City workers swooped in Monday night and yanked out part of a bike-share rack blocking the front of a West Village co-op — just hours after The Post called the Department of Transportation over complaints that an ambulance crew had trouble getting to a 92-year-old resident in distress.So... your tax money is used to install these things and then yank them out again. You might say: Just site them properly in the first place. But every time an old lady is "in distress" the right place for bike-share racks becomes the wrong place, The Post calls the Department of Transportation, and — once again — city workers must swoop in and yank out.
२२ मे, २०१३
The anti-car message conveyed by those curbside rows of bike-share kiosks falls flat...
... when the gas-powered vehicles they impede are ambulances and fire trucks.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०२ टिप्पण्या:
They should just place them on the sides of buildings or the like. In D.C. I see them in places like rows right next to the street, near the Metro, etc. Places that are convenient for bikers, but inconvenient for everyone else because they obstruct walking paths. There are places we could put them where they wouldn't be in the way, but then fewer people would see them.
I think this is a solution in search of a problem. A "great idea" from a bunch of people who would never use these racks themselves.
How about we put them in China where people ride bicycles.
"... but inconvenient for everyone else because they obstruct walking paths."
It's as if they want to send a message of hostility to everyone who doesn't bike... but then they're surprised when the message is received and and people react the way people do when the hear an expression of hostility.
Cycling is a fad. We're spending all this money on infrastructure that won't be used in 10 or 20 years.
There's a demographic riding bikes now that will too old to ride them in the future. I'm looking at you middle-aged white guys.
If the city is trying to say "the good people bike," then people who don't bike should feel resentful.
Many old people don't have the physical ability to bike. People with children in tow can't hop on one of these bikes. Anyone who is afraid of the cars or who thinks a helmet is needed but doesn't have one is disabled. Women in professional work clothes (and many men) are not going to be able to travel like this.
It's just very irritating to be told you should be biking in this symbolic way of having your already constricted path further narrowed.
Hostility seems to be one of the measures by which social planners gauge the success of their efforts. If people are inconvenienced and angered we can open a dialog.
Never mind the cost.
Basically, this is an amenity that is mostly used by white males.
This is the only time white males can channel public money toward what they want and get away with it.
In Madison, there's a lot of talk about how it's males and not so much females who are using bikes to commute and then the question is how do we get females to do it. But the obvious reality is that this is something that men, much more than women, want. Why should their preferences get public money?
Ann has received the intended message. Mission accomplished.
Well, the easy criticism is to accuse the city of busy-bodiness. But really, the thoughtful critique is a little bit different:
Was there demand? That's a simple yes/no question for the city to answer. If there was, then the installation of so many bike racks is defensible. I'd still rather see them put up by property owners rather than use city tax money, but at that point we're talking differences in philosophy on how to meet the demand. The point still stands on whether the demand is there or not.
But if that need was not there, then there's a problem with using that dough. There are cases where you can create demand, but I'd argue that changing out cars for bicycles would less be about demand and more about bowing to coercion without having any choice in the matter. And that bothers me, because it's the city putting the power of government behind that coercion rather than letting the citizenry decide what they would rather have. The government may have had benevolent thoughts when they came up with the notion of urging bike usage over cars, but this is a perfect example of why government power, even with benign intent, can have unintentionally bad consequences. And it's why government needs to operate under the principle of restraint, rather than the "Change" mantra being waved around by the politically inclined.
Was there demand for the racks? If so, fine; the message may be anti-car and deserve critique on those merits, but at least it's done with the will of the citizens. But if not, then this is a case of government gone wrong. Thank goodness it's nowhere near being a grand abuse, but it's still bad use of power. And still deserves criticism.
Tax skirts and heels, while having flats and pants untaxed.
Bam. I just promoted women biking in a way the left can get behind.
Things I notice about cyclists here.
1. They are mostly male. I'd say about 75%.
2. They spend a lot on their bikes and their gear. It's not like they can't afford a car, and most seem to have one.
3. They aren't actually going anywhere. It's recreation.
The more money the city puts into this, the more we'll hear about the liability when some ambulance can't get through. People will look at the "message" that is the bike rack and see money being lost. They will hate the way the things look and hate them even more as they look like throwing money away, people dying of heart attacks, giant lawsuits settled for millions, and stupid politicians.
