BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Looks like the writer is getting an earful. I might press "Like" a few times, but things are well under control. The better question, why does the PG still print this drivel? Target practice for us? if so, thank you.

Wow! I'm happy to say that this appears to be being well responded to by others! Other than liking comments I feel no need to jump into the fray. Also if the PG wants to publish these things only to present them as targets for the fusillade of factual and reasoned responses that is occurring, I say have at it.

Derp

Bikes need to have a yearly emissions test...

Wow. Looks like the reasons that counter this ridiculous letter to the editor are getting through. It's good for the PG to keep publishing these pieces -- it's a useful reminder (even if it is just for click-bait).

Responded with a letter to the editor, let's see if they run it...

Somebody said something like: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Look at how many comments support the ignorant writer. Look how many debunk everything they complain about.

Not Gandhi, BTW. It was a union leader. But things are, indeed, changing.

The quote is widely attributed to Gandhi but it is apparently debatable as to whether he actually said it. If he did, it's possible he was paraphrasing someone else, Trade unionist Nicholas Klein gave in a 1914 address to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America in Baltimore: "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America."

Corrected post to be more vague on quote authorship. Your clarification will suffice to direct readers to identify other potential sources. :)

Here is a late afternoon pop quiz: Which of the following would our letter writer most likely say if given a strong dose of truth serum and asked about her letter: 1. "I can't afford to drive as much as I want and someone else should subsidize it for me." 2. "I hate people who don't live like I do and want the government to tax and regulate them until they stop." 3. "I can never get ahead in life because all of my disposable income gets dumped into owning my car." 4. All of the above.

2

From the 13/14 state budget: "Move vehicle registration renewals to a biennial cycle rather than the current annual cycle and move driver license renewals to a six-year cycle rather than the current four-year cycle." So the lady is asking for more pointless bureaucracy and wants to go in the opposite direction of the governor Budget also makes a good point that a) since cars are more efficient, people are paying less on the fuel tax b) with inflation, fuel tax revenue is down because it's static while inflation is not c) fuel prices are regional so it's stupid to put a cap on taxes when states around us don't

Drewbacca wrote:Bikes need to have a yearly emissions test…

noooooooo!!!! i'd totally fail!

i'd eat triple bean burritos before my emissions test, cuz thats how i roll

I was pleased about the general trend of the comments. I do wonder about the decision to publish a letter that, essentially, advocates restricting the freedom of a group of people. (biking-walking is a right, driving is a priviledge, etc) Would they publish a letter saying, let's register all the ______ people? Would they publish a letter saying, I'm tired of all these ______ _______ and their demands. (pick any group) Would they publish a letter saying, Those ____ people need to learn their place and be happy with what they've got It would be interesting to ask (and hear), what wouldn't the PG publish? And was that standard followed in this case, if you were to temporarily assume that cyclists are human beings and Americans with civil rights?

Vannevar, I was wondering something similar--would the PG print a letter advocating Black people should go back to back of the bus? Or that since women on average make less money, and therefore one assumes pay less taxes, they should receive less of X public service?

This appeared in the PG comments: Timmy Klatte · Parts Department Sales-Delivery at Classic Chevrolet And if you self-proclaimed cyclist geniuses think you're not using petroleum, then take off the turtle shell-looking dweebazoid helmet you have on. And your fancy biker clothes which make everyone see your junk. And the tires. And the paint. And the seat. And your shoes. And the water bottle. And all the lubricants. Morons!

Advertisement: Tired of feeling small in the latest bike fashion? C'mon down to Classic Chevrolet and we'll help you compensate in a new car, truck, or suv! Classic Chevrolet, where men get big! Tell'm Timmy sent ya!

while i feel that it was rather shameful (or at least shameless) of the post gazette to publish this letter to the editor in the first place, it strangely turned out brightening my day. i actually got bored reading all the comments complaining how silly the letter was, explaining how cyclists pay their way and more, and really almost, how few people seemed to be complaining about scofflaw cyclists. there was nothing to do but enjoy the show. my whole day seemed changed for the better after reading about half the comments, and i can promise this is the only time i've ever even considered uttering those words.

buffalo buffalo wrote:Vannevar, I was wondering something similar–would the PG print a letter advocating Black people should go back to back of the bus? Or that since women on average make less money, and therefore one assumes pay less taxes, they should receive less of X public service?

