If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   San Francisco can't add bike lanes, or even bike racks, because bicycles cause too much pollution   (online.wsj.com) divider line 278
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

23476 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2008 at 10:03 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



278 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-08-26 06:49:09 PM

Here's the dude's blog: Link (new window)

I love his latest entry, responding to a questionairre from some LGBT group:

17. What are the most important issues facing the transgender community and how should they be addressed? Please discuss.
How the hell should I know?
 
2008-08-26 06:49:37 PM
FTFA:
Mr. Anderson disagrees. Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution.

That's some seriously stupid reasoning right there, Mr. Rob Anderson.
Not only is it a flawed assumption that cars will always outnumber bicycles, the displacement of motor vehicles by a little cycling infrastructure has negligible effect on traffic capacity while vastly increasing the number of people who choose to cycle. The result is easing traffic congestion.
If traffic is getting worse in San Francisco, it's probably because the number of cars is growing. Hey, how about doing something to slow that growth?
As for delaying cycling infrastructure until an environmental assessment can be done, that's ludicrous. Prima facae, it will reduce emissions. Monitor the results, by all means, by the burden of proof is clearly wrong here.
 
2008-08-26 07:00:19 PM
Oh, and as for the argument "we polluters will pollute more if you don't give into our demands", that's identical in structure to the assertion "we terrorists will terrorize more if you don't give in to our demands".
I think we all know the best response to that one.

And a relevant quote:
"Widening roads to ease traffic congestion is [...] like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt."
Roy Kienitz

There you go, motorists. You're like terrorists and fatties.
Prove me wrong.
 
2008-08-26 07:15:27 PM
Procedural Texture: the displacement of motor vehicles by a little cycling infrastructure has negligible effect on traffic capacity while vastly increasing the number of people who choose to cycle.

Reducing a 2 lane road to a 1 lane road to put in a bike lane will have a negligible impact on car traffic? I don't think you're thinking your argument through. They've done that where I live, and according to the article they're planning to remove lanes of traffic and parking spots for cars to make way for more bike lanes in San Francisco. I'd say that has the potential to add to traffic on heavily trafficked streets. And that's all he's asked them to do, is look into it and make sure it really will reduce pollution. Why should the city rush into implementing a bicycle plan before its been fully thought through?

Procedural Texture: As for delaying cycling infrastructure until an environmental assessment can be done, that's ludicrous. Prima facae, it will reduce emissions. Monitor the results, by all means, by the burden of proof is clearly wrong here.

Well state laws (and in general federal laws) disagree with you there, hence why the court ordered them to stop. Almost any major construction these days is required by law to do an environmental impact study, and prove it will not harm the environment significantly, before given the green light. Why should the city be any different when they are going to make significant changes to the city infrastructure?

I think in this case the city bike plan will win out and go forward, but there's no harm in a slight delay while they study the plan and make sure it will actually do what they say it will. Heck, they might even find ways to make the plan more effective and less disruptive, which is a win for everyone, whether they ride a bike or drive a car.
 
2008-08-26 07:17:55 PM
It's obvious here who the bike nazi is.....
 
2008-08-26 07:18:37 PM
Procedural Texture: That's some seriously stupid reasoning right there, Mr. Rob Anderson.

Actually I think it is good reasoning. Better to think the problem through than have some half-assed approach that causes as many problems as it solves.

Perhaps there are areas where the affect on traffic will be minimal. There may be other areas where their implementation would seriously impede the flow of traffic. Nothing more than a simple cost/benefit analysis.

Procedural Texture: And a relevant quote:
"Widening roads to ease traffic congestion is [...] like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt."
Roy Kienitz

There you go, motorists. You're like terrorists and fatties.
Prove me wrong.


Well, for the fatties reference first. The argument presented is non sequitur. Your argument would hold true only if widening the roads made traffic worse. In fact the opposite is true, increasing the carrying capacity of a road will result in smoother flow. Much like using a wider hose will improve the flow of water, using a heavier gauge wire will reduce the electrical loss due to resistance.

