Every type of business that has dependency on government, and just about all do,
has a relationship with the people who make the decisions in government, whether
through lobbying, a revolving-door career ladder in/out of governent/private
sector firms, or just funding political campaigns, individually or through
various groups like PACs, super or not. This is not a racket, or a conspiracy,
by itself - it's a fundamental structural feature of our political economy -
it's capitalism. About the only thing you can say for paint/path is that it's
chump change compared to other sectors of the economy, like the $700 billion
TARP program, to take one particularly expensive program, or the lost savings
from being prevented by law to negotiate volume discounts on medicare drugs, to
take another particularly expensive program.

Jerry

All this brings to mind Rick's objection to Ugarte - I don't mind a parasite. I
object to a cut-rate one.

Bravo Mark, that is freaking genius!

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Ortiz" <markortizauto@...> wrote:
>
> Segregated sidepaths and buffered bike lanes are even worse, because you
> can't get out of them.
>
>
>
> And a small number of people make money off these bogus safety measures, and
> actively promote the lie.
>
>
>
> That is a racket.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Ortiz
>

What happened after he heard that? I hope your grandfather gave him a piece of
his mind.

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, richfroh@... wrote:
>
One day shortly after receiving the MIA telegram from Uncle Sam, my grandfather
left the downtown bank where he was head teller and began the long trudge up the
hill to home. Standing just outside the bank in conversation were tow large
depositors - a tool and die maker and another local manufacturer who were
involved in war production. My grandfather overheard the tool and die business
owner say to the other manufacturer, "I hope this war keeps going for a while
longer - I am making a KILLING!"

We're all educated, rational people here --  I think we can move beyond HATE. 
As for me, my emotions relative to this list range from contempt, pity, and
indignation to mirth and appreciation.

Do ozone and ash exacerbate asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema?  Did the CAA and
CARB save lives?  Did CAFE save money?  Are you, physically fit cyclists, stuck
in the same insurance pool as quintuple-bypass solo car commuters?  Did the SUV
system use undue corporate influence to subvert the intentions of CAA and CAFE
while using an artificial appeal to a Madison Avenue-created masculinity?  Do
oil profits wind up in the hands of terrorists and nuclear rogue states?  Does a
fill-up now have enough corn to feed someone for three weeks?  If commuting cars
are stuck at under 15 MPH, should transportation adminstrations not make a hole
for rational people to get to work in a reasonable amount of time?

I think that if VC can address these questions better than "big advocacy" it
might get some traction.

Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO


--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, richfroh@... wrote:
>
>

-snip-
>
> We HATE Big Oil. We HATE Big Corporations. We HATE
Bushbushbushbushbushbushbushbush. We HATE Tea Partiers. We HATE Cars. We HATE
Polluters. We hate SUVs. We HATE "THEM". And "we" are going to take their gas
and their cars and their roads and their SUVs and their greed, ant we are going
to make them all SUFFER by paying for out bike infrastructure and making them
WATCH OUT for us as we ride in our shiny new bike facilities. And every single
miceaclist shall join in solidarity and ride together in our new bike facilities
to show our individuality and our deep caring for each other and the globe. So
THERE!
>
>
>
>
> Friends, I would venture that Big Bikes and Big Advocacy have succeeded nicely
in their campaign to focus hate against common enemies while deflecting
attention away from their own stinking hypocrisy and cynically selfish greed.
Hate isn't rational, but it sure is powerful.
>
>
>
>
> How do you suppose it feels to be one of the few - one of the leaders of Bike
Advocacy - as you whip up the hate and use people's irrational emotions to make
them into useful idiots? What a "power trip" it must be!
>

-snip-

 

We're all educated, rational people here -- I think we can move beyond HATE. As for me, my emotions relative to this list range from contempt, pity, and indignation to mirth and appreciation.

Do ozone and ash exacerbate asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema? Did the CAA and CARB save lives? Did CAFE save money? Are you, physically fit cyclists, stuck in the same insurance pool as quintuple-bypass solo car commuters? Did the SUV system use undue corporate influence to subvert the intentions of CAA and CAFE while using an artificial appeal to a Madison Avenue-created masculinity? Do oil profits wind up in the hands of terrorists and nuclear rogue states? Does a fill-up now have enough corn to feed someone for three weeks? If commuting cars are stuck at under 15 MPH, should transportation adminstrations not make a hole for rational people to get to work in a reasonable amount of time?

I think that if VC can address these questions better than "big advocacy" it might get some traction.

Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
~-|**|PrettyHtmlEnd|**|-~ end group email -->

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car."  I'm anti (1)
paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3)
manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it
voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering.

Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO


JF:

Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket


Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring
campaign they "might get some traction".

The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring
attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the
most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all,
anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is
unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could
turn it around to support vehicular cycling.

One of the problems with US bike planning, and Mr. Grell's position, is that
it's all to similar to the "Drive 80, Freeze a Yankee" bumper stickers that were
so popular here in Texas in the '70s and '80s. It's a form of regional myopia.

It presumes a 'one size fits all' solution to the issues facing the world's most
diverse nation and economy. What is appropriate for Manhattan, may not even be
appropriate for Brooklyn, much less Oklahoma City, and vice versa. The vast
majority of the nation, and maybe 50% of its population, depend upon the
automobile for viability. There simply is no other alternative beyond a
post-apocalyptic scenario incorporating a complete collapse of the United
States.

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
>
> I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car."  I'm anti (1)
paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3)
manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it
voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering.
>
> Andy Grell
>
> UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
>
>
> JF:
>
> Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
>
>
> Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring
campaign they "might get some traction".
>
> The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on
anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority
cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After
all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it
is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we
could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
>

Hey, speak for yourself. I'm pretty sure I'm an under-educated nutcase.

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
>
> We're all educated, rational people here...

I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports
pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic
plans that don't deliver as promised.  However, this is a disingenuous argument.

Most of us on the list do not see these as arguments to support bicycle
facilities, because the facilities we see designed and built  promising to make
bicycling better and safer don't disclose that they are only safe if you walk
your bike and aren't designed for transportation.

As examples, the old and new bike lanes are in the door zone, to the right of
RTOL lanes, many lights in PA have signs indicating they won't change for
pedestrians or bicyclists. All the local trails built with transportation funds
are closed after dark.  Many planners, LEO and lower court judges in DE and PA
believe bicyclists are always legally obligated to yield to all motorists, i.e.
the bicyclist is at fault in any collision, even with turning motorists.  This
is NY and MD have to make facility use mandatory, with few of the normal
exclusions - the facilities violate so many normal traffic rules many bicyclists
would prefer the road, especially when traffic is traveling at bicycle speeds.

The current facilities have broad public support because many motorists
recognize the restrictions they place on bicyclists (as explained very vocally
by motorists in PA when bicyclists leave bike lane to make left turns or avoid
parked cars).

It's one thing to oppose funding terrorists or burning gas to drive a mile for
bread - this does not entail building pedestrian speed facilities to remove
bicyclists from the road.

NR Phillips



--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
>
> I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car."  I'm anti (1)
paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3)
manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it
voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering.
>
> Andy Grell
>
> UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
>
>
> JF:
>
> Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
>
>
> Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring
campaign they "might get some traction".
>
> The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on
anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority
cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After
all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it
is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we
could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
>

At no point have I ever advocated the Manhattan solution --  which is primarily
a way to deter cars from entering because state legislators in commuter counties
refused to let us charge drivers for our asthma costs --  for any specific place
except L.A.

My continuing position is that if people had to pay the true cost of driving,
they would be far more amenable to ride bikes; if that can't happen politically,
then if people who rode bikes got reimbursed for the money everyone else saved,
it would have the same effect.  And if VC can publicize itself as safer and
cheaper, it would have a good shot at beating p&p.

BTW, right here in Manhattan today, while taking my little doggie for a bike
ride, I rolled into the aftermath of a bad right cross --  a right turn from
West Street - West Side Highway across the Hudson River Greenway side path. 
Even though there's a gigantic sign that says RIGHT TURN YIELD TO BICYCLES.

Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "pmsummer" <pmsummer@...> wrote:
>
> One of the problems with US bike planning, and Mr. Grell's position, is that
it's all to similar to the "Drive 80, Freeze a Yankee" bumper stickers that were
so popular here in Texas in the '70s and '80s. It's a form of regional myopia.
>
> It presumes a 'one size fits all' solution to the issues facing the world's
most diverse nation and economy. What is appropriate for Manhattan, may not even
be appropriate for Brooklyn, much less Oklahoma City, and vice versa. The vast
majority of the nation, and maybe 50% of its population, depend upon the
automobile for viability. There simply is no other alternative beyond a
post-apocalyptic scenario incorporating a complete collapse of the United
States.
>
> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@> wrote:
> >
> > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car."  I'm anti (1)
paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3)
manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it
voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering.
> >
> > Andy Grell
> >
> > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
> >
> >
> > JF:
> >
> > Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
> >
> >
> > Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring
campaign they "might get some traction".
> >
> > The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on
anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority
cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After
all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it
is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we
could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
> >
>

I'm not making the argument that paths sre needed to de-fund Hezbollah or to
keep Iran from enriching uranium.  In the current sub-thread, I'm challenging VC
to promote itself as safe and very low in cost in order to get many people
riding to acomplish tasks such as those listed above.

