cooker

That's too bad because you're confusing the message with the messenger. If some annoying person is yelling at you to watch out for the truck heading at you, do you tell them to screw off?

cooker

Not evil - harmful. It's not a moral judgement. Clean(er) vehicles solve or at least reduce some of the problems associated with a car-heavy transportation system, but not all. You still have inefficiencies due to traffic congestion, the tax burden of building and maintaining roads, land wastage for freeways and cloverleafs and malls with vast parking acreage, with loss of agricultural or wilderness land, MVA-related morbidity and mortality, and a bunch of others. And if the cleaner and presumably cheaper fuel encouraged people to drive more, as we saw with better gas mileage, then a lot of these non-carbon related problems would worsen.

Mobile 155

Cooker, if they yell at me about a truck in another state I will consider them a fool and nothing they say after that becomes important.

To assume that better cars could be a bad thing is nothing more than an opinion. But it doesn't make it true. I am sure there were Brits that thought the colonies were a bad idea after 1776. I bet they were sure of it by 1812. But without those same colonies leaving England the world would be speaking German or Japanese today.

What replacement options does going car free offer those that have learned to live with their choice of a private vehicle?

What I hear people in here yelling the most is sacrifice. Give up the ease of driving and move closer to work. What are the results of that? Higher living costs and less space. Or you might hear someone say ride mass transit. What that gives you is a system that requires you to go to where they want to pick you up and ride with people you don't know the character of when they want you to. That may be fine for some but not for all of us.

I can assume a future like Excape from New York as easily as the tellers can assume that better cars are a bad idea. I am evenote suspicious of someone on a bicycle rushing to my rescue for a police, fire or medical emergency.

Car light I can agree has possibilities. Old people and the infirmed riding to their doctor on a bicycle I have my doubts about. Countries surviving without trade of good goods because of no motorized delivering system is even less likely.

So once again why should we be surprised or depress when people aren't willing to consider giving up their ease or freedom of transportation.

Besides if the messenger is the same one that made up the message what is the difference?

wphamilton

I think it arises naturally when someone is fighting for his rights or privilege, but finds himself in an inferior position. You get more emphatic, more strident, in your face about it. I guess it's possible to win small victories that way but I agree with you that it's not an effective strategy over the long haul.

Most cyclists are not passionate eco-warriors. They want better, safer places to ride and to otherwise go about their business on bikes. I can't see that strongly identifying cycling with fixing carbon emissions can really help them in those aims, since improving cycling routes is way down the list of pressing ecological problems. Sometimes I think that we - everyday cyclists - are better off politically by keeping the focus on cycling problems.

Mobile 155

Wphamilton,
I agree whole heartedly. Even in here I am not sure most are every day cyclists.

Around here when a city expresses an interest in cycling they tend to contact the bicycle shops and bicycle clubs rather than the environmental movement. Even low level political types know to ask the doers rather than the talkers.

What I have found is people need to see for themselves that the thing you are offering is better, easier, faster or more comfortable than what they already have. They are very unlikely to move, take mass transit or start exercising because someone they don't know says they should. Not if the message is, "it may require more planning and some sacrifice on your part but it will be better for the people that the messenger says it will help."

However the sight of someone riding there bike or strolling to the store just may start a non confrontational conversation. It has worked for me.

Roody

Ok. this is what I want to hear! I may not totally agree, but I like to hear an actual proposal for something that might work, rather than quasi-religious non-sequiturs.

How effective has this kind of advocacy been so far? I suppose that if you are actually working to improve cycling problems, you're doing something proactive to get more people out of their cars, in a kind of roundabout way.

Roody

Around here, bicyclists and environmentalists are usually the same people. So far, bikeforums is the only venue I know of where a lot of cyclists are anti-environmentalists. But it might be different in Orange County.

cooker

Apparently you misread my post. I said cleaner cars improve some things and MIGHT worsen others. LOL - that's a way more far out speculation than mine. Of course a lot might have happened in the interim, but had Britain and the US (and likely in that case, Canada) remained united into the 20th century they would have been way less vulnerable to German or Japanese attack. I'm not asking people to sacrifice anything they can afford, just some of the stuff they can only afford because it's subsidized. Give up the market distortions that fuel sprawl and let people decide for themselves how to live. If they still want live out of town they are free to.LOL- have you seen anyone, ever, in this forum advocate for human powered emergency services? There are actually a lot of rural areas that don't have effective emergency services, and others that struggle under crushing costs to afford them. Either you and I can help fund them - in perpetuity, or people who might want to move there can think again about whether it's as idyllic as they thought, and maybe find a municipality that can afford its own services, and not rely on handouts.

