In what amounts to a sea change for the Department of Transportation, the automobile will no longer be the prime consideration in federal transportation planning. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the needs of pedestrians and cyclists will be considered along with those of motorists, and he makes it clear that walking and riding are “an important component for livable communities.”
“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning,” LaHood wrote on his blog. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
He goes on:
We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
LaHood’s announcement came on the heels of his appearance at the National Bike Summit, where he was greeted like a rock star and told the crowd, “Our mission is the same as your mission,” and “I think we’re beginning to put our money where our mouth is on these issues.”
And how.
The new policy falls in line with changes the Obama Administration has enacted in the past year. In June, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency announced the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The partnership will coordinate polices to “help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.” LaHood’s announcement is a step toward that goal.
What his policy statement effectively says is multimodal transportation (meaning pedestrians and cyclists) will be an “equal” part of all new infrastructure projects getting funding from Washington.
“Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use,” reads the introduction to the policy statement. “Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit.”
Does this mean every new project will have to consider bicycles and pedestrians as equals to automobiles? Not exactly. States and local governments can, of course, create infrastructure outside the policy if they aren’t using federal funds. That said, when it comes to doling out federal transportation funds, projects that adhere to the new policy statement will be given a higher priority, so it is within the best interests of cities and states to adhere to it. With a new transportation bill looming that could reach a half trillion dollars, anyone wanting a piece of the pie will have to take pedestrians and cyclists into account. Call it a carrot-and-stick approach.
This doesn’t mean you”ll see bike lanes on that new expressway through town. The feds are still going to bankroll conventional roads and highways and so forth. But you’ll see bicycle connection points to these roads, such as trails and shared use pathways to create multimodal transportation.
Beyond making it easier for cyclists and pedestrians to get around, the move is intended to make it safer for them to get around. A report released late last year by Transportation for America and the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership found more than 43,000 pedestrians nationwide have died since 2000 on roads the authors complain don’t provide adequate crosswalks and other safety features. The authors say states aren’t spending enough to make roads safer for people who are on foot, on a bike or in a wheelchair.
“This is an issue that has been ignored far too long, even as thousands have died or been injured unnecessarily just by doing something as simple as trying to cross the street,” James Corless, director of Transportation for America, said in the T4A blog. “We thank Secretary Lahood for his leadership at DOT and for elevating this urgent issue to the level of prominence that it deserves.”
To that end, the Department of Transportation establishes general recommended actions local governments and transportation agencies should follow to create transportation parity for pedestrians and cyclists. What’s more, the projects must be accessible to all, and they must plan for future growth and demand. “It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older facility,” the policy states.
Some of LaHood’s specific recommendations include integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated and limited-access bridges. Secretary LaHood also wants more tracking of non-motorized transportation, long-term maintenance and snow removal on existing infrastructure and improved transportation arrangements for bicycles and pedestrians during the construction and rehabilitation of projects.
Given that building highways costs 10 times more (.pdf) more than shared-use pathways, cities could see significant savings. LaHood summed up the outcome of the new policy best when he said it will promote “cleaner, healthier air; less congested roadways; and more livable, safe, cost-efficient communities.”
Photo of a cyclist on New York’s Upper West Side: Ed Yourdon / Flickr
Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/lahood-policy-statement/#ixzz0ighnAFnM
12:48 pm
Categories: Infrastructure
At long last, the feds have said the needs of pedestrians and cyclists must be placed alongside, not behind, those of motorists.
In what amounts to a sea change for the Department of Transportation, the automobile will no longer be the prime consideration in federal transportation planning. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says the needs of pedestrians and cyclists will be considered along with those of motorists, and he makes it clear that walking and riding are “an important component for livable communities.”
“People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning,” LaHood wrote on his blog. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
He goes on:
We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
LaHood’s announcement came on the heels of his appearance at the National Bike Summit, where he was greeted like a rock star and told the crowd, “Our mission is the same as your mission,” and “I think we’re beginning to put our money where our mouth is on these issues.”
