OK, enough soft posts!
I’m back better than ever!
I recently was sent a new Blog Post GeneratorTM. It’s a VC site called: http://iamtraffic.org/2012/12/making-the-case-for-equality/#laws
Like Savvy CyclingTM, I really would like to see more cyclists on the road with or without infrastructure.
Do we need infrastructure?
Yes. Like a person needs water. Sure he can get along for a while without it, but after a while, one will become more and more weak and angry hardening one’s silly positions until one day one’s claim to fame is not cycling itself, but for dividing the cycling community. [http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/31366]
“It is correct that the term Vehicular Cycling has accumulated much bias, misunderstanding and negative emotion, and that it has divided those people interested in bicycle transportation.”
When I am 80 years old, I want to ride on a cycle track or at least have some bike lanes in front of my house so I can ride my Mixte on it…Oh wait. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step-through_frame#Mixte]
The (talking out of the corner of my mouth) unlike some people, I want ALL cyclist to succeed. However, I want their successes to be measurable in terms of greater people cycling as well as objective safety and not just rearranging words on a piece of paper.
The post (above) does not agree.
The fall from the “Enforcement Myth.”
Whenever there are clear problems that can easily be solved by infrastructure, we hear the notion that there must be better “Enforcement”.
Part of this is “better laws.”
“Many state vehicle codes include similar language, and in those states the language has caused great confusion, conflict, hardship, and expense for bicyclists.”
I say nonsense.
BETTER LAWS WILL NEVER HELP CYCLISTS IF ALL THINGS REMAIN THE SAME.
POLICE ARE PRIMARILY MOTORISTS AND WILL _ALWAYS_ SERVE THE MOTORING INTERESTS.
This is as true in Denmark as it is in San Diego.
Thus better “enforcement” is going to equal open season on cyclists.
The most comical thing about this whole mess is that the “iamtraffic” page that talks about better bicycling laws freely admits that the police refuse to enforce the laws in ways that favor cycling at all.
“I had an unpleasant encounter with an Easthampton police officer, who did not acknowledge my legal right, as a cyclist, to use the road in the same manner as a motorist.”
Great so the law was the only problem, right?
“The chief’s response was a non-sequiturial reference to city ordinance Section 3-41. The ordinance had no direct bearing on the conflict. The officer had never even accused me of violating it.”
So the cyclist felt like she were in the legal right, but police chief did not agree! I don’t see how rewriting the laws is going to solve this problem.
EVEN IF WE HAD A STRICT LIABILITY LAW POLICE OFFICERS AND THE “JUSTICE SYSTEM” WOULD NOT ENFORCE IT.
Thus, this is a total waste of time.
If the “iamtraffic” peope want to waste their time on this, well they seem to have nothing but time. Certainly riding their bicycles isn’t taking up much of their time.
On the other hand, if they want to actually solve real world problems they’d look at places that succeeded and duplictate their success.
IF IAMTRAFFIC DOES NOT WANT TO HELP ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DON’T GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT THE “LAW” OR ANY OTHER NONSENSE TO RIDE BICYCLES THE VERY, VERY LEAST THAT THEY COULD DO IS TO STEP THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY AND LET REAL WORLD EXPERTS SOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT THEY TRIED AND FAILED TO SOLVE FOR FOUR DECADES.