Comments on: Fearmongering, Specious Arguments and Outright Lies

By: Brian DeSousa

Brian DeSousa — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:58:44 +0000

Well, if we all quote a paragraph that most annoyed us, we’d eventually quote the entire article.

My first impression was that this was written by a sharp guy writing a propaganda piece playing to common superstitions. It has all the characteristics of such, including the “I ride a bike too” line. But based on the line Kevin quoted, I’m not so sure. Maybe he really believes what he wrote?

By: Keri

Keri — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:14:08 +0000

As do motorcyclists and scooter drivers.

Logic and reason can’t coexist with prejudice and superstition.

By: Doohickie

Doohickie — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:09:38 +0000

“…it was absurd for a cyclist to stand in a left turn lane, since a pedestrian wouldn’t do that.”

And yet, I do that every day I ride my bike to work. Hmmm…

By: john

john — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:05:44 +0000

Yes his statements make it clear that strong biases exists and are used to promote and support unsustainable public policies. That essay is a keeper and it unfortunately represents the mindset of many motorized road users.

His “views were confirmed when I asked the RTA for a detailed briefing on its cycling policies and achievements… I was sent a kid with jeans and a beard, and not much to tell me.” Funny and he probably arrived on a bike too.

By: andrewp

andrewp — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:08:13 +0000

[" ... am still surprised as to how someone willingly gets on a bike and takes a huge risk with cars, trucks and buses, often travelling well over 80 km/h.

Motorists get fined for not wearing a seat belt and not strapping their children in properly, for good reason. It is unsafe to be in a vehicle without being belted in properly.

That leaves cyclists very vulnerable. No one would suggest it is safe for pedestrians to be on the roadway, so why should it be any different if a pedestrian gets on a bike? .....]

Everything he said applies to motorcycles as well. Would he ban motorcycles? He’d have to if he applied his same logic …. Just utter nonsense.

By: P.M. Summer

P.M. Summer — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:50:56 +0000

I agree, Laura. I’ve built many miles of multi-purpose trails over the years, but they need to be seen as a seasoning and not a main ingredient.

I’ve seen first-hand that the more trails I built, the less people were willing to use streets, because the underlying message of even well-designed trails is always, “This is safe and it’s where you belong, the roads aren’t” whether that message is intended or not.

As part of a comprehensive system (I’ve used the toll-road analogy, too), they can be very beneficial, but without heavy doses of education and encouragement, they become psychological liabilities… and tools for those who would agree with Mr. Scully.

By: Laura

Laura — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:45:02 +0000

I don’t have a problem with segregated facilities. I view them as being in addition to roadways. Cars have segregated facilities, they’re called toll roads and limited access highways. But, let’s not call multi-use trails what they aren’t – transportation facilities. In most cases they are linear parks and a much more pleasant and often times more direct route to other public facilities, retail areas, etc. They serve a great purpose and I won’t lobby against one, provided it’s designed appropriately (not a sidepath or cycle track) and it makes sense. Sure, they can be used for transportation and provide a much nicer ride from point A to point B, just like a scenic highway provides a pleasant alternative to the limited access freeway.

I don’t see it as an either or thing.

By: Kevin Love

Kevin Love — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:02:31 +0000

One of the commenters on Copenhagenize used to work for Scully when he was the Minister. Needless to say, he was not impressed.

“It was generally thought that he had the intellect of a cabbage.”

Source:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24417328&postID=6254842971458974078

I note that Scully is currently out of politics. He was sacked from his portfolio after he lied to Parliament and chose to not stand for re-election to his seat in the subsequent general election.

Good riddance.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:02:19 +0000

You would be surprised if you knew how many people think that cyclists should always do the jug handled turn.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:00:38 +0000

You can boil his argument down to this:
1. Bicycles are toys that are dangerous on the road
2. The roads are regulated by the government
3. The government has a duty to keep road users safe

Therefore, the government should prohibit using bicycles on the roads.

This is what happens when bicycle advocates (not to mention auto safety advocates) demand that the government “do something” to keep people safe.

I kind of prefer the “good old days” when, as a bicycle user, I wasn’t “helped” as much by everyone.