And how.
The new policy falls in line with changes the Obama Administration has enacted in the past year. In June, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Environmental Protection Agency announced the Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities. The partnership will coordinate polices to “help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities nationwide.” LaHood’s announcement is a step toward that goal.
What his policy statement effectively says is multimodal transportation (meaning pedestrians and cyclists) will be an “equal” part of all new infrastructure projects getting funding from Washington.
“Walking and bicycling foster safer, more livable, family-friendly communities; promote physical activity and health; and reduce vehicle emissions and fuel use,” reads the introduction to the policy statement. “Legislation and regulations exist that require inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian policies and projects into transportation plans and project development. Accordingly, transportation agencies should plan, fund, and implement improvements to their walking and bicycling networks, including linkages to transit.”
Does this mean every new project will have to consider bicycles and pedestrians as equals to automobiles? Not exactly. States and local governments can, of course, create infrastructure outside the policy if they aren’t using federal funds. That said, when it comes to doling out federal transportation funds, projects that adhere to the new policy statement will be given a higher priority, so it is within the best interests of cities and states to adhere to it. With a new transportation bill looming that could reach a half trillion dollars, anyone wanting a piece of the pie will have to take pedestrians and cyclists into account. Call it a carrot-and-stick approach.
This doesn’t mean you”ll see bike lanes on that new expressway through town. The feds are still going to bankroll conventional roads and highways and so forth. But you’ll see bicycle connection points to these roads, such as trails and shared use pathways to create multimodal transportation.
Beyond making it easier for cyclists and pedestrians to get around, the move is intended to make it safer for them to get around. A report released late last year by Transportation for America and the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership found more than 43,000 pedestrians nationwide have died since 2000 on roads the authors complain don’t provide adequate crosswalks and other safety features. The authors say states aren’t spending enough to make roads safer for people who are on foot, on a bike or in a wheelchair.
“This is an issue that has been ignored far too long, even as thousands have died or been injured unnecessarily just by doing something as simple as trying to cross the street,” James Corless, director of Transportation for America, said in the T4A blog. “We thank Secretary Lahood for his leadership at DOT and for elevating this urgent issue to the level of prominence that it deserves.”
To that end, the Department of Transportation establishes general recommended actions local governments and transportation agencies should follow to create transportation parity for pedestrians and cyclists. What’s more, the projects must be accessible to all, and they must plan for future growth and demand. “It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older facility,” the policy states.
Some of LaHood’s specific recommendations include integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, rehabilitated and limited-access bridges. Secretary LaHood also wants more tracking of non-motorized transportation, long-term maintenance and snow removal on existing infrastructure and improved transportation arrangements for bicycles and pedestrians during the construction and rehabilitation of projects.
Given that building highways costs 10 times more (.pdf) more than shared-use pathways, cities could see significant savings. LaHood summed up the outcome of the new policy best when he said it will promote “cleaner, healthier air; less congested roadways; and more livable, safe, cost-efficient communities.”
Photo of a cyclist on New York’s Upper West Side: Ed Yourdon / Flickr
Photo of a pedestrian in a crosswalk: Mad African!: (Broken Sword) / Flickr
See Also:
Fun Times Ahead As Transportation Bill Takes Shape
At Long Last, Progress On a Transportation Bill
City Streets a Mortal Threat to Pedestrians
Complete Streets Are Great Streets With Room for All
Tags: Bicycles, Infrastructure, pedestrians, Policy, Streets & Highways Post Comment
Permalink Also on Wired.com
6 Cars So Alluring They're in an Art Museum
Dogfighting over the Taiwan Strait
SXSauced: Bid Austin Good Knight With a Bit of Bourbon
Book Now: Nuclear Disarmament Conference in Tehran
Study: Games May Stunt Boys' Schoolwork
GeekDad Interviews Vampire Author Seth Grahame-Smith
Related Topics: Ray LaHood, Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, United States, Bicycling, Culture and Lifestyle
Yahoo! BuzzStumble ShareThis
Comments (44)
Sign in to comment
Username:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your sign in information?
