Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope it's realized that this statement is coming from a person with no long term history in Portland, and no real long term local perspective to base their opinion on.
But as you say, "ruined" is a subjective description.
From my point of view, yes, Oregon has been ruined by hordes of selfish people with absolutely no perspective of how Oregon used to be.
But on the other hand, it has also been improved in many ways.
From your point of view, it's fresh and new and you have no idea how much things have degraded.
It's too bad and very sad that you don't get to experience Oregon in the way I experienced Oregon.
You will never have any idea what I'm talking about.
I'm true that I'm somewhat disappointed with the way it has changed, but that is very different from being upset about it.
That would be an incorrect statement, I have a 10 year history in Portland. My wife's family has a much longer history in Portland as well as Oregon, and my family has a history throughout the Northwest. This also doesn't include the amount of studying I have done on Portland and Oregon's history while I was in college. So I definitely have an extensive understanding of Portland and Oregon, which shouldn't be discredited.
I am also aware you have an extensive history in Portland and Oregon which shouldn't be discredited either, we just have different opinions.
I spent my early years of my life in the Northwest, so I am well aware what you are talking about. I am also aware that the world changes and cities don't stay the same forever.
Clearly it is the wording you have an issue with, you are not upset with the change, you are just "disappointed." I will remember to use the word "disappointed" next time, instead of "upset."
Nor should you feel guilty, you are a part of the solution by helping to reduce rush hour traffic. Non rush hour commutes are typically pretty easy in this city and metro, it is the rush hour traffic that creates much of the problems that needs to be reduced.
I live in Eugene. I think there may be more bike nuts here than in Portland, and they are smug and annoying. They assume that everyone who is driving is lazy, stupid, and fat. Most of them haven't had to deal with the realities of adult life yet. It's easy to feel smug about your bicycle riding ways when you aren't schlepping kids around or doing serious shopping.
OldTinType nailed it. Bikes and buses aren't always reasonable transportation options for those trying to multitask work and family obligations. When I did commute to work, I drove; couldn't have dropped off and picked up my kid otherwise.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 09-12-2014 at 06:08 PM..
Yes, your attitude is more privileged because you are assuming everyone is capable of riding a bike and is choosing not to. Not everyone is able bodied! Not everyone logistically can get to work on time. I know for an example that last year my kid could only be dropped off at school 20 min before I had to be at work. If I wasn't as close as I am to work and school there's no way I could have done it without a car. I'm a single parent and don't have the option of having someone else take my child. I was able to do it and ride my bike to work. Most people wouldn't be able to pull it off.
I'm all for more bikes--it's not that I don't agree with that or that people should assume to have a traffic free commute. But I'm saying that suggesting that everyone is choosing to drive a car is not accurate. I know a lot of people who would love to be able to NOT have to commute but don't have the option. It's not that simple. Not everyone can live close enough to work either or if you work odd hours public transport is difficult. I also know that many people I know can no longer afford to live close in in Portland because of high rents and so they're having to move to east county and can't manage the pick up kids from daycare by 6pm thing on public transport when they get off work at 5. When you actually work and have kids and have to adhere to school and daycare schedules life gets a lot more difficult.
I think you missed my point, someone wanting less traffic during their rush hour commute is acting selfish and privileged because they want commutes to be better for themselves. In that case we are all "privileged" because we all want easy commutes with no traffic. When I commute by bike, I get to enjoy not having to sit in traffic to get where I am going and able to stay healthy in the process. My lack of care for people sitting in traffic is the same lack of care those sitting in traffic have for other people sitting in traffic.
Do you worry about everyone else and their commutes when you are commuting to and from work?
I have never said everyone should bike, there is no absolutes and not everyone are able to use alternative forms of transportation, that is just a way of life. The problem is there are plenty of people who do drive to work each day that could use other forms, just like there are plenty of people each day that do choose to not drive and commute by bike. This is something I am sure we both can agree on, all I am saying is those that don't need to be driving should consider alternative forms of transportation if they wish to get rid of sitting in rush hour traffic each day.
Not everyone can bike to work, but not everyone needs to drive to work either.
Clearly the issue here is you think I am talking in absolutes and I am not. You should never read my comments as if I am talking in absolutes because that would be incorrect. I am 1000% aware that not everyone can bike to work or use alternative forms of transportation, but I am also aware that there are many people who drive to work that could be using alternative forms of transportation because it would work with their schedule.
Traffic is the nature of any city, but if one doesn't want to sit in rush hour traffic, then they should look at alternative forms or commuting during non rush hour times if that is possible for their schedule. Obviously not everyone is able to do that, therefore they will probably be the ones stuck in traffic with the people that could be using alternative forms of transportation but are choosing not to.
I live in Eugene. I think there may be more bike nuts here than in Portland, and they are smug and annoying. They assume that everyone who is driving is lazy, stupid, and fat.