B-B, I was wondering the same thing but didn't want to fill in the blanks and hurt people's feelings - but that's it exactly, Would they publish a letter calling for pink triangles during pride week? (I do have an orange triangle on my bike..) But your Rosa Parks and UnEqualPay examples are eloquent and effective, my compliments. OTOH, the PGs bad decision did provide what seems a watershed moment: the first antiBike letter that seems to have gotten a lot of positive pushback from the audience. Of course, I realize I'm falling for the rhetorical-framework trap of finding meaning and satisfaction in the Comments, which is just want the click-counters hope for. Cheers, V.

@Vannevar and @buffalo buffalo: can we please not try to compare hatred towards cyclists to racism? Surely you can see the absurdity in that comparison, and hopefully you realize how much you are marginalizing the oppression felt by actual minority groups when you make such silly statements.

As cyclists are something around 1% of the population, doesn't that actually define us as a minority? Isn't having a driver tell you to your face that they don't particularly care whether you are run over and killed marginalizing and oppressive? Just because one segment of the population is discriminated against more than another doesn't remove the right of the lesser marginalized group to make the claim. Remember when gays marching for their rights compared themselves to the civil rights marches of the 60s and black evangelicals said "how dare you claim being discriminated against like we were"? I see the same thing from LGBT activists when atheists claim discrimination and compare their movement to the gay rights movement. They don't want to admit that atheists are anything like they are and so try to deny that atheists rights are civil rights in the same way that gay rights are. So, no, Jay. If I am a marginalized, demonized and oppressed minority group, I get to compare the hatred slung at me to the hatred slung against other marginalized, demonized and oppressed minority groups. And you don't get to marginalize me even further by saying I don't measure up.

I recognize the difference between race and chosen mode of transportation -- particularly, a cyclist stops being a cyclist when they get off their bicycle. But cyclists are being injured or killed every day because of the indifference or hostility of others. That is a pretty strong similarity between cyclists and other oppressed groups. So I think cyclists can and should learn a lot from the way those groups stood up for themselves and gained rights. One of those ways is to recognize that they are, in fact, being denied them.

@Kordite: the comparison just doesn't measure up. You choose whether or not to ride a bike. You can't choose what race, gender, orientation, etc... you are. (You can also choose what religion you practice, but I'm not going to engage that discussion here.) Cyclists deserve respect on the road, yes. But the level of "oppression" felt by cyclists pales in comparison to racial profiling, hiring discrimination, wage discrimination, and all the other forms of racism, sexism, homophobia and so on that exist in society. I understand your argument about how telling a group that "your plight doesn't measure up" makes them feel marginalized, but in this case, the injustice actually doesn't measure up: getting doored by a careless driver does not make your case anywhere near as bad as Trayvon Martin's. Edit: @jonawebb said it better than me.

There are plenty of good reasons to support cycling. But comparing anti-cycling opinions to racism (or any of the other isms) is a great way to paint us all as whining extremists. I bike to work most days, but I also drive. I like doing both, and I have good reasons to do both. The PG letter-writer made herself look like an ignorant idiot all by herself. We don't have to follow her lead and do the same.

I think yinz are getting off topic a bit and reading into things... the statement wasn't "we should play the race card." What was pointed out is that it's surprising that the post gazette would publish the reader opinion in the first place. I don't think that drawing parallels to other forms of hate-speech are out of place here and it certainly isn't whining to point the parallels out. No, despite being a similar mentality behind it... it's not the same thing and the paper did nothing wrong by publishing it. Still, it is an interesting comparison to make and discuss. It also shows a certain willingness on the part of the P-G to troll its readers by posting this garbage (as others have said, for the sake of clicks).

i think the question was "where on the continuum of irrational speech against a group perceived as "other" would the PG draw the line and not publish?" not "are we as oppressed as X group?"