Not a member?
If you're not yet registered with Wired.com, join now so you can share your thoughts and opinions.
It's fast and free.
Registration
E-mail address:
Username:
Password: Password must be at least 6 characters.
Confirm password:
Please send me occasional e-mail updates about new features and special offers from Wired.
Yes No Please send occasional e-mail offers from Wired affiliated websites and publications and carefully selected companies.
Yes No I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to it's User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Already registered? Click here to sign in.
Retrieve sign-in
Please enter your e-mail address or username below. Your username and password will be sent to the e-mail address you provided us
E-mail address
or Username
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Close
Posted by: Heffay
03/19/10
1:08 pm
This makes me very happy. So many roads out there that are impractical to use as a bike commuter. Hopefully this will get a lot of roads retrofitted to support multi-mode travel.
Posted by: diginess
03/19/10
2:11 pm
Good deal, there’s too many cities which you cannot traverse easily on foot. Basically this forces people to use vehicles even for short transits. Biking is also much too dangerous.
Posted by: slave138
03/19/10
2:15 pm
I’m hoping this means the cyclists will start being prosecuted for traffic infractions just like any other transportation. No more bikers flying down the sidewalks, running stop signs and red lights, going the wrong way down a one-way road, etc… Once they are given equal consideration, they can start showing equal responsibility when operating their vehicles.
Posted by: dr2chase
03/19/10
2:23 pm
Equality’s a start. Peds best, bikes best, cars last.
Posted by: joe_glow
03/19/10
2:33 pm
@slave138 I get really irritated when I see cyclists being rude to pedestrians, weaving through traffic, ignoring drivers’ right-of-way, etc., but it would be a massive waste of time and money to prosecute bike infractions at the same level as car infractions. No matter what it’s doing, a bike simply isn’t even remotely as dangerous as a car. A cyclist safely running a red light just isn’t a big deal.
Posted by: eldub
03/19/10
2:38 pm
@dr2chase
I’ll second that. We’re not really doing the right thing until pedestrian and non-motorized traffic is given higher priority than polluting, life-threatening, waistline-ballooning motorized traffic. We’ve still got a long road ahead.
Posted by: eldub
03/19/10
2:42 pm
P.S. I forgot to mention the absurd amount of space that motorized transportation consumes.
Posted by: Scatcatpdx
03/19/10
2:45 pm
Greeting from eh fascist state of Portland Oregon. I see they are adopting Portland Metro’s outlook on autos. The truth is Autos meas freedom. I do not have to depend on where I live to get to a job or entertainment. I do not have to depend on the state for my transportation needs. A bike may be good exercise but rotten transportation policy and shekel to freedom.
Posted by: tbuskey
03/19/10
3:12 pm
Yay! But when they say things have been done in favor of Motorized vehicles, they really mean automobiles and sometimes trucks.
I ride motorcycles and some of the roads are dangerous for us too.
Pedestrians should come 1st. I’m tired of driving my car from one mall to the next one 100 yards away because there’s no sidewalk or crosswalks to get there through 40 mph traffic. I worry about my kids or myself getting hit.
Bicyclists often ride differently then the autos because the road has obstacles, the autos are in the bike lines (if they exist) or there is no other way to get from point to point. Most roads are designed exclusively for autos going 40 mph.
Posted by: youdbehotterifnaked
03/19/10
3:13 pm
If all bike riders are going to look like that guy, I am boycotting this.
Posted by: country-mouse
03/19/10
3:16 pm
if you get rid of cars, who is going to pay for the bike ways?
share the road, share the cost.
Posted by: trout007
03/19/10
3:19 pm
Just a way to funnel money towards urban communities. This means that rural projects are put on a back burner because nobody in their right mind is going to create a long country road with a bike lane.
This is a good policy for urban areas though. It is dumb to build a city around roads. But favoring projects that consider each method equal will make sure most money heads towards cities.