BTW Have we considered the possibility that riding in traffic really is nuts;
that we're the strange ones, and everyone else really is rational?

Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "nrphillipsyh" <nrphillipsyh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports
pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic
plans that don't deliver as promised.  However, this is a disingenuous argument.
>
> Most of us on the list do not see these as arguments to support bicycle
facilities, because the facilities we see designed and built  promising to make
bicycling better and safer don't disclose that they are only safe if you walk
your bike and aren't designed for transportation.
>
> As examples, the old and new bike lanes are in the door zone, to the right of
RTOL lanes, many lights in PA have signs indicating they won't change for
pedestrians or bicyclists. All the local trails built with transportation funds
are closed after dark.  Many planners, LEO and lower court judges in DE and PA
believe bicyclists are always legally obligated to yield to all motorists, i.e.
the bicyclist is at fault in any collision, even with turning motorists.  This
is NY and MD have to make facility use mandatory, with few of the normal
exclusions - the facilities violate so many normal traffic rules many bicyclists
would prefer the road, especially when traffic is traveling at bicycle speeds.
>
> The current facilities have broad public support because many motorists
recognize the restrictions they place on bicyclists (as explained very vocally
by motorists in PA when bicyclists leave bike lane to make left turns or avoid
parked cars).
>
> It's one thing to oppose funding terrorists or burning gas to drive a mile for
bread - this does not entail building pedestrian speed facilities to remove
bicyclists from the road.
>
> NR Phillips
>
>
>
> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@> wrote:
> >
> > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car."  I'm anti (1)
paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3)
manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it
voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering.
> >
> > Andy Grell
> >
> > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
> >
> >
> > JF:
> >
> > Re: [CG] Re: bike lanes and sidepaths are a racket
> >
> >
> > Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring
campaign they "might get some traction".
> >
> > The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on
anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority
cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After
all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it
is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we
could turn it around to support vehicular cycling.
> >
>

</ it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign
we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling. />

I'd agree with this if the word "only" is inserted before vehicular cycling. I
believe it's really rather easy to ask other bicycling advocates to include
vehicular cycling issues along with the other things that less experienced
bicyclists want, like p&p. You'd merely (!) have to see that it's not a zero sum
game, that you can have a roadway that supports facilities for those who want
them as well as rights to the road for those who want them. That it hasn't
happened doesn't mean it cannot happen.

Jerry

 

</ it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling. />

I'd agree with this if the word "only" is inserted before vehicular cycling. I believe it's really rather easy to ask other bicycling advocates to include vehicular cycling issues along with the other things that less experienced bicyclists want, like p&p. You'd merely (!) have to see that it's not a zero sum game, that you can have a roadway that supports facilities for those who want them as well as rights to the road for those who want them. That it hasn't happened doesn't mean it cannot happen.

Jerry

_

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

Mark, you might have the reply chain tangled.  I'm the one opposed to hatred; I
was quoting another post satirically listing what we're supposed to hate. I'm
the mirth and contempt guy.

I didn't disagree with your analysis of segregated road facilities as a racket. 
I just think moving money from my state to give value to otherwise worthless
property in some other state is a bigger racket.

If we all had to pay an amount closer to what we actually use, cycling would
become a better answer for many people.  If VC is demonstrably safer and
cheaper, that would become a better answer for cycling.


Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Ortiz" <markortizauto@...> wrote:
>
> To Andy Grell’s suggestion that I am sowing hate by calling the
segregationist facilities racket what it is:
>
>
>
> Excuse me while I puke.
>
>
>
> People are making careers out of hawking things that don’t work as claimed,
to the detriment of all, and engaging in elaborate deception and manipulation to
make it happen �" and large cash flows are involved.  That is a racket.
>
>
>
> Pointing this out is not hatemongering.  It is honesty.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Ortiz
>
> _._,___
>

John Forester wrote:  "Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up
an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".

"The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring
attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the
most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all,
anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is
unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could
turn it around to support vehicular cycling."

==============================================

First, I believe describing the negatives associated with car use, as Andy did,
is entirely reasonable.  Yes, there are positives as well, and we all understand
that.  But I see no reason to use "anti-motoring" to deprecate those who mention
the negatives, any more than using "bluenose" to describe those who decry binge
drinking.