A lot of old and infirmed can't drive either, so they're especially disadvantaged in a car-utopia. It would make sense for them to live close to the doctor (and hospital) in a more urban area, so they can walk, take the bus, or take a cheap short cab ride. And to live in an area with good ambulance services.LOL again. Never seen that recommended by anyone.
I'm neither surprised nor depressed. I'm actually impressed at how many said they might consider it. Better than I thought. Lets work on reaching out to those people.
If you've already concluded it's made up, I guess it's hard to hear it objectively

wphamilton

I don't do any advocacy, but I try to nudge it along when I can. If you'll glance at the Alpharetta 2030 Comprehensive Plan you'll see that they are already cognizent of bicycle infrastructure and complete streets initiative, and interestingly when bicycles are mentioned here it is in conjunction with pedestrians. Even when it's talking about bike lanes and bike paths, as in "bike lanes and sidewalks". That's a pretty smart way to position it in my opinion. If it's a good pedestrian route and implements connectivity, then it's reasonable to improve for bikes also.

I just participate in their questionnaires and the streets I take regularly tend to get striped and signs. I've notified them of hazards for bicycles, and when or after those get fixed the street is made more bike-friendly. That's all that I do. A letter sometimes, an email. They don't really have all that many data points, so when you provide a few (even if only by just being there frequently), then "aha, it's a popular bike route."

Walter S

And last but not least, you encourage people to ride and enjoy it by doing just that.

cooker

They are two slightly different issues. Some people are promoting cycling for it's own sake as a safe, fun, cost-saving and healthy activity, and feel that we as cyclists deserve accommodation on the road because we are citizens and taxpayers too. That's fine, and I fully agree and support it. Some people (an overlapping group) are also promoting more cycling and less driving as an environmental good, and I support that too.

I don't see a need to choose one or the other, or that they are in conflict - in fact they have common aims, even if different motivations, and can help each other. If the "cycling for its own sake" group win concessions, it indirectly helps the enviro cause, and vice versa.

Mobile 155

I only picture the the 90 plus percentage of my neighbors that have decided they like their freedom every bit as credible in their message as someone I don't know and I don't know their agenda. If someone has decided they want the freedom of a legal and improving transportation who am I to condemn that decision if there is no real replacement to that system? If you build such a system they may come but until the messenger has cleaned their own energy house and provided a solution as comfortable as the one my neighbors already have. I can't judge them for wanting a comfortable life any more than I care if the judge me for a cycling life. I will work with them to help build roads if they are at least interested in helping me with cycling lanes and pathways or even bike trails. I have learned a long time ago when someone offers me free advice and it includes sacrifice on my part more than likely the advice is meant to promote an agenda that will increase the advisers bottom line or make their life more comfortable at my expense.

Roody

I very much commend you on what you do. I'm very serious when I say this is wonderful and laudable. And of course, the same to Mobile155.

I have to add that it isn't going to be enough to get our atmosphere healthy again. This is going to take concerted action by dedicated people, and somehow we must enlighten our leaders about what needs to be done. Transportation is not the only (or even most crucial) area that needs major improvements. But it is something that a lot of ordinary people like us can get involved in. If people are being more responsible, cleaner, and more efficient in their own lives, they're more likely to insist that governments and corporations do the same.

cooker

Freedom is a straw man - nobody is assaulting that. Freedom comes with responsibility - that's what I'm talking about.

Roody

Why do you think that decent public transit along with safe walking and cycling are uncomfortable and interfere with people's freedom? Seriously, have you examined where this idea comes from? I think you're very mistaken. There are a lot of false perceptions oout there, and I fear you have succumbed to one of them.