Posted by: rofllolhaha
03/19/10
3:20 pm
@scatcatpdx
“The truth is Autos meas freedom. I do not have to depend on where I live to get to a job or entertainment. I do not have to depend on the state for my transportation needs.”
hahahahahahaaha. I hope you’re being sarcastic. If not, well… did you personally build the roads you’re traveling on? Oh right, no, you didn’t. The state or federal government did. Looks like you’re dependent on the state. Freedom? Right. Sitting in traffic and hunting for parking spaces is so liberating! Dealing with auto insurance, flat tires, collisions, etc definitely means freedom. What do other people pay for your freedom? I bet the neighborhoods that were flattened and divided for your expressways do not like the toxic smells and noise of your freedom. What about the fuel of your freedom? Even if you have an electric vehicle, it is still a huge waste of space and requires large, often subsidized, expensive parking facilities. If you use petrol, your vehicle requires imported oil and I’m sure you know the consequences of being so dependent on that resource. Like it or not, your auto is not some individualistic freedom machine. Like the state-subsidized freeways you use, it is part of a network of dependence; dependence from local, state, federal, and foreign governments.
Posted by: arosier
03/19/10
3:20 pm
and skateboarders still have no rights
Posted by: joe_glow
03/19/10
3:28 pm
@Scatcatpdx: You’re totally right that cars and highways give us a kind of freedom that humanity has never known before. But you should be aware just how dependent you are on the government for that freedom: in 2009 the federal government spent $40 billion on highways, about $10 billion on oil and gas subsidies, and pushing $130 billion bailing out the auto industry. You also have to add state expenses to that and, some would say, untold billions the military spends protecting our oil interests. All I’m saying is, you are very, very dependent on the state for your transportation freedom.
A bike may not get you there as fast, but it doesn’t need roads or gas to do it. That’s freedom!
Posted by: Oryansnebula
03/19/10
3:34 pm
To those who feel cyclists should be prosecuted equally for running red lights, riding on sidewalks, etc… you probably don’t ride your bikes around all the time.
Regardless of what the law states, cyclists and automobiles are very different physical forms with much different consequences in the event of an accident. A car is a two ton or greater hunk of metal in which occupants are secured with safety belts and protected by crumple zones and various other safety features. A cyclist is a two hundred pound mass of mostly flesh with no built-in passenger protection. How then would a collision between these two entities constitute equality on both sides of the equation?
I know there are cyclists out there who do crazy things and scare the shit out of drivers, but there are many more that break traffic laws cautiously to protect themselves and make cycling a less disadvantaged mode of transportation than it already is.
And to those who say cars enable freedom, that statement is only partly true. When you live in a big city and have to spend an hour bumper-to-bumper on a freeway, you might see cars as more of a prison than an enabler of freedom. The libertarian mindset that we’re all “free” from one another is utterly insane.
Posted by: Xylenz
03/19/10
3:34 pm
There is one law that supersedes ALL traffic laws, even this one. Its the law of physics. The law of physics gives both corporal and captial punishment to bikers and pedestrians hit by cars under any circumstances. There is no jury or police. There are no appeals or debate possible. Sentence is carried out immediately. Dont believe that this federal law protects you. According to the highest law, if you are smaller then you are dead wrong.
Posted by: theneo
03/19/10
3:42 pm
Call me when cyclists start following the rules of the road.
/anyone who knowingly goes out into public wearing that shit shouldn’t be on the road anyhow
Posted by: theneo
03/19/10
3:44 pm
@Oryansnebula
Does this mean I can hop on my Rascal and start blowing through red lights as I see fit?
Posted by: samagon
03/19/10
3:56 pm
Call me when automobile drivers start following the rules of the road.
Go the speed limit? Who even thinks about it unless they see a cop?
Use turn signals? Ha, why do cars even get fitted with them any more?
Stop at a stop sign? Come to a complete stop before a right turn? Yeah right.
.
Don’t expect other modes of transportation to follow rules when you don’t either.
