Posted on 07/18/2013 6:08:03 PM PDT by rickmichaels
In the 1980s, the conservative humourist P.J. O’Rourke wrote “A Cool and Logical Analysis of the Bicycle Menace.” He was joking. In 2013, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Dorothy Rabinowitz said, “the bike lobby is an all-powerful enterprise” and the presence of a bike-sharing program in New York was an example of “the totalitarians running the government of this city.” She wasn’t joking. Rabinowitz’s widely discussed appearance on a Wall Street Journal video, which was picked up by many news outlets and The Daily Show (“Slow down, lady, they’re just bikes!” Jon Stewart exclaimed), did more than draw attention to complaints about the effectivness of the Citibike program, New York’s attempt to compete with the bike-sharing in other cities such as Paris and Montreal. It made people aware of just how hostile some conservative commentators are to bikes.
Rabinowitz was hardly the first conservative pundit to express scorn for bicycles and the people who ride them. One of the most-publicized recent bike-bashers was Don Cherry, who showed up to meet Toronto Mayor Rob Ford in 2010 wearing a loud pink shirt, explaining: “I’m wearing pink for all the pinkos out there riding bicycles.” Popular southern California radio host John Kobylt, an opponent of plans to build more bike lanes in Los Angeles, recently explained that cyclists are members of “a bizarre cult that worships two-wheel transportation, not a traditional God.” And Rush Limbaugh, the leader in conservative radio punditry, has always been willing to tee off on the pesky pedal-pushers: “Frankly, if the door opens into a bicycle rider, I won’t care,” he once said. “I think they ought to be off the streets and on the sidewalk,” where bike riders aren’t actually allowed.
Why would bicycles become a political issue? Partly because things like bike-sharing programs are often placed in opposition to cars and the people who drive them. Lloyd Alter, an adjunct professor at Ryerson University’s school of interior design and the managing editor of TreeHugger.com, says conservatives sometimes associate bikes “with environmentalism and anti-capitalism. Bike riders live in denser places, don’t go to big-box supercentres, lead a suspiciously different lifestyle.” The political splits in cities are often strongest between urban areas and the suburbs or exurbs, and that pits suburb-friendly transportation, mainly cars, against more “urban” vehicles such as bikes and light rail.
So just as conservative politicians such as Ford have often won votes for their support of the automobile against non-traditional transportation, conservative pundits often stick up for suburban car drivers in the culture war, and portray bicyclists as elitists. Kobylt, cited by The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf as a practitioner of “the paranoid style in bicycle politics,” told his listeners he fears that cyclists are trying to make him feel like, “I’m second class because I drive a car, or I have a commute to work, or I live in a suburban neighbourhood.” Journalist George Will, a prominent opponent of trains, also mocked then-U.S. secretary of transportation Ray LaHood for his support of biking: “Does he think 0.01 per cent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work?” Will sneered. Alter says that, to some pundits, cyclists are “a powerful force trying to squeeze cars off the road,” and “every advance by the cyclists is seen as an attack on the suburban way of life.”
But just as there are plenty of liberals who drive SUVs, there are plenty of conservatives who contradict the bike-hating stereotype. Nicole Gelinas, a contributor to the conservative urban policy magazine City Journal, published an article about Citibike that, while critical of the program, also tried to counteract some of the stereotypes about it: “Despite fears to the contrary, especially among the elderly,” she wrote, “bike share won’t harm pedestrians.” Still, as bike-friendly conservative radio host Mitch Berg told the Utne Reader, “people on both sides of the political aisle do ascribe political significance to biking.” Or, as P.J. O’Rourke put it all those years ago, “I don’t like the kind of people who ride bicycles.”
Ping to Mr. Mercat.
How should the car in this picture pass a bicyclist? Google's camera conveniently captured the distance to the double yellow line. Note that this road goes through an über-liberal city of Los Altos Hills, CA - and it is at its widest here. The dividing line is double yellow all the way (for a good reason,) no dashed lines anywhere. Such marking can be crossed only to turn left or to make a U-turn. If an SUV is a poor measure, look at this FedEx truck on the same road. There isn't enough space even for a scrawny deer to stand.
