Chicago - The Most Bike Friendly City In The U.S. (taxes, live)

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

You're ignoring my previous point regarding your refusal to support bike infrastructure that would increase safety for both drivers and cyclists (and pedestrians) as well as motivate both cyclists and drivers to obey speed and traffic laws.... lets face it...people who don't support bike infrastructure do it because they want to drive as fast as they possibly can and not have to deal with pedestrians, bikes, or anything else that impedes their traffic flow (though they fail to see the big picture that more bikes on the road = less cars = less traffic). Stop pretending this issue is about cyclists not obeying laws when you don't support infrastructure that would induce both drivers and cyclists to do just that.

Show me where I said I don't support it. You just assumed. I ignored everything else because I don't have a problem with sharing the roads with bicycles. My problem is them acting as if the laws don't apply to them. Everyone who gets upset from such statements because they break the laws themselves. End of story.

And just to make this clear, I'm perfectly fine with sharing the roads with bicycles. Bicycles should have registration fees similar to cars if they want to use public roads. Someone has to foot the bill for all these infrastructure changes that you're advocating for. And by similar, I don't mean cost. Some percentage would suffice. Fair enough?

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

Show me where I said I don't support it. You just assumed. I ignored everything else because I don't have a problem with sharing the roads with bicycles. My problem is them acting as if the laws don't apply to them. Everyone who gets upset from such statements because they break the laws themselves. End of story.

And just to make this clear, I'm perfectly fine with sharing the roads with bicycles. Bicycles should have registration fees similar to cars if they want to use public roads. Someone has to foot the bill for all these infrastructure changes that you're advocating for. And by similar, I don't mean cost. Some percentage would suffice. Fair enough?

You are assuming that every cyclist decides to break laws. That is like me saying every single driver texts at all times while driving. You do realize that cyclists pay taxes? We ARE footing the bill for these infrastructure changes, that have historically been completely car centric. You know what sucks? When you live in the city and pay taxes for car-centric infrastructure that benefits suburbanites who don't pay city taxes and just drive into town for 8 hours a day. Then they proceed to complain about bike infrastructure thats paid for by CITY RESIDENT tax money. The cyclists who live in the city pay taxes for infrastructure, and finally some of that tax money is being used for infrastructure that benefits them.

[xsboost]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

You are assuming that every cyclist decides to break laws.

No I did not:

Originally Posted by xsboost

The only benefit I have working in the suburbs now is that I don't have to deal with idiots on bicycles thinking that they don't have to follow the rules of the road.

See? Two types at a minimum. Those that follow the rules and those that don't.

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

You do realize that cyclists pay taxes?

Not the same amount. What about plate renewals and city stickers? What about insurance for an accident caused by a cyclist? These are things that car owners pay on top of what a non-car owner pays. Pay the same "fees" and bicycles should get the same privileges as cars. Oh wait, they already do.

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

When you live in the city and pay taxes for car-centric infrastructure that benefits suburbanites who don't pay city taxes and just drive into town for 8 hours a day. Then they proceed to complain about bike infrastructure thats paid for by CITY RESIDENT tax money. The cyclists who live in the city pay taxes for infrastructure, and finally some of that tax money is being used for infrastructure that benefits them.

You do realize suburbanites pay taxes too, right? If anything, you just made my point. You're saying they should pay more for it to be fair since they use the roads in the city, which is all I'm saying. Pay your fair share.

[Sunbiz1]

Numerous studies have shown exercising in polluted urban areas will kill you faster than not exercising at all. For starters, elevated blood levels of lead and carbon monoxide.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by xsboost

Not the same amount. What about plate renewals and city stickers? What about insurance for an accident caused by a cyclist? These are things that car owners pay on top of what a non-car owner pays. Pay the same "fees" and bicycles should get the same privileges as cars. Oh wait, they already do.



You do realize suburbanites pay taxes too, right? If anything, you just made my point. You're saying they should pay more for it to be fair since they use the roads in the city, which is all I'm saying. Pay your fair share.

