Bicycles, something to think about

Peeking Through the Knothole —
As you may recall my bike was stolen last year and I truely miss it plan on saving up to buy a Sam Hillborne from the Rivendell bike works in San Fran. They have some incredible old school hand crafted bikes and put out some great articles to get you thinking , such as this one here.

Bikes aren’t cars
January 18, 2011

This just something to think about. It's not my main agenda in life and has nothing to do with Rivendell, other than it's on our site here. There's stuff at the end that's more biz-'lated.

Cars are banned from the streets in the ultra-upscale Ginza shopping district in Tokyo on Sundays. Let's spread that one around.

Drivers can take buses or ride bikes, or park on the outskirts and get shuttled up by pedicabs, or otherwise get downtown without a private car. There would have to be services, but let there be. Fund them, subsidize them, employ people in them, but keep the cars out of the downtown area on Sundays..to start. It won't happen, but if I were king of the forest (not queen, not duke, not prince) we'd start working on this right away.

The Idaho vehicle code lets bike riders treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs, and is known as the "Idaho Stop." You have to yield to cars---the law and self-preservation require that much---but when there are none, you slow to a vestigial stop, look around to be extra sure, and sail on through with a momentum-assist.
The Idaho Stop has been in effect since 1983,and amazingly enough/against all odds, it is a success. Motorists are used to it, and don't raise a ruckus trying to get the law changed, and it hasn't increased bike-car accident rates. Its purpose was to encourage more bike riding, the idea being that if you don't have to stop all the time, riding is easier. It works that way, too. I've seen practitioners in other states, but they are scofflaws. I predict no other states will adopt it in my lifetime, though. I may try an Idaho Stop one of these decades. I bet it will work.

Is the Idaho Stop fair to motorists? It's fair enough. Cars and bikes both are vehicles, in the same way that a Glock and a Squirtgun are both guns. That's not a perfect analogy, but imperfection is what you get with analogies. They're just a suggestion. In this case I'm just saying that just as not all guns are the same, so are. . . not all vehicles. Some are more dangerous than others, bothwise.
I think the safety aspect of a bike---its lightness and all---should earn it privileges on the road, too. In some cities in Holland, bikes are given priority in traffic. If that were the case here, I'm betting more people would ride them. Is it unreasonable to expect a little something for not being a dangerous polluter? I mean, as a way to encourage riding.

We could start with parking spaces. If a single-person motor vehicle can take up a whole parking space, why can't a single-person bike rider use the open space next to it? Motorcycles can park there. Mopeds, too. I bet even electric bikes get them. I wonder if you rode downtown with four other friends and parked all five bikes in a parking spot big enough for one car---could you pull it off? Bikes can park on the sidewalks, true, but that doesn't mean they have to. There are no signs saying that. But isn't that kind of, a little, beside the point? I mean, in either case, it's people locomoting themselves downtown, and one way just happens to be cleaner and less dangerous. Maybe I want that space, maybe the bike rack is full.
I don't see myself trying this, but I'd like to be able to. Not having a fixed post to lock the bike to is another thing that's beside the point. It's not a small matter, but it's still beside the point, way over there.


You often hear your fellow bicyclists say something along the lines of "every time you (do something that isn't carlike), you spoil it for the rest of us."
Is that really true? If it is, why is it true for bicycle riders and not car drivers? You don't hear them complaining about other motorists spoiling their reputation. I think, if somebody in a car can figure out that not all car drivers are exactly the same, the same "one bad apple" approach should apply to bike riders, too. Is there some sociology expert out there who can refute this with good science?

Bikes are green transportation and all, but people don't give up their cars because they're green. You call them green because they shun the Studebaker, banish the Bel Air, eschew the Escalade, give up the Grey car. The behavior explains the label, not the other way around. Unpeel the top layer of green and you'll see the real reasons. They don't own a car. A car's too expensive to park, or spaces are too hard to come by. Their license has been suspended or they don't have one. They want exercise. Pedaling relieves stress and they arrive at their destination invigorated but not sweaty. Commute time is training time. There are lots of reasons to ride instead of drive, but I don't believe greenness is one of them. Maybe avoiding guilt, but that's guilt-avoidance, not greenness.
The problem with greenness as an incentive is it's too weak and deferred. No one person's single commute has a measurable impact on the health of the planet. Cumulatively, yes; singly, no---because we're talking about measurable effects. This doesn't mean don't ride and be green. It means if the goal is to get more people riding, the incentives to ride and disincentives to drive have to be in place, and both of those things are more powerful when they're immediate and dramatic, and weak when they're not. Show me a deferred, barely perceptible consequence that's shared by billions that's more influential than an immediate and dramatic personal one, and I'll give you a million of anything, as long as I have it to give. If not, no dice! (This sort of statement, in the old days, would be taken for what it is. In modern times, it feels sort of like sticking my arm down a dark shaft in a jungle in Borneo and wiggling my fingers for an hour or so.)