Somewhere in Euro land, Germany in fact, they are making a cardboard bike helmet:
Well not totally cardboard but cardboard is the straw that stirs the drink, as it were. Oddly enough, at least when I lived there in last century, Germans and most Euros don't require helmets just brakes and the following of traffic regulations.
Showing posts with label bikes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bikes. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Two Ways of Thinking About Streets
Last night a motorist try to run me down. A couple of preliminary points. I use quite a few lights, to front lights, which is all that matters here as the motorist could only "see" the front of the bike. I was in a real neighborhood; one in which people jog, walk dogs, wander to the grocery, and related etc. It was dusk and not pitch black and, because of the multiuser nature of the streets in this quiet area, motorist ought, but don't, drive the speed limit and pay attention.
I was coming up a hill riding toward the center of the lane, when I saw a car backing out of a street without paying attention, by which I mean the motorist clearly hadn't seen me. I rang the bell and slammed on the breaks. Well after the point at which the motorist would have knocked me down had I not been riding responsibly. The dolt saw me.
Like most motorists, the dolt seemed to think that saying "I didn't see you" was exculpatory instead of a condemnation of the dolt's inattentiveness. I said "I could tell." The dolt responded "I was trying to be nice." To which I asked "How? By trying to hit me."
From my perspective some streets and roads are multiuser from the motorist's perspective all streets are belong to them, as they kids would say. This attitude, as Peter Norton points out, this attitude is the result of going on 100 years of lobbying, opinion buying, and other corrupt practices by the automobile industry. The dolt's implicit claim of motorists' ownership of the roads and idea that I need to get out of motorists' way isn't a natural condition but rather a sing and seal of how money shapes cultural assumptions.
I was coming up a hill riding toward the center of the lane, when I saw a car backing out of a street without paying attention, by which I mean the motorist clearly hadn't seen me. I rang the bell and slammed on the breaks. Well after the point at which the motorist would have knocked me down had I not been riding responsibly. The dolt saw me.
Like most motorists, the dolt seemed to think that saying "I didn't see you" was exculpatory instead of a condemnation of the dolt's inattentiveness. I said "I could tell." The dolt responded "I was trying to be nice." To which I asked "How? By trying to hit me."
From my perspective some streets and roads are multiuser from the motorist's perspective all streets are belong to them, as they kids would say. This attitude, as Peter Norton points out, this attitude is the result of going on 100 years of lobbying, opinion buying, and other corrupt practices by the automobile industry. The dolt's implicit claim of motorists' ownership of the roads and idea that I need to get out of motorists' way isn't a natural condition but rather a sing and seal of how money shapes cultural assumptions.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Whose Streets?
I just finished Peter Norton's Fighting Traffic. It is a really fine book that works through in great detail how the Automobile industry and its supporters managed to transform streets for essential public spaces in to expensive and always more crowded preserves of the motorized vehicle.
What struck me about his analysis and narrative was the extent to which the Automobile industry's strategy is the prevalent model for groups dedicated to destroying the vestiges of the welfare state in these United States and abroad. In general the idea is to buy off expert opinion and use leverage with the state to trample popular desires and, as result, create a new culture that is immeasurably less humane than what went before.
It is, however, possible to move back toward a more humanistic vision of your cities, towns, and burgs. As result of the Automobile industry's purchase of the opinions of key traffic engineers in the 1920s in the US streets are designed to maximize "floor space" for automobiles. This take over by private enterprise of the creation and maintenance of a public good without having to pay for meant and means that each year the American tax payer subsidizes the Automobile industry, trucking, and etc. Getting back to a livable city means returning to the older understanding of streets as multiuse public spheres in which cars, as they are least efficient and most dangerous modes of transportation, are relegated to the lower rungs in the ladder of importance.
One way to accomplish this it to insist, as the Dutch do, that streets are "area[s] where people want or need to be." This formulation reminds us the purpose of cities, towns, streets, and, more generally, humanity in a social situation isn't profit and industrial expansion.
In other words, the neoliberals are wrong about everything because they have both bought into and promote the economization of all modes of discourse. Bastards.
What struck me about his analysis and narrative was the extent to which the Automobile industry's strategy is the prevalent model for groups dedicated to destroying the vestiges of the welfare state in these United States and abroad. In general the idea is to buy off expert opinion and use leverage with the state to trample popular desires and, as result, create a new culture that is immeasurably less humane than what went before.
It is, however, possible to move back toward a more humanistic vision of your cities, towns, and burgs. As result of the Automobile industry's purchase of the opinions of key traffic engineers in the 1920s in the US streets are designed to maximize "floor space" for automobiles. This take over by private enterprise of the creation and maintenance of a public good without having to pay for meant and means that each year the American tax payer subsidizes the Automobile industry, trucking, and etc. Getting back to a livable city means returning to the older understanding of streets as multiuse public spheres in which cars, as they are least efficient and most dangerous modes of transportation, are relegated to the lower rungs in the ladder of importance.
One way to accomplish this it to insist, as the Dutch do, that streets are "area[s] where people want or need to be." This formulation reminds us the purpose of cities, towns, streets, and, more generally, humanity in a social situation isn't profit and industrial expansion.
In other words, the neoliberals are wrong about everything because they have both bought into and promote the economization of all modes of discourse. Bastards.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Gear
Often I will buy a thing and then wonder why on earth I bought the thing. This thing
The picture is a bit blurry, but then it is Friday. It's a lightweight version of the Leatherman. I know that this was good idea because the two times I didn't bring it with on a ride I needed it because, no not the cork screw, but rather the
That is right it weighs slightly more than a Swiss Army knife but it has a pliers, albeit a blurry one. I got mine for half of the normal price and rarely have I been so happy with a thing. It rivals some tires I could mention.
The picture is a bit blurry, but then it is Friday. It's a lightweight version of the Leatherman. I know that this was good idea because the two times I didn't bring it with on a ride I needed it because, no not the cork screw, but rather the
That is right it weighs slightly more than a Swiss Army knife but it has a pliers, albeit a blurry one. I got mine for half of the normal price and rarely have I been so happy with a thing. It rivals some tires I could mention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)