A new kind of bike lane

I got excited when my friend Bill reposted this online. Apparently Portland is trying out a new way to do bike lanes: the cycle track!

Am I the only one slapping my forehead? I can't find anything wrong with this from a biker's point of view; Because of the buffer zone, the chance of getting doored is greatly reduced, and best of all, the danger of being crushed by a foolish machine is greatly reduced, using their own hideous inert mass as a wall of protection.

It's good for vehicles too; gone will be the terrible, irritating and dangerous game of Leapfrog between buses and bikes. parallel parking and U-turns may be considerably easier with a little wiggle room on the right.

I'm more than a little impressed with the fact that it actually has been implemented, albeit in a preliminary fashion. It's a test. And with any change like this there is political risk, which is probably why good ideas don't bubble up to the top as often as they do. I would love to see something like this in Oakland, at least.

I got curious about where this idea came from. So I called up Old Man Google. He already knew what I was going to say. Europe, of course. Here's the study of European bikeways undertaken by the city of Portland which recommended this idea. Pretty cool.

So, Portlanders. Listen to me. Make noise about this. Use it. Talk about it. Blog about your reaction to it. The more noise it gets, the more notoriety it attracts, the better chance other cities have at convincing their leaders to try something different.

And to those of us who ride our bikes every day in the Bay Area, go to a planning board meeting. Get to know those people, because they will be the ones who have to approve this. Unless you know the mayor. Do you? Well then. Next time you're hanging out with the mayor, bring this plan up. Real casual-like. Ask them what they think about it. And whether they are daring enough to try it out.

Because I would simply love to see this in Oakland; on San Pablo Avenue, Lakeshore Boulevard, West Grand Avenue, Telegraph Avenue and a few others which, in the study's words,

have fewer cross-streets and longer blocks, which often allow higher vehicle speeds. Cycle tracks should only be constructed along corridors with adequate right-of-way. Sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities should not be narrowed as pedestrians will likely walk on the cycle track if sidewalk capacity is reduced.

.

There are a few wrinkles to work out. Truckers will hate it, street sweepers couldn't get to the bike lane, and there might be some issues at bus stops. Homeless people with shopping carts will be worse off, probably. But these are not insurmountable issues.

But the study noted that lanes like this, when properly implemented, can increase ridership 18-20 percent. At least in Denmark. Interestingly enough, a 2006 survey of cyclists noted that females were twice as likely, to avoid biking in dangerous conditions, and had a much stronger preference for off-road bike lanes. My guess is that a significant portion of the increased ridership a cycle track brings will be ladies. Which is great.

Anyhow, this seems like a splendid idea. I look forward to seeing how this Portland experiment turns out. In the meantime, let us discuss ways to make things like this happen in our own towns.

nice IPO, I mean engagement ring

So recently Corbett brought to my attention this lil gem of an article about the gay marriage debate, in which Arizona politician J.D. Hayworth theorized about the implications of the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to allow gay marriage, suggesting that the language in the decision opened the door to all sorts of unorthodox unions:

"Now how dangerous is that?" asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona's GOP Senate primary.

"I mean, I don't mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point," he continued. "I guess that would mean if you really had affectionfor your horse, I guess you could marry your horse."

The former Republican congressman then insisted that the "only way" to prevent men from marrying horses is to create a federal marriage amendment. Hayworth noted that he supports such an amendment.

Blahblahblah. Typical ridiculous statement from right-wing culture warrior. But you know what? He's right. Even if he got the actual facts wrong:

In fact, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage defined marriage as "the voluntary union of two persons [emphasis mine] as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

"Persons", huh? Well, that excludes horses and the people who love them. We'll liberate you one day, equiphiles.

But you know who are "persons"? Corporations, that's who. Yes.

Under the precedent of an 1886 court decision, corporations are recognized as persons with 14th Amendment protections. More recently, the Supreme Court took this further, giving them virtually unlimited ability to fund political campaigns, which should leapfrog us right over fascism in the very near future. Essentially, corporations have become a class of disembodied meta-humans, with far more rights and powers than any individual could possess. It's like if a race of ghostly Voltrons took over Earth.

But my point is, anyone can start a corporation, right? Couldn't you, gay man, start a corporation and let your lover marry it? And what if I married a corporation, then got a divorce? Do I get half the company? What perfume must I wear to get Monsanto's attention?