It's funny, because IIRC, you used to post that you enjoyed your transportation bicycling. Did something happen to change that? Or are you thinking that you're a special type of person who can enjoy cycling, but your friends and neighbors are a totally different breed?

cooker

That's a good question. First off, where mass transit is provided in ex-urban areas, it's typically subsidized a lot more than in urban areas, so another example of hidden subsidies to dispersed living.

I'm not keen to withdraw all public support for it, as it is an essential service to the poor, and it indirectly benefits drivers, since it reduces the number of other drivers or vehicles they have to contend with on the road. So I don't see it quite so clearly as a subsidy favoring one group of elites over another. I think it needs further consideration. At the same time I don't rule out the possiblity of higher "user fees" (fares) to pay the bulk of the costs, which is feasible in a dense urban setting where the buses and subways run full much of the time, and each rider's trip is fairly short. Of course the situation is in flux as we see how Uber and so on plays out.

It's hard to get a fix on how soon we will have driverless vehicles, but sure, they do offer the hope of rectifying some of the structural disadvantages non-drivers face in a car-dependent neighbourhood. But still, the farther you have to go, the more it costs, so if you are both ill and poor, it helps to live close to the places you want to go to, and it helps if those places are close to each other. Haven't I been hammering home the notion that people themselves should make the best decisions on where they want to live? I just want them to do it based on all the correct information including true costs.

Mobile 155

Two points Roody and Cooker.

One: my friends and neighbors have already made a transportation decision different than me. So assuming they have as much reasoning ability it should be clear they are different because they came to a different conclusion based on their needs and wants. I personally came to a different conclusion than they did. Is it not a judgment on their decision if I paint theirs as wrong from my perspective?

And the ones that for what ever reason already choose to move from an Urban city center have indeed already made a decision based on income and desirability. That is based on the information they now have.

I find it unreasonable to hold one group, car owners, to a different standard than a mass transit rider is held to. I also find it unlikely that if people were convinced they need to rethink their living choices that the average dense urban community would be able to build the services necessary to service them as quickly as they are developing systems like Uber and such.

I wonder how someone can be convinced to give up their car because they become aware of the full cost and then expected to pay the full cost of mass transit or increased hospital and medical buildings. Something will get subsidized and the favorite cause of the messenger more than likely will take upstage to what those same people were enjoying before.

The poor can be given subsidies without subsidizing a whole system. So people should be free to pick the system that works for them the best.

With all the in your face attitude over the last 50 years how many people where Roody and Cooker live have ditched their car to ride a bike to work? Not many if the complaints that so many have posted is any indication. So are your friends and neighbors less aware than mine? I don't think they are. And I am not the one that pays their bills so I don't know why they do what they do.

cooker

They didn't make that decision in some kind of vacuum - they based it in part on a whole host of external factors, and they considered their various options. They were influenced by factors like price of gas, the level of congestion on the roads, the availability of alternate forms of transportation - things that you and I and society as a whole have some influence over. If we keep gas prices low, more people drive. If we add unrestricted lanes to the freeway, more people drive. Or, if we raise the gas tax to more fully fund the costs the gas tax is supposed to cover, or add HOV lanes or tolls to address congestion, some people will carpool, some will drive less, some may opt for bus or bike, some who have been considering moving into town will decide the time is right. And people who haven't yet made the choice on where to live or how to commute may also lean a bit towards biking, busing, living in town etc. Not coerced choices - rational choices based on what works best for them with the infrastruture society is providing, just as your neighbours did.

These policy-type decisions are made on a continuing and gradual basis. For 60 years they have been biased towards promoting and subsidizing suburbanization and automobilism and it's enriched the real estate developers and the transportation industry who have been working behind the scenes to make it happen. However it has imposed a huge and unsustainable cost on society - crumbling infrastructure, falling bridges, massive traffic tie-ups; and the ecosystem, and it's time to start nudging the policies in the other direction. Rezone suburbia for infill development. Slap more tolls on roads to pay for their upkeep and reduce congestion, raise the gas tax to more accurately reflect the public investment that goes into the whole fuel lifecycle. You could probably think of a few more.

cooker

People already drive a lot less in dense urban centres, and bicycling and walking and taking public transit are already available options, so I'm not sure what new facilities and services you are referring to. And I already said I would lean towards funding transit mostly from the fare box, except that to some degree, funding transit does benefit drivers, and with an acknowledgement that I don't know how things will play out with Uber etc. So I don't think you scored any points with that paragraph.