OldTinType nailed it. Bikes and buses aren't always reasonable transportation options for those trying to multitask work and family obligations. When I did commute to work, I drove; couldn't have dropped off and picked up my kid otherwise.
That would be an assumption on all bikers, sure there are bike nuts that are smug and annoying. There are also drivers that are smug and annoying as well. I was running some errands in the car today and had a woman tailgate me for no reason, that was a very annoying thing for her to do, but one should assume everyone in a car is annoying like her just because she does it.
And I agree with oldtintype, not everyone can bike or take transit for whatever reason they have. I have never said everyone needs to be biking or anything that is in the absolute. We all have reasons for what we do, all I have said is if one doesn't want to sit in traffic, then they should look into alternative transportation because that is the truth. My bike commute has no traffic, I am not saying that to be "smug," I am saying that because it is true.
I find bike nuts to be disproportionately smug and annoying, so I'll go ahead and keep my opinion.
Okay, as long as you don't think everyone on a bike is smug and annoying. Just like you shouldn't think that about everyone because a few people drive recklessly in a car.
Okay, as long as you don't think everyone on a bike is smug and annoying. Just like you shouldn't think that about everyone because a few people drive recklessly in a car.
I can think what I please; I'd suggest not worrying about it because you can't change it. I've had some pretty bad experiences with bike riders -- much more so than with cars, and there are far fewer of them -- particularly of the mountain bike variety -- and I get to have a bad opinion about them. Personally, I wish they'd stay off the road. I used to live in a place where they'd ride purposely down the middle of the street on the way to their trails, on curved roads, and would refuse to let cars go past them. They were special because they were "on bikes." It's only a matter of time before one of them gets killed. Maybe that's what it will have to take for them to understand that if they're going to share the road with cars, they should abide by the same rules. I see the same idiots pedaling their sense of entitlement around Eugene.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 09-12-2014 at 06:39 PM..
I can think what I please; I'd suggest not worrying about it because you can't change it. I've had some pretty bad experiences with bike riders -- much more so than with cars, and there are far fewer of them -- particularly of the mountain bike variety -- and I get to have a bad opinion about them. Personally, I wish they'd stay off the road. I used to live in a place where they'd ride purposely down the middle of the street on the way to their trails, on curved roads, and would refuse to let cars go past them. They were special because they were "on bikes." It's only a matter of time before one of them gets killed. Maybe that's what it will have to take for them to understand that if they're going to share the road with cars, they should abide by the same rules. I see the same idiots pedaling their sense of entitlement around Eugene.
Sure, feel free to think whatever you want.
So you say bikes should learn how to share the road, yet your entire post makes it sound like bikes should get off the road because only cars belong on the road, which sounds like a sense of entitlement for vehicles. I have no idea what your personal experiences are with bikers compared to what you have had with drivers or why a smaller group of people bothers you more than a larger group of people, but when it comes to sharing the road, it is important for those in cars to understand that they are not the only vehicles that are allowed to be on the road and sometimes you will encounter people on bikes and that doesn't give anyone the right to run over anyone on a bike just because they are in a car.
So you say bikes should learn how to share the road, yet your entire post makes it sound like bikes should get off the road because only cars belong on the road, which sounds like a sense of entitlement for vehicles. I have no idea what your personal experiences are with bikers compared to what you have had with drivers or why a smaller group of people bothers you more than a larger group of people, but when it comes to sharing the road, it is important for those in cars to understand that they are not the only vehicles that are allowed to be on the road and sometimes you will encounter people on bikes and that doesn't give anyone the right to run over anyone on a bike just because they are in a car.
Excuse me? Where did I say that anyone has the right to run over someone simply because they're on a bike? Stop twisting things. I was typing about the possibility of an accident, not deliberately running anyone over. It's only a matter of time before it happens on the road I'm referencing.
The situation that I'm describing is this: curvy roads where you can't see what's ahead of you, so you can come up on a bunch of bikes going down the middle of the road pretty quickly. It's probable that there will be a fatality at some point in the future; there have been quite a few near misses so far, and they haven't been the fault of the local drivers. Personally, I'm glad that I no longer live there. A lot of them couldn't seem to understand that the place didn't exist just for them. It's flat out stupid to act that way on a winding country road with a speed limit of 50 mph.
If you're driving a vehicle so slowly that you're endangering others on the road, you can get a ticket. Should be the same deal for those "on bikes." You're also supposed to allow others to pass you if possible; those "on bikes" who refuse to do so should understand that they aren't the only vehicles allowed to use the roads. I've also seen the idiots get so drunk at their trailhead after a ride that they could barely manage to throw their bikes on their racks, pour themselves into their Subarus, and weave on down the road.
Last edited by Metlakatla; 09-12-2014 at 08:08 PM..
3.5 mile commute each way here. For this time of year the offramp is a little fuller between greens than previous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