Suburbanites pay taxes to their suburb. They can moan about bike lanes causing traffic in their suburb all they want. Certainly didn't make your point there. Then the suburbanites commute out of their suburb to Chicago, and then moan about bike infrastructure IN CHICAGO paid for by taxes of CHICAGO RESIDENTS..NOT the taxes they contributed. Get it?

I don't pay the same amount of taxes? Do you know what I pay in property taxes? We own a vehicle in our household, just very rarely use it. I pay for a city sticker. I pay plate renewals. It has nothing to do with being a cyclist or not. I pay taxes just like every city resident, and would like some infrastructure for bikes, since the vast majority of infrastructure has been auto centric.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by Sunbiz1

Numerous studies have shown exercising in polluted urban areas will kill you faster than not exercising at all. For starters, elevated blood levels of lead and carbon monoxide.

I'd like some peer reviewed data, please. Cited in APA format.

Oh nevermind, here you go. Some data for heavily polluted cities.

Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking?

Tainio, M., de Nazelle, A. J., Götschi, T., Kahlmeier, S., Rojas Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., ... Woodcock, J. (2016). Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking?. Preventive medicine, 87, 233-236.

[MN_Ski]

I'll agree that Chicago has come a long way with it's bike infrastructure, but it's still miles behind the twin cities, which really is the best city for biking in the country.

[Sunbiz1]

Originally Posted by ForYourLungsOnly

I'd like some peer reviewed data, please. Cited in APA format.

Oh nevermind, here you go. Some data for heavily polluted cities.

Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking?

Tainio, M., de Nazelle, A. J., Götschi, T., Kahlmeier, S., Rojas Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., ... Woodcock, J. (2016). Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking?. Preventive medicine, 87, 233-236.

We could waste time doing this all day:
"They suggest that people find a “green environment” for their daily exercise, and avoid close proximity to traffic and polluted urban environments. They also suggest avoiding exercising during rush hour, and point out that pollution tends not to be as bad in rainy and windy conditions."
Is Exercising in Polluted Areas Worth the Risk? | Runner's World

Or can simply use common sense and admit exercising near auto exhaust is not worth the risk regardless of studies.

[Sunbiz1]

Originally Posted by MN_Ski

I'll agree that Chicago has come a long way with it's bike infrastructure, but it's still miles behind the twin cities, which really is the best city for biking in the country.

Actually, Ft. Lauderdale FL beats out both...better weather and bike lanes on almost every major thoroughfare.

[ForYourLungsOnly]

Originally Posted by Sunbiz1

We could waste time doing this all day:
"They suggest that people find a “green environment” for their daily exercise, and avoid close proximity to traffic and polluted urban environments. They also suggest avoiding exercising during rush hour, and point out that pollution tends not to be as bad in rainy and windy conditions."
Is Exercising in Polluted Areas Worth the Risk? | Runner's World

Or can simply use common sense and admit exercising near auto exhaust is not worth the risk regardless of studies.

You know what else is great about more bikers/bike lanes? LESS CAR EXHAUST AND POLLUTION!!!

Also, I assume you aren't in healthcare research/academia? When choosing articles, one should look at the direct source (via pubmed, ovid, etc) of a study. One should also present data that supports their claim.

“The evidence suggests that regular exercise in highly polluted air might not result in the same neurological benefits that are observed in non-polluted air," they wrote. "However, to the authors’ knowledge there is not enough evidence to suggest that regular exercise in highly polluted air causes more damage to the brain due to air pollution exposure than benefits of physical activity.”

So...highly polluted areas (like Beijing, pictured in your magazine link), overall still no evidence that more damage occurs. Show some data from Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Portland...all cities with far less pollution than many of the heavy polluters across the world.

"Today, however, air pollution is an environmental problem worldwide and the high traffic density, especially in urban environments and cities, is a major cause of this problem."

Funny that the solution is less traffic, more cycling, more mass transit....how ironic.