Copenague

Behooving crapping.

Posted on 6 septiembre 2011. Filed under: Copenague | Etiquetas: , , , , , , , |

OK, so we are already one year after this entertaining exchange with this guy and I still haven’t gotten around to properly answering his -let’s be kind- bikelaneist non-sequiturs (too many bikelaneist idiocies to deal with far closer to home) and I have here this other guy who purports to be, you know, a researcher or academic or whatnot of some kind, crisscrossing the world to understand cycling. And his conclusion is, surprise surprise, that Copenhagen is where it is at. Boy, am I impressed.


Of course, researches are humans (even bikelaneist “researches”) and so they are not exempt from showing some silliness now and then, for instance:

Which I promptly replied to:

Besides these harmless dubiously-humorous bikelaneist banter, these guy seems set to pontificate with some hard-line poisonous sheer idiocy; here, for instance, he massages the interesting idea that “walkable cities belong in the past”. And without loosing his straight face. Wow:


So now we know: pedestrians are to dissapear. So says a “researcher”. What for? to make room for cyclestrians, of course. It all salt-peppered with some scien-bullshit about “the infinite diversity of cycling”:

I couldn’t resist pointing out some details that among non bikelane-idiotizied people are rather taken for granted, and thus the stage for another interesting exchange was set.

Of course, the line “everyone can ride a bike” is sheer hogwash to start with. One has to wonder how these guys have come to feel that they can say that kind of gibberish and get away with it. But apart from that, what can lead someone to the idea that 100% modal share for cycling is at all desirable -let alone possible-, other than a total disconnect from reality and the mere fact that they like cycling?

So basically what this guy is saying is akin to: “I like rhubarb cake. Everyone should have rhubarb cake for dessert, everyday.” This is the depth of the “research” this idiot does.

Please note how this guy takes the trouble to appear genuinely interested in real information…

… and now please note in the ensuing email exchange how he is determined to ignore the information he is given. Can yo say “deadbrain bikelane junkie”? I know you could.

July 14th.

Hi. I am flattered (I guess) that you think I have a point “worth reading properly”, but I honestly don’t know what I could say that you couldn’t find out better by yourself just looking around at what is actually happening to a cycling culture that has been driven into a collective madness by the segregationist ideology and has become hooked on “cycling infrastructure”.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor the mood to spend time in private one-to-one discussions unless there is a extremely good reason for it. Most of what I have to say about the segregationist allucination is in my blog, in spanish, I’m afraid. However, there are a very few posts there in English:

https://bicilibre.wordpress.com/tag/english/

And if you feel like having a taste of the red pill, you might want to check the (still unfinished) discussion I had with this guy here in my blog, in english:

https://bicilibre.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/un-momento-de-zapping-a-twitter/

I say the discussion is unfinished because I haven’t ruled out yet writing a proper reply to my interlocutor there. One of the problems with the segregationist “intellectuals”, though, is that deconstructing the nuanced crap in their discourse takes a level of time, attention and energy that I’d much rather apply to fight the stultifying segregationist idiocy I and my group have to deal with on a daily basis and that is corrupting beyond belief the nascent cycling culture in our country.

Now. Do you still think I have some point worth talking about? If you do, and unless you have some other brilliant idea, maybe the best course of action would be to comment somewhere in my blog, so we can carry out a public discussion for the greater entertainment and edification of my readers.

But thanks for your attention. And beware: once you taste the red pill, you won’t be able to take your eyes off the horror of the segregationist nightmare that is lurking all around us.

Cheers.

Txarli Antxels
* Revolution will not happen
* in a bike lane.


July 15th.

Hi Txarli

Don’t worry, I’m seeing your point, and understanding your ire. You’ve got that groovy thing going on in your country, where transport modes mix and people move, by whatever mode, with due regard. It’s something Jane Jacobs observed where children played on streets that cars drove down. And I understand why you would not want anal markings on the street, that give people a sense of entitlement to go full speed because they are in “their”, so to hell with the kid who might step into their path. I guess you’re seeing bikes lanes and car lanes as American/Dutch/Danish imperialist imports.

Whatever you’ve taken me saying in a few words on Twitter, must have been directed to some other context. In my book I’m writing , cycle-space, I describe non-segregation as giving rise to something I call a “campus condition” because it works well on university campuses. It’s only limitation, if may say, is it doesn’t extend the reach of urban bike transit, to bring people in from outer suburbs on bikes. That is an issue where there’s great urban sprawl, in the US and Australia for instance.

Feel free to post my thoughts to your blog or wherever, if what I’ve written in any way helps your cause. I’ve just spent 9 weeks cycling cities in Holland, Denmark, Asia, Greece, Italy and the US, so have a feel for the diversity of contexts out there.