MichaelCycle wrote:There are plenty of good reasons to support cycling. But comparing anti-cycling opinions to racism (or any of the other isms) is a great way to paint us all as whining extremists.

The letter to the editor paints the author as a whining extremist pretty well...

@cb, I don't really have a problem with the PG publishing an irrational argument about how some people are messing it up for all of us, so long as that group of people isn't actually being injured and killed, and denied effective police protection. Then, the press has a responsibility to try not to make things worse.

Jay, I'm not trying to compare "getting doored by a careless driver" to Travon Martin. That's completely absurd and not even remotely what I said. I'm talking about people who intentionally denigrate, marginalize, demonize and physically assault cyclists and comparing them to people who intentionally denigrate, marginalize, demonize and physically assault other minority groups. Perhaps mentioning what happened to Colin Albright when he had his throat slashed would be in order. This isn't about choosing to ride a bike specifically, it's about being free to travel without being run over or having one's throat cut because I choose (or was forced into it by not being able to afford a car) to ride a bike. Freedom to travel is a civil rights issue. Freedom from assault and attempted murder is a civil rights issue. Just because cycling is not as big an issue as race (an issue that affects a large part of the population) or gender (also a large part of the population) or gender identity or sexual orientation (a smaller but still significant part of the population) does not make it a non issue. Just because our part of the population is in the single digits or percentage points does not mean our issues are not rights issue. I'll bet Colin Albright's issue was really important to him, even if it doesn't "measure up" to your standards. And that's what it's like to be a minority.

Ugh... please... nothing reeks of irony more than a (presumably) straight middle class white dude calling himself a minority. I like to sail. Sailing is a minority. I'm annoyed I can't sail in the Monongahela without the fear of getting hit by barges. Commercial skippers always put down recreational sailors. And that’s what it’s like to be a minority. Colin Albright's attack has nothing to do with discrimination against cyclists. It has to do with him being targeted by an insane person from an insane family. "Road rage" isn't limited to the targeting of cyclists. The article in question doesn't even purpose we deny rights to cyclists. It only states we should pay more taxes for exercising of those rights.

I'd like to share my thought on "cyclist as minority" and "cyclist as minority VS other worthy minorities". I think cyclists are marginalized, treated as a fringe element, treated as monolithic ("you all ____") treated as less than full American citizens killed by indifferent violence considered as whiners when we mention our rights considered as entitled when we demand our safety and, in the ultimate irony, when we ask for a lane it's affirmative action for cyclists, getting something at somebody else's expense (automobilists) So. Hell yes I'm an endangered minority. I don't need to further identify my standing by describing the (greater) suffering of others. It's sufficient that I'm denied my rights as an American. Now- regarding other niche disenfranchised groups: I try to co-mingle my cycling with my supporting other groups of human beings whenever I can. It's to our benefit. It's my agenda. Hello, did you come to the Menorah Ride? Hello, do you support Major Taylor CC? Hello, are you coming to the Pride Ride on Friday? Because if you don't support them, why should they support you. Sincerely, V. say it loud: I bike and I'm proud also, don't call me Surely, and don't call me ironic for demanding my rights as a white guy. I'll be at the Pride Ride on Friday, with a rainbow slow-moving vehicle triangle if I can work it.

As far as I know, the majority of people that have been injured and killed in accidents with motor vehicles have been the result of negligence, poor driving and decision making. This is no different from when pedestrians and people in other modes of transportation get killed. The general public is indifferent and willing to accept these losses. For the most part, we're no different. In this sense, I don't see us a a minority. Pedestrians and other drivers are at risk from the same people we are. As far as the pride parade goes, there are people in the GLBTQwhatever the hell spectrum that take issue with this event because it's largely a corporate driven token show of support that's not actually backed by any meaningful action. My own organization is participating and their extent of "diversity and inclusion" is sending out a monthly email and participating in this parade. Well they've done a little more specifically with GLBTQ, but in general, not much.

