We don't need no...

There was some discussion on this blog last month about the overall driver/biker viewpoint-rift that exists which is demonstrated specifically in the comments section of the Courant. We also talk a lot about the need for better bicycle infrastructure around this region as well as more education for rude drivers and noob cyclists. I found this post about bike education over at Bike Commute Tips Blog to fit in pretty well with some of the topics that were raised here and on the Courant discussion forums (minus the ignorant haters).

That blog, run by a dude named Paul Dorn, is a pretty excellent site that's worth a read if you're into community bicycle advocacy. Paul does a really good job at aggregating stories from newspapers around the country (he's picked up Hartford Courant articles often) that pertain to urban commuting, infrastructure, and advocacy, without including every little "Area Man bikes to work" article. He also makes insightful and forward-thinking commentary on each.

Anyway, as far as education goes, it's pretty difficult to get the bicyclists who really need it any type of bicycle education. All that can be done on our level is to continue shouting at people riding on the wrong side of the road and publicize the CCBA and classes such as the ones at REI. Including more bicycle awareness education for DOT drivers licensing tests is an option that probably won't get looked at very seriously.

For my part, before I started commuting by bike every day, I got my hands on a copy of Bicycling Street Smarts by John S. Allen and read it. Just doing that, I became much more confident about my role and responsibilities are as well as more aware of common hazards and dangerous situations that I would encounter. It's brief and basic, and I recommend it to anyone who is either starting out commuting or feels hesitant about biking around the streets of greater Hartford.

http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/index.htm

Read more!

Wingnuts in Victorian Houses

Maybe bikes like this should be kept off the roads.

I can't take credit for finding this, I found it on the very well-designed K-Wall Blog, but I thought others should read it. Or, if you don't want to read the article, this is a brief summary:

This man in San Francisco named Rob Anderson hates bicycles. He's a bitter and unemployed political muckraker of little popularity. None the less, he was able to halt San Francisco's plan to expand their bicycle infrastructure by suing them because the Board of Supervisors voted to skip the environmental impact review. Conventional wisdom is that increased bicycle infrastructure will encourage more people to ride their bikes and therefore reduce the number of cars on the road. The few cars, the few pollutants in the air. Mr. Anderson believes that cars will never leave the road and that developing more bicycle infrastructure will cause more traffic jams. More traffic jams, he says, means more idling cars wasting gas and expelling pollutants into the air. He prevailed in California's Courts and San Francisco is being forced to do the environmental impact review, and they are doing it very slowly.

Now I'm all in favor of environmental impact reviews for most things, but from what I understand, SF's plan was to roll out more bike lanes, a traffic matter. From my little bit of experience with municipal government, we don't need to do this type of impact study if we change traffic patterns. Further, the logic makes no sense. If you clarify who is where on the road, traffic will flow better and more safely for everyone.

However, the big thing is "Why is the WSJ legitimizing this guy?" I mean, there are some pretty obvious reasons, but it really vexes me that they're handing out new talking points for people to oppose/hate bikes. Read more!