Cars are not inherently good or bad, unlike obesity which is inherently bad. Again, a logical fallacy

"we polluters will pollute more if you don't give into our demands", that's identical in structure to the assertion "we terrorists will terrorize more if you don't give in to our demands".

Depends on the demand, if the car owners demand more carrying capacity on the roads and get it, they will pollute less because they are not spending as much time stuck in traffic. If their demands are not met, they will be forced to pollute more by having to wait in traffic. So they are not threatening to pollute more by choice, they are simply polluting more because politicians have neglected infrastructure and they are simply stating what will happen if capacity is not increased.

So I think I got all your logical fallacies taken care of right there.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2008-08-26 07:31:23 PM
Reducing a 2 lane road to a 1 lane road to put in a bike lane will have a negligible impact on car traffic? I don't think you're thinking your argument through. They've done that where I live

Cambridge did that to Mass. Ave. recently and now traffic backs up through the next intersection when the light in front of MIT changes. Sometimes drivers are alert enough not to "block the box." Sometimes they aren't.
 
2008-08-26 07:44:54 PM
Having worked in San Fran, I'd rather see them do more with public transportation than for the psychotic bike riders they have there.

Want to cut the number of vehicles in San Fran? Sue the bejeezus out of the farkwards in Marin and Sonoma who are preventing the long-distance rail system from being completed.
 
2008-08-26 07:48:44 PM
I wish I could ride my bike in New York. In fact, I've tried bicycle communting but it's a death trap: a suicide rap of Springsteenean proportions.
 
2008-08-26 07:51:34 PM
Toronto is pretty good for bikes if you go on the roads with the bike lanes. And avoid the bike messengers.

I saw a dude go to cross the street and he got nailed by a bike messenger... broken elbows are terrible injuries.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2008-08-26 07:54:29 PM
I saw a dude go to cross the street and he got nailed by a bike messenger... broken elbows are terrible injuries.

A man was killed by a bike messenger in Boston about five years ago.
 
2008-08-26 08:00:44 PM
ZAZ: I saw a dude go to cross the street and he got nailed by a bike messenger... broken elbows are terrible injuries.

A man was killed by a bike messenger in Boston about five years ago.


I don't doubt it at all. I've been clipped by one and he must have been going 25 MPH.
 
2008-08-26 08:09:21 PM
ShawnDoc: Well state laws (and in general federal laws) disagree with you there

You're probably right about the legal burden of proof. My point was that it seems a bit ironic that the obviously more environmentally sound plan is delayed because of objections by advocates of the more polluting form of transportation, using environmental law as the basis of their legal challenge, yes?
Bike lanes are also not major construction projects, it least in my experience, so the law seems poorly applied. It is a reallocation of existing infrastructure (usually just repainting some lanes and maybe adding some curbs to force separation), not an expansion.
As for the effect on traffic capacity, I meant its effect on overall traffic capacity. There may have a locally noticeable effect on a bike-laned street, but the surrounding road network absorbs that load. The aggregate effect on capacity must take into account that, with bike lanes, more people can choose to cycle instead than drive, and so the overall effect is at worst a negligible reduction in capacity (but with secondary benefits from lower pollution) or more likely an increased capacity for moving people, which is the important factor here.


Crosshair: The argument presented is non sequitur. Your argument would hold true only if widening the roads made traffic worse. In fact the opposite is true, increasing the carrying capacity of a road will result in smoother flow.
[...] Cars are not inherently good or bad, unlike obesity which is inherently bad.
[...] if the car owners demand more carrying capacity on the roads and get it, they will pollute less because they are not spending as much time stuck in traffic.