Posted by: dr2chase
03/19/10
3:57 pm
” and skateboarders still have no rights ”
fit you guys in between peds and bikes, how’s that?
and segways between bikes and cars, on account of they are heavy, wide, and clumsy.
not sure where we put the rollerbladers.
The roads were initially paved for bikes; the roads most bikes ride on, are paid for by property taxes (certainly where I live) not gas taxes; and bicycles wear out roads at a fraction of the rate that cars and trucks do. Bikes do less harm in crashes, and they don’t break traffic laws more often than cars do, they just break different ones (speeding, slopping over stop lines, and rolling stops are the three biggies for cars, along with failure to obey lane-related rules).
Posted by: GalapagosJ
03/19/10
4:00 pm
@joe_glow & @Oryansnebula - Penalizing cyclists is less about enforcing rules that may not be practically applicable for bicycles and more about ensuring safety by encouraging cyclists to behave predictably, as drivers must. Whether or not they want to, cyclists share the road with drivers. (See how I turned the typical use of that phrase around? Hey now!)
If my state (Washington) wants to pass a law that says bicyclists don’t have to stop at stop signs or red lights, that’s fine with me. As long as I can expect that behavior. But currently the law says that they should stop. So when I approach a 4-way stop (which I do every day) and I have the right of way but a bicyclist is approaching from an opposing direction (every other day), I expect that the bicyclist won’t enter the intersection before I do. That doesn’t always happen, so like joe_glow I get irritated. But I let them go. As Xylenz said, the laws of physics are the highest and most painful in the land.
So as our collective transportation administrations encourage more bicycling, I would like to see some of that effort put towards cyclist and driver education, including proper etiquette when the road is being shared. And some money, not a lot, should be spent on enforcing the laws that are in place to remind us of that etiquette. Lack of enforcement leaves a vacuum in which people can favor their own needs over others, which irritates other people, which leads to disagreements and bad behavior, which leads to… rambling posts like this one.
Posted by: AJ
03/19/10
4:12 pm
As an enthusiastic driver, and occasional cyclist, I fully endorse this measure precisely how it is worded. Favoring cyclists and/or pedestrians over the automobile is retarded, cars are far too ubiquitous, practical and fundamentally essential to how this country functions to be relegated to the back seat. Providing space for pedestrians and cyclists to operate is a reasonable measure to decrease congestion and improve safety.
.
Also, there is no reason to prosecute a cyclist for violating traffic laws UNLESS his actions endanger others, even if that endangerment is caused by someone else’s desire to avoid turning the aforementioned cyclist into a smear of chunky, red goo. For example, running a red light after checking that the cross street is clear is fine (and should be for a car, as well); running a red light and causing the person that has a green to slam on their brakes should be a ticket-able offense.
Posted by: JBob
03/19/10
4:16 pm
I live in Phoenix, Arizona.. and the only good place to ride ones bike is along the canals. These provide ‘underpasses’ that allow runners, bikers, baby walkers, skateboarders etc to avoid intersections all together.
Only problem, they only go East/West not North/South, and they don’t cover a good chunk of the city. But they are safe, and make the commute to work a heckuva lot nicer than rush hour traffic.
Car to work = 30 minutes
Bike to work = 45 minutes + health benefits + scenic view = A great trip!
Posted by: connacht
03/19/10
4:50 pm
@country-mouse
EXACTLY!!!! If they are now looked at as “equals” then they need to pay for registration at the least. As far as I’m concerned if a bike wants to use a road meant mainly for automobile traffic they must also be mandated to pay for insurance. But let’s start with registration. Want bike ways and trails? FINE. YOU PAY FOR IT.
Posted by: philthered
03/19/10
4:58 pm
@connacht
I do pay for the bike infrastructure. I pay taxes just like any driver. And I use significantly less resources than your average driver.
All registration would do is create a massive burden to license and tax bikes, while at the same time discouraging the most efficient way to travel.
