Ride in the Street

By: Mr. Wilson on August 1, 2006
The City Council gave the OK to bike lanes Downtown on 11th Street from K to Q, and on 14th Street from L to R. It's not much, but it's a good start in a long-fought battle to try to give bike riders a little more security Downtown.


See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.

August 1, 2006 at 1:21PM


Dave K
August 1, 2006 at 4:21PM

So I wonder if the first death from these bike lanes will be reported in the same manner as the first gun death after the CCW law goes in effect.  My guess is they won’t be reported similarly at all.  The blame for the bike death will be on the driver of the motorized vehicle, obviously.  Since the bike lanes are the answer to global warming, any reason for death other than gas-guzzling-driving-polluters is unacceptable.  But we know that the first gun death after the law goes in effect next year will bring calls to have the law repealed.  It will obviously be the gun’s fault, and the fault of the members of legislature who voted for the bill.  LCC members will also be blamed because they voted against a ban.

Ahhhhhhhhh….so predictable are Lincolnites…

August 1, 2006 at 4:23PM

wow vote conservative lately? 😉

Dave K
August 1, 2006 at 4:26PM


Not sure what my post has to do with voting conservative.

Mr. Wilson
August 1, 2006 at 4:28PM

Gee, I had no idea Lincoln’s bike lanes were a red state/blue state issue.

August 1, 2006 at 4:32PM

sorry I am a sarchastic a** sometimes 😉

I guess you might have a point.  Us bikers have to take responsibility for our situations we put ourselves in.  I know I cannot trust cars to look out for me, I need to be ever vigilant in protecting myself on roads.

This will at least show drivers that we have a legitimate right to be on roads, I will actually feel safer in the bike lane, but not let my guard down.

I think we can look at what happens in either upcommind death, be it a gun or car/bike that caused it, and make up our own minds.  Try to have a little faith in our conservative/liberal newspaper, media, and lincolnites.

August 1, 2006 at 5:08PM

For crying out loud, Dave. So predictable are Lincolnites, indeed - the Lincolnites who think equating bike lane accidents with death by concealed weapon will actually make a point about anything but the commentator.

August 1, 2006 at 5:24PM

And beerorkid, of course bikers have to take responsibility for the situations they put themselves in. I get so sick of one biker whining to me “Treat us like cars!” and then the next minute he’s weaving in between cars at a stop light and then running the light, because he’s on a bike.

Bike users can’t have it both ways. But there are a lot of bikers who follow the traffic laws in spite of the many Lincoln drivers who see them as two targets attached by a frame and a chain.

The integration of bike lanes is a part of making bike travel safer for everyone. Maybe car drivers don’t like having bike lanes, but they probably also don’t want to deal with a manslaughter conviction or worse, so it’s something that can work out for everyone. As disappointed as I’m sure Dave is to hear this, I don’t believe Al Gore will be personally making stops at each home to strap you to a shiny new Huffy. But I know for a fact that the cost of gas has got me considering biking much more than I ever had before.

The problem here is that Dave seems to accept people getting killed by folks who think they need to have a concealed weapon on them at all times is somehow proportionate to someone getting killed in a traffic accident. Bike riders who said that the lanes will protect themselves did not need to use the bike lanes to kill those who might infringe on their desire to bike.

Regardless of who is at fault - whether it is a careless biker or a careless auto driver - it’s an entirely different issue than someone being murdered as a result of the concealed weapons law.

And Dave, if you are confused as to how beerorkid inferred that you vote conservative, and Mr. Wilson, if you are confused as to how beerorkid responded to Dave in such a way, please read Dave’s post.

As he refers to the “reporting,” he must obviously be referring to the liberal Journal Star, who will love bike lanes and despise all who oppose them because they save the environment. But they will hate the gun law, because only conservatives like the 2nd amendment.

Please don’t dump the politicizing of the bike lanes onto beerorkid.

Dave K
August 1, 2006 at 6:15PM

Neal, you seem to get my point sometimes, but forget it elsewhere.  Here, you get it:

<i>As he refers to the

August 1, 2006 at 6:34PM

he he

I knew I should’nt of made the comment.  This is not a place I would like to debate political stuffis.

And also major kudos to ya nealo, your cartoons are great.

Yeah the bikers who don’t play nicely annoy me as well.  I consider myself traffic and obey the rules when downtown.  I take the whole lane and can usually stay ahead of cars, so I have never been yelled at, maybe a sneer or two though.  I even hand signal on side streets when nobody is loking, habit I guess.

Things like critical mass, do little more than annoy others.  It is not a positive step in being recognized as traffic, bike lanes are.

I do believe that the bike lanes are a step in the right direction for the city, I hope it is a sucess so we can see more lanes in the future.

Mr. Wilson
August 1, 2006 at 6:44PM

...and Mr. Wilson, if you are confused as to how beerorkid responded to Dave in such a way…

I’m not confused at all. I was just a little slow getting my comment posted, so my comment doesn’t really fall where it should have in the flow of the conversation.

August 1, 2006 at 8:08PM

Dave, I am aware of the consistent accusations of the media’s bias. Just because someone is familiar with your traditional arguments doesn’t make them any more real, sorry to say.

Although it is interesting, this line of thinking, where if someone disagrees with you or gets tired of hearing the same thing over and over again, it only shows how right you are.

August 1, 2006 at 8:08PM

oh and thanks for the kind words on the cartoons, folks. I didn’t mean to totally no-sell that.

Dave K
August 1, 2006 at 8:39PM

Neal, do you think mainstream media is biased?

August 1, 2006 at 8:51PM

Dave, please give me your definitions of both “mainstream media” and “biased.”

Because, as I recall, you were the individual who felt that mentioning the Iraq war costs billions of dollars and has an impact on the federal budget exposed a liberal bias, and that to be unbiased, one must omit mentioning the Iraq war as having an effect on said budget.

So I’m afraid that, in order to play along, I’m going to need to understand how you define “biased.”

Dave K
August 1, 2006 at 9:04PM

Okay, the term ‘mainstream’ is a little vague.  I apologize.  I illustrated the bias in that article by presenting an introduction to the article that would be biased in the other direction.  You didn’t seem to understand the bias in that, so I’ll retract my question under the assumption that my question won’t be answered regardless of how many paragraphs I need to explain it.

August 1, 2006 at 10:08PM

Nice one, Dave - disguising a cop-out as an insult. I like that “You’re too simple to follow me” trick; don’t worry - I won’t tell anyone!

Dave K
August 1, 2006 at 10:15PM

No, that’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying that I’ve already tried to illustrate bias before and it didn’t work, so why try again?  If it didn’t work the first time, then you must have a completely different idea of what bias is than me, which would make discussing this topic, and any further inquiry form me, futile.  I didn’t mean to suggest that you’re ‘too simple for me’.

Share your thoughts with the community.

Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.