Best wishes

Steven


This is the point when this guy posted this, which you may want to check out (again, you might not, who knows, but it is kind of interesting if you can read between the lines).

July 21st.

Steven,

Thank you for your permission to post our email exchange in my blog, which i will do as soon as I find the opportunity. (you see, I have trivial things like the idiotic public reactions to this 11-year old girl getting seriously injured in a fucking cycle lane a few days ago a few blocks from my house to deal with). Alternatively, I can post straight away what we have so far of this conversation, if you prefer to continue the talk in the comment thread. It is ok for me.

You might have got some of the points of, as you say, my ire, but I very much doubt that you grasp the full extent of the catastrophe we (and very likely you) are diving into. In this issue, as the saying goes, if you are not angry, you are not paying attention. (Or -I might add-, you have a vested interest in the outrage).

Your use of the term “non-segregation” for what is just plain, natural cycling is interesting; it is like hearing someone calling western societies “infidel countries”: you can tell right away that the speaker is an, er, faithful, no matter how moderate and reasonable he strives to appear.)

It is also funny that you come up with the term “campus condition” to describe some presumably beneficial outcome of, ahem, “non-segregation”: we are seeing here a host of (awful) segregated lanes being build in university campuses, because apparently the cycling community and the political class here have been dragged so far down into the mud by the segregationist bullshit that not even a campus is now safe enough for a twientysomething in his/her prime to ride a bike in a normal campus street. How long until you get segregated lanes built into your campuses? what will you do then, dear sir?

Since you yourself introduced the “campus condition” idea, I take it you will agree that when segregated lanes are built in a campus, someone is doing something wrong. Very wrong. Of course, it is easy to dismiss the issue as technical incompetence, a political or bureaucratic blunder, an instance of “excess of (segregationist) zeal”, or other such clichés: I think I have heard them all by now. But doing so only misses (or even worse: hides) the core of the problem: there is nothing specifically wrong with segregated lanes in campuses; there is just something horribly wrong with a cycling culture, a cycling ideology, a cycling policy and a cycling community in which campus segregated lanes (however “high quality” they might be, which they aren’t) get built at all and considered “a step forward”.

Because, you see: you and I might (perhaps) agree that segregated lanes in a campus are a stupid idea, but the cycling community in my country think they are cool and “uropean”; What do the cycling community in your contry think? Did I tell you about how the segregationist ideology has corrupted the cycling community? yes, I think I did.

I am not mad at a few stupid, useless and dangerous segregated lanes being built around: I am only angry about that. What i AM mad at is a cycling community that, drugged by the segregationist cycle-crack peddlers (like, for instance, Mr Copenhagenize), has lost all self-respect to the point of not being able any longer to tell the lane-shit from the cycle-food; check the comments to the girls accident to see what I am talking about. And I am mad at a new generation of useful idiots (like, i suspect with due respect, yourself) that, in the guise of “researchers”, “technicians”, “planners”, “eco-or-mobility-advocates” or even “moderate vehiculars” are giving conceptual cover and social credibility to the appalling heap of horsecrap that the cycling community is burying its head into.

There is only one way out of the corner urban cycling has, literally, painted itself into: segregation has to be vigorously, publicly denounced for what it is: a cul-de-sac in the history of urban cycling that originated in a very specific setting and has evolved into a collective and poisonous allucination that is hindering the return of the bicycle to its due place in modern cities after the disastrous XXth century car hiatus. Guys like yourself, with your oh-so-civil, oh-so-nuanced, consensus-seeking, using-words-in-proper-context pose are bound to get caught in the crossfire and are, in short, just getting in the way of the future. You’d better swallow the red pill and start anew.

Cheers.

Txarli
If “Cycle lane” is the answer
you got the question wrong.


July 22sd.

Thanks again for your time. Have you spent much time in Denmark or Holland? It really is nice to be able to ride in the knowledge that your way has been cleared. It’s nice riding in New York, having pedestrians cleared out of your path by the taxis. It’s nice cycling down Via del Corso in Rome on a Saturday afternoon. There I go, being nuanced. I would use the term “dialectical”. Anyway, while I can agree on particular points, I can no more side with you, than anyone else with a clear one-eyed view of how all the world aught to be. The failures of Modernism/Structuralist thinking, instilled in me a healthy measure of self doubt.

Best wishes

Steven


July 22sd.

“The pleasure of having your way cleared?” Oh, c’mon. Are you trying to offer your prose as an example of the most grotesque points of segregationism and of cyclist’s exceptionalism?

