New Haven Independent

posted by: Threefifths on August 31, 2010  12:03pm

The initial phase will cost $115,000 to $125,000. That money was allocated in the budget for Fiscal Year 2009-2010

Is this why the car tax went up?

posted by: anon on August 31, 2010  12:08pm

Why no sharrows to Union Station and only signs?

posted by: STYLENE on August 31, 2010  12:09pm

i really think this is great.  as a bike rider, it makes so much sense to have streets clearly marked so that drivers can see them.  i’m also a driver, so it’a a win win for me.

posted by: Steve B on August 31, 2010  12:42pm

No, Threefifths, it isn’t.

posted by: streever on August 31, 2010  12:55pm

3/5ths,

car taxes rarely (if ever) are actually used on roads.

Instead, property taxes are.

Just so you know, as a driver, you benefit from a multi-billion dollar infrastructure network which all of us (even those of us who don’t drive) subsidize with our property and income taxes.

Further, this newspaper has had I think 3 separate articles already that detail why your car tax was higher this year: the value of used cars increased (I am not even kidding you), because no one is buying new cars. There is a greater demand for used cars, the price increased, and that increased the tax cost.

The city does not use Kelly’s Blue Book for determining tax value of cars.

posted by: juli on August 31, 2010  1:30pm

oh threefifths,

if only the actual cost of a car was factored into each car!

how many of my tax dollars are spent on an auto-centric way of life that i don’t live??

this is a small, small step towards reminding all road users that it is the LAW to share it.

posted by: Jon Doe on August 31, 2010  1:33pm

I would like to Bikers haven to have a Headlight, signal light and for the rider to wear a reflected vest so driver can see them better day and night. Also they should also be taxed like cars are in the city.

posted by: john on August 31, 2010  1:34pm

@3/5: You could be a full 5/5 if you could just see that this is a worthy investment and a lot cheaper than the real desideranda, full bike lanes citywide.

yours truly,
bike and auto commuter

posted by: roger huzendubel on August 31, 2010  1:38pm

i know im going against the grain here, but i think bicyclists in this city are out of control. They think nothing of blocking traffic, obey traffic signals when its convenient, and getting in the way of pedestrians. i ride a skateboard eveywhere and make it a point to never get in the way of traffic or pedestrians. Ive been arrested for skateboarding seven times since i was 16, im 27 now (thanks Officer chuck Hebron- Yale PD)These trendster bicyclists want everything, what they need is common sense, STAY AWAY FROM CARS.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on August 31, 2010  2:16pm

Roger, I agree: cyclists lack common sense.  Just this past week, I’ve seen so a dozen cyclists who have not stopped with the traffic at red lights, but traveled straight through the intersections.  Now, if the driver of a car did that…

I’m waiting for a collision to happen, when, of course, the driver would be blamed.

posted by: Lisa on August 31, 2010  2:36pm

Thank you, this is great, but they should do Chapel through Fair Haven all the way down to Front St. at the Q River! A lot of people bike that stretch to get downtown for work.

posted by: anon on August 31, 2010  2:42pm

The driver should always be blamed, for the simple fact that they are operating a lethal weapon that kills one million and injures fifty million people per year, worldwide.

If a driver hits someone walking or riding on the street, they weren’t being careful enough.  Driving a car is like carrying a loaded weapon.

There is a reason why, in many other countries, the driver is always legally at fault.  Let’s change the laws here so that our roads can be made safer.

posted by: robn on August 31, 2010  3:08pm

Bicycle riders should obey traffic lights and signs becuase when they don’t they give law abiding cyclists a bad name <b> (you now who you are scofflaws!)

posted by: Bill Saunders on August 31, 2010  3:19pm

Streever,

Taxes went up because spending went up.
The rest of the excuses are shell games and distractions.
(Sure, some people were disproportionately affected in the process)

posted by: Threefifths on August 31, 2010  3:24pm

posted by: streever on August 31, 2010 1:55pm
3/5ths,

Just so you know, as a driver, you benefit from a multi-billion dollar infrastructure network which all of us (even those of us who don’t drive) subsidize with our property and income taxes

Give me a break.Cars and trucks will still be need it.You expect a firefighter to come to a fire on a bike?How about EMS they are going to put some one on a bike.

posted by: juli on August 31, 2010 2:30pm
oh threefifths,

if only the actual cost of a car was factored into each car!

how many of my tax dollars are spent on an auto-centric way of life that i don’t live??

this is a small, small step towards reminding all road users that it is the LAW

But how about those of us who pay money for bike lanes and trails that don’t own a bike.

