Fresno Famous

i know it's been a month, but saw this article and thought i'd throw in a quote, "Railing against bikes, in fact, became a great way to sell papers. A hundred years ago, newspapers ginned up scare stories about the threat that hapless women on bicycles posed to pedestrians. Today, old-school tabloids like the New York Post have found that the bicyclists-versus-everyone narrative still resonates. In Op-Eds with titles like “Bike-Lane Bloodbath,” bicycles are portrayed as weaponized toys, and isolated accidents are held up as proof that bicycles are an urban menace. Last week in San Francisco, a 23-year-old bicyclist was charged with misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter for striking and killing a pedestrian — a tragic incident, but one that occurred in a city where 800 pedestrians are hit by cars every year. Still, the story was front-page news, sparking an online uproar: “I’m sick of bicycles and their cocky, self-righteous riders,” one commenter wrote on the San Francisco Chronicle’s website. “Bicyclists believe that they are untouchable.”"

I am not surprised by Hostetler's article. On two occasions people who know that I have a website about Downtown Fresno have asked me to write about the bike lanes that take up the entire street. I have elected not to write that because I support bike lanes.

We need more people riding bikes not less. It is not just an increase in the number of people riding bikes that is important. It the kind of people who ride a bike that will have the largest affect.

There are basically two kinds of people riding bikes, the first kind is a person that would be walking if they were not riding a bike. The second is a person who could be driving but they elect to ride a bike.

It is the second group, those who chose to ride a bike instead of driving a car that must be converted.And it is this group that will be attracted to the safety of bike lanes. I support bike lanes.

Maybe this is a good thing, and will encourage more people to take interest in the environment and their health. I don't think it is fair to punish those who ride bikes as their main form of transportation by forcing us to ride in dangerous 4-lane roads with no thought of those who pedal. If you have been to a local bike shop lately, you will surely see how much steam the bicycling community is picking up due to the downturn of our economy.

Advantages of more people riding bikes:
1) Better for the environment
2) Save money on gas/ Car/ Car repair/ car insurance
3) Improved quality of life (life on a bike is much happier)
4) Exercise and transportation rolled into 1 :-)

Having worked closely with a lot of the people working on various aspects of the BMP, all I can say is what an ill informed, close minded, blankety blank.

The people behind it care very deeply for this community. They care about our quality of life: our health, our air quality, and our safety (road diets are cut down on pedestrian casualties, auto wrecks, and cyclists getting hit).

Lame

I have been a big fan of Hostetter in the past. His posts, especially those dealing with the government, have been very informative as additional background to major issues. Lately though he's started using a lot of loaded language. I'm not sure if it's an intentional move by his editor or what, but it's distracting for me. This one especially made me cringe some. And maybe that was the point, who knows?

i'll be honest, i don't care much for hostetler. i often find his pieces to be based on premises that he creates and runs with. he then builds more upon the initial created premise and presents it as if it were gospel.

for example, let's take an early statement from that article, 'You get the picture -- it's a very busy here. Lots of car traffic. Lots of shoppers. It's a good thing Fresno Street is four lanes."

wait, wait, wait. is it a good thing that fresno street is four lanes right there? how are we defining that "good thing?"

the piece mentions baines' repeated attempts to gather info from constituents, but doesn't tell us what was gathered. after months of stalling plans, there is finally a meeting scheduled. this is presented as a positive thing. were there other meetings that baines & hostetler aren't telling us about? did baines or hostettler check with the public works about road selection? if they did, you wouldn't know from the story.

next, we get hostettler's personal interaction with "more than a dozen people." how many is that, exactly? 13? 14? and do they represent the needs or will of fresno? and the detail that the only cyclist seen was a child, riding on the sidewalk demonstrates why we need bike lanes. sidewalks are for pedestrians. vehicles, including bicycles, belong in the road. bike lanes help establish safe places for cyclists. perhaps fresno would be more of a bike town if there were more bike lanes.

oh, and i love how "neutrally" he presents road diets. the mere term diets already is loaded, and then when mixed with terms like "less room." no one wants less of anything. but, that mentality is contradictory to safety because wider roads mean faster traffic, which usually means more accidents. a quick google search reveals tons of resources that show plenty of studies to back that up. perhaps fresno would be more of a bike town if cars were moving at a safer speed, and people didn't feel like their lives were in jeopardy by cycling.

it pisses me off that he uses a phrase like leafy davis. first of all, davis isn't whatever davis he's trying to get readers to buy into. his portrayal of davis as college students and professors whisking about on bicycles is lazy and inaccurate. does fresno have as many cyclists as davis? i doubt it, but maybe if we continue to make fresno a more bike friendly place it would.

is it "social engineering" to add bike lanes? sure. city planners are influencing behaviors by making cycling a more realistic option. and as you pointed out, it was just as much social engineering when planners put in wider roads, faster speed limits, allowed for unending sprawl, allowed the development of fashion fair, river park and so on. where are the social engineering claims there, george?