Letters to the Editor

What You Say

Stinkin' hippies

The argument they are making is that casinos "prey" on gamblers [Naked City, "Across Enemy Lines," Daniel Schwartz, June 11, 2009]? You could say that about anything — cigarettes, alcohol, even food. The reason the anti-casino movement has no legs is that people find it insulting that these self-important, '70s throwbacks are telling us what is good for us. I can make decisions for myself. The jobs and revenue generated by the casinos far outweigh the "social ills" that will arise. Trust me, the people who go overboard at a casino will go overboard on something else in the absence of a casino.

COOP is a fantastic group [Loose Canon, "Chickens are for Peeps," Bruce Schimmel, June 11, 2009]! The folks in the group are so warm and embracing. Their enthusiasm and knowledge they have so graciously shared has really taught us a lot about chickens. We're getting our first soon and can't wait.

In a letter published June 11, 2009, Len Tower writes, "Is it right that someone investing $25,000 in a hybrid, paying $2,000 for insurance, should have to drive 15 mph behind someone with a $100 bike?"

It would appear that Mr. Tower associates justice with money. It may be true that sometimes those who argue that more road space should be devoted to bicycles sometimes sound sanctimonious. That is the curse of those who are enthusiastic for what they believe. Some bicyclists might argue that bicycles, which emit no noxious fumes or don't pollute the environment, should have priority over a car.

However our individual rights, both political and as citizens who share our city, are vested in us as individuals and citizens. Our access to justice and our right to share the roadway should have nothing to do with how much money we have or how we get around.

Len Tower: Thanks for enduring the "moral arrogance" of Isaiah Thompson's article "Biketopia" in the June 4, 2009, 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., are 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 more than 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 think Len is right,
it is not about what is right and fair, it’s about common sense. Or, for those lacking common sense, it’s about avoiding what’s absurd. Unfortunately, Mr. Tower’s statements are even more absurd than what he claims to be objectionable about bike advocacy.

It’s absurd to blame bicycles for traffic; take a look around the next time you are stuck in traffic. Count the bikes. Then count the cars that have only one occupant in them. The pattern holds up whether you’re stuck on Chestnut Street at 5 p.m. or on the Schuylkill Expressway.

5 Day / 4 Night VIP Cancun Getaway at the Grand Coco Bay For 2 Adults & 2 Children + Maya Gods Tour | Two 60 Minute Massages (Choose Between Deep-Tissue & Swedish) and Two B12 Shots from The Lohad Center for Anti-Aging | Whiskey Beverage Stones | $19.99 for NEW Premium Take Home Teeth Whitening Treatment with LED light with Free Shipping ($50 Value) | Professional Grade MP3 Player Flat Iron from ISO Beauty (Shipping Included) | Edible Arrangements-$20 for $40 To Spend on Fresh-Fruit Bouquets and Chocolate-Covered Fruit | Vacation in Las Vegas, NV - 3.5 and 4 Star Hotels | Las Vegas, NV - 3.5 and 4 Star Hotels - 3 Days & 2 Nights - Friday or Saturday Check-in Only | Las Vegas, NV - 3.5 and 4 Star Hotels - 4 Days & 3 Nights - Sunday – Thursday Check-in Only | Steel Arc Stand & Polyester Hammock Bed Set (Free Shipping)

HALF OFF DEPOT

Why live life at full price?

It’s absurd to cry foul and demand bike-free zones as soon as someone proposes car-free zones. There are plenty of bike-free zones already: the millions of miles of the federal highway system. If I were part of the liberal conspiracy advocating for universal bike access, I should be lobbying for bike lanes on I-95, right? Nope, because that would be absurd. And similarly, single-occupant automobiles clogging the downtown streets and slowing down bus traffic, office deliveries, and pedestrians and bikes is absurd. It is absurd to demand that price tags should determine access. I pay taxes for upkeep of the federal highways and the local streets. Why can’t I choose to drive a bike on my public street instead of a car? And when I want to, I sometimes choose to use my car. That’s America for you! You get to choose want you want to do!

Common sense says that bicyclists should not ride without a helmet, and drivers should buckle their seatbelts. Drivers should signal their intentions when on the road, and so should bicyclists and pedestrians. And if it’s nighttime, turn on your damn lights. But it’s your choice to be a responsible citizen or not.

It’s absurd to think that someone riding a $100 bike is somehow sabotaging your pursuit of happiness. If you drive a car, you can learn to safely pass a bicyclist, without being antagonistic.

It’s absurd that I find motorist behavior in certain parts of the city dangerous enough that I usually choose to drive instead of bike, even though the distance is well within biking range. It’s absurd to assume that the debate is whether bicyclists or motorists or pedestrians are right. I am all three depending on the situation. Common sense says that you tailgating someone or laying on the horn or yelling out the window is a provocation, regardless of your target being on foot, on bike, or in another car. Again, it’s America, the choice is yours! But if you choose to be a jerk in a car or a jerk on a bike or a jaywalking jerk, quit acting surprised when someone acts like a jerk in return. If you have an excess of energy and really need to pick a fight, pick on another motorist, preferably the people who benefit from curbside parking. Common sense says that if you want more road to drive on, the easiest solution is to eliminate the amenity and gain a whole lane on almost every major street in Philadelphia. But then again, common sense would predict that single-occupant cars will just turn the newly available lane into a traffic nightmare anyway. I wager that most motorists would not sacrifice their curbside parking anyway, because Len is correct: It’s not about what is right or fair. It’s about what’s most selfishly convenient.