posted by: juli on August 31, 2010  3:50pm

this is not about good cyclists vs bad cyclists
this is not about good drivers vs bad drivers

this is about making the roads we have work better for everyone
this is about changing our infrastructure to make it easier to use all modes of travel, not just driving
this is to encourage lawful, safe use of roads by all so that we can all get where we need to go, however we choose to go

posted by: Bill Saunders on August 31, 2010  3:54pm

How does what amounts to spray paint and a stencil cost $120K?
Is there a full accounting of how this money was spent?

posted by: terrapin on August 31, 2010  3:58pm

Wow. I don’t bike as much as I would like to, so I support people getting out of their cars, but I can’t believe these sharrows are going to make much difference in making biking safer.

posted by: cedarhillresident on August 31, 2010  4:10pm

I saw these on my way to work yesterday…**I giggled a little*** because the first thing I thought was ohh sign language for bikers…love the arrow for those on bikes that are clueless that they to follow the one ways just like cars and need there own arrow to show them how to drive because the one way sign “does not apply to them”. But I think in general this is a good thing to help the challenged bike rider with direction! Good job.

posted by: nfjanette on August 31, 2010  4:25pm

I don’t argue spending public safety funds on road improvements that would benefit cyclists.  However, $115,000 to $125,000 of money spent on ineffective road symbols is $115,000 to $125,000 too much that could have been spent somewhere else.  For example, that would by a lot of free cycling helmets and reflectors/lights, or a couple of left-turn arrow traffic lights (badly needed in this city).

I also agree with the anecdotal observations shared about cyclists flagrantly disobeying the traffic laws at intersections.  They should be ticketed; of course, so should all of the motor vehicle operators that pull the same moves.  Left on red after a full stop - who are you kidding, people?

posted by: will on August 31, 2010  4:30pm

Yes! Levy an “annoyance tax” on bicycles as they are a type of “vehicle” motor or otherwise and the state could use the money.  No more of this clever getting away with free transportation I say. By the way, did they have to put these sharrows right in the center of the driving lane? You know some idiot on a bike is going to ride smack in the middle of the street in front of traffic because these markings are now a license to do so.

posted by: Tom on August 31, 2010  4:43pm

To all the commentors complaining about cyclists, grow up. The city is rightfully giving people more transportation options.

In a city where 1/3 of the households don’t have access to a car, this is just common sense. The road is a public resource plan and simple. It’s there for everyone to use, and trying to make the argument that it’s only for a certain class of people or for individuals who own their own cars is elitist and un-American. No one’s telling you that you can’t drive, don’t tell anyone else how they ought to get from Point A to Point B. 

And to everyone complaining about the economics of it, face facts. Accommodating the private automobile to the level we have in New Haven costs us all quite a bit of money. The thousands of public and private parking spaces downtown represent land that isn’t being developed and put on the tax roles for a higher and better use. As a driver I certainly enjoy the low-priced parking downtown, but there is a hidden cost to a subsidy like that.

Finally, don’t try to demonize cyclists because they’re not a separate group anyway. Most cyclists are also drivers and most people who drive would like the opportunity to bike and walk more often. And just as most drivers are reasonable and courteous individuals, so are most cyclists. No driver remembers the cyclist who signals and rides with traffic, and no cyclists remember the hundreds of drivers that safely and courteously pass them, because that just doesn’t make for a good story to your friends or a proper angry rant in the comments section of your local newspaper.

posted by: john on August 31, 2010  7:44pm

@nfjanette:

“...a couple of left-turn arrow traffic lights (badly needed in this city).”

AMEN to that. College and Grove to start.

posted by: Bill Saunders on August 31, 2010  8:03pm

Tom,

I am not complaining about the economics of this infrastructure, I am just asking how the money was spent.

Not too much to ask now, is it???

posted by: Some Idiot on August 31, 2010  8:58pm

@will:

Levy an “annoyance tax” on bicycles as they are a type of “vehicle” ... No more of this clever getting away with free transportation I say.

You’re spoofing, right? No more free transportation, a la the Beatles: “If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.”

By the way, did they have to put these sharrows right in the center of the driving lane? You know some idiot on a bike is going to ride smack in the middle of the street in front of traffic because these markings are now a license to do so.

Some idiot on a bike might actually know the rules of the road, which allow bicycles in the middle of the “driving” lane (i.e., the vehicle lane, and bikes, as you point out, are a type of vehicle).

