. So if you are on a bike and you want to actually GET SOMEPLACE you can't stay on that lovely bike trail.
I live in a "liberal" city too; where most drivers are decent, but we have enough hostile nut cases to keep it interesting.

Anyone riding a bike on the road has to be very vigilant, our biggest enemy isn't hostility, it's inattention; on our part and on the part of motorists.

but it sure beats driving!

I was giving him a ride to drop something off downtown and he was bitching about cyclist.

I responded, "Look I'm no engineer or anything but as I understand it bikes don't use gas"

Y'know, like the poor.

I reminded him that there were bikes on the roads before there were cars and they didn't need any paving the auto made that necessary.

He just grumbled some more.

He took down the W calendar hanging in his office about a year ago. There is a John Waybe calendar hanging in its stead now.

Setting aside how sociopathic it really is--hasn't it ever occurred that every bike means one less car on the road? Do these idiots really enjoy having more cars in front of them?

but as you know it is about those taxes. :eyes: they don't seem to be aware of the line about death and taxes.

Well, at least they're consistent - anything, ANYTHING, that cuts into their petro-profits is gonna come under fire. :eyes:

As a dedicated cyclist, I have to say I never use bike paths to actually get from one place to another. I use roads for that. Bike paths are usually used for recreation because they don't usually go anywhere except through the woods and around lakes and stuff. I think that may have been his point, i.e., recreation is different from transportation.

But I agree- more people need to get off their asses and ride!!!

I know that there are in other cities as well - HOWEVER, the tax dollars necessary for painting a stripe on a road and putting up a few metal signs is negligible compared to what it costs to inspect the nation's bridges - and it appals me that Peters is trying to draw some connection and in the process demonize our practice of practicality.

I don't really see the point in bike lanes. A driver that will hit a cyclist in the road will hit a cyclist in a bike lane just as easily. That white line offers no protection whatever. They're strictly for the convenience of motorists, but don't make anybody safer imo.

and over-corrected into the center turn-lane once, I'm inclined to agree. And I'm inclined to sell the bike that I normally would have been riding in that same bike lane.

Add that to the pools of broken glass and garbage in the bike lane I get to avoid (but not if it means swerving into traffic).

Chicago is great for bike lanes.

Here where I live, there are no bike lanes. Mostly more narrow roads with a small shoulder. The bike paths are for recreation. Of course you take your life in your hands riding a road bike on a bike path. So many walkers, old people, kids, dogs, roller-bladers, etc. Real cyclists usually stay clear of them because they're so dangerous unless you're going really slow. And who wants to go slow on a bike?!?

one who doesn't drives but is driven, hasn't walked anywhere except from the limo to a door & hasn't owned a bike since she was ten.

Getting out of Iraq will free up about 1 billion dollars a week for infrastructure.

And at what cost in human life, too?

Biking helps the environment and combats America's obesity epidemic...no wonder they don't recognize it as legitimate.

amenities -just as the gooney bird in the WH likes to pedal his mtn bike in a nature refuge in Virginia - yet how many rethugs voted to establish it? Very few, if any, I imagine.

would fill a scroll that could cover the earth twice over.

is.

Fuck, W himslef is a big fan of biking!

Just as pedestrians do.

You must give the bike rider the benefit of the doubt. Also, common decency dictates that a car is more of a mass than a bicycle and you in the car should be responsible to avoid accidents with it. IMHO that is.

I was under the impression that bicycles are considered vehicles when on public roads, and are subject to the laws governing operation of vehicles (even those pesky stop signs!). Those laws do not include automatic right-of-way based upon vehicle type, except for emergency vehicles with lights activated.

Last I checked bicycles on public roads are to be treated the same as any other vehicle.

but it is a moot point anyway. As a cyclist I will NEVER contest right of way with a vehicle that is going 5 times faster and weighs 20x as much as I do. It's just plain suicidal.

I ride on sidewalks, shoulders, and the street only when I absolutely have to because those fuckers will run you over. And cyclists who merrily pedal down the middle of the street thinking they are all that are just insane because they are NOT cars, they do NOT go 45mph, and they do NOT weigh 3500lbs. It doesn't really matter who is right because only the cyclist is going to get splattered on the pavement.

They dont crowd you, yell things at you or ride your ass.
When I lived in a "red area", I almost got run off the road a few times, had soda cans tossed at me from vehicles, called a "pussy" for riding a bike and had some assholes ride my ass on the right side of the road just to fuck with me.

and people yell at you, ride your ass, honk their horns off at you. Of course, this is philly.

if there is a bicycle lane provided.

In California where I live a bicycle can move out of a bike lane but a car cannot drive in a bike lane.



21208. (a) Whenever a bicycle lane has been established on a
roadway pursuant to Section 21207, any person operating a bicycle
upon the roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic
moving in the same direction at that time shall ride within the
bicycle lane, except that the person may move out of the lane under
any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle, vehicle, or
pedestrian within the lane or about to enter the lane if the
overtaking and passing cannot be done safely within the lane.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a
private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to leave the bicycle lane to avoid
debris or other hazardous conditions.
(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) No person operating a bicycle shall leave a bicycle lane until
the movement can be made with reasonable safety and then only after
giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided in Chapter 6
(commencing with Section 22100) in the event that any vehicle may be
affected by the movement.



