E-rock

Ask Bill O'Reilly: it's a revolution!

I have never heard of a derailleur "icing up". Ever. Fixies are a fad; what isn't? Where do you ride in the winter? not my photo

Fixie frames exist for track racing, primarily. The trend to ride them on the road is not much more than a trend. Some guys train in the winter with them, similar to a single speed (no derailler to get all iced up), and some folks claim that they improve pedalling efficiency, but others argue that's not true, that they actually accentualt dead spots in your spin. Who knows. That guy in the video though, he's got bigger problems than his bike.

HFS, that's a real thing.

Agree 100%. I used to be one of those morons in the U district.

I agree with you, Pete that we should be encouraging more people to get on their bikes, but I disagree to an extent about cycle paths. First of all, true cycle paths, like the Burke-Gillman, that are completely segregated invite a lot of alternate use, and these quickly become recreational corridors, rather than true commuter routes. Secondly, I think the drive for bicycle lanes in the roadways, cycle tracks, green boxes, etc. is driven largely by uniformed bicycle advocacy groups. The people that love bike lanes are the same people that slink up on the right side of stopped traffic in the door zone, and get right or left-hooked by cars at intersections because they're not visible. Rather than additional infrastructure (although I really like sharrows when they're used properly), I think the best solution to the ongoing driver-cyclist conflicts is increased awareness education. If licensure is required to make that happen, so be it. I don't think it is though. Adding some questions to the drivers exam would help. Making us take drivers exams and renew our licenses more often would help. Public awareness campaigns would help. Unfortunately, we have to learn the hard way right now. I was a dumbass in my time, and it took me many close calls before doing some research and realizing that I could avoid drivers trying to turn in front of me at the last second while I'm travelling at speed by taking the lane well before an intersection, as one example. I use this particular example because bike lanes, or worse yet, that abomination they recently installed on Broadway in Seattle, put me back into harm's way - now that I have the knowledge to avoid a common conflict - rather than making me safer. I would argue that predictable, assertive, lawful riding goes a lot farther towards improving safety and driver-cyclist relations than any bike lane. I think for people like Fairweather, who seems to have an axe to grind, the calls for licensure/registration/taxation is a double edged sword, because right now the chicken-shits who don't know how to ride are winning the infrastructure debate. in a world where I have to pay taxes to ride my bike, you can be sure to find me in the left wheel track of every traffic lane, where I have the right to be.

No dice; too many stupid/crazy/angst-filled bicyclists. As for motorcycles, yes, they cost about the same to license as cars. My 2001 750cc Honda is $57/year; my 2012 Toyota Yaris is $78. Your logic is still flawed. Edit: Ok, deal! Since the legal burden you just described is the status quo, I accept your revisions. When shall we begin taxing these entitled scofflaws? Are you trolling now? Of course my logic is flawed, I'm just turning yours on its head. I dont' actually believe that. But if we're talking about your registration, that's a bureaucratic fee, not a tax, and your motorcycle certainly is taxed less, in the way of consumption taxes, which are actually what pay for roadways, than your car is. I agree with you there's to much anger on the roadway, but it's most certainly, and disproportionately behind the wheel. And when the angry motorists start spouting off with their "taxes=rights" fallacies, they don't start the argument by qualifying it with, "well if your bike isn't taxed, why is my motorcycle" (to which I would say, "because we don't consume the commodity that's taxed"). They start out just the way you did: I hate these people so let's tax them. Or worse, they just kill them and drive away. To your second point, you can't actually believe that the status quo in the US is equivalent to the Netherlands, can you?

This is the most popular one, and I hear it a lot from my road bike friends. But by this same logic, I shouldn't have to license my motorcycle either, no? I mean, I own a car too, so the logic flows, right? Ridiculous. It's your logic that doesn't flow here. Is the tax burden of your motorcycle equivalent to your automobile? Cuz I sure see an awful lot of lunatics on crotch rockets. Some of them even murder cyclists and get away with it. The solution to an enforcment problem is not taxation. But I'm willing to meet you halfway - we adopt the dutch model, in the event of an accident the motorist is always at fault unless it can be proven otherwise, and I'll support licensure, and perhaps even modest ADDITIONAL taxation of cyclists.

The problem with the NYT article is that the author isn't actually willing to stand up for cyclist's rights out on the road. He hides in the basement.

Fairweather's suppositions also ignore several other important facts: -American roadways are not entirely funded by specific taxes that only motorists pay, and motorist taxes don't go only to roadways. -Regardless of the fact above, most cyclists are also motorists and therefore are taxed in exactly the same manner as all other motorists, anyway. -Cars and trucks are responsible for ALL of the wear and tear on roads. -His proposed solution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the perceived problem (other than the fact that the hipsters who drive him crazy happen to ride bicycles in town).

Not enough derision in this thread. Where's trash-dooosh?

Depends on your point of view.

So, like, did it pass?

Yeah, start paying your bill, you deadbeat!

Snowshoes are the only item known to man that immediately drops your IQ 50 points the moment you strap them on your feet.

Here's a quick article that picks on John Stossel's POS program "Stupid in America". It's a specific rebuttal to his one-sided piece of schlock tabloid journalism, but it also serves a good starting point in rebutting all of the commonly held myths about "school choice" and "teaching reform" that have led us only deeper into the current situtation. http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/01/19/stossel-presented-skewed-2020-segment-on-stupid/134675

Jason, We're in much more agreement then i think we both initially thought. My wife is a high-school teacher in a suburban district that consistently rates amongst the top districts in the state and the country. We've seen first hand what the most recent round of "education reform", which gained public support largely through a mis-informed wave of populist anger against teaching quality and unions, had done. All of it has been to the detriment of classroom learning. We're pretty sick of it, and it's driving some really good teachers out of the profession while, at the same time, advancing the careers of yes-men in administrative positions. I still contend the fastest way to better student performance is integration. But the structure upon which our school system is funded and built works completely against that solution.

Is that what I said? I'm mostly wondering what we are doing outside of the schools to deal with increasing parents ability to raise children better. Touchy subject, I know. Or, maybe you'd rather deal with the damage after it's done? Nope, that's not what you said. But the first part of your original question, "so are we expecting schools to raise our children now?", reminds me a of a lot of the anti-government, individualist rhetoric I hear in most discussions of public welfare. If that was not your intention I apologize. If we can all agree that it's society's job to educate the next generation, and we can all agree that some parents are failing to give their children the most basic preparation necessary for them to succeed, then it follows that it's up to the schools to pick up the slack. One of the biggest challenges we face is the balkanization of our education system. Each district relies on a local property tax base in most states, and any opportunities for shared resources or student/parent choice are so limited (aside from using a charter school system that skims the cream from the public schools and diverts public funds to private enterprises that don't produce better results when measured). So as long as inner city kids are stuck in inner city schools, they at least deserved to have their emotional needs met in a way they're not met at home. The parenting issue is damn-near intractable, and cannot be solved by social welfare programs nearly as effectively as breaking the cycle of abuse and neglect can be accomplished in our schools. Particularly when you consider that "bad-parenting" is often as simple as a single mother working 60 hours a week in a low-wage job, who comes from a broken home herself.

So we are expecting schools to raise our children now, in addition to teach them? Do we just ignore failed parenting because there is no solution? So we're just supposed to let the cycle of poverty, crime, and violence in the inner cities continue because the current crop of kids' parents failed at parenting? Typical "bootstrap" mentality. "They get what they deserve."

I see this largely as another trendy example of "teaching reform". At the risk of getting overly simplistic, the problems in American schools are largely due to the high and increasing concentration of crushing poverty in inner-city and rural schools. This type of "solution" may have positive effects in schools where achievement is already acceptable. But I doubt it would fix Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse, Philadelphia, Allentown, Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, etc.'s inner city schools in any meaningful fashion. Break up the concentration of poverty. Urban-Suburban integration. It works when tried. The problem is that suburban parents believe that the inner city parents are to blame for not moving their children to better school districts, and people in affluent communities believe that their children are entitled to the exactly the same opportunities as they had, regardless of what's happening with our tax dollars down the road. I will add though, that a self-implemented style of "flipped" education worked best for me in college during my science core courses (Calc, physics, chemistry, etc.). I skipped lecture, read the text, did the problem sets, and attended every work session and lab. I've always felt discouraged in lecture when i couldn't follow the instructor because I process the information at a slower pace than they present it..

Someone in my fb feed posted this yesterday. One of his friends commented: "No we didn't [invent him]. I was one if his students (not a disciple)...but I followed his teachings and knew him. He was a real man. I have seen this thru past life regression." This was posted without a hint of sarcasm.

There goes the neighborhood.

It's already been broughten!

I'm sorry,who?