Bike News Roundup: One way to advertise your bus agency

It’s time for the Bike News Roundup! I’m still healing up from the flu, which tragically put me out of commission for the Youth Bike Summit over the weekend. I’ll try to piece together coverage in the next couple days, so stay tuned. It sounded like an inspiring experience.

First up in the roundup, here’s one way to advertise your bus agency (not as good as the first one, though):

Pacific Northwest

Halftime show!

With all the talk of Vision Zero, it’s worth revisiting this WSDOT video asking a bunch of Washingtonians how many traffic deaths we should accept in our state:

National & Global News

This is an open thread.

About Tom Fucoloro

Founder and Editor of Seattle Bike Blog.
This entry was posted in news and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Bike News Roundup: One way to advertise your bus agency

  1. LWC says:

    The article from Boston about our 2nd Ave project was entertaining: especially the comment section. Lots of responses of the flavor, “Sure it works in Seattle, but Seattle is _______. It would never work here!” – It’s the exact same brand of local exceptionalism that comes out in Seattle any time changes are proposed. Oh the irony…

  2. jt says:

    Busted out laughing at the subheader for Lance Armstrong: “This guy is a real piece of shit.” It’s concise and true, but it just can’t ever be said like that in a traditional news outlet. I love it.

  3. Gary says:

    Enough on the bicycle helmet issue being the reason people won’t ride a shared bicycle.

    Check this service out: “Scoot!” It’s a scooter for rent like a car2go. No one in their right mind would propose a scooter network without a helmet.

    • Cheif says:

      Yeah, pretty sure the “helmet” excuse is a lot like the “weather” excuse and “hills” excuse and the “I need my car for x” excuse. It’s an easy target for directing attention away from what is harder to admit, the “I’m lazy” excuse. Which of course doesn’t apply to scooters, the fat person’s motorcycle.

    • Al Dimond says:

      That’s pretty interesting… it appears to cover a more widely useful range than Pronto does, which has as much to do with the differences between San Francisco and Seattle than anything. On the other hand, the way cost of living is in SF it still covers a pretty exclusive area.

      But we shouldn’t shy away from the question of whether King County’s all-ages helmet law actually furthers the goals of public safety and health, in light of many successful and surprisingly safe bike-sharing systems with fairly low rates of helmet use. Blaming people’s laziness to dismiss a policy question is itself a lazy thing to do! Policy has to live in the world of how people actually behave, not how we might want them to!

      • Gary says:

        Helmets are incredibly cheap if you want:

        So it’s not about cost.

        What’s funny is that people who are anti helmet law always seem to say “I always wear one.” “I make my kids wear one.” “It’s dumb not to wear one.” Yet follow with “I don’t want the government telling me what do do.” and “More people would ride a bicycle if they didn’t have to wear a helmet.”

        That’s so ridiculous. It makes me think that those new riders, who are as likely as anyone else to crash are somehow expendable. Nevermind if you survive and are permanently disabled you’ll be a ward of the government. Which gives the government a say in why they should care.

      • Al Dimond says:

        There is positively zero point having the same stupid helmet law debates again. These arguments didn’t turn the debate last time, they won’t turn them this time, either.

        If Scoot has something to say (it might!) about helmet requirements and adoption, finding what it is will take some deeper analysis, not a glib pronouncement of others’ laziness.

Comments are closed.