Car Ownership

[Beery1]

The law says bikes belong on the road, in the right hand lane, "as far to the right as practicable". Other, less intelligent states may vary from this rule.

The truly bicycle friendly states and districts allow bicyclists the exact same rights as motorists - these states and districts are Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Washington DC. Every other state has the discriminatory 'far to the right' laws you mention, which many cycling advocates are attempting to overturn. The problem is not really that 'as far to the right as practicable' is a bad law. The problem is that it keeps getting interpreted incorrectly by police, who often put cyclists in jail for fictitious laws such as "riding on the roadway" and "not cycling as far right as possible" because they do not understand the meaning of the word 'practicable', nor do they understand what is actually practicable for a cyclist in terms of how far right it's safe to operate. In many cases, the way it's interpreted in practice by law enforcement officers actually criminalizes cyclists unless they follow risky behaviors such as riding in the gutter or on a debris-strewn shoulder, or even criminal behaviors such as riding on the sidewalk.

These 'FTR' laws as they are called, cost states thousands in court fees and waste justice system time on cases that (unless the judge is singularly incompetent) usually end up being thrown out. Occasionally, they end up resulting in police being charged with assault, as happened in Ohio a couple of years back, when a police officer tased a cyclist who insisted on contravening the Ohio statute that makes it illegal to ride a bicycle on the road. There is, of course, no such statute. The man who was tased won a settlement in a civil suit that claimed the police used excessive force and were guilty of negligence, assault and battery, false arrest and false imprisonment. You can see the full story (it's a classic) here:
http://www.bicycling.com/news/advocacy/ ... -says-stop
and here:
http://www.ohiobikelawyer.com/uncategor ... s-lawsuit/

The worst state in the Union is probably Alaska, which effectively legalizes road rage and in which cyclists can be cited for not moving out of a honking driver's way. I'm just glad I don't live there.

[AgentR11]

Local DA rides.
It would probably be an officer's worse day ever if they tried that stuff here.

Honestly, our biking public here could use a bit of policing, as there's some *really* bad habits going on that just get overlooked. Wrong way riding, at night without lights/reflectors, riding in the suicide/left-turn lane... but what can ya say.

[Loki]

This is why the way motorists view the roads is so interesting - they have a set of beliefs about road rights and ownership which do not match the reality at all. If anyone 'owns' the road, it is ALL people, not merely motorists.

The reality is that the 20th-century American road system was designed and built almost exclusively for cars and trucks. That bicyclists lobbied for paved roads a century ago is irrelevant, the current road system was built for cars.

Not saying some roads shouldn't be made more bike friendly, but there's no way in hell the busy rural 2-lane state highway near where I live is going to see bicyclists riding down the middle of the lane, unless they're actively attempting suicide. The road was designed for speeds in excess of 60 mph, so that's how fast people drive, even though the speed limit is 55. It's filled with logging trucks and other semis, RVs, cavalcades of jacked up F350s hauling trailers full of ATVs, etc. There's a relatively wide shoulder for bicyclists, but I wouldn't ride on it unless I had to---it'd be pure hell during Oregon's brief rainy season (Oct to Apr). I see maybe one or two bicyclists a month attempting the trip to the coast, brave souls (or fools). I don't even like riding my motorcycle on it.

You're advocating a pretty extreme version of “bicyclists' rights,” which even in Portland (bike nazi central) is not very common. There must be a more reasonable means of accomodating bicyclists than having them take up entire lanes, otherwise there will be no accomodation. When I commuted on bike in Portland I would have been happy just to see bike lanes not peter out for no good reason, forcing me to ride in the car lane, which felt far more dangerous. And riding in the car lane didn't prevent me from being side swiped by an elderly driver who “didn't see me” in a residential area just a few months after I started bike commuting. I disagree with your assessment of the alleged safety of bicycling; three people in my small office (including myself) were hit by vehicles in the space of a year (though two of those were apparently road rage).

Regardless, bicycles will continue to be limited primarily to urban areas. Almost nobody rides a bicycle in my corner of rural Oregon, pretty much just meth heads collecting cans and spandexed types from the city riding through. Even in Portland bicyclists are a small minority.