Also this made my day:

Check out the comment from Mike Cherepko at the end of the PG's story Driver changing lanes injures Pitt police officer in Oakland crash.

I gave his comment the serious response it deserved.

re: Mike Cherepko comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZjKUN5QI0s

He left a couple of those on various articles. I've enjoyed them. (byogman, you might want to check your sarcasm detector...)

Ah, sorry, responded to Gary Evans, not Mike Cherepko. I have a sarcasm detector, but I mostly don't bother to turn it on. It's more fun to go with the text as is.

@Pierce, you make a really interesting point. I think you're right that people accept that a certain number of people are going to be killed by motorists, whether pedestrians, cyclists, or other motorists, so in that sense we're just part of a larger group. But the same is true for any oppressed minority -- there are always other people being injured in the same way. And in the larger sense it doesn't really matter; the important thing is what a group of people working together can do to improve things. So I still think that it's useful to think of ourselves as a minority who are being denied some of our civil rights, and who can use techniques used by others to get them.

“I am writing about the bicyclists who are always crying about their right to be on the roads.” So, yea, it's about civil rights.

@Kordite: the writer's position may be objectionable and misinformed, but it does not constitute a violation of anyone's civil or political rights. He's just stating his opinion, wrong-headed though it may be, it hardly rises to the level of oppression.

Cyclists are not a protected class. age, race, religion, sexual orientation (sometimes).., etc are protected classes. It is legal to discriminate against cyclists. To go the other way if I owned a restaurant and hung a sign that said "no neo nazis"... they are not a protected class either. Comparing cyclists to minorities is a sad thing and should be avoided. You do literally choose to ride a bicycle.

I'm not saying the writer's opinion is oppressive. But injuring and killing cyclists, denying police protection to cyclists... yeah, that's oppression.

Cyclists aren't a protected class. . . and neither are neo-nazis. I'd expect that sort of Godwin from an autodominionist. Personally, I'm used to being compared to Stalin but, hey, comparing me to nazis works to dismiss me and my concerns just as well. On the other hand, guess what. . . we are a protected class. Pennsylvania's 4-foot passing law is there specifically to protect us as a class of road users. Last year, DC enacted the Access to Justice for Bicyclists Act. Huston passed a vulnerable road user's law last month along with a number of other municipalities over the past few years. Los Angeles was the first to pass an anti-harassment law protecting cyclists specifically two years ago and a number of municipalities have followed suit. The point is, we ARE a protected class. A small, specialized class to be sure, but a protected class nonetheless. We have a legal right to be there, that right defined by civil laws. By definition, a civil right.

Ugh. Courtesy of the Google machine: "Protected class From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Protected class is a term used in United States anti-discrimination law.[1] The term describes characteristics or factors which cannot be targeted for discrimination and harassment. The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" and persons cannot be discriminated against based on these characteristics: Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964 Familial status - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing) Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act"

Well the next time one of us gets hit, feel free to yell "I'm a minority! I'm a protected class!" States, the Federal Government, and cities already discriminate based on race, color, religion, and national origin, so feel free to join that club. "On the other hand, guess what. . . we are a protected class." Wow, thanks for listing all those laws. Who would think legislatures would go out of their way to protect a white, affluent, vocal voter base? I don't think we're going to win any hearts or minds by saying we're a "minority" or we're a "protected class."

There are a lot of moving parts here. Protected by whom, from what, and under what circumstances? Frankly, you are all right, to a point, and all wrong to some extent. We could be here all night. The whole discussion seems pointless, IMHO. Time to get out in traffic and be traffic.

Pierce wrote:Wow, thanks for listing all those laws. Who would think legislatures would go out of their way to protect a white, affluent, vocal voter base?

Be careful. White affluent, vocal voter base women are protected class. Or even white affluent, vocal voter base christian (or whatever religion) men are protected class.

Time to get out in traffic and be traffic.