Of course your comment was a clever parody. I’m just clearing this up in case “some idiot” might think you were serious.

posted by: Jeffery on September 1, 2010  2:21am

@Tom
“In a city where 1/3 of the households don’t have access to a car, this is just common sense.”

Guess what, Tom? In a city where 1/3 of the households don’t have access to a car, they STEAL bicycles !!!

That is the “common sense ” reality.

JD, you know I love you, but all this pandering to the Whining Intensive Cyclist ( WIC) Lobby is exactly what is getting you in hot water with all the rest of the “po mees”
I’m still up for that “tete-a tete” if you are.

People like the ones who start their pen names with lower case letters, a la “s” and “j” are entirely anarchistic to a beautiful New Haven.

A New Haven, JD, that we both know so well.

posted by: Liana on September 1, 2010  2:26am

Why does it offend automobile drivers so much that there is a percentage of individuals who have simply chosen not to buy into a system that obviously doesn’t work very well for many?  If it were [working], I doubt there would be so much vitriol.

John Doe, you do realize that the property taxes cyclists invariably pay are paying for the roads, right?  And that paved roads came to be in the first place due to the presence of bicycles on roads?  And that if you’re operating a motor vehicle in a safe and non-threatening manner that you will see what is in front of you and act accordingly, reflective gear or not?  Right?

posted by: eli antonio on September 1, 2010  7:10am

yet another waste of taxpayer monies to placate the elitest cycling community.  if the cycling community were made up of mostly non-white, poor, undereducated under employed citizens, there would not be such an effort to quiet such a special interest group.

posted by: steve0607 on September 1, 2010  8:27am

“The driver should always be blamed…”.

What??!!

Bike riders, by and large, run red lights and stop signs,go the wrong way on one-way streets, ride in-between traffic lanes (passing slow moving cars on either side), and ride on the sidewalks. As one who walks a lot, I see this behavior every day.

If car drivers did that there would be blood all over the city up to your ears!

Bikers need a crash course in traffic laws, not only for their own safety, but for everyone else as well.

posted by: Wil on September 1, 2010  8:47am

Thank you steve0607 I couldn’t have said it better!

posted by: Wil on September 1, 2010  8:56am

... Alphonse, to say bikers in this city lack common sense is putting it kindly. Most likely the reason they don’t drive a car - see above.  I’m glad I have insurance is all I can say.  By the way. Kind of off the subject but people who walk don’t do such a bang-up job either.  For them: If you get caught in the crosswalk when the light for traffic turns green, move your ... out of the road!

posted by: juli on September 1, 2010  9:45am

steve0607, you simply do not notice the cyclists riding lawfully. there are many of us in this city. i agree that i am safer when i ride my bike following traffic laws, because i am a vehicle, and should be treated as such.

this is a city that includes many temporary residents who don’t know and/or care that they should ride their bike following traffic laws (and may also attend a school that could afford to teach them how… just sayin). this is a city that includes people that might not have had access to the bicycle education that you suggest, and might just be trying to get to a job that doesnt pay them enough (not that that excuses bad cycling, but have some context, will you? when i’ve tried to tell some bikers not to travel against traffic, sometimes i get called some nasty names, and i suspect they think i am just some rich white yale student telling them what to do- which i am not)

when the streets work better for all modes of travel, it encourages lawful behavior by all.
when the streets make cyclists feel like second-class citizens and encourage bad behavior by drivers and cyclists alike.

by the way, you could argue a chicken vs. egg scenario with a few cyclists i know who don’t follow the laws as strictly as i. they argue that the system is not built for them, and it does not work for them. for example: have you ever considered that every red light is not tripped by a cyclists presence???  so sometimes we look both ways and go instead of waiting for a car to come trip it.

and, finally, why is it while i ride my bike in new haven, i mostly encounter courteous drivers but on a NHI comment board, i feel like most drivers just want cyclists to disappear? that an open road in front of you on your commute home is your idea of paradise??

posted by: Steve B on September 1, 2010  10:07am

“if the cycling community were made up of mostly non-white, poor, undereducated under employed citizens, there would not be such an effort to quiet such a special interest group.”

The cycling community IS made up mostly of these folks. Perhaps it is due to their level of disenfranchisement that you do not realize this fact. Thank goodness for groups like ECC that are speaking up loudly for the large portion of New Haven residents who far too often don’t get a seat at the table.