On the contrary: increasing capacity for cars facilitates car-dependent development, thereby encouraging/forcing more people to use cars, eventually resulting in roads that are as full or fuller than before.
Consider the sprawl of suburban development after the freeway construction in the mid-20th century in North America. Compare this to the more compact and sustainable cities in countries that didn't idealize freeways.
The majority of transportation studies bear this out. Politicians don't base policy on this, however, because of the short-sighted demands of car-dependent voters. And they're always justifying it with that weaselly argument that free-flow versus idling reduces pollution, which is dishonest at best.
And actually, given the effects of pollution, noise, accidental death, heavy infrastructure cost and community fragmentation (not to mention the lovely political and military consequences of maintaining access to foreign oil) the assertion that cars aren't inherent bad is bizarre. They have some small positive social benefits, I'll grant that, but one cannot deny their enormous negatives.


real shaman: It's obvious here who the bike nazi is.....

In general I enjoy your comments, shaman, but cyclists asking for facilities proportional to our numbers cannot be called nazism.
-1 for Godwinning the thread.
if you like, you can give me some kind of equivalent dishonour for comparing car advocates to terrorists, but my analogy actually has some merit because of the inherent social ills caused by pollution, etc.
 
2008-08-26 08:17:01 PM
steveo: Sue the bejeezus out of the farkwards in Marin and Sonoma who are preventing the long-distance rail system from being completed.

Oh FARK yes, I approve this statement.
 
2008-08-26 08:33:35 PM
Procedural Texture: As for delaying cycling infrastructure until an environmental assessment can be done, that's ludicrous. Prima facae, it will reduce emissions. Monitor the results, by all means, by the burden of proof is clearly wrong here.

His main mistake is believing that the roads are only for one form of transportation. He should read his history books and realize that bikes took to the road before his precious automobile.
 
2008-08-26 08:37:52 PM
steveo: Want to cut the number of vehicles in San Fran? Sue the bejeezus out of the farkwards in Marin and Sonoma who are preventing the long-distance rail system from being completed.

There's no NIMBY outrage quite like Bay Area NIMBY outrage.
 
2008-08-26 08:39:20 PM
verbal_jizm: steveo: Sue the bejeezus out of the farkwards in Marin and Sonoma who are preventing the long-distance rail system from being completed.

Oh FARK yes, I approve this statement.


Not knowing anything about this, what exactly would the cause of action be? You kind of need one of those if you want to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (or whatever it is called in CA).

I don't mind most bicyclists around here (Chicago) and Chicago is a very bicycle friendly city. I do despise bike messengers who somehow think traffic laws do not apply to them and the assjacks that ride two abreast in a traffic lane blocking my progress. Do you see this emblem on my hood? It says Porsche. Get the fark out of my way and ride on the far right single file so I can go over 20 MPH.
 
2008-08-26 08:47:19 PM
Solid State Vittles: There's no NIMBY outrage quite like Bay Area NIMBY outrage.

Well, yeah, in this case literally. But, if you live near a highway don't be surprised if there's traffic in your yard.

I lived in Santa Rosa when this whole nonsense about SMART started and I was commuting to San Fran for work. 59 miles from point A to point B. Took me an hour to get to the GG, and another hour to get from GG to China Basin.

I wanted to drive around Windsor and kick every farking resident there in the nads for their incessant whining.
 
2008-08-26 09:24:46 PM
steveo: Well, yeah, in this case literally. But, if you live near a highway don't be surprised if there's traffic in your yard.

I agree. These are the same kind of buttholes that helped delay the BART SFO extension for an eternity.
 
2008-08-26 10:09:35 PM
"The city has been blinded by political correctness. It's an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog this month."


agreed.

Less obnoxious adult bikers is a good thing.
 
2008-08-26 10:10:36 PM
(Insert obligatory pic of guy running into pack of bicyclists here)
 
2008-08-26 10:12:21 PM
I live in SF and think the local bicyle-owning population are the biggest set of holier-than-thou arseholes in a city full of holier-than-thou arseholes, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

Seriously, the way they act when they break the law makes me wonder if they should have crosses instead of fixies.