It's like the "Tilted Arc" controversy, but without anyone actually believing these things look good. And more death.
Do gay men bike? That would certainly make the fad a protected one, and Professor Althouse wouldn't have to ask if their preferences should get public money. Because if the gay bike racks are removed, it's hateful.
Also: Are the helmet laws? I always think it is weird that someone would shell out money for a good bicycle helmet but, you know, not have a bicycle. It makes me cringe to see people not wearing their helmets while zooming around on a rented bike here.
"They aren't actually going anywhere. It's recreation."
In Madison, some hardcore types do commute, even in winter. But I think the commuter set of cyclists is far more male than the overall biking group. It's the commuters the city really wants (or talks about wanting), because they think they can replace cars, but this is so obviously limited and limited in ways that males may be in denial about.
Ann Althouse said...
Basically, this is an amenity that is mostly used by white males.
This is the only time white males can channel public money toward what they want and get away with it.
In Madison, there's a lot of talk about how it's males and not so much females who are using bikes to commute and then the question is how do we get females to do it. But the obvious reality is that this is something that men, much more than women, want. Why should their preferences get public money?
OK, this made me LOL.
I think it was meant that way.
But the obvious reality is that this is something that men, much more than women, want. Why should their preferences get public money?
Right now, every feminist in the world is nodding her head....
Last week Boston had yet another biking fatality, a 36 year old female MIT professor, struck and dragged by a truck that never saw her.
In building out it's biking infrastructure Boston is choosing to forego dedicated bike paths on it's greenways and chooses mixed use bike/vehicle lanes.
I learned never to ride my bike in traffic.
are city bike racks metered like city parking?
Yeah, the city here thinks they are replacing cars for commuting.
The problem is that most people who work in the city live outside the city limits. It's insane to commute on a bicycle on a highway, so very few do.
Supposedly a lot of people commute in town, but I don't see that many in the morning when I go to work. I see a lot of cars.
What I do see is a lot of garishly dressed men out on nice days during working hours.
Bikes use public roadways and those roadways are built and maintained with fuel taxes and car taxes. Tax bicycles the average annual equivalent of the fuel and car taxes. Problem solved.
Time will solve the problem. This is a fad that serves the need for middle-aged men to feed their egos and show off their money.
They'll eventually get old.
And include parking fees as well.
But those males, as in Seattle, must have the ear of the City admin. All they need do is organize, and present their demands, and presto! there's a Big Demand for bike facilities! WE must cater to them with facilities at the expense of everyone, whether they bike or not.
Let's try an experiment. Assemble some males who enjoy trap-shooting, and have them express a demand for municipal funding of a nice shotgun facility.
I thought so - it's only PC males who can get away with such antics, aided by the mailed fist of the 'get people out of their cars' bigots.
And liability insurance. Can't forget that and mandatory helmets as well.
Really, all buildings should be located in the middle of a desert for easy access. Space them wide apart on the salt flats.
Guess what. Cities are inconvenient.
But those males, as in Seattle, must have the ear of the City admin. All they need do is organize, and present their demands, and presto! there's a Big Demand for bike facilities! WE must cater to them with facilities at the expense of everyone, whether they bike or not.
Let's try an experiment. Assemble some males who enjoy trap-shooting, and have them express a demand for municipal funding of a nice shotgun facility.
I thought so - it's only PC males who can get away with such antics, aided by the mailed fist of the 'get people out of their cars' bigots.
Finally, full disclosure, when I was younger I rode a bike everywhere.
Then I got hit by a car and re-evaluated.
Now I'm a delivery driver and observe stupid, testosterone-driven behavior every day. Cycling is about male ego, not saving the earth or getting rid of cars.
How long is the ambulance response time in rush hour traffic?
The share racks in Boston are moving constantly. Here one week, gone the next, back the week after. Would be interesting to know if it's the politics of having one in front of your business or if it's complaints from public safety.