I see Sharrows as a bridge to a future where the roads are more equitably shared. It’s not the end-all but it’s a step. Far from a significant infrastructure investment, but it is a symbol of a shift in policy. Great news. Have they painted them on Lombard yet?

posted by: anon on September 1, 2010  10:41am

Eli:

Most cyclists seem pretty representative of the lower-income parts of New Haven.  Have you spent any time on Whalley Avenue?  Last time I was there I counted about 50 cyclists, only 2 of whom looked “white.” I also did a count on the East Shore (which has a large hispanic population) and only about 1/3rd of the riders there looked “white.”

In fact, it’s sad that sharrows and bike lanes are primarily going into high income areas, whereas areas like Fair Haven, West River and Newhallville which may have the most cyclists remain ignored, decade after decade.

Of course, lower-income people and children don’t vote in very large numbers relative to homeowners in Westville or East Rock, so this outcome does make sense to some degree.  But the city should be careful about treating all neighborhoods equally - doing that just reinforces inequalities.

posted by: STYLENE on September 1, 2010  11:04am

@steve0607:  just this morning i saw that very thing.  running red lights and riding in and out of traffic.  again, im both a bike rider and a car driver, but it does seem like the driver gets the bulk of the blame for accidents involving cyclists.

posted by: HewNaven?? on September 1, 2010  11:09am

“Why does it offend automobile drivers so much that there is a percentage of individuals who have simply chosen not to buy into a system that obviously doesn’t work very well for many?  If it were [working], I doubt there would be so much vitriol.”

People generally don’t like being told they are in bondage. Anyone who would freely chose to own a car is a mental slave, and sadly for those who struggle to afford it, they are working slaves. They are are forced and coerced by legal authority to pay car taxes,  car registration, insurance, maintenance fees, car loan payments, and, last but not least, gasoline.

On top of all the extra money they spend, the negative external costs are adding up for car drivers, and that’s the part that really makes them feel guilty: higher asthma rates amongst New Haven children; ugly, un-walkable streets; loud, stress-inducing noise; aggressive and negligent behavior resulting in injuries and death, and worst of all continued support for greedy oil barons, militaristic politicians and a failing energy system which has resulted in the destruction of neighborhoods, cities and cultures, and the deaths of millions of innocent soldiers and civilians all over the world.

So, some car drivers definitely misplace their frustration regarding their poor choices in life. But, the reason is simple: its not nice to tease a caged animal, or point out the obvious. They sometimes act out in anger at those who mock them. Cyclists should be wary of ape poop being flung from moving vehicles.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on September 1, 2010  11:53am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqMj3E94BK0&ob=av1e

It is my personal feeling that life should not be about getting from point A to point B fastest. Life should be about the quality of each and every moment. For instance, the average suburban American commuter parent spends 3 years in their car commuting by the time their child is 18 years old. We race in cars to get from our suburban subdivision ranch house, to our office park jobs, to the supermarket and then back home. We are wasting enormous amounts of time sitting in steel and glass boxes to the point where we end up racing from birth to death, often times prematurely as a direct result of automobiles.

The Street, in America, is part of the public realm and it is there for all to enjoy and use. By the 1930s, city streets were clogged with cars and to address this issue we decided to artificially overlay car-centric ideals on pre-automobile age street systems. Ironically, the old street networks of pre-WW2 cities and towns actually carry traffic better than their suburban counterparts of collectors, arterials and highways through dispersion, choice and the frequency of those choices. We cannot continue to expect a desirable outcome if we don’t address the fact that we’ve imposed standards of suburbia onto our cities. Unemployment is so high in working class urban neighborhoods because the working class jobs have been sent over seas. We cannot expect poor city dwellers to buy a car and shop around for a job miles from where they live like the half of the country that lives in suburbs. The point of a neighborhood is that you can walk from home to work to shops to recreation; we have completely failed to make urban neighborhoods more suburban and we need to stop building 1/4 acre single family houses in them, we need to stop stripping 12 foot travel lanes, and we need to start understanding what makes cities work and what doesn’t.

posted by: anon on September 1, 2010  1:54pm

HewNaven, I agree that those fortunate enough to be able use methods of transportation other than driving should be wary of road rage. But there are good reasons for drivers to be bitter. 

Drivers sit in a metal cage that is chemically polluted. Scientists have proven how pollution gets sucked in to the cabin and doesn’t leave, so drivers become laden with toxins in a way that people outside don’t. 

Cars run primarily on other people’s money and make drivers fat, directly and indirectly.  Meanwhile, walkers, bikers and transit users run on fat, and save everyone a lot of money.