Too bad you didn’t take the time to cycle in Madrid, purportedly one of the most hostile cities for cycling in Europe. A tour around Madrid with one of the guys in my group would have, obviously, failed to show you the pleasure of cycling here (in traffic, gasp! and without you way cleared, oh noes!), and the deep idiocy of what is said about urban cycling in the more “cycle-lane-civilized” countries, because obviously that is something you don’t want to know.

Sorry to say this, but apparently you sided with the past and you are exactly the kind of people we have to push out of the way of to get urban cycling out of the hole it is in.

The future is ours. Get a grip.

Cheers.


This post is way too long already (such is the nature of dealing with the bikelaneist tribe), so I will just comment on one point: among other hilariously pompous bits (cue “The failures of Modernism/Structuralist thinking.”), it is worth noting (because it has been seen in other members of the bikelaneist elite) the reference to having “a healthy measure of self doubt”. This guy has it, so he says, which is a very elegant way of implying that I don’t. Oh my.

Of course, this guy has not an ounce of “self doubt”, to matter what he says, and it shows. He is a true lane-believer who is only using that self-doubt bullshit as a throwing stone against someone who has the cheek to just say things straight and call his crap out. And that is a tactic that we are going to see more and more in the near future: this bunch of lane-idiots have been for decades saying just about any kind of gibberish without any qualms and without anybody calling their bluff, but now that a growing number of cyclists are starting to see through the charade, they are compelled to resort to the “sectarian” and “fanatic” labels to try and shut down the dissent and to oppose the long trip back to reality that modern urban cycling so badly needs.

They are not going to get away with it any longer, of course. They have only winning this stupid game through absence of any players on the other side, but now that we are back on the field (and not even in full force yet), the score is already fixed.

As I told this guy, the bikelanist bullshit is over and the future is ours. Too bad that, to get to the future, we’ll have to clear the way of this kind of lobotomized infrastructure-junkies.

Txarli

CiudadCiclista | Lista de correo | Wiki CC

More posts in english here.
Anuncios
Leer entrada completa | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

How to tell a pompous full-of-it asshole.

Posted on 18 diciembre 2010. Filed under: ., Amsterdam, Copenague | Etiquetas: , , , |

Easy.

A pompous full-of-it asshole would write things like this:

[pantallazo: asshole]

We’ll talk about the actual video at some other moment. “These people that don’t really matter” are us. And him. And him. And him. And them. And them. And them. And them. And them. “These people that don’t really matter” include people like myself, described as “trolls who think bike lanes are the work of the Devil“, or people like Carlton Reid, who dared to state that they wouldn’t indiscriminately demand segregation and was inmediately labeled as “despicable” for it. “These people that don’t really matter” are the cyclists who are watching in horror the raping of our cities in the name of “bicycle promotion”, or “sustainibility”, or “the right to cycle” or “vulnerable users”, or just plain idiotic “Cycle Chic (TM)”.

The bikelaneist bullshit has got way too far. It is high time we make sanity, and reality, matter again in pro-cycling policies.

Txarli
[carril-Krusty]

CiudadCiclista | Lista de correo | Wiki CC

There are in this blog a few other posts in English.

Leer entrada completa | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Infraestructura ciclista “high-tech”.

Posted on 30 noviembre 2010. Filed under: Copenague, Madrid | Etiquetas: , , , , , , |

Decía Arthur C. Clarke que cualquier tecnología suficientemente avanzada es indistinguible de la magia. En el ámbito carrilbicista, podríamos quizá decir que cualquier carril-idiotez suficientemente refinada (o repetida) es (para esos chicos) indistinguible de la magia.

Viene esto a cuento de una nueva chorrada sobre los fantásticos carriles-bici vikingos. Hace no mucho apareció en el fastuoso blog EnCarrilBiciPorMadrid (cuyas interesantes opiniones sobre ciclismo urbano ya hemos revisado en alguna otra ocasión) un artículo de título espectacular:

“En Dinamarca, el carril bici aparece automáticamente al ir en bicicleta”

Flipante, ¿no? Uno de esos titulares que bordean el límite que separa la espectacularidad para atraer al lector del puro sensacionalismo. Cuando lo leí pensé que se referirian quizá a la idiotez aquella que apareció hace unos meses, de unos ciclistas que en vez de llevar luces decentes en sus bicis, para hacerse visibles, llevaban una especie de carril-bici luminoso y portatil. Una de las utilidades de la tecnología es que hace posibles nuevas y maravillosas carril-jilipolleces de tintes mágicos.

[pantallazo: en carril-bici por Madrid]

“Tienes tu carril-bici donde quiera que vayas”, pero las luces de verdad y el sentido común para circular te los has dejado olvidados en casa, chaval.

El caso es que no. El fantamágico título de nuestros elegantes carril-idiotas madrileños no se refería a ningún carril-gadget: se refería a que, según ellos, el “placer de ir en bici” en Copenague hay que agradecerlo a lo que en el artículo llaman “la fina malla de carriles-bici”. Cito:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

El placer de ir en bicicleta en el día a día tiene su origen en la red de malla fina de carriles bici que se ha establecido con el tiempo y de otras formas de prioridad para bicicletas. Todo es fácil de usar y no hace falta buscar el carril bici. Aparece automáticamente cuando uno va en bicicleta.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Una vez establecida la idiotez inicial (en estas jilipolleces de grupo es como en los conciertos: hay que dar el tono inicial para que todos los instrumentos armonicen), el artículo se explaya en otras idioteces secundarias, del tipo de “las facilidades que tiene la municipalidad para extender la fina malla de carriles-bici” o la peculiar anatomía de las calles con carriles-bici, que incluye “primero está la acera con su bordillo; después, el carril bici con su propio bordillo. A continuación, están los coches aparcados y, después, el tráfico en circulación”,. En fin, cosas así de delicadas. Los chicos de EnCarrilBiciPorMadrid, con muy encomiable afán didáctico, lo explican muy bien:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Los carriles bici separados de la calzada por un bordillo transmiten una mayor seguridad a los ciclistas, que se sienten invitados a usarlos. Varios estudios sobre este tipo de carriles bici en Copenhague realizados por Trafitec (1) desde los años 70 y hasta después del cambio de milenio muestran que ”cada vez que la municipalidad ha habilitado un carril bici separado de la calzada por un bordillo, el número de ciclistas urbanos (2) aumenta entre un 18 y un 20%, mientras que el número de coches se reduce entre un 9 y un 10%. El establecimiento de carriles bici marcados con una línea blanca sobre el asfalto pero situados en el mismo lugar que los carriles separados de la calzada por un bordillo, no incide en el número de coches y sólo provoca un aumento del número de ciclistas de entre un 5 y un 7%.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Evidentemente, los autores del artículo tienen claro que no es de esperar que unos bárbaros como los carrilbicistas españoles puedan entender las sutilezas estructurales de los carriles-bici Daneses, así que adornan el texto (por si no estaba claro) con algunas ilustraciones para facilitar la comprensión a los no iniciados:

[pantallazo: en carril-bici por Madrid, no protegido]

Esquema de carril-bici NO SEPARADO de la calzada por bordillo (“bycicle lane”). Eso es mu malo mu malo mu malo, porque NO transmite una mayor seguridad a los ciclistas, que NO se sienten invitados a usarlo.

[pantallazo: en carril-bici por Madrid, protegido]

Esquema de carril-bici SEPARADO de la calzada por bordillo (“Bicycle track)”. Eso es mu güeno mu güeno mu güeno porque SI transmite una mayor seguridad a los ciclistas, que SI se sienten invitados a usarlo.

¿Se ha fijado usted, amable lector? ¡A que nunca hasta ahora había sido usted capaz de distinguir entre un “bicycle lane” y un “bicycle track”! ¡Pues ahora ya conoce esa diferencia tan importante, gracias a este humilde blog! ¡es que el hecho de que haya un bordillo (“curb”) específico, o solo una linea pintada (“painted line”) marca diferencias a-bis-ma-les en la seguridad (objetiva y subjetiva, ¡aleluya!) de los ciclistas!

¿Verdad que es fantástico? ¿Verdad que la carril-tecnología es hermosa? ¿verdad que el carril-progreso no se detiene? ¿Quien podría haber afirmado que el “curb” podría tener un efecto tan poderoso? Si a alguno de ustedes, amables lectores, el rollo ese de darle tanto poder protector al “curb” ese les huele a chamusquina, eso, sépanlo ustedes, es porque son ustedes unos descreidos y unos pobres bárbaros celtibéricos o, peor que todo, unos ciclistas integradores, esa secta demoniaca de carril-ateos.

Txarli

CiudadCiclista | Lista de correo | Wiki CC

Otras idioteces disfrazadas de carril-tecnicismos aquí.
Leer entrada completa | Make a Comment ( 9 so far )

“En Holanda hay tantas bicis gracias a los carriles-bici”.