Posted by: connacht
03/19/10
5:01 pm
@philthered
WRONG. Example: Davis, CA. Almost all the college students in that town ride bikes and DO NOT OWN CARS. Yet they are allowed to use the road, sidewalks, trails, at no cost. This is only possible because other people who pay registration and tax on their cars are paying for the students use of it with their bicycles. If they want to vote and have a say on how the money is spent then they should pay into it themselves instead chosing how to spend other people’s money.
Posted by: Bick66
03/19/10
5:14 pm
“This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
This is total BS! If cyclists are going to have equal rights on the road then they should have to get a license and pay to have their bikes registered. Why should they get equal right and not pay to use the roads like the rest of the motoring public. I’m all for less cars on the road because it means a cleaner air and less traffic but come on, make them pay too! It should be a small fee, much less than a car but nonetheless they should have to pay something even if it’s only 5 or 10 dollars a year.
Cyclists should also have to be licensed to show that they know the rules of the road and ticketed for traffic violations!
Posted by: philthered
03/19/10
5:18 pm
@connacht
By your logic, pedestrians should also have to pay for registration.
.
Your driving is HEAVILY subsidized by my tax dollars. Gas taxes and registration only pay for a small percentage of road construction and maintenance. The rest comes from general funds that everyone pays like property taxes, income tax, and sales tax.
.
And do you live in Davis? Would you rather each one of those students drive a car? And fill your city with traffic, pollution, and all the other externalities that you as a driver aren’t expected to pay for?
Posted by: Zombowski
03/19/10
5:22 pm
Share the Road… with cars!
Posted by: madpengwin
03/19/10
5:44 pm
bicyclists are the most arrogant pieces of crap youll ever have to deal with on the roads….it doesnt matter if the act of you colliding with something wont cause massive damage…but the way you idiots ride can cause two much larger vehicles to collide through no fault of their own….i wish as a driver i was able to choose when i want to obey the laws of the road
Posted by: HarryTuttle
03/19/10
5:49 pm
Why do some bicyclists dress like they are in the Tour de France? That is hilarious. “Buffy, look at me, I look like I’m a professional racer.”
Look at the idiot in the top photo. Oh, reeeeeeeeally? Oh, do yaaaa?
Posted by: jrgruff
03/19/10
6:15 pm
To the people who say cyclists should pay their fair share:
We already do - only a very small percentage of road costs are maintained by car registration, fees and gas taxes. We all pay our taxes, and bicycles cause FAR less destruction to road services and don’t pollute the environment or congest the roads.
To the people who say cyclists need to be prosecuted for law-breaking the same as cars:
They are, motorists break laws just as often, you just notice it more when a cyclist does it becuase you aren’t expecting a bicycle on the road as often. Also, consider the possible consequences of a bicycle blowing through a stop sign. Now consider the possible consequences of a car doing the same… get my point?
@HarryTuttle: Yes, we do look silly and stupid in lycra or spandex, but have you ever ridden more than 10-15 miles on a bike without stopping? How about at above 20mph? Have you really? Try it in jeans sometime - I feel sorry for your arse and your newly holed pair of jeans if you’re doing that on a daily basis.
Posted by: coldSteel
03/19/10
6:42 pm
For those who think riding a bike in traffic is like a car GET EDUCATED. I ride a bike to/from work occasionally and sometimes I roll through stop signs and red lights. Why? Because when I come to a complete stop it takes a lot more time to get back up to speed which slows others down. It actually keeps traffic flowing by rolling through. Now, I do this after looking both ways and only proceeding when safe. If you are envious of my ability to do this, why not try it yourself and see how much better it is NOT sitting there at a light with no traffic coming the other way. Why is a car “freedom” when you sit in stalled traffic, pay higher and higher prices for gas, insurance, parking and the cars themselves? All this while your weight balloons, costing me more money to treat your impending diabetes and heart disease. For every pedal stroke I make, I’m saving you money. You should be thanking me and others like me. Many cyclists have cars too and pay taxes just like you. We do however cause less wear and tear on the roads and do not pollute our air. If more people biked to work, you would probably get there faster unless you live an ungodly distance away. My commute by car is 15-20 minutes (10 miles). By bike 25-30 because I can go where cars can’t (all public pathways) and I’m not sitting a lights for 5 minutes a time when I simply need to turn right and the guy in front of me needs to go straight. That’s the advantage of being less than 2 feet vs 5-6 feet wide. Those clothes we wear are for your benefit so you can see us. Maybe if you rode more, you could wear lycra with pride. It’s function over form.
