« BikesPAC Reception and Fundraiser to Honor Del. Norton | Main | DDOT's 2009 Annual Report »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Disagreeing with you is not necessarily anti-bike...

Maybe you didn't get invited because of your stubborn ideologue approach to bicycle advocacy, so everyone already knows where you stand i.e. you have nothing new to offer.

Yes. I'm sure that's it.

Michael Perkins, who occasionally writes for GGW, was also invited to that blog meeting.

What's wrong with being anti-car?

It depends on how you define anti-car. When I hear it, I think "no cars at all." If your definition of anti-car is that there should be less driving and fewer cars than I'd say there is nothing wrong with that, but I wouldn't use that term, because it isn't really anti-car.
As much as we might like to complain about cars, they really are a critical part of our transportation and they probably always will be. If you think of them as a horseless version of a carriage, then you could argue they've been around almost as long as the wheel. Cars are not the problem, an imbalanced transportation system is the problem. If we take cars out of the equation it would make a lot of trips impossible. What I am for, and it sounds like Gabe Klein is for, is a balanced transportation system. Some who are opposed to balancing the transportation system like to frame the other side as wanting to "ban cars" or some other nonsense because it makes us seem unreasonable. It's like accusing Obama of wanting to create "government-run health care" or calling "the Surge" an "escalation". So it's reasonable to say, we'd like less driving and fewer cars, it's crazy to say no driving and no cars.

I prefer "pro-human" myself. Not only has the infrastructure for the car been built, it's been overbuilt. The alternatives need their fair share.

"Pro-car" people should be pro the alternatives too, since it should free up more road space for cars.

I don't think it's crazy to say no driving and no cars. I used to feel that "Auto-Free New York" was an unrealistic position. But then I thought about it, and I think it's fine as a long-term goal.

Yes, it's unrealistic to want everyone to stop driving tomorrow, but I think we need to show some imagination, and be open to the possibility of living car-free. Think about this quote from J.H. Crawford:

I support the New Urbanism but strongly prefer the pure car-free solution, as the advantages are even greater. Once the last car disappears from the street, it becomes a playground for people of all ages. This can be seen any day in Venice or Fes. Peace, safety and tranquility settle over the street, and a rich and vibrant social life takes the place of the stink, noise, and danger of cars.

I am unabashedly anti car. Cars have tremendous utility, but they have completely taken over the public space (the streets), they pollute the air, they make us fat, they kill a lot of us, and they (generally) bring out the worst in human beings. Hello? Hit & run pedestrian crashes, anyone?
After 50 years of pandering to the automobile driver, we need some affirmative action for cyclists, peds, and transit. (I probably won't use that word choice.) I grow impatient over the slow awakening that our cars are killing us. I mean, we had a higher mode share for cyclists back in the 1970s! Sorry for the rant, but (so far) there are no bike lanes on the high road.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we can move to a carless world. I can't really see it though. Not even in the city, and certainly not in rural areas.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader