Progressive urban transportation, another romantic notion . . .

One of our own local dipsh*ts politicians is heroically pushing a plan to provide bicycles to gummint employees on capitol hill. This article provides all of the facts, noting with approval that other local governments, here and more significantly in Europe, are also charmed with the idea of providing urban bicycling programs where bicycles are left for the convenience of those who otherwise would be bikeless pedestrians or SUV drivers.

Well, I wonder, should government sponsor bicycles?

I have nothing against bicyclists.

Ok, that’s a lie; of course I do. Too many of them ignore normal traffic patterns and rules and put themselves in danger, expecting the vehicle drivers to avoid squashing them. Then they dodge onto sidewalks to avoid traffic controls and put pedestrians at risk. Oh, and they smell bad in the summer.

But assuming that a bicyclist is not puffed up with a narcissistic sense of righteous invulnerability and truly shares the road, I suppose it is a valid urban transportation method, and I’m comfortable sharing the road with them, back. I have relatives I care for who ride bicycles and I don’t hold it against them. I just don’t think that the vision of a flock of bicyclists with their malformed butts hiked up over their ears peddling over city streets is quite as picturesque as some folks do. But I can live with it and I can make room for them and will.

I just hate it when a skinny, bearded bicyclist in I’m-so-special Spandex is running a red light crossing the intersection just as I’m going through the intersection on a green light, so I have to slide to a stop under two-footed heavy braking to avoid hitting him. And then he calls me an asshole as he peddles on. I wonder. Do cops ever arrest bicyclists for reckless operation?

So that’s the sum total of my beef with the bicyclists. Politicians, however, are quite another matter.

I just don’t see how government should involve itself with providing bicycles for the use of people who likely could afford to buy their own. And would buy their own if they really wanted to do some cycling all that much. No, I think ol’ Earl is trying to use public funds and authority to peddle his own notions of righteous conduct appropriate to his romantic ideal of urbanites. You know. We need the moral authority of bow-tied government nebbishes to oh so maternally nudge us into a more European sort of style.

It just occurs to me that maybe some unnamed city (cough Portland!) must have a bunch of money left over after repairing all the roads and bridges, and figures bicycles would be a pretty neat, progressive sort of thing to do with our money. Yeah, I’m pretty sure they going to repair the roads and bridges pretty soon now. Like maybe any day, or maybe sometime in the next year. Or two. Right.

Oh, and as to government evangelism of the bike, didn’t Portland once own a whole bunch of yellow bicycles at one time? Or is that something we’ve all agreed not to speak of, so as to avoid the renewal of laughter from those who said the yellow bike program was a stupid idea from the beginning?

And by the way. Have you noticed that families pretty much travel together in cars and vans all the time, and if they can’t, they certainly aspire to do so? I guess that’s why Portland has to have light rail and more light rail to come. And bicycle paths and bike lanes on the streets. And a tram.

It’s probably just a matter of time before it occurs to our city politicians to start plowing up the streets to put in European-type canals. Sigh.