Nobody has ever managed to explain to me how all this cycling infrastructure improves the ecological profile of a city in which the overwhelming majority of people walk and use public transportation. What is all this *for*?
The stupidity of putting the bike racks directly in front of the co-op entrance (it's not as though there was no place else to put them, a view of the photo in the Post will show that there were a ton of bike racks on the street at either side of the entrance) was blatant on the part of the city. How this became the fault of the Post (I guess for making a fuss about the obvious overreach) in Althouse's opinion is beyond me.
Last week Boston had yet another biking fatality, a 36 year old female MIT professor, struck and dragged by a truck that never saw her.
I had a friend killed in December riding her bike on a Saturday in broad daylight, no rain or anything. Very sad.
Most women are not going to get into commuting to work unless they will be riding through safe areas exclusively and have all the facilities for getting ready at work and probably a place to store things. Otherwise you would have to cart a ton of stuff to work and back every day just to be professional. What a hassle.
It is reassuring to see that middle class white guys still get what they want, be it gay marriage, assault rifles, or bike paths, pretty much all the time.
in which the overwhelming majority of people walk and use public transportation
That gets into the reason people tend to hate the bikers, at least in cities. You're peacefully walking down the street with a bunch of other people and some jerk just flies down the sidewalk at 30 mph.
They seem poorly designed. Why so linear? There's no use of vertical space. I thought using vertical space was a mainstay of city life.
Ann Althouse said...
Basically, this is an amenity that is mostly used by white males.
Young, liberal, white males.
Do the bicycles have the types of seats that have been shown to lead to erectile dysfunction? If so, then I say money well spent!
Why not some kind of mechanical rack that turns like a ferris wheel and holds the bikes very close together when stored but makes a single bike rack stick out when you want to take or deposit a bike?
This is the only time white males can channel public money toward what they want and get away with it.
To wit, I found Meade's support for Madison spending $100,000 a year on the bike-share program here enlightening; his opposition to gov't boondoggles didn't apply when he felt like he stood to benefit from the "free" money.
WHY would anyone put a row of bike rack directly in front of an apartment building entrance??
Overall I enjoy bike riding, although it's been some time since I actually used it for transportation. But I can't stand that insufferable "I'm better than you because I use a bicycle" attitude.
And,for those who claim overweight middle-aged men won't ride bicycles: my bet would be on electric-assist bicycles.
If the fed. gov't can offer a $7,500. rebate for something as useless as a Volt car, surely it could come up with $1,500. or so to subsidize electric-assist bicycles?
I would be very angry if I were impeded from crossing the street in front of my apartment building by one of these installations.
John Lynch said...
Things I notice about cyclists here.
1. They are mostly male. I'd say about 75%.
2. They spend a lot on their bikes and their gear. It's not like they can't afford a car, and most seem to have one.
3. They aren't actually going anywhere. It's recreation.
Things I notice about cyclists here.
1. They are mostly male. I'd say about 85%.
2. They spend very little on their bikes and their gear, mostly old Schwinns and the like. It's like they can't afford a car, or a judge told them they can't drive any more. In most cases I suspect it's the latter.
Bicycle rights!
Why not some kind of mechanical rack that turns like a ferris wheel and holds the bikes very close together when stored but makes a single bike rack stick out when you want to take or deposit a bike?
I was just going to post something like this. A bike tower, if you will.
Here's a thought: Put them in front of city parks, not businesses or residences.
I was just going to post something like this. A bike tower, if you will.
Exactly. It's so obvious. When talk of these bike share things first began, I assumed they meant something like that, not these long, absurd bike walls.
My wife and I commute via bike every day when it's (1) not dark at the end of the day and (2) not icy. Most of the bike commuters we see are male, most of the tricked-up lycra bikers with 10 pounds of body in a 5 pound sack we see on weekends are male.
I don't ski -- but I'd be curious to hear althouse's take on the gender equality of skiers using Madison's groomed trails in winter.
You might say: Just site them properly in the first place. But every time an old lady is "in distress" the right place for bike-share racks becomes the wrong place,...
'Every time'? C'mon. What brains does it take to know not to block the entrance to a building? Not just ambulances, any truck that needs to load or unload furniture, appliances, etc., needs some means for access, and that long line of posts provided no means. Likewise for folks picking up or dropping off someone in a wheelchair.
Exactly. It's so obvious. When talk of these bike share things first began, I assumed they meant something like that, not these long, absurd bike walls.
The chance of a bike tower malfunctioning is probably large enough to negate them. Too many moving parts. Still would be cool to see, though.
My take: yes, the whole thing is driven by PC social engineering types. Disgusting use of public funds.
It won't work. Some tourists, of parenting age but not accompanied by children, may use the bikes. A small cohort, mostly male, who find the rack locations match their route needs will use them.
Serious bike commuters will own their own equipment.
When my jobs permitted, I regularly rode 6-8 miles to work and back; non-urban setting, but interesting mixing with the rush hour traffic.
I would not ride on the shoulder of the road because that's where all the slippery gravel accumulates. Austin, TX and other cities started putting in bike lanes about that time (mid '70s). Add the hazard of storm sewer grates with linear slots larger than the bike tires.
Better and safer to just mix with the car traffic, but not allowed where there are designated bike paths. Safer not to ride at all and take a car.
And yeah, it's mostly a male thing, and I was in-your-face about demanding my share of the road. At that time I was the designated eco-freak at the company.
The chance of a bike tower malfunctioning is probably large enough to negate them. Too many moving parts.
I'm thinking they should be robust and easy to maintain as long as the design is simple and mostly mechanical rather than electronic.
Certainly better than these terrible rows.
Bloomie's dictatorial ways actually help people.
Clock, stopped, you know the drill.
I don't get the bike hatred in this blog. Especially in Wisconsin which is nicely un-congested from what I see. You should have little to bitch about. I go through periods of biking a lot and then, like now, months of only driving, and I have no problem sharing the road with bikes. Here in L.A. they are adding lots of bike lanes which is pissing off a lot of people. I like it. They should just be advisory only though where bikers should be expected, but not exclusive.
When I see people biking, I feel thankful. It's much easier to get around them than a slow driver. The people who piss me off are the ones in the fast lane texting and limping along at the speed limit which is heresy out here. I wish everyone who's uncomfortable with modern automobile speeds was biking instead.
Things about the cyclists here:
1. We have bike lanes and the majority (80% don't use them).
2. I see all types, from Armstrong wannabes to hipster fixies, and again the majority (70%) DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD.
Last week I told off a jackass who was riding against traffic and not yielding to a pedestrian (me) when I had the right of way. The guy had the temerity to say "WATCH IT!" when he almost struck me.
I don't get the bike hatred in this blog. Especially in Wisconsin which is nicely un-congested from what I see.
I don't have bike hatred. I have stupid waste of resources hatred, misuse of public funds hatred, Bloomberg hatred, and lack of practical implementation hatred.
"In Madison, there's a lot of talk about how it's males and not so much females who are using bikes to commute and then the question is how do we get females to do it."
Cap and trade. It works for carbon. {/sarcasm}
The are plenty of places to put these racks that would be unobtrusive. Against walls, in open grass areas, in parking lots, etc. One parking space in a parking lot can hold 50 bikes. They just need to stop putting them right on the sidewalk in high traffic access areas. It's that simple.
They do have these bike share linear kiosks in Madison. I ride past one all the time -- it's next to the bike path -- and there's another one outside Trader Joe's, where grass used to be. I don't recall seeing any in front of building entrances around town, but I don't really look around.
" I have stupid waste of resources hatred, misuse of public funds hatred"
If that's the motivation, and you look at the extreme difference in resources and expense that are required to accommodate 50 cars compared to 50 bikes, you might then be more pissed about the cars.
"They just need to stop putting them right on the sidewalk in high traffic access areas. It's that simple."
But that doesn't give them the "in your face" rush.
and you look at the extreme difference in resources and expense that are required to accommodate 50 cars compared to 50 bikes, you might then be more pissed about the cars.
We are talking about the existing infrastructure of NYC. Also, there's no guarantees the bikes get used. I'm sure they did a feasibility study that in no way was guaranteed to get the results they desired, right? That the demand was there to dedicate these amount of resources at this time in this particular place.
It's not an anti-bike/pro-car thing.
NYC already has an abundance of walkability and public transport.
The reason women don't bike more is that there are just a lot of lazy bitches. There someone had to say it. They spend all their time trying to attract males by shopping for makeup, clothes and shoes, when just half the time riding a bike would probably double their attractiveness, self-confidence, and happiness. You can't carry shopping bags or maintain a hairdo when biking, but you can get men to want you more, and think of the money saved.
Bagoh-
You are assuming that there is a demand for the 50 bikes. If there was, we wouldn't need the parking spaces for the 50 cars, right?
I think women don't ride bikes as much because they don't have a need to force their egos on the world.
It's the same reason they don't buy as many sports cars. Women who want to show status buy big SUVs or nice sedans.
Also, it's dangerous.
The economics don't work:
Bike Sharing Systems Aren't Trying to Peddle for Profit.
In the DC system, described above, the capital costs for 1,200 bikes (and stands) is $7M. Chicago's 3,000 bike system comes with a capital cost of $19M.
Operating costs for the DC version are closed to balanced with fees, but that doesn't include the cost of new bikes or new stands.
The environmental benefits are offset by the use of trucks to move bikes from off-peak to peak hubs.
Key quote:
What experts do know is that, while bike sharing can be used as an alternative to a bus or train, it does not seem to threaten public transit ridership. That is because riders tend to use the bikes to supplement—not replace—transit trips.
A great way to combine public transit with bike riding is to use a folding bike. A good quality Dahon folding bike runs $500. A smaller, lighter-weight Brompton runs $1000.
For $7M, DC could have bought 14,000 Dahon bicycles and given them away. The operating costs of $2.5M (annually?) would cover an additional 5,000 bikes.
That would, of course, have been unthinkable.
"NYC already has an abundance of walkability and public transport."
And a shortage of freedoms and options.
All it takes to accommodate 50 bikers is a one-time expense of a single parking space and a thousand dollars of hardware. The resources expended to accommodate 50 commuters in any other way beside walking is in the millions of dollars, and walking is not an option for more than a mile.
I don't buy that the objection is financial.
A car parked at the curb that transported a single person would also block access to paramedics or fireman. That seems a lot more egregious than a bike rack for dozens of riders.
And a shortage of freedoms and options
Forced biking!
Bagoh is content to die on this hill, er, sidewalk.
A car can be easily moved. A bike rack installation ...
I am a biker but would never commute on a bike nor would I use one of these share-bikes which are naturally pieces of shit. Manhattan is anything but bike friendly. Urban planners love bikes slightly less than they like high speed trains and they love high speed trains like an addict loves crack. So you get these absurd bike share programs which are one hell of a lot less successful than you are led to believe.
You can't move a car quick enough for an emergency if the owner isn't there. And the hill I'm on is logic and honesty. I don't care which other side wins.
And the hill I'm on is logic and honesty. I don't care which other side wins.
C'mon, this is better than arguing with Inga, ain't it?
You can't move a car quick enough for an emergency if the owner isn't there.
Police/emergency crews unlock the car, put into neutral, and push it out of the way.
You do seem to be filling her roll here, since you haven't answered a single one of my simple arguments of logic, but are instead deflecting.
You're anti-car like the rest of the conservatives here. Own it!
Don't worry, the IPAB will thin out those distressed old ladies and make the world safe for bike racks.
Rent-seeking scum sucking is all the rage these days. Wait till we run out of other people's money and the printing presses fail.
Sure the car is easier to move, but I'm not arguing that the racks should be there at all, just that your argument is really more biker hate than logic.
but I'm not arguing that the racks should be there at all, just that your argument is really more biker hate than logic.
Huh? That would make sense if I, uh, weren't a biker.
"You're anti-car like the rest of the conservatives here. Own it!"