Posted by: JBob
03/19/10
7:28 pm
@theneo
I’ll text you when those driving autos do the same… shyeah!
Nothing schools a person better on efficiency then riding a bike in a headwind. The attire looks silly, but its effective.. and the old dude on the bike most likely would wipe the floor with you on strength and endurance.
Now go back to eating your pig skins!
Posted by: mystixa
03/19/10
7:31 pm
weak.
cars pay for the infratructure they use. At least thats what all the propaganda is about these piles of licenses and fuel tax that we pay.
I rode a bike for years as my sole transportation.. the biggest truth about that. Bikes != cars
You get in a wreck with a car, the bike loses. You may get compensated legally, but money doesnt really pay for pain. The bike rider loses.
Our cities do need to be more people friendly this is true. Federal dollars have little to say about local city planning though, so this kind of decision is rediculous.
Posted by: estolinski
03/19/10
8:26 pm
If bikers didn’t dress so flamboyantly I personally wouldn’t have a problem. But c’mon! How fast is that guy gonna go on a downtown street stopping every 500 yards at a stop light to justify wearing that get up?
Posted by: dr2chase
03/19/10
9:41 pm
“If bikers didn’t dress so flamboyantly I personally wouldn’t have a problem…”
You know, you’re wearing a 2000-lb motorized metal jumpsuit. Do we really want to go there, what with the trucks with hoods designed to look like foreskins, truck nuts, fins, spoilers, and those eye-liner LED lights that seem to be the new fashion? And the variations on Calvin pissing on other brands of automobile, and the gratuitous trucker-lady mudflaps, and all the magnetic yellow ribbons, and the wind-shredded American flags? Y’all are real fashionable, yes indeed.
And for reference, I ride in a variety of clothing, sometimes jeans, sometimes tights, rarely a fancy jersey. The time saved by switching in and out of tights on a 10-mile ride is about the same as the time it takes to put them on and off, so it is purely a comfort thing.
Posted by: jerkSack
03/19/10
10:21 pm
about f**kin time
Posted by: JustinWhitlow
03/19/10
10:37 pm
Yawn! Don’t they have anything better to to with their time? Seriously.
Lou
anonymous-VPN.eu.tc
Posted by: tinkerer13
03/19/10
11:21 pm
Excellent! More targets! Fucking bikers, get out of my way or you’ll just be a greasy streak with spokes sticking out.
Posted by: Neal
03/19/10
11:23 pm
I bike and I drive. I live in Portland and I both ride and drive and I think this new way of thinking is good where it will make sense such as urban centers ext. Its something that’s been happening in Portland for a long time.
For those bikers out there who think they don’t have to follow traffic laws especially downtown are the ones who gives bikers the bad wrap and more often then not they don’t run a light or follow the right of ways in 4 way stops because there trying to save themselves from being hit form a car there doing it because they can and I don’t know how many times Ive almost hit a fellow biker because of there ignorance. You are safer following the traffic laws then not and when appropriate flipping off cars who don’t treat you as a part of that flow.
Posted by: Neal
03/19/10
11:24 pm
Also bicyclists who look like the guy in the pic better be racing/training otherwise there tools.
Posted by: sdab
03/19/10
11:37 pm
I like to bike. But there are numb nutz everywhere out there.
This winter some militant cyclist was biking to work every day - even in the snow at 6 AM - totally dark on a 50 mph roadway. Tiny blinking red light protecting him.
Back when cars and bikes traveled the same approximate speeds shared access made sense. On 5 lane major arteries, laws treating a bike equivalent to a auto just makes no sense. Funding for separate and better access to places makes sense.