Like it or not, peak oil or not, cars are here to stay. Which brings us full circle to the OP.

[SeaGypsy]

Cars are here to stay but for how long nobody knows. The chances of 1000kg lumps of metal zooming around with one occupant are numbered; I don't know the number, but it's well short of 'forever'.

[Beery1]

Like it or not, peak oil or not, cars are here to stay.

That sounds suspiciously like 'famous last words'. Clearly, you love your car, and if cars ran on love, you might be right. But they don't.

As SeaGypsy says, given the realities of peak oil, I don't see a future in which people drive themselves around inside 3,000lb chunks of steel. Today's cars developed from Henry Ford's Quadricycle, which was a four-wheeled bike (that's what quadricycle means) with a motor attached to it. If cars survive, they will look more like Ford's Quadricycle than today's cars. You can't drag around 3,000 extra pounds of weight without cheap, easy-to-extract oil.

Bicycles are here to stay. If cars survive, they will have to turn back into bicycles (or at least quadricycles) again. And THAT brings us full circle to the OP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Quadricycle
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/06/homemade-solar/

As for your assertion that my post reflects some kind of 'Portlandia' fantasy, well, if history and current law is fantasy to you, then you are the one whose worldview is questionable.

[Maddog78]

5 bucks a gallon, big deal. We've been paying that in Canada for a couple of years already.
Maybe it if it hits 10 I'll drive a bit less. Maybe.

I drive a Porsche 911.
Just bought my daughter a 2012 Hyundai Accent and my son a 2011 Ford Ranger 4 X 4.
They both are in uni. and still living at home so we are going to sell my daughter's old car, a 1998 Corolla.
My wife uses one of their vehicles, whichever one is at home at the time.

Also have several motorcycles.
Just bought a 2011 Ducati Diavel last summer. Great bike. It's wicked fast and such a fun ride.
Going to sell my 2003 Harley VROD this spring.
Rebuilding my good ol' 1978 Harley Shovelhead chopper right now. It will be good to go in about 2 weeks.
Two Honda dirt bikes, too.

Should probably add though that with my job I don't commute locally so it ends up really not not driving many miles a year.
For example my car has only accumulated 7000 miles in 3.5 years.
Rode my VROD more than that in the same time.


EDIT: Better?

[vision-master]

Lot's of eyes....... lol

[vtsnowedin]

With $4.05 gas the strong prediction for summer and $5.50 a real possibility things will be changing down at the local Honest Johns car lot. It should be a good year for Toyota Corollas and Nissan Leafs but I doubt even this can save the Chevy Volt. I bet the guys down at the Lincoln Navigator line are pretty glum.
Anybody thinking of trading in a gas guzzler for a economy ride due to the price spike?

[pstarr]

MD20/20 is back with his usual stick. poking it in the eyes of the enviros.

Dude, noticed you still don't own a NG Monster Truck? Weren't these new exciting vehicles supposed to absorb all that "inexpensive" "inexhaustible" shale fart you've been passing?

[Maddog78]

This massive supply of cheap n. gas has really got you flustered, eh pstarr?
Why don't you dig up some of your old posts telling us all again how it could never happen?
Something about needing 8 bucks per, rapidly depleting wells, but Berman said etc. etc.

[vision-master]

MD 20/20..... I likey taht 1. lsol

[Beery1]

5 bucks a gallon, big deal. We've been paying that in Canada for a couple of years already.
Maybe it if it hits 10 I'll drive a bit less. Maybe.

I was just saying, on another blog this morning, that there's no way that people are going to change their habits with gasoline even at $10/gallon. Maybe if it gets more expensive than that - maybe. People in the West are fat lazy slobs who are addicted to oil like they are to Big Macs and Coca Cola. Giving up on driving would mean they'd have to drag their wobbly lard-asses to McDonalds and Starbucks on foot, or (Heaven forbid) on a bicycle! And God knows, they might jiggle some of that cholesterol loose and they might have a fricken heart attack or a stroke. Hey, now there's an idea to reduce the population quickly.