I drive a big fat gas guzzling 8 cylinder pickup truck everyday, when I could bike commute the 28 mile round trip if I wasn't so damned lazy. See I don't have an emotional need for either side. I want both options for everyone.
I'm pumped about Citibike - and I typically *hate* bikers in the City. I'm glad that they're rolling it out bigtime, too - there are stations everywhere and it's going to be fun to ride this weekend bc it's supposed to be beautiful.
"your tax money is used to install these things and then yank them out again."
That is a favorite make-work stimulus program: dig a hole, fill it up.
bpm4532 said...
A "great idea" from a bunch of people who would never use these racks themselves.
Such as Mayor Nanny whose chauffeur-driven limo can park anywhere, including right in front and on top of a fire hydrant, trust funded scions whose chauffeurs can do exactly what the Mayor's chauffeur do. They really don't like to sit in their limos inching up behind the rabble who drive their own cars. As Marie said famously: Let them ride bikes.
Does a reciprocating saw do the job, or do you need a torch?
What disturbs me is the term "biker" seems to have gained common currency.
Around here, someone who rides a bicycle is called a cyclist.
A biker is a scruffy, scary, black leather and denim-clad gang member (white) who runs meth out of the Jersey Pine Barrens or out of Lancaster, PA.
No fluorescent lycra.
Pretty sure about that.
This is the only time white males can channel public money toward what they want and get away with it.
Another Althouse miscue.
No, it's just unicorn politics pandering to the left's dreams to make America over as Red China -- not to favor white males.
You know the left would like to see everyone on bikes. However, liberal young white males are the only demographic for which it is both practical and fashionable.
Althouse,
But the obvious reality is that this is something that men, much more than women, want. Why should their preferences get public money?
That's right.
We should take all this money and channel it into things that women, much more than men, want.
Then it would be OK.
Astro,
C'mon. What brains does it take to know not to block the entrance to a building?
More brains than do-good busybodies and government officials, apparently.
These remind me of all those old workout stations from the 60's and 70's that you see along paths.
I imagine that within 5-10 years these will look as ugly and be used just as much.
From the pictures, it doesn't appear that very many people are using these nifty bike stanchions. Are they all at work?
THIS looks like a job for ART ROSS - bicycle pedestrian coordinator!!!!!
From the pictures, it doesn't appear that very many people are using these nifty bike stanchions. Are they all at work?
Seattle is going bike infrastructure mad. The streets are crap, but that hasn't stopped them from pouring probably hundreds of thousands of dollars into bike lanes and such. And, like everywhere else, a majority of the bikers are, well, assh*les. I'm sure we can all swap assh*lo-cyclist stories for hours. Occasionally bike-commuting myself, I naturally try to emulate them as little as possible.
The message seems to be "We're helping the environment and keeping shape and no polluting so we can get away with whatever we want, you assh*les."
I tried biking to work back in the 70s, between Arlington VA, and DC. Although I frequently arrived at work earlier than I would by car, because of traffic. I also arrived covered in sweat, dirt, and soot. Until work places have shower and changing rooms, biking to work is not practical.
From the pictures, it doesn't appear that very many people are using these nifty bike stanchions. Are they all at work?
My vague recollection is that the program hasn't started yet, so the kiosks are not populated with bikes yet. These are places for rental bikes.
A biker is a scruffy, scary, black leather and denim-clad gang member (white) who runs meth out of the Jersey Pine Barrens or out of Lancaster, PA.
No fluorescent lycra.
We wear both and our meth is organic.
The stupid is strong in these fools.
Did you ever see a "Par Course", a group of planks and signs arraigned over a measured distance? Hundreds, if not thousands, of these were sold to and installed in cities and towns across America. They were all the rage. You would do stretches on one and leg lifts on another and a balance beam on another and chin ups on yet another. Never did I see an actual person using one of these "Par Courses." They were a fad. The NY bike sharing program, its crappy bikes and its ugly stands, like the "Par Courses" of old will be gone in two years. History.
A woman needs a bicycle like a fish needs a man or something.
I would be very angry if I were impeded from crossing the street in front of my apartment building by one of these installations.
Reciprocating saw with a metal blade.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा