Thanks Sarah for attending and covering the meeting.

I wanted to clarify that this is a group effort which came out conversations between Ted Buehler and myself and has quickly brought in a small cadre of hearty souls.

Come join us and please bring your project ideas. We are looking to support one another's projects.

How about all you bike riders donating your time to helping build bike trails, bike striping and whatever else you can help with. That is, if you are really interested in becoming bike-free.

ujfoyt:

But I don't want to become bike-free! I like my bike! Why would i do that?

Wait, did you mean, "car-free"?

Well, that I'm already doing, more or less successfully. But if you're suggesting I should contribute my time and effort to creating infrastructure, I *could* do that, but I figure between all the money I pay in taxes on my home, my business, my income, and gas and fees for my car, I've already made a pretty sizable contribution to the existing infrastructure. Infrastructure to which I do far less damage when I'm walking and biking than I do on the rare occasion I drive. So why the fuck should I be the one crawling around painting lines on roads? I've paid my way.

This "freeloading bicyclist" meme needs to die, quick.

Yes, I did mean car free. But you don't seem to understand that the majority (vast) of the populace doesn't ride bicycles. They drive cars, and trucks and motorcycles. To them, you bike riders come off as a minority wanting special favors. If the bicycle riders could, somehow, come down hard on the few bike riders that don't seem to think they don't have to abide by the rules of the road, maybe non-bike riders would feel some sympathy towards you. As an aside, go to www.wimp.com, look up todays date and look at the electric bike. Now, that is something I could ride. Getting back to the bike rider scofflaws, I think that when an officer of the law sees a bike rider, lets say, riding without lights after dark, or not riding on a bike path when there is one available, would stop the rider, issue a ticket and confiscate (or impound) the bike, maybe things would improve. Myself, I am not against bicycles, but they are not the panacea you bikers seem to think they are.

Neat!

@ujfoyt: "Myself, I am not against bicycles"

Could have fooled me. I mean, if I was to use the terms "another idiot from Vancouver" and "raise my taxes to pay for their bridge" and "smog spilling drivers," people might think that I had something against all the people that come into our state and steal our jobs. (Ohh, wait, I do.) Anyways, back to my point: when you start using terms like "bike rider scofflaws" you sound more like a bigot than someone having a reasonable discussion.

However, getting past that: I think when a police officer sees someone emitting deadly poisons into the air, they should issue them a ticket and impound their equipment too, and then maybe the number of people killed by air pollution related problems would go down. But maybe I'm just picky that way.

The goal of getting 25% of the population to bike commute seems absurd: this is one of the rainiest cities!

The bike activists are fanatics and city hall listens to them because it makes them look good. This bike hype is bad public policy IMO, though I am willing to be persuaded.

An elevated train system, now that might be worthwhile.

@Jamdox: Let me make you a table:
___________Rainfall______Bicycle Rate
Netherlands:_30 in________30%
Portland:____37 in________Target 25%
Tokyo:______60 in________25%

Based on the rainfall, we should be able to do around 28-29%. 25% is actually too low.

You elevated train system idea is intriguing though, we could put bikeways underneath them, and then people wouldn't get wet. Actually, we could just skip the trains entirely, and just build covered bikeways for a fraction of the cost. Cheaper still is something called rain gear, you should look it up sometime.

Actually, Matthew, I am not against bicycles. I think for some people thay are a good fit. However, I am not one of them. If you should happen to live close to where you work, a bicycle is a good way to get to work. However, for the vast majority of the populace, all a bicycle is is a plaything to ride on weekends or go mountain biking with. They just don't fit the majority of the peoples needs. And yes, I am against the CRC, as it stands today. I have stated before, and firmly believe, that there is nothing inherently wrong with the I-5 bridges, as they stand today. The traffic jams are caused by the poor design of I-5 through Portland. Until that is fixed, all the new bridges won't help much. Certainly not $4 billions worth. Also, I think most of the Clark County residents are against bringing light rail to Vancouver, as far as the way it is planned now. It seems that a better use of light rail would be to go out to the CC fairgrounds to a park-and-ride there. Bring light rail, or some other form of rapid transit, out to there from both sides of Portland, and that would relieve a lot of congestion, I think. You will notice, Matthew, that I have refrained from making any snide remarks about you, unlike your remaks in your post. Let's try to keep it on a non-personal level, OK?

@ujfoyt: I don't see where Matthew made anything personal. You just chose totake some generalized statements about drivers and thought they were about you. In the exact same way that you make generalized statements about bicyclists. Also, you really should stop with the straw-man arguments about bike lights and riding on bike paths. You are doing yourself an intellectual dishonesty with those.

I'd like to make it clear that I love and appreciate the work that the BTA has done for our community.We all look forward to working with them in the future for a collaborative effort.

ujfoyt:

"But you don't seem to understand that the majority (vast) of the populace doesn't ride bicycles."

My lack of understanding might have to do with the inaccuracy of the statement. According to portlandonline.com: "Over half of Portland residents own a bicycle and ride at least occasionally." And in general, if bike riding wasn't so ubiquitous, the phrase "just like riding a bike" wouldn't be quite such a common part of the vernacular, you know?

But I'm going to assume you meant that, beyond simply owning bikes and knowing how to ride them, most people don't use a bike as a primary means of transportation. True! But many more would get around by bike if they could.

"They drive cars, and trucks and motorcycles."

And ride bicycles. And buses, and trains. Personally, I do all the above, but I prefer to bicycle or walk. And a city poll has shown that something like 60% of the population would ride bicycles more if they could be made to feel less afraid of cars.

"To them, you bike riders come off as a minority wanting special favors."

I suppose, but that's pretty much how every minority comes off to every majority. It's the nature of the majority/minority dynamic, whether we're talking about race, politics, or anything else.

"If the bicycle riders could, somehow, come down hard on the few bike riders that don't seem to think they don't have to abide by the rules of the road, maybe non-bike riders would feel some sympathy towards you."

Right, the scofflaw cyclist, another meme that needs to be shelved.

So how about you law-abiding "car drivers" come down hard on the scofflaw drivers? Of which there are many. Of which I am one. You know how you hardly ever see a car stop behind a stop sign? Like if the way is clear, they just kinda almost-stop? I do that. And sometimes I drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit!

There was a great video made in Philly, in response to a proposed law that would fine bike riders even higher for blowing stops - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRfUh1Dzlw - I bet someone could do so something similar here in Portland. Ladd's Circle, maybe?

Regardless, isn't the notion of drivers coming down on each other kind of silly? Same goes for bike riders.

Then there's a whole other thing having to do with people perceiving dinky little bicycles as being more dangerous than mult-ton cars, which has more to do with our dopey psychology which makes us fear novel threats more than threats to which we've become accustom, but I can't find my supporting links for that. And haven't I typed enough already?

It is the City that wants the 25% ridership. But what they really want is that many fewer people driving cars. Because the overuse of those cars is wrecking all sorts of things- our lungs, neighborhoods, the freedom of children and elders, our fitness, and our very environment. Not to mention the selfish squandering of a finite resource... one our food industry is dependent on. Good luck when the food runs out.
It's easier to move people into DOing something, than trying to get them to stop doing something. If you've got a problem with that take it up with the people you elected to take care of things for you. That's all that's going on here... people are trying to look out for you, because you don't seem to be able to look past your own nose as to what's happening out there. There are multiple crises waiting to happen and the city is trying to fend them off. Stop taking it out on the people who are simply trying to get around safely with a less harmful vehicle.