I have no idea where you got that. I said old or sick people who don't drive may prefer to live near a doctor or hospital.

So, um are you are saying get rid of transportation subsidies?

There's definitely a small but encouraging increase in bike commuting even in my white collar professional neighbourhood, and the public transit system is groaning at the seams.

Mobile 155

Cooker, encouraging to you maybe but when we post the numbers nation wide it shows a very shallow pool.

In another thread I have seen several posts about how so many fellow workers of people in here think they are crazy to walk even a short distance. Some say family doesn't believe they can ride 16 miles to visit.

Even some car free people that aguire a car by happen stance have mentioned they found themselves driving more than they planned. If they are a car free advocate and the are as fully aware as you of all of your suggestions how can that happen?

I say it is because it is easy and comfortable.

I won't list the growth of urban spread over the years but something caused that as well. And as a bit of history it started well before cars.

People have voted with there money and there feet and at the ballot box for what they want and every one knows what they are looking for.

I have always said raising the fuel tax will hit those who can least afford it the most. Those that have two jobs at odd hours in different parts of town or even in two different towns. That person is less likely to have a newer fuel efficient vehicle and could never get to both jobs without personal transportation. A bike won't do it and a buss won't run when they need it.

What I mostly hear, and maybe not from you, is that we could build better mass transit. We could have more stops and more runs per bus but until they build that into the system no one will be able to take advantage of it.

So it all still comes down to talking about the what ifs and waiting to see if someone else will build it or do it.

If, and this is a big if, they had a system that people could easily move to and still have the ability to go where they want when they want 24/7 then there is a chance more people would give that system a shot. Till then I am neither surprised nor depressed that others aren't willing to give up their car. Because there is no sustainable system in place as easy on the majority as what we already see.

As an example, for almost six years I commuted 22 miles round trip by bike. In that time I was the only one and one of the reasons I could do it was we had lockers and showers at work.

I became a manager and I had showers and a place to lock up you bike put in every facility I managed. How many takers do you think I had? (Hint less than two).

I still ask how someplace like China who had what so many suggest could give it up if indeed people thought cycling was a better solution?

By the way I don't Falt them for their decision, not my place.

cooker

Someone else, eh?

cooker

Looks like there's more acknowledgement in China about the environmental cost of automobilism and steps being taken to rein it in.
China Plans to Fight Air Pollution by Curbing the Number of Cars - Businessweek
https://www.centralbanking.com/centra...and-innovation

Mobile 155

Cooker, we can get into a link war and I can post the amount of asphalt and concrete China is using. I can post pictures of 4,6,8 lane freeways where bazillions of bikes Used to be. But that will not detract from the what has happened and promote the possible future. India is moving in the same direction. I am not surprised about that either.

Either the things people that are car free in this forum are true and their co-workers and neighbors are mistaken about how they feel about commuting by bike or walking. Or some are very optimistic about some splash of cold water hitting all of those people in the face and they suddenly give up their car and move to the city where they will be taken care of. I don't see the latter happening this side of the grass do you.

cooker

I'm not sure why you keep telling me how popular driving is (duh). I see that as a problem and would like try to change it. Apparently you see it as either unnecessary, or hopeless - I still haven't figured out which.

Mobile 155

Cooker,
I have stated my position and told you how I deal with the issue. I see the automobile as important as any other invention that has allowed the masses access to this whole country. I am not convinced it is any more unsustainable than our old ideas about mega cities or centralized work places.

So pretty much we have reached an impasse for this particular discussion. I believe future technology will make cars even better than they are today with less impact than they have today. They could be as sustainable as air conditioning or not. But I can only speak for myself and will continue to refrain to make judgment calls about others that choose not to bicycle like I do or that are anti car like you seem to be. It is your choice not mine to make.