10-30-2015, 07:47 AM
I apologize for offending.
I get frustrated that we just saw a national election turn and (thankfully) defeat those who would spread non-accommodation, and couldn't help but think of all the ways they could further stigmatize minorities.
To support minorities, to support choice, we have to allow that choice to be made. In supporting cycling, we have to have safe, convenient ways to cycle. Count the lane-km, current replacement value, and annual spending on roads vs cycling infrastructure, and you'll find that it's still vastly in the favour of cars, whether the ratio is 88:1 or not. Not to mention that in order to bring balance to a situation where one side has long since been ignored, it *has* to be given disproportionate attention until balance is achieved, or else it never can be.
For some, supporting their choice to drive rather than use other modes of transportation is to make sure that no other choice is supported. That's how my father views his metropolis, believes that bike infrastructure wasn't there when the city started, and should only ever be put into greenfield development (i.e. never connected to anything, lest it oppress drivers. No, I'm not kidding). It's why my employer pays for parking lot expansion onsite, and buys offsite parking from multiple neighbours to accommodate drivers, but it was a fight against all levels of management to put in a single bike rack into an unusable corner to allow for up to six cyclists to no longer have their bikes stolen from trees or blocking hallways.
I get frustrated that we just saw a national election turn and (thankfully) defeat those who would spread non-accommodation, and couldn't help but think of all the ways they could further stigmatize minorities.
To support minorities, to support choice, we have to allow that choice to be made. In supporting cycling, we have to have safe, convenient ways to cycle. Count the lane-km, current replacement value, and annual spending on roads vs cycling infrastructure, and you'll find that it's still vastly in the favour of cars, whether the ratio is 88:1 or not. Not to mention that in order to bring balance to a situation where one side has long since been ignored, it *has* to be given disproportionate attention until balance is achieved, or else it never can be.
For some, supporting their choice to drive rather than use other modes of transportation is to make sure that no other choice is supported. That's how my father views his metropolis, believes that bike infrastructure wasn't there when the city started, and should only ever be put into greenfield development (i.e. never connected to anything, lest it oppress drivers. No, I'm not kidding). It's why my employer pays for parking lot expansion onsite, and buys offsite parking from multiple neighbours to accommodate drivers, but it was a fight against all levels of management to put in a single bike rack into an unusable corner to allow for up to six cyclists to no longer have their bikes stolen from trees or blocking hallways.