Apr 12
ScruffyBallardMan commented on Mayor Responds to an Open Letter About Bikes.
Nobody seems to see the forest for the trees on this issue, even Mr McGinn. Stop focusing on the precise means of our goal until we decide what the goal should be.
We don't need one North-South street, or one East-West Street, or cycle tracks, or greenways, or buffered bike lanes. Those are possible means towards a goal, but they are not goals in and of themselves.
What is the goal? My vote would be: "Seattle shall become a city in which a sane person may choose to run errands or commute via bicycle without bearing unreasonable risk of injury". Note: This is currently not the case. Many people choose not to ride for the very understandable reason that it is not (currently) safe.
So that's the overall *goal*. The *strategy* should be this: pull out a map of Seattle. Put a big dot on every major destination (Fremont, Cap Hill, U-dist, Downtown, etc). Now draw lines between those dots. Then decide how you are going to make safe passages on each of those lines. For any given line, maybe part of it will be a cycle track or a greenway... but it doesn't really matter as long as an average person feels safe riding on it (not an average cyclist, an average person). Most importantly, prioritize intersections on those lines towards bicycles.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of the Bicycle Master Plan update. Instead, they say "Hey, let's build a cycle track on 7th!" or "Let's maybe put a bike lane on 45th St", etc etc. At the end of the day you'll have a bunch of "improvements", minus the capability of actually being able to ride a bicycle from Point A to Point B.
More...
We don't need one North-South street, or one East-West Street, or cycle tracks, or greenways, or buffered bike lanes. Those are possible means towards a goal, but they are not goals in and of themselves.
What is the goal? My vote would be: "Seattle shall become a city in which a sane person may choose to run errands or commute via bicycle without bearing unreasonable risk of injury". Note: This is currently not the case. Many people choose not to ride for the very understandable reason that it is not (currently) safe.
So that's the overall *goal*. The *strategy* should be this: pull out a map of Seattle. Put a big dot on every major destination (Fremont, Cap Hill, U-dist, Downtown, etc). Now draw lines between those dots. Then decide how you are going to make safe passages on each of those lines. For any given line, maybe part of it will be a cycle track or a greenway... but it doesn't really matter as long as an average person feels safe riding on it (not an average cyclist, an average person). Most importantly, prioritize intersections on those lines towards bicycles.
Note that this is exactly the opposite of the Bicycle Master Plan update. Instead, they say "Hey, let's build a cycle track on 7th!" or "Let's maybe put a bike lane on 45th St", etc etc. At the end of the day you'll have a bunch of "improvements", minus the capability of actually being able to ride a bicycle from Point A to Point B.
Apr 6
ScruffyBallardMan commented on A Modest Proposal for Mayor McGinn: "I Know You Like Bikes".
@47 We *all* have access to roads because we are citizens. Again, you can debate the tax code and you can debate which transportation modes should be favored on which streets. But you still keep saying that bikes don't deserve access to anything until we pay registration fees. Where are you getting this from? Should pedestrians be disallowed to leave their house until we implement a shoe tax?
Maybe bikes should pay a tax. But whether they do or not is no basis for deciding whether 1% of roads should be allocated for their use. Show me the receipt the State, County, or City gave you when you purchased your car tabs that says your mode gets 100% of public rights of way everywhere.
The roads are a PUBLIC asset. Everyone should be free to use them, and nobody should be allowed to use them in a way that prohibits others from getting from Point A to Point B safely in whatever mode they choose. Setting aside a few roads for bikes would NOT prohibit you from driving your car from one destination to another -- it may even make it easier!
Maybe bikes should pay a tax. But whether they do or not is no basis for deciding whether 1% of roads should be allocated for their use. Show me the receipt the State, County, or City gave you when you purchased your car tabs that says your mode gets 100% of public rights of way everywhere.
The roads are a PUBLIC asset. Everyone should be free to use them, and nobody should be allowed to use them in a way that prohibits others from getting from Point A to Point B safely in whatever mode they choose. Setting aside a few roads for bikes would NOT prohibit you from driving your car from one destination to another -- it may even make it easier!
Apr 5
ScruffyBallardMan commented on A Modest Proposal for Mayor McGinn: "I Know You Like Bikes".
@43 You still did not address whether money buys you access to roads. What if another group of people out-spends you? Can that group ban you from using public roads? If you go from getting taxed $0 to *something*, you magically gain access to what is already public?
Apr 5
ScruffyBallardMan commented on A Modest Proposal for Mayor McGinn: "I Know You Like Bikes".
@39 You don't *buy* rights of way. We can argue about who should pay or less taxes, but regardless of what taxes you do pay it doesn't give you unilateral access to every single public right of way.
Could a billionaire just write a check and claim all the roads in North Seattle? "Sorry, you may pay car tabs, but now I pay way more than you so you don't get to drive anymore!", he might say. How would you argue against that?
Could a billionaire just write a check and claim all the roads in North Seattle? "Sorry, you may pay car tabs, but now I pay way more than you so you don't get to drive anymore!", he might say. How would you argue against that?
Apr 5
ScruffyBallardMan commented on A Modest Proposal for Mayor McGinn: "I Know You Like Bikes".
This is exactly what Seattle Neighborhood Greenways are trying to do. In Ballard, for examle, we're trying to make 58th St NW a Greenway.
Mar 12
ScruffyBallardMan commented on We Are Artificial Life.
Ah, but the legumes evolved to develop nitrogen-fixing capabilities whereas humans evolved brains that discovered the Haber-Bosch process.
You, Charles, I feel would be the last person to classify everything plants and animals do as 'natural' vs things that humans do as 'artificial'. Humans fixing nitrogen is all part of regular ol' life on Earth.
You, Charles, I feel would be the last person to classify everything plants and animals do as 'natural' vs things that humans do as 'artificial'. Humans fixing nitrogen is all part of regular ol' life on Earth.
Feb 19
ScruffyBallardMan commented on "Slow the Fuck Down" Bill Passes in the House.
The same stats:
20mph = 5% chance of death
30mph = 45% chance of death
40mph = 85% chance of death
were quoted by The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/node/21528302
They must be a bunch of liberal credulous hacks.
20mph = 5% chance of death
30mph = 45% chance of death
40mph = 85% chance of death
were quoted by The Economist:
http://www.economist.com/node/21528302
They must be a bunch of liberal credulous hacks.
Feb 7
ScruffyBallardMan commented on If the Point Is Simply to Hand Out More College Degrees, Why Bother With the Courses at All?.
"The history of higher education over the course of the 20th century was one of dramatic democratization. What used to be an opportunity reserved almost exclusively for the children of the elite was transformed into an American birthright"
Elizabeth Warren would argue that since 1970 or so, college has become the new high school -- ie, if you graduated from high school back in the day you could enter the middle class. That's a joke today, and most people would concede that a bachelors degree is needed. So what took 12 years now takes 16+, and leaves people in debt once they're out. So while I think it's great that more people get to go to college, in many ways we're worse off.
Warren explains it all, starting around the 43 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0…
Elizabeth Warren would argue that since 1970 or so, college has become the new high school -- ie, if you graduated from high school back in the day you could enter the middle class. That's a joke today, and most people would concede that a bachelors degree is needed. So what took 12 years now takes 16+, and leaves people in debt once they're out. So while I think it's great that more people get to go to college, in many ways we're worse off.
Warren explains it all, starting around the 43 minute mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0…
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
There are two separate arguments to have about healthcare and markets. One of them is 'Should our healthcare system be market based?", and the other is "Is our healthcare system market based?" The former requires an opinion, while the latter is factual. These questions often get confused and muddled together.