Posted on 2 diciembre 2005. Filed under: Amsterdam, Copenague | Etiquetas: , , |

Un fantasma recorre las filas carrilbicistas: Holanda. Cuando vuelven de viajes por la Uropa, cuando se van de excursión y paran a papearse la tortilla con pimientos, cuando se reunen en sus jornadas ciclistas, cuando se inclinan sobre los mapas de sus ciudades con ansia en los ojos y sus temibles rotuladores rojos en las manos, a los carrilbicistas les encanta contarse cosas sobre Holanda. Todo carrilbicista digno de ese nombre tiene que tener una historia sobre estupendos carriles-bici en Holanda: es el reglamento.

La mitología carrilbicista razona así: “Holanda está llena de bicis; Holanda está llena de carriles-bici; por consiguiente, Holanda está llena de bicis gracias a los carriles-bici.” (Es curioso que a nadie se le ocurra el razonamiento inverso, igual de probable: que Holanda podría estar llena de carriles-bici debido a que hay tantas bicis).

En consecuencia, toda la tribu cicloceltibérica ha decidido que el camino a seguir es rojo: hay que imitar a los holandeses, destripar las ciudades, poner vías segregadas ciclistas por todas partes, y las bicicletas, mágicamente, acudirán a llenarlas. Como las mariposas a la luz. Como las abejitas a las flores. Como los cervatillos a la pradera. Como en Holanda.

Son como niños: sólo les falta creer en los Reyes Magos.

Empecemos por lo que sabemos: ¿Cómo está el uso de las bicis en los Países Bajos? Según este curioso documento (carrilbicista) en la web del World Bank, la situación en 1995, en Amsterdam y Copenhage, era más o menos así:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Figura 1. Speinisdifren.

Los datos de 1995 pueden parecer anticuados, pero eso es lo que sabemos, de momento, y la situación no parece haber variado mucho desde entonces, ni allí ni aquí. En todo caso, la cosa es “impezonante” ¿no? En relación a ellos, estábamos (y seguimos estando) a la altura del betún… ¿Cómo llegó el uso de la bici a ser tan alto en Holanda? Los datos desde 1970 para acá han sido muy aireados y se conocen bien:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Figura 2. No está mal pero, caramba, la mayor parte del trabajo ya estaba hecho en 1970.

Vaya: parece claro que las vías segregadas ciclistas han tenido un efecto magnífico en los Paises Bajos… los datos anteriores a 1970 son mucho menos conocidos: entre las entrañables fotos en sepia de bicis de principios de siglo y el veinteymuchos-por-ciento del tráfico con el que nos encontramos de pronto en Amsterdam en 1975, hay una sorprendente laguna en la historia de la bicicleta que parece interesar a poca gente. ¿Cómo evolucionó la bici en esas décadas?

Algunas cosas sí que sabemos. Sabemos, por ejemplo, que las vías segregadas comenzaron a construirse de forma sistemática en los años 30 en Holanda y Alemania bajo dominio Nazi. Sabemos que en esa época los ciclistas mostraron una virulenta resistencia a ser segregados en “vías especiales”. Sabemos que los ciclistas perdieron esa batalla y que al final de la Segunda Guerra mundial había quedado establecido por fin cual era el “lugar apropiado” para los ciclistas en Holanda y Alemania. Sabemos que, con las ciudades europeas devastadas por la guerra, las condiciones eran inmejorables para construir desde cero las nuevas ciudades con vías segregadas de cierta “calidad” por todos lados. Sabemos que hacia 1975, tras décadas de frenesí constructivo (en plena posguerra) había ya unos 9.000 km. de “vías ciclistas” en Holanda, y que en 1995 su longitud había llegado a 19.000 km.

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Bicis para todos.

Todo eso es sabido, vale, pero ¿qué demonios ocurrió con la bicicleta en las décadas anteriores a 1970?

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Figura 3. ¿Qué pasó, eh? ¿qué pasó?

Bueno, en 1970 las bicis eran ya más del 20% del tráfico, así que seguro que durante todos esos años estuvieron aumentando regularmente, gracias a la afortunada política Nazi de poner vías segregadas, tan oportunamente continuada en la postguerra por los gobiernos Holandeses y Nórdicos. Seguro que fue algo así:

Image hosted by Photobucket.com
Figura 4. Los ciclistas, agradecidos y felices por las vías segregadas que han surgido
en sus ciudades devastadas por la guerra, marchan triunfantes hacia el 40%.

Bueno, no fue exactamente así, pero casi. Pinchando en el icono tienes la gráfica de lo ocurrido, según el Ministerio de Transportes Holandés:

¿Adivinas?
Haz clic aquí.

Txalud.

Txarli
Carril Bici NO
Queremos toda la calle

Enlace aquí | Home | CiudadCiclista

Leer entrada completa | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...