People will only dump their cars when they have no money left to fill the gas tank anymore. Sadly, that doesn't happen at $5/gallon or at $10/gallon or even at $15/gallon.

[AgentR11]

If you want a feel for how things are playing out, just casually note to yourself each time you drive up to a pump to fill up, and see that the last person there stopped to put a measly 2-3 gallons of fuel in their car, because that is all they could afford.

I've been noting this much more often than I used to.

Break point might really be a lot lower than many of us are thinking. $10/gal might only annoy me or you; but it will crush many.

[Loki]

People will only dump their cars when they have no money left to fill the gas tank anymore. Sadly, that doesn't happen at $5/gallon or at $10/gallon or even at $15/gallon.

Wait, first you accuse me of “loving my car” and being deluded about cars being around for the rest of our lives, then you write this. Make up your mind dude, I don't think you've really thought this out very well.

Your statement above is correct, though, peak oil does not mean the end of oil, it just means the end of cheap oil. People will car pool, drive less, get more fuel efficient vehicles, etc., but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for America to become China circa 1970 with bicycles as far as the eye can see. We're far more likely to see fleets of mopeds/motorcycles than fleets of bicycles.

I've traveled in Third World countries and saw no shortage of motorized vehicles. Don't recall seeing many bicycles.

Honestly, I think bicycle activists are one of the main impediments to wider acceptance of bicycles as a legitimate mode of transportation. At least that's my experience in Portland. Even when I commuted by bike I didn't want to be considered a “bicyclist,” which in Portland is far too often a “bike nazi.”

[dolanbaker]

In many places it won't be the price of petrol that drives people out of their cars, it will be the police when they catch the poorer motorists who have been unable to afford the tax and insurance.

In most European countries if you're caught driving without insurance, they take the car until you buy some!
More often than not the car is unclaimed, sometimes the driver is caught driving another uninsured banger, but more often simply gives up owning a car.

[pstarr]

This massive supply of cheap n. gas has really got you flustered, eh pstarr?
Why don't you dig up some of your old posts telling us all again how it could never happen?
Something about needing 8 bucks per, rapidly depleting wells, but Berman said etc. etc.

i'm still right. you're still wrong.

[Maddog78]

You must be an "expert" like the "expert" in this thread.

the-natural-gas-price-watch-thread-t43530-315.html#p1105953

[Beery1]

If you want a feel for how things are playing out, just casually note to yourself each time you drive up to a pump to fill up, and see that the last person there stopped to put a measly 2-3 gallons of fuel in their car, because that is all they could afford...

I never see that situation because, since I'm car-free, I don't have a car to fill up. My wife does, but she usually doesn't fill up during the few times we're in the car together. My exposure to an oil shock only comes in the form of a rise in food prices, and unlike petrol, people can't do with less food or eat less - they just buy cheaper brands and shop at cheaper stores.

I do concede that many less affluent people will be filling up and driving much less. But I think it will take a lot for me to see that reflected on my commute, because at peak times, roads just generally look busy or bumper-to-bumper, while at quiet times they just generally look empty. I think for me to really notice a difference, car use has to drop by something crazy like 50% - that way, roads would be noticeably emptier even at busy times.

[pstarr]

You must be an "expert" like the "expert" in this thread.

the-natural-gas-price-watch-thread-t43530-315.html#p1105953

you are a troll. plain and simple. you know that NG has nothing to do with peak-oil mitigation, that in spite of record high oil/gas/diesel prices there will be no move to any kind of alternative transportation, including NG-ICE conversion. We've been over the reasons a dozen times, with your buddy Shorty. I don't feel like rehashing forum history, or doing your job of personal education. try it by yourself sometime. it's better than hot,sexy 4x4's.

[Maddog78]

It seems in your mind your overstating any claims I would have made but.....

Yeah, OK, I won't go into forum history either.
It would be pretty embarrassing for you and at least 3 others I can think of.
Although I guess one of them no longer posts here. Kind of miss good ol' crazy jim.