Letters to the Editor
What You Say
Almost paradise
Philadelphia can become "Biketopia" when bicyclists have parity and equality with motorists on the streets of the city [Cover Story, Isaiah Thompson, June 4, 2009]. This relationship becomes an imperative, as more cyclists are on the streets and by numbers alone, the streets are not just for cars. The fast and easy way to increase the number of bicyclists and to quickly reach this goal of "Biketopia" is for the city to accelerate the process to institute public use bicycling — bike sharing. A comprehensive program of 5,000 bicycles dispersed among 450 bike sharing stations throughout the entire city would make it convenient for more and more Philadelphians to use bicycles for transportation. Biketopia here we come!
OK, I've managed to quell my anger for a minute. Do us a favor and delete the moral arrogance oozing from your cycling promotion. Did it ever occur to you that some cities simply don't lend themselves to extensive bike networks; that other cities do it without imposing on automobile drivers? If ideas are leaning toward areas prohibiting automobiles, how about, right now, designating areas prohibiting bikes. And is it right that someone investing $25,000 in a hybrid, paying $2000 for insurance, should have to drive 15 mph behind someone with a $100 bike? Oh, I forgot, this isn't about what's fair and right.
An article about increasing interest in biking with a beautiful cover featuring nekkid cyclists, and not a word about the World Naked Bike Ride? If increasing interest in cycling is the goal, someone will bring THAT wonderful event to the city.
[Ed. note: Good idea. Check out Editor's Letter.]
In last week's article on ROOT liqueur [Food, "Liquid History," Trey Popp, June 4], the ROOT, rum and lime juice cocktail mentioned in the 12th paragraph was inaccurately attributed to Nicholas Jarrett of APO. It originates with Paul Dellavigne of Southwark. City Paper apologizes for the error.
Also In This Week's Opinion Section
Thanks for enduring the "moral arrogance" of Isaiah Thompson's article "Biketopia" in in the 6/4/09 City Paper. It must have been tough to read my point that American voters can do what they want and my asking bikers to obey traffic laws. I'm glad I wasn't more arrogant--perhaps your anger would have been unquellable!
Your brief letter asks a lot of questions that I'd be hard pressed to answer so succinctly. Here’s my best:
1 Bicycles can be incorporated in any city that would rather have a healthier atmosphere, quieter neighborhoods, safer streets, more space for recreation and commerce, and less money spent on maintaining roads. Yes, it's harder in cities that were designed before cars were invented, but not impossible. I think education is key, and that with enough of it less change is required in the streets. Places like Boston or London with narrower streets might do better with shared roadways than dedicated bike lanes.
2 You can't be serious; bicycles are prohibited from many roadways that are reserved for automobile use. Of remaining roads, cars take up hugely more space; parking lanes, turn lanes, etc all unusable by bikes
3 Am I right that you think that because you spend more money on your chosen method of transportation you deserve more room on the road? All city taxpayers pay for Philly's streets, regardless of whether they own cars. So, in fact you are getting more than your share by that measure if you drive in the city. Feel happy as you drive around our great city that I, who have never owned a car, am paying for a portion of the road you use while using far less of it myself in terms of both space and wear and tear. And the cost of your car, it is soon to be subsidized by the taxpayer... it's a bad time to be complaining about your plight as a car owner in Philadelphia, a city with one of the lowest car-ownership rates in the country.
Finally, your point that it is "moral arrogance" to promote bike use over cars. Well, at this point you have to admit that it's not entirely unfounded that automobile use has been incredibly damaging to our planet. It's also well known that over 40,000 people will directly die because of cars this year in America. Is it arrogant to demand that people change their behavior to stop these tragedies? Perhaps so, but from my point of view bikes partly solve several big problems. Yes, I DO think that I'm right and that it's wrong to waste our planet and the future of our species for nothing more than the profit of an industry that's outlived its usefulness. I also think that it's right --required, really-- for any of us to promote what we think is good. You certainly are prepared to tell it how you see it--you think that it's fair for people who have been duped out of their money by car makers and insurance companies to have more rights than those who haven't, for instance, and you don't mind telling us. I don't feel contempt towards people who choose to drive but I certainly don't think they have a right to never be criticized for this destructive and frequently pointless behavior. When it comes to dishing out accusations of arrogance I think you should bear in mind that many of cyclists' interactions with drivers involve death threats and physical bullying. THAT is arrogance, much more than saying what you think in a newspaper article.
You mention hybrids, perhaps with the implication that they are more responsible cars to use, but I think that the future will bring to light that they are a bit of a fraud. I could be wrong, but, if you haven't heard this before, you have now. The environmental devastation involved in making batteries used in these cars and the huge amount of energy used in making each new car outweigh the better gas mileage.
Peace out.
I am originally from the Liberties, but I would like to add,if a story can be published about the fast transport in/out of town. the modern world is moving faster not slower. Bicycles are cool, but rollerblades are another choice.
Can you do a follow-up article n great bike-roller-blade supply shops? Thank you.