Second, I think that bike planning has focused on cycling's positives at least
as much as on motoring's negatives.  If that were not the case, the
"anti-motoring" people who promoted rail-trails would be shaming anyone using a
car to haul their bike to a MUP.

_If_ there were an effective national organization protecting our rights to the
road, its effective publicity department could tout the benefits of bicycling
and could mention the negatives of excessive driving without confining us to
bike lanes or bike tracks.  After all, MADD has reduced drunk driving without
endorsing prohibition.  And the advertising industry regularly promotes and
popularizes activities and consumer goods that are far less beneficial than
cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

 

John Forester wrote: "Andy Grell is arguing that if vehicular cyclists took up an anti-motoring campaign they "might get some traction".

"The trouble with that advice is that basing a cycling campaign on anti-motoring attracts those who think that bikeways and cyclist-inferiority cycling are the most politically powerful ways to promote anti-motoring. After all, anti-motoring has been the big basis for bike planning for decades now; it is unreasonable to expect that if vehicular cyclists joined their campaign we could turn it around to support vehicular cycling."

==============================================

First, I believe describing the negatives associated with car use, as Andy did, is entirely reasonable. Yes, there are positives as well, and we all understand that. But I see no reason to use "anti-motoring" to deprecate those who mention the negatives, any more than using "bluenose" to describe those who decry binge drinking.

Second, I think that bike planning has focused on cycling's positives at least as much as on motoring's negatives. If that were not the case, the "anti-motoring" people who promoted rail-trails would be shaming anyone using a car to haul their bike to a MUP.

_If_ there were an effective national organization protecting our rights to the road, its effective publicity department could tout the benefits of bicycling and could mention the negatives of excessive driving without confining us to bike lanes or bike tracks. After all, MADD has reduced drunk driving without endorsing prohibition. And the advertising industry regularly promotes and popularizes activities and consumer goods that are far less beneficial than cycling.

- Frank Krygowski

_

-- John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@...
www.johnforester.com

Public Libraries? Fire Departments? Police? Public Water? Public Sewage? Public
Hospitals?

I don't think it's fair to say that our entire government is a racket. I would
hate to have my home burn down because I couldn't afford to get 'FireCorp' to
put out the blaze.

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, richfroh@... wrote:
>
> My point is that our entire Gubmint is a racket...

Let's get a platform and model legislation together.  I've been toying, for
years, with the idea of a RIGHT TO GET TO WORK ACT since I thinkthe title is
unopposable.  As long as a portion of societal benefit is ultimately transfered
to the participants, I'm in.

Andy Grell

UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, richfroh@... wrote:
>
>
> Andy Grell said:
>
> > I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not "anti-car." I'm anti (1)
paying for other people to drive cars, and (2) cramming so many cars into one
space that people choke AND the cars can't get anywhere anyway and (3)
manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what it
voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering.
>
> > Andy Grell
>
> > UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
>
> I agree 100% with Andy's assessments quoted above. The automobile industry is
a racket.
>
> My point is that our entire Gubmint is a racket, and those who are more
cynical (and probably more realistic) than I am believe the only way to beat 'em
is to join 'em. Hence, Big Bikes Advocacy has taken the form of every other
lobbying specialty within the DC lobbying industry. The result is that Bike
Acvocacy amounts to "click here to send a message to your elected
representatives that we need gobs of funding for miceaclist ghettos (but DON'T
YOU DARE ask us any uncomfortable questions about safety)." And like all other
"click here to send a message" rackets, Big Bikes wants free reign on deciding
who gets the pork. It is all about money. As with all other examples of Gubmint
bureaucracy / business interdependancy, this unholy alliance is all about
"manipulation of public policy to the point where the public does NOT get what
it voted for, but gets some other, opposite, outcome, such as the funding of
terrorism or mass suffering" (quoting Andy, who phrased this so well that it can
not be improved upon!).
>
> Big Bikes regards miceaclists as infinitely preferable to cyclists, who should
be marginalized and ignored until they die out. Miceaclists just represent
numbers to report to Gubment partners, and donations to fund the lobbying "mine"
in DC, and harmless critters to be experimented upon. Remaining skeptical of all
Gubmint enterprises - at least from my perspective from the other side of the
looking glass - I would like to see VC get just 10% of all USA cyclists
on-board. With 10% showing the way, we would probably win the revolution and
begin to change minds and habits.
>
> The goals of the 10% movement: Street Civility, Freedom of Travel Mode Choice,
Transportation Efficiency. Revolutions have been won with fewer percentages of
revolutionaries.
>
> My thanks to others in this thread who helped to make the point that Big Bikes
isn't the only lobbying business running a racket on the placid sheeple of our
nation. But the argument that "if everyone does it it isn't a racket" isn't
winning me over. Give us 10% VC, and you will see changes you never imagined
possible.
>
> Viva the 10-percenters! Viva civility! Viva La Revolution!
>
> Occupy the Lane!
>