Well said, kind of gives me a bit of a John Forester frisson.

Wow, I thought I was being protected because, as it is said in many of the legislative documents, I am a "vulnerable road user." Thanks for the straw man. I'd expect this sort of treatment on the Tribune Review forums instead of on Bike Pgh.

@Pierce: I'm a proud, carnivorous white male, and in all the threads I've seen you post in on this board, I never thought we would ever agree on anything. Today, you changed my mind about that. +1 to your statements above I'm going to forgo my usual breakfast of eggs and sausage this morning just for you. (Though I'll probably balance that by making deer sausage this weekend.)

@Kordite, the difference is that we are willing to look at both sides of a complex issue here. We are willing to look at the opposing view. We are willing to play devil's advocate for the sake of argument rather than to troll or to share ignorance... personally, I see that as a good thing. Ultimately, I'm with Stu on this one... the discussion has turned pointless. Now to go eat some bacon and hop on my bike!

@Kordite: not sure why you are taking this so personally. "Protected class" is a specific legal term, that's all I was demonstrating with my post. In the context of "civil rights", "vulnerable road user" is not a "protected class." Clearly, vulnerable road user is a defined class within the statute of the "4-foot" law, but that is very different than being a "protected class." Words have meaning, and I think conflating these concepts weakens the argument. Of course cyclists have rights. But positioning themselves as an "oppressed minority" with "civil rights" that should be fought for alongside the struggles of blacks and gays is offensive and inappropriate. Please forgive the rant.

Yesterday, even though there was a protected bike lane, I rode outside of it, just like Rosa Parks. After my bike lane freedom-ride, I was buzzed by a 71B inbound in a different part of town (where there was no bike lane). I felt just like Harvey Milk, being shot down by Dan White in 1978. My soul remains restless at the thought that my attacker will never know true justice. Today, I explained to a coworker why cyclists shouldn't have to stop at stop signs. Despite their rolling eyes, I think the seed of change has been planted. I am Susan B. Anthony, championing my cause to the world.

Hey there Jay, although you may have found common ground in unexpected vegan places in your earlier post, your RosaParks-HarveyMilk-SusanB snark falls short of the general quality and tone usually seen.

I think our common ground is that we both cannot resist sarcasm

When a cyclist gets killed by a motorist and the police accept the motorist's version of events, don't even check whether the motorist was texting or talking to someone on a cellphone at the time of the accident -- and the story implies it was the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet -- it does remind me of, well, folks in other groups who were killed for being black or gay or whatever, and the police did nothing. Maybe that's grandiose or whatever, but you can't deny that there's a dead cyclist there without consequence. And when someone spews hate-filled speech about cyclists, yeah, it does remind me of hate-filled speech about minorities. It has the same tone, doesn't it? And people get hurt or killed as a result. That's similar, isn't it?

Hey HEY hey! Vanny, I save my best material for audiences that matter, just like Rodney Dangerfield always did. "My psychiatrist told me I was crazy. I said I want a second opinion. He says, okay, you're ugly, too!" "I could tell my parents hated me. My bath toys were a toaster and a radio." "My wife loves to have sex. Yeah, that's right, she always calls me right after." I hope his funny quips brightened your day as much as they did mine.

"not sure why you are taking this so personally." Being compared to neo-nazis kind of puts me off a bit. Having my arguments completely discounted because I happen to be a middle class while male puts me off a bit. Being treated as if I have to be a minority to talk about minorities at all puts me off. Knowing that if I were to bring up that I am, in fact, part of one of those "protected classes" my argument would be invalidated and dismissed because I don't "measure up" puts me off. And that I have a right to be on the road and there are those who would deny me that right through malice, ignorance or indifference is something I take a little personally. Especially when they say so to my face after almost having run me over.

@jonawebb: Similar? Sort of. But not the same. Yes, those are all bad things. But they are not all violations of "civil rights." Should you campaign for safer streets and motorist education about cyclists' rights and responsibilities? Of course. Should you do it "by any means necessary" and under the banner of an "oppressed minority"? No. You seem stuck trying to find a way to channel your frustration about the state of cycling safety in Pittsburgh, and I get that and I share your frustration. But it is hyperbolic to leap to "civil rights abuse" to try and make your case. In fact I think it hurts the cause. Much of our disagreement is semantic, but words (especially legal ones) have meaning - very specific meaning. Words also carry a lot of freight, and terms like "civil rights" and "oppressed minority" mean a great deal to many many people who likely would take offense to a bunch of cyclists who choose to ride (as opposed to people who were born into oppression, for instance) crying foul.

i CHOOSE to ride a bike. just like i CHOOSE to be covered in tattoos. while i will always stand up for my right to make those choices and demand that people respect them, even if they dont agree with them, i wont EVER try to claim that struggles i face entirely by CHOICE can ever approach the level of the struggles people have to face daily because of how they were born, be it race, gender, sexuality, etc. one is a result of your actions, the other is the result of your existence. back to the original question though, assuming "other" is on a spectrum, where DO you think the PG would draw the line and not post an attack on said other simply for click bait?

I think the point is that while people have a right to not like my choices, the second they decide that my life is somehow less important than another's due to my choices, it is no longer an issue of choice. I choose to share the road and ride a bike... I don't choose to be made a pancake because of someone else's warped reality. No, I'm not protected by the virtue of being a cyclist, I'm protected by the virtue of being a human being. The second someone decides that my life isn't important due to the later, I become a protected class. It doesn't take away from the protection of gender, or race, or anything else to say that we are protected as a class... legally speaking, because the intent of the law (in this case) is the same across the board, i.e. to protect life. I think the problem is that there are two different issues at work in this conversation. Motorists (or whatever) have a right to make fun of cyclists all they want (while they don't have the same right to make fun of someone due to race...). Some of us are talking about the act of making fun of another person while the rest of us are seeing it in terms of an act that could lead to death.

"legally speaking, because the intent of the law (in this case) is the same across the board, i.e. to protect life." Which law are you referring to here? Civil rights law or the "4-foot law"? The specific legal term "protected class" is relevant to the former, not the latter. For the sake of this discussion, can we try to separate the two concepts: legal and practical. Are we (theoretically) "protected" by the 4-foot law? Yes. Does that make us a "protected class" (in the context of the legal usage of that term, ie: civil rights)? No.

It was a general statement... nothing specific. Just throwing out a guess as to what is causing the disagreement. My personal point of view draws a line of acceptance between a letter to the editor saying "cyclists annoy me because..." and "I don't care if a cyclist is hit, they deserve it for the following reasons."

the thing is, "protected class" already has a very specific meaning. anyone who claims to be a "protected class" as a cyclist comes across sounding very foolish to anyone who is familiar with that meaning and its history. unless you are referring to one of the "classes" already considered "protected", do not use that term, or expect the conversation to devolve into a purposeless semantic back-and-forth, much as this one has.

also: apparently pg is not above publishing (and printing! with a big headline and a nice little black outline) letters excusing sexual misconduct in the military as unavoidable. boys will be boys, after all, and it's best to keep the ladies out of that. so there's your protected class.

on the other hand, there are currently two positive cycling-related stories in the "breaking news" section. so there's that.

Much of this would be moot if we simply doubled or tripled the number of cyclists on the road. Let's work on that.

Bike hater Samuel Hurst is to be taken seriously (see his comments in responses to this letter). He is the official GOP candidate for District 4 this November, running against Natalia Rudiak. I know him personally, have known him for well over 10 years. He is young and well spoken, but his words speak for themselves.

Well, then, I have some questions for Mr. Hurst. (runs over to the P-G to post)

Yes, there are plenty of comments that could use some "likes" over there. Here's mine: Mr. Hurst, here's hoping your ignorance comes back to haunt you on election day. I see you're another "small government" charlatan who is more than happy to call for unnecessary regulations on anything you don't personally agree with.

