Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!hplabs!utah-cs!badovin
From: badovin@utah-cs.UUCP (Peter Badovinatz)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Bicycles and Paranoia
Message-ID: <3305@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Apr-85 20:55:56 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3305
Posted: Mon Apr 22 20:55:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 03:06:18 EST
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 58

(* line-eater food...yum yum *)

A number of valid points are brought up in the discussion of bicyclists
vs. other road users.  I own a car but use it only during inclement
weather or for hauling large loads.  The rest of the time I depend on my
motorcycle and bicycle for mobility, both commuting and touring.

As far as motorcycling is concerned, that's for another time.  But both
motor- and bi- cycles suffer similar depredations at the hands of automobiles.
I'll stay in my bicycle frame of mind for this.

Unfortunately, autos and bicycles don't mix real well together.  There are
very, very, few marked bike routes here in Salt Lake City (maybe 2 or 3).
As a result, you ride with autos, or don't ride at all.  And therein lie the
the problems.

I have been on a bike and run off of the road and threatened for holding up
traffic.  Watching cars run stop signs or just pulling out in front of you
is hairy.  Why can't these people watch what they're doing?  On the other hand,
I must also admit that I've seen a number of bicyclists being careless about
the traffic laws.  Whether it's a bike or an auto running a stop sign,
==> it ain't safe <==.

A simplistic answer is to obey ALL traffic laws (stop signs, speed limits etc.)
And that goes for autos and bikes.  This in itself would help many problems.
Another answer would be bike routes and the like, but who pays for them?  The
general public, who, it must be admitted, would have little use for them, due
to apathy, condition, location, etc.  Or the bicyclists (how? a bike tax?)
which would be a massive burden on a few people.  The argument can be made that
everyone can enjoy a bike path (like a park) if only they go and use it, and
this is a valid argument.  Encouraging the local populace to use bicycles
would decrease pollution and congestion (on the roads, maybe not on the paths
though :-)) and increase health and fitness.

A major problem in finding a solution to this mess was mentioned:  the
unfathomable hatred many people have for bicycles.  Why is this?  I don't know,
but a part of it may be that some bicyclists are young, somewhat 
unestablishment and very vocal about their "rights" to use the road.  This
threatens the older, conventional, poorly conditioned types (remember the
'60's?  Issues different, Framework similar).  The many bicyclists commuting
to their offices are not so much in the minds of non-bicyclists.  Wild, long-
haired radicals screaming about eliminating autos come their minds.  A silly,
inaccurate stereotype, but seems to exist.  Do something about this and much
progress will have been made and the door will be open to make much more
progress.

Does all this sound as if I'm putting the burden of proof onto the bicyclists?
Should, the bicyclists are pushing for change, so must be the ones to provide
the arguments and the proof of why such change would be beneficial.  A start
to this would be to somehow eliminate the paranoia so many feel about bicycles.
I don't know how to do this.  I'm hoping with this letter to keep this
discussion open and in the front of peoples minds.  Surely in this large group,
a number of ideas can emerge.  Let's all think about it, and remember that it
really is revolutionary in scope.  Create within this country a whole new way
to think (at least about transportation).

Peter R Badovinatz          ARPA:  badovinatz@utah-20
Univ of Utah CS Dept        UUCP:  ...!utah-cs!badovin