21209. (a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in a bicycle lane
established on a roadway pursuant to Section 21207 except as follows:

(1) To park where parking is permitted.
(2) To enter or leave the roadway.
(3) To prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the
intersection.
(b) This section does not prohibit the use of a motorized bicycle
in a bicycle lane, pursuant to Section 21207.5, at a speed no greater
than is reasonable or prudent, having due regard for visibility,
traffic conditions, and the condition of the roadway surface of the
bicycle lane, and in a manner which does not endanger the safety of
bicyclists.



Also this even if there is no bike lane:

Like it or not, bicyclists have the right to “take the lane” under certain conditions:

¶When overtaking a vehicle moving in the same direction.

¶When getting ready to turn left.

¶When a lane is too narrow to share with a car or truck.

¶When there are unsafe conditions on the road like double-parked vehicles, animals, pedestrians and potholes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/health/05brod.html?ex=1189915200&en=38ce6a179c5f4356&ei=5070

here in Los Angeles (at least any bike paths useful to people who commute to work rather than cycle for fun and entertainment).

And even if you DO have a car - I've heard about those traffic jams!

I'm looking for an apartment and a decent (but small) 1 BR in a decent neighborhood within 5 miles of work is gonna run me over $1200.

That's all you need to know.

What is he going to tell the biker-in-chief?

Bush must use a few bike trails out in Texas - does one of his own appointees want to take that trail away from him?

Just away from US?

we need to know who are friends are and aren't.

Democrats: friends
Republicans: enemies

See? Simple!

I hope her car break down on a dark lonely road in the rain and she has to walk to get somewhere and then some bikers whiz by and leave her in the silence of her stupidity.

Case in point - the drive belt on my wife's car broke and she was stranded in an intersection. A bicyclist came by and asked if she needed a push out of the intersection. He even helped guide the car safely into a non-Tow Zone parking space.

And this was after about a hour's worth of cars went whizzing by, honking their horns. :eyes:

I know I always help someone in distress when I'm biking, even if they're OBVIOUSLY republican. :smile:

The rest of us can go to hell.

Bushco in a nutshell.

They need hear from us.

how will we get people out of their cars?

Between 4000 and 8000 people bike their commute to work daily in Seattle (it's seasonal and weather-dependent) and we sure as hell don't need that many more cars on the road. The traffic here is pretty wretched as it is.

My husband bikes 25 miles round-trip every day (towing the dog in a trailer!) and if we didn't have dedicated paths and lanes, there's no way he could do that. Without a dedicated path, he'd have to ride through an auto tunnel and on a freeway--and there's just no way to do that safely.

Peters should get out of her car and try a different way to get around, and then see if she thinks bike paths "are not really transportation." Idiot.

If I'm not working out, I ride 12.5 miles to school, and 12.5 miles back. Plus, sometimes I have to go downtown, so there's an extra 8 miles or so on top of that.

In Beijing, many major roads have lanes for auto traffic and separate lanes for bicycle traffic and walking paths/sidewalks on either side of the bike lanes (the inner walks are mainly for catching a bus or taxi. The outter sidewalks are very wide.)





Where there is not a completely separate parallel lane built, they improvise.

I love to commute by bicycle. It would be fun to do it in a place with a nice infrastructure for it.

Also, I think the kind of bikes everyday commuters in Asia and Europe use are cool.

I live in a southern city with about 200,000 residents. I checked the local budget and the amount spent on automobiles exceeds the amount generated by taxes and fees only motorists pay by several million. I didn't even check the state or federal expenditures.

Of course most pols hate cyclists since, well, we're in the minority.

I am REALLY UPSET to know that the Minneapolis bridge collapse is my fault! Because i live a mile from my office and ride my bike there every day...

Crap!

I promise i will go out tomorrow and get a HUMMER!! Oh, but there's no parking on campus... so i will have to drive it an extra 2 miles past campus, park, and then walk back. But i will do this because i am a GOOD AMERICAN CITIZEN!

~Sally

They want us to be soft, fat, unresourceful targets.

The YEARLY paving costs of highways run into the tens/hundreds of thousands of $. The TOTAL construction cost of a bike path is seldom more than a few thousand dollars per mile (not counting land values, just materials and labor).

excellent response to the original interview (PDF warning): http://www.bikeleague.org/news/images/peters_letter.pdf


"The northern Outer Banks study found that bicycling tourists represent a high economic impact for the resort communities. But how does that compare against the cost of building the bicycle facilities? Approximately $6.7 million of municipal, state and federal funds were used to construct the special bicycle facilities in the northern Outer Banks. The annual economic impact of cyclists ($60 million) is estimated to be almost nine times greater than the one-time expenditure of public funds to construct the bicycle facilities. The measurable economic benefits of bicycle facilities may begin with increased tourist expenditures in the region, but further intangible results may be seen long after the visitors leave. In addition to the positive economic impact versus the cost of bicycle facilities, the study observed that other, less quantifiable, economic benefits may result from the bicycle facilities, including:

* Enhancement of nearby property values along areas that feature bike paths and trails.
* Reduced healthcare costs that may result from increased opportunities for healthful exercise.
* Less damage to roads and preservation of the highway infrastructure resulting from wider paved shoulders.
"