/Not bitter, not at all
//Seen more bikers flatly ignore traffic laws than drivers
///Screw 'em.
 
2008-08-26 10:12:55 PM
pandadan.files.wordpress.com
 
2008-08-26 10:13:15 PM
Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams

In urban areas? PROVE IT!

So his entire theory is based on a possibly false premise.
 
2008-08-26 10:13:29 PM
tallguywithglasseson: Here's the dude's blog: Link (new window)

I love his latest entry, responding to a questionairre from some LGBT group:
17. What are the most important issues facing the transgender community and how should they be addressed? Please discuss.
How the hell should I know?


ladyboy knees:
www.chinadaily.com.cn
sharp, or not?
 
2008-08-26 10:13:32 PM
Repost.
 
2008-08-26 10:14:17 PM
I think I have a new hero.
 
2008-08-26 10:14:23 PM
The guy sounds like he's a serial pain in the ass.

"sees bicycles as dangerous and impractical for car-centric American cities"

Uhhhh, that's the point, stupid. Cities don't have to be car-centric.
 
2008-08-26 10:14:43 PM
Some parts of San Francisco you'd never want to bike (at least the downtown areas). You'd either be trying to bike up Mt Everest or your wheel would get stuck in a cable car track
 
2008-08-26 10:17:19 PM
tortilla burger: Some parts of San Francisco you'd never want to bike (at least the downtown areas). You'd either be trying to bike up Mt Everest or your wheel would get stuck in a cable car track

change into a lower gear for hills and zigzag for the steepest ones.

cross over tracks by approaching them at a perpendicular angle
 
2008-08-26 10:18:09 PM
I had heard of a study that said that reducing the lane width enough to add a bike lane on the right shoulder did not affect capacity, slowed traffic moderately (because of the narrower lanes), and fit within the same amount of space.

They were contemplating this in Sarasota, FL because it is very low-cost (repainting lines instead of repaving roads). Couldn't they do that here?
 
2008-08-26 10:18:16 PM
I love it when hippies fight each other. Their selective outrage is finally being unproductive in a useful way.
 
2008-08-26 10:18:25 PM
As much as I hate the massholes, this guy sounds like a complete douche.
 
2008-08-26 10:18:39 PM
Fark San Francisco. Yet another reason to stay the fark away from there.
 
2008-08-26 10:19:26 PM
Ha. If I lived there, I'd vote for him, just to piss off smug, pretentious assholes like Procedural Texture.
 
2008-08-26 10:19:31 PM
xsarien: I live in SF and think the local bicyle-owning population are the biggest set of holier-than-thou arseholes in a city full of holier-than-thou arseholes, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

Seriously, the way they act when they break the law makes me wonder if they should have crosses instead of fixies.

/Not bitter, not at all
//Seen more bikers flatly ignore traffic laws than drivers
///Screw 'em.


They suck in Austin also. Even where there are bike lanes they ride four or five abreast extending out into the lanes for real vehicles blocking/slowing traffic. (you Barton Springs asshats know of whom I speak).

I favor a law saying the automobile drivers have a right, make than a obligation, to "nudge" or herd bike riders back into the bike lanes when they stray over the line.
 
2008-08-26 10:20:08 PM
ZAZ: I saw a dude go to cross the street and he got nailed by a bike messenger... broken elbows are terrible injuries.

A man was killed by a bike messenger in Boston about five years ago.


and i heard that bike messengers eat children and worship the obamassiah too.
 
2008-08-26 10:21:03 PM
I live in San Fran and tried to ride my cruiser bike once (no gear shifts). Never again. Damn hills aren't worth it. Walking is much easier.
 
2008-08-26 10:21:10 PM
s.wsj.net
if you ever go to San Francisco and get bored, go to City Hall. It is beautiful
 
2008-08-26 10:22:54 PM
TheSelphie: Fark San Francisco. Yet another reason to stay the fark away from there.

infact, if everyone like you were to stay within the confines of oklahoma then it might solve some of our major problems.
 
2008-08-26 10:23:52 PM
Procedural Texture: FTFA:
Mr. Anderson disagrees. Cars always will vastly outnumber bikes, he reasons, so allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution.

That's some seriously stupid reasoning right there, Mr. Rob Anderson.
Not only is it a flawed assumption that cars will always outnumber bicycles, the displacement of motor vehicles by a little cycling infrastructure has negligible effect on traffic capacity while vastly increasing the number of people who choose to cycle. The result is easing traffic congestion.
If traffic is getting worse in San Francisco, it's probably because the number of cars is growing. Hey, how about doing something to slow that growth?
As for delaying cycling infrastructure until an environmental assessment can be done, that's ludicrous. Prima facae, it will reduce emissions. Monitor the results, by all means, by the burden of proof is clearly wrong here.




Isn't it ironic that I came in to say that was actually a pretty good argument?

Yes. Yes, it is ironic.
 
2008-08-26 10:24:33 PM
The fact that this dude has so greatly angered Critical Massholes gives him some respect from me. Most of those guys are a bunch of goddamn dicks.
 
2008-08-26 10:25:04 PM
actually, ShawnDoc, an EIS doesn't have to prove that the planned action will not increase pollution. according to NEPA, all an EIS has to do is look at possible effects and suggest alternatives. the planning commission is free to enact any of the alternatives it desires, including the original one, regardless of which alternative is the most environmentally-friendly (unless another environmental protection law comes into play). now, California might have laws on the books that require the the most environmentally-responsible action (or there might be a conflict under the Clean Air Act), but the federal statute does not.
 
2008-08-26 10:27:28 PM
BigDumbGuy:
Do you see this emblem on my hood? It says Porsche. Get the fark out of my way and ride on the far right single file so I can go over 20 MPH.


get out of dumb guy's way
cache.jezebel.com
he needs to be at the gym in 26 minutes
 
2008-08-26 10:27:47 PM
re-elect_jimmy_carter: tallguywithglasseson: Here's the dude's blog: Link (new window)

I love his latest entry, responding to a questionairre from some LGBT group:
17. What are the most important issues facing the transgender community and how should they be addressed? Please discuss.
How the hell should I know?

ladyboy knees:

sharp, or not?


I'd tap the one on the left and the one second from the right.
 
2008-08-26 10:27:55 PM
mattb0611: I had heard of a study that said that reducing the lane width enough to add a bike lane on the right shoulder did not affect capacity, slowed traffic moderately (because of the narrower lanes), and fit within the same amount of space.

Then yes, by definition, it did reduce capacity. If fewer vehicles are able to pass a point in a given period of time (which happens when they are moving slower), then the ability of that road to deliver vehicles to their destinations has been compromised.
 
2008-08-26 10:28:56 PM
Build more lanes so cars aren't stuck in traffic and can travel at the speed they were designed to run most efficiently at. Then look for ways to accommodate bikes. After all bikes don't pay road or as taxes to build roads.
Someone in SF gets it, surprise.
 
2008-08-26 10:29:05 PM
Tr0mBoNe: ZAZ: I saw a dude go to cross the street and he got nailed by a bike messenger... broken elbows are terrible injuries.

A man was killed by a bike messenger in Boston about five years ago.

I don't doubt it at all. I've been clipped by one and he must have been going 25 MPH.


To say that anyone on the roadways in Boston is rational is a stretch. A friend of mine bounced a jogger off his hood at the Mass Ave bridge. The jogger rolled off the other side and kept on running.
 
2008-08-26 10:29:51 PM
Bicycles are unamerican.
 
2008-08-26 10:31:03 PM
"critical mass riders block traffic, go through red lights and stop for nobody."

That's some revolution ya got going, you self-important twats.
 
Displayed 50 of 278 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report