The Bike Debate: "Get off your high horse and be a man"

bikefridaywalter wrote:
Your defensiveness sure makes you a funny guy, Rob. You tell me how you pointed out how clearly uninformed I was and yet in reviewing said comment you didn't really back up the statement at all. Just because some judge agrees with you, then you're necessarily in the right? Shall we have the old argument about what truth is? You tell me I should stop psychoanalyzing you, but then you psychoanalyze me and tell me how clearly uncomfortable I am about having my beliefs questioned. Why would I encourage this dialogue if that was the case? Look, man, no one has convictions just for the hell of it. What are you trying to accomplish? To stick it to the SFBC for getting involved in something they shouldn't have? To keep cyclists off the streets? To keep more automobiles on the streets? To make sure that everyone, I mean everyone, and especially the city, upholds every letter of the law? Because you got nothing better to do? Really, get off your high horse and be a man. Quit talking around it. Maybe you should start by explaining the "PC fantasy" and why you think this project will necessarily change for the worst. Seems to me that this is ultimately what you're opposed to---not actually the fact that they didn't do an EIR. Therefore, as I originally said, this seems to be a totally politcal move. If that's the case, why? I'm surprised you have such difficulty backing up your opinions. Perhaps you're the one who's too politically infantile to deal with have your beliefs challenged? Sure seems you're doing a good job of avoiding it.

Rob Anderson wrote:
You take the time to write these comments, but evidently you still haven't read my earlier posts on the subject, especially the one on Judge Busch's decision. What are anyone's motives for doing anything? Why did Judge Busch write the decision he wrote? What is his real agenda? Questions like that are not on the table here. I've explained my position in great detail on this blog. Either you aren't a very close reader, or you simply aren't reading the material, including the links that expand on points I'm making. (Let readers decide if my critique of your post to your own blog was well-taken or not. Let's go over it one more time: In a relatively small city with 452,813 registered vehicles, we can easily make traffic worse if we take away traffic lanes and street parking to make bike lanes without doing the right traffic studies beforehand. We all have to share the limited street space we have in this city---cars, buses, bikes, pedestrians, etc. In beginning to implement the Bicycle Plan, the city did no environmental study at all, as Judge Busch indicated in his decision. What I'm "trying to accomplish" is to have the city do an EIR on the whole Bicycle Plan, so that traffic is not screwed up in a city that I've lived in off and on since 1961. I kind of like this city and am concerned with its welfare. Since I live here and use the streets myself every day, I have a direct interest in how traffic is managed in the city.

The "PC fantasy" issue: Yes, I think the whole bicycle trip is a utopian, political/lifestyle fantasy. The city was in the process of screwing up city streets and making traffic worse for everyone based on a political fantasy. If you've read my post on "BikeThink" which I linked in the last post, you will understand that idea better. The problem with your comments, Walter, is that you show no signs of having read and/or come to terms with the basic issues under discussion---the judge's decision, the Bicycle Plan, and CEQA. Instead, you leap over the tedious task of actually reading and thinking to speculate about my motives for writing what I write. See the problem? If we were in a psych class together, this kind of discussion might be relevant. There is nothing substantive about the Bicycle Plan litigation and the related issues in any of your comments. I'm not having any "difficulty backing up my opinions"; you are not even engaging them. Instead, you have raised a completely different issue---my motivation for writing/doing what I do. Implementing the Bicycle Plan without doing the necessary preliminary studies is just bad public policy. It's bad for a relatively small city geographically that already has traffic problems to implement a major project like this without a lot more study and thought. And, according to Judge Busch, it's also illegal. Get it?

Sharon wrote:
I know you VERY well, and I know that caring about an issue does not make you a selfish, agenda holding, sneaky, rat bastard. Why don't these distrustful folks just understand the simplicity of your actions? It seems no matter how many times you explain what you did and why the PC Bikers refuse to listen. You are much more patient than I would be. And what's with all the attacks and name calling? Are you dealing with spoiled brats let loose from a play date?? Godallmighty!!!

Rob Anderson wrote:
Here's a woman who knows me---my ex-wife, actually---and she says I'm not a rat bastard. Next time I run for the BOS, that will be my campaign slogan: "Vote for me. I am not a rat bastard!"

Anonymous wrote:
You know, whenever some serial killer or rapist is caught, the first thing his neighbors say about him is... I knew him, he was such a nice man...

Rob Anderson wrote:
Forcing the city to do an EIR on the Bicycle Plan makes me akin to a serial killer or a rapist? Isn't that a little over the top, even for a bike zealot?

Tyrell Haight wrote:
Jesus man, the bottom line is this: There are a lot of people who want to make San Francisco a better place. They have actual hope and vision. And better bike infrastructure is a small part of making this city more livable, happier, and wealthier (in all ways). Occasionaly cynical dickheads get in the way, that's all you are man. Fuck yourself. Sorry about the negativity, but that's what you're creating around yourself. You'll lose soon enough and this city will move on.

Rob Anderson wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "better" doesn't it, Tyrell? I don't think screwing up the city's traffic by taking away traffic lanes to make bike lanes will make the city better. It's your "vision" that's being challenged here. "Fuck yourself. Sorry about the negativity." Great example of passive-aggressive political behavior! But you haven't addressed a single issue discussed in this post.

bikefridaywalter wrote:

So you mean to tell me that when the city does the study and all is hunky dory and nothing changes, you're going to suddenly be elated to know that all is well?

Rob Anderson wrote:

I'm confident that during the EIR process---which requires public "scoping" sessions---that the Bicycle Plan will get a much more intensive scrutiny than it has had to date. It will be covered in the media, and the public and the neighborhoods will be forewarned about what the city and the SFBC are determined to do to their streets---take away traffic lanes and street parking to make bike lanes for 1-2% fo the city's population.