Here's mine. If this is an actual policy position, I think voters should know. If he's just sounding off and intends to do nothing about it if he actually wins office, likewise voters should know: Respectfully, are you the Samuel Hurst who is running for Pittsburgh City Council this fall? If so, as a city, state, and federal taxpayer who is concerned about expensive and ineffective government bureaucracy, I am worried about your proposal/stance on this. I understand that licensing and registration fall under state govt. purview, but local representatives often go on to hold state and federal office. So, I consider my local candidates' positions on state/federal matters to be relevant. I don't know if you've done any analysis related to your opinion on bicycle licensing and registration, but if you have, you are likely aware that many municipalities have proposed and ultimately rejected this approach because of the high costs in additional Dept. of Transportation expansion, infrastructure, court overcrowding, etc. Municipalities that already had bicycle licensing and registration have repealed them, for the same reasons. And licensing and registration does not solve the problem of bad and dangerous road behavior, as evidenced by the tens of thousands of people killed by licensed and registered drivers every year. Respectfully, I hope you as a candidate will look into this issue in more depth and reconsider your support of these proposals.

Stu, I'm glad you added the context, thank you.

Response to another one of his comments: Here's a scenario I thought of recently. Let's say there is an intersection with no traffic light. If a drunk driver with a suspended license fails to yield to a cyclist when making a left turn, hits the cyclist and drives off leaving him for dead, only stopping to remove the bicycle from the grill of his vehicle, why isn't the driver held responsible for his actions? Maybe we should worry about things that are already happening and causing people serious injury or death before putting too much thought into your ridiculous hypotheticals.

^Nice!

Sort of awesome like a train wreck, check these comments: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/politics-local/peduto-ravenstahl-meet-to-talk-challenges-of-pittsburghs-mayorship-692021/ The same fools, different topic but the same theme bubbles up: People who (ride bicycles/live in the suburbs) should have to pay more taxes like I do to be taken seriously If it weren't so perverse it would be amusing.

The most obvious flaw in that dumb argument is that no one knows what anyone else is paying in taxes... and they are too dumb and/or emotionally driven in their positions to stop and realize that. It seems a similar mentality is applied towards unions, teachers, etc. the whole idea that "teachers have three months off and that isn't fair." What's unfair about it? The only obvious unfairness is the perception that someone else is getting a better deal than you are, so let's be angry about it. It seems like such a childish argument to me. If we want to complain about unfair use of resources, why do home-owners gets free street side parking all over the place when those lanes could be converted to bike lanes? Not that I begrudge anyone who has street parking, per se, but it does become an issue when developers try to pack four units into a single plot along with a garage that is only large enough for a motorcycle or subcompact car at the most... I'm not sure if this is a problem in Pgh yet, but it was a huge problem in Seattle.

OTOH, we must admit that nobody is really going to be happy with us so long as we have that bike lobby. It's really kind of an unfair advantage. Nobody likes a sore winner.

Jack Abramoff, Scott Bricker... when will the lobbying stop!

There are tons of responses to Ms. Szymanski in today's P-G: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/letters/a-right-to-roadways-692126/ http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/letters/retool-thinking-692080/ http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/letters/drivers-damage-692068/

The Sam Hurst guy is saying dumb stuff on the other PG letter too I say we do some research and maybe have a protest against him if the other candidate is cool with it

@Pierce Natalia Rudiak is on Twitter so you could ask her, but she's kind of cool and certain to win so I suspect she'll advise against it. No point in giving him any publicity.

jonawebb wrote:@Pierce Natalia Rudiak is on Twitter so you could ask her, but she’s kind of cool and certain to win so I suspect she’ll advise against it. No point in giving him any publicity.

No harm in henceforth referring to him as "that guy who has nothing better to do than read and respond to comments on the internet." Maybe he should get a job or a hobby...

FWIW, he drives a taxi for a living. Since I know the guy personally, I will refrain from saying anything personal, but that's public info, and on-topic, and relevant, so I think it's safe to say it here.

@Drewbacca Well I don't want to self-incriminate and I have both...