Mixing not so much.
Comments (0)
Want to start a new thread or reply to a post?
Login/Register and start talking!
There are no comments
Login/Registration
Subscribe to Wired Magazine
Subscribe to WIRED
Renew
Give a Gift
International Orders
Editorial Team
Editor: Chuck Squatriglia
IL COMMENDATORE: Joe Brown
Contributor: Keith Barry
Contributor: Tony Borroz
Contributor: Jason Paur
E-mail Twitter
Contributor: Dave Eyvazzadeh
Contributor: Jason Kambitsis
Contributor: Darryl Siry
Contributor: Daniel Bartz
Contributor: Zach Rosenberg
Contributor: Matthew Redd
Blogger Emeritus: Alexander Lew
Send us a tip
Most Recent EntriesBoeing 787 Completes Critical Flutter Testing
6 Cars So Alluring They’re in an Art Museum
Feds Deem Pedestrians, Cyclists and Motorists Equals
Delta Motorsport, Britain’s Automotive X-Prize Contender
Watch Out, Ferrari — McLaren Is Back With Another Supercar
GM Makes Your Entire Windshield a Head-Up Display
Fun Times Ahead as Transportation Bill Takes Shape
Porsche to Produce a Passably Pretty Panamera
Yet Another Alt Fuel Comes to Racing
Let’s Have Tea While Charging Our EV
Autopia RSS feed
Search for:
CategoriesAir Travel
Alt Fuel
Autopia WTF? Dept.
Car Shows
Cool Cars
Design
EVs and Hybrids
Infrastructure
Marine
Mass Transit
Miscellaneous
Motorcycles
Performance
Rail
Popular TagsAds & Marketing Airports Audi Auto Racing Batteries Biofuel Boeing Business Car Culture Chrysler Concept Cars Current Affairs Diesel Electric Vehicles Electronics and Gadgets Emissions Ethanol Exotics Extreme Machines Ford Fuel Economy General Motors Geneva Motor Show Honda Hybrids Hydrogen Industry Manufacturing Mercedes-Benz Motorcycles New Vehicles nissan Plug-In Hybrids Policy Safety Streets & Highways Telematics Tesla Motors Toyota Volkswagen
AdvertisementElectric Motorcycle
Reliable, Professional manufacturer You will find the one you like here - www.luyuan.cn
NiteFlux bicycle lighting
High powered LED bike lights. Buy online. FREE shipping. - www.niteflux.com
Green Logistics Summit
Find the ROI in green logistics & transportation initiatives today - www.GreenLogisticsForum.com
Highway Design Software
The professional standards-based highway design solution. - www.anadelta.com
Ads by Google
BlogrollBlog Roll
tomfoolin’ : jalopnik
straight-up : autoblog
smart news & good reviews : carlist
green : autoblog green
more green : green car congress
inside baseball : the truth about cars
hooked : automotive addicts
motown : detroit news online
mo' motown : detroit free press online
racer x : axis of oversteer
fanboys : gm-volt.com
hybrid : hybrid car blog
hypermilin' : ecomodder.com
all things electric : electric cars: a definitive guide
collegiate and collegial : the college driver
two-wheeled : hell for leather
two-wheeled porn: bike EXIF
getting around : the transport politics
under construction : infrastructurist
energy : the oil drum
alt fuels : gas 2.0
airborne : flight global
curmudgeonly: cranky flier
30,000-feet-green : greenaironline.com
space : bad astronomy
smart : boingboing
dangerous : danger room
peeps : WiSci
toys : Gadget Lab
ServicesSubscription: Subscribe
Give a Gift
Renew
International
Questions
Change Address
Quick Links: Contact Us
Sign In/Register Sign Out
Newsletter
RSS Feeds
Tech Jobs
Wired Mobile
FAQ
Site Map
Read More http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/03/lahood-policy-statement/#ixzz0igiam7OD
No comments:
Post a Comment