I personally have no problem with bicyclists when they are safe and far away from traffic. The problem occurs only when they use narrow public roads as a personal gym. Roads are not a good place for exercise; roads are a pretty dangerous workplace. IMO, bicycles make far more sense on trails. They are legal on many roads, but it doesn't make them a good idea there.
Amazing. Why would anyone want to live in those crowded conditions?
How do they find their bike again?
Hey! I HIKE up Page Mill from Arastradero to Foothills Park and then come back down through the Arastradero Preserve. You think it’s tough passing a bike? Try being a pedestrian.
You've got a point there. Generally gasoline taxes pay for roads and road maintenance, or at least that was the originally state purpose of that tax.
Maybe a 3% tax on bicycles and bicycle components is the ticket. It wouldn't effect me much; I got my trail bike in a swap, and rebuilt the old road bike I had in high school for asphalt riding, but it would make me feel good in knowing that I'm making a contribution.
Also, the tax would burn the worst of our lot the most-- those day-glo leotarded creatures that look like exotic bugs gliding along on thousand dollar carbon, titanium, scandium or what-the-hellium confections while they peer down their noses at the rest of the world
Who knows, maybe one of these days I'll be one of them, but I swear I'll never complain about the enviro-value added tax on my new riding outfit.
Why shouldn’t bicycles have to be licensed to help pay for the roads? They certainly contribute to congestion.
Why shouldn’t the operators be required to have a license? Too many certainly break traffic laws.
Why shouldn’t bicyclists have to insure their bicycles? They cause accidents too.
Shouldn’t bicyclists be held accountable like every other driver?
There is very little difference between the two at elevation just about 900 feet :-) Except that bicyclists also carry fifty pounds of metal under them :-) and they can't look around, lest they lose whatever little balance they have. More than once I saw bicyclists pushing their bikes up the hill. But they say it's good for them. Whatever :-)
Good, excellent questions. More government oversight is what we need. And not only over bicycles.
In Amsterdam, it’s critical that you cover your bicycle seat with a plastic bag. Then, if you fart, you can catch it and send it to Belgium. That’s how they generate electricity there.
Believe me, if you try to drive in Amsterdam, you’ll understand why they ride bikes.
And that is because their flippin’ fuel prices are through the moon to pay for their socialist schemes! it is enough to make you scream!
Here are some of our more critical national problems:
Obesity.
Lack of exercise tending to poor health.
Traffic congestion.
Overuse of fossil fuels providing resources to those who want to kill us.
Wear and tear on roads.
Oddly enough, more use of bicycles would help to mitigate all of these concerns.
Would also have negative side effects. 8 years ago broke my pelvis in five places while bicycling, which is FAR more dangerous per mile traveled than auto travel.
BTW, I share the disdain for the fluorescent spandex types. I wear shorts and a T-shirt. I always ride on side streets when available, but I don’t think many drivers realize the extent to which many cities make it impossible to get from point A to point B without traveling major streets.
I have no problem with bikes unless they are clogging up the major roads. Don't cause traffic backups and I don't have a problem.
“It is that bicyclists don’t share the road, but they hog it. “
Eugene, OR is the best example of bike nazis I can think of.
Oh you nailed it. Ann Arbor by U of M is a prime example. It is hard enough to park their, especially a large car and now you have to stay out of the bike lane it is a royal pain in the ass plain and simple. And by the way their was a time I had a 23 lb Cannodale Aluminum Tube monster and I wore the tights as well, but I wasn't a zealot about it.
It is a Kass Sunstein nudge and an Agenda 21 Trojan Horse, just like this Rotary Circles, don't even get me started on those pieces of crap...
Have no problem with bikes if they ride single file. Have big problem with those that don’t. I used to live in the hills with narrow winding roads and limited sight distances... It really does anger me when I come across slow cyclist riding 3 or 4 wide on a winding mountain road. Not that they slow me down, I just do not want to kill someone, even if they are being stupid.
Thanks. We’re having fun watching the turd de pants.
Bike riders are like dogs. Nice enough individually but horrific when in packs. It’s not big riding per se - it’s the gang mentality when they’re all together and think they can take on the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.