Rich Froh wrote (in part)

>>>>

I scanned through the Connecticut bike and ped laws and Connecticut DOT's Chapter 4, Bikeway and Walkway Planning and Design Guidelines Manual (summary) yesterday, and it provided a mixture of sadness and hope.�

About 12 years ago, I started a project (now dormant) to rate bicycle traffic laws in the 50 states.  Unfortunately, LAB has refused to help despite a couple promises to put an article about it in the magazine. (I suspect they made empty promises because the ruling faction consider me a threat.)  And then other members of the committee have gone on to other things.

Occasionally I get a query from someone who finds the web site and asks about some state.  Some even offer to help but it's been years since anyone has actually come through.

So far, I have no information on CT.  If you are interested in helping come up with a rating, please see http://bikelaws.org/

The offer above is good for residents of any state, including those that already have a rating.  (I could use info. on any updates.)

Only two US states, Arkansas and North Carolina have equitable bicycling movement laws. All the rest either allow local regulation, or have FTR and other bicyclist specific restrictive/discriminatory movement laws. We have a long way to go before bicyclists across the entire country restore the same movement rights as other drivers; rights that we once had but were mostly taken away from us from the 1940s through 1960s.

Feel free to download this MAP and use it in your advocacy work. Please let me know if any of the laws are incorrect, preferably with legal citations, so I can update the Excel sheet from which this map was generated. This is the latest version with PA including BIT [bicycles impeding traffic].

--- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "the_exegete" <andygee@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not making the argument that paths sre needed to de-fund Hezbollah or to
keep Iran from enriching uranium.  In the current sub-thread, I'm challenging VC
to promote itself as safe and very low in cost in order to get many people
riding to acomplish tasks such as those listed above.

I start with promoting VC as safe and free for bicyclists that want  want to use
public roads to go the same place motorists want to go. This hasn't worked
because most local advocates and motorists (including road designers and LEO)
reject the idea that motorists have the ability or legal obligation to yield to
bicyclists.  (Sounds insane, but this is my experience.)


>
> BTW Have we considered the possibility that riding in traffic really is nuts;
that we're the strange ones, and everyone else really is rational?

Maybe, but most readers on this list still say having motorists installing
facilities for pedestrian speed bicycling with no legal ROW (enforcement of bike
lane use) is even more nuts.

Facilities may work where motorists are held at fault for hitting pedestrians or
bicyclists.  If bicyclists' rights aren't enforced, the facilities that are
built are substandard and can't fix the lack of ROW.

>
> Andy Grell
>
> UT NUMQUAM FORMABAT TACO
>
> --- In chainguard@yahoogroups.com, "nrphillipsyh" <nrphillipsyh@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I think it is safe to agree that virtually no one reading the list supports
pollution, funding terrorism, or manipulating the public with (auto) traffic
plans that don't deliver as promised.  However, this is a disingenuous argument.
> >
> > Most of us on the list do not see these as arguments to support bicycle
facilities, because the facilities we see designed and built  promising to make
bicycling better and safer don't disclose that they are only safe if you walk
your bike and aren't designed for transportation.
> >
> > As examples, the old and new bike lanes are in the door zone, to the right
of RTOL lanes, many lights in PA have signs indicating they won't change for
pedestrians or bicyclists. All the local trails built with transportation funds
are closed after dark.  Many planners, LEO and lower court judges in DE and PA
believe bicyclists are always legally obligated to yield to all motorists, i.e.
the bicyclist is at fault in any collision, even with turning motorists.  This
is NY and MD have to make facility use mandatory, with few of the normal
exclusions - the facilities violate so many normal traffic rules many bicyclists
would prefer the road, especially when traffic is traveling at bicycle speeds.
> >
> > The current facilities have broad public support because many motorists
recognize the restrictions they place on bicyclists (as explained very vocally
by motorists in PA when bicyclists leave bike lane to make left turns or avoid
parked cars).
> >
> > It's one thing to oppose funding terrorists or burning gas to drive a mile
for bread - this does not entail building pedestrian speed facilities to remove
bicyclists from the road.
> >
> > NR Phillips
> >

> >
>