Drivers are also more likely to live in suburbs and encounter regular crashes, meaning that, on average, they face far higher rates of death and injury than even the most crime-ridden urban areas.  Since the number of crashes means that every hour of driving results in 20 minutes of lost life expectancy, many drivers lose a year of life expectancy (that’s before accounting for the increased risks from obesity, unhappiness, and indebtedness, all of which are correlated with excessive driving).

Making alternatives to driving more attractive, through measures such as sharrows and better bus service, would take a lot of cars off the road, saving money that could be put to use elsewhere. 

I think that about 90% of Americans get this, which is why they support efforts (like those of New Haven) to build a 21st century transportation system.

posted by: Pedro on September 1, 2010  2:48pm

Anon, if 90% of Americans supported this, cycling would be used by far more than the relatively small percentage that currently do.
I don’t know if you understand that your positions about cars represents a fringe and is certainly not representative of the American public at large.

Some of them have merit, but others are gross oversimplifications that do nothing to further debate and do everything to demonize people who own automobiles. By taking that position you are guaranteeing that a large majority of the public tunes out to what you have to say.

Zealotry is not the way to move policy forward.

posted by: Cedarhillresident on September 1, 2010  3:07pm

Pedro, well said…turned it right out…but it is his choose. I do think that it is not an inviting way to present the issue at hand. Instead of putting the shoe on the other foot…just hit them in the head with it. Oh well.

Anon…most people I know that do ride in the city are the above and beyond group. And most not all are the best on bikes. but understand how scary it can be in a car with bike riders that are clueless….I am a cautious driver and will drive 5 miles an hour behind someone on a bike if they do not have the nicitys to move mover…I do not want to wiz by them in the wrong lane…ect. I have watch crowds of people having to step aside for bikes on the sidewalk going against traffic everyday….as if the people on foot had the nerve…(notice these are not people in cars).

Educate that is all that is being said here…most that live here..(most that post here live here not in the suburbs) and even if they (meaning me) take the car…it is my choose. Just like it is yours to ride…but how do we work together?

posted by: Jessica Flack on September 1, 2010  3:39pm

(PR) New Haven - Vincinity of Chapel, and Howe:

CYCLISTS CONTINUE TO RIDE THE WRONG WAY TO CHURCH.
                     
                                    -Pedestrian Reporting, reporting.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on September 1, 2010  3:40pm

Pedro,
Americans overwhelmingly prefer walkable small towns to suburbia. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have trouble articulating that what they prefer is localized living where transportation options are a benefit. People will look at an old Main Street, and say “This is so great, too bad we can’t make these anymore because the prices at CostCo are lower”. People have trouble conceptualizing problems and looking at broader solutions. Whereas the price of goods at CostCo is indeed lower than at a family-owned store, the cost of providing the infrastructure for global networks of commerce and the associated detriments to local economies greatly outweighs the costs of local networks of commerce. One of the biggest obstacles in the way of unanimous public support of anon’s (and others) proposals boils down to a misunderstanding of cost and price.
A small town boils down to a neighborhood with a walkable commercial strip with jobs, services, recreation, civic space, and affordable housing embedded into the neighborhood fabric that is in relation to either rail, a parkway, a waterfront or all three. A city the size of New Haven is made of a collection of “small towns”. This is the thing that people cannot conceptualize and accept. To make matters worse, developers and market studies convince the public that cookie cutter housing, shopping malls, strip malls, and office parks are what they want, where any honest study shows the exact opposite.

posted by: Wil on September 1, 2010  4:27pm

All those so rabidly in support of cyclist issues, take a look at what your brothers are doing over in Fair Haven.  Not only is the issue a nuisance, obviously it’s becoming downright dangerous.

The following is a release from New Haven spokesperson Mayorga as reported in today’s NHI:

A man driving over the Ferry Street bridge reported being shot at by a person on a bicycle. The incident happened sometime Tuesday: No specific time was given. The victim told police he was driving over the bridge when three males on bicycles blocked the way. The driver and one of the people on the bikes got into an argument. One of the people on the bikes took out a gun and shot at the truck. One suspect, a 17-year-old male who was identified as the shooter, was arrested.

posted by: William Kurtz on September 1, 2010  7:53pm

Well, Wil, this gets right back to the “Teens On Bikes” thing last week. 

The fact that the shooter was riding a bicycle is incidental.

If someone engages in a drive-by shooting, does that make him “your brother” because he was in car?

posted by: Stubby on September 1, 2010  7:58pm

As someone else pointed out, what’s needed most is education. Here’s a lesson. A choose [sic] to regularly drive a car is a decision to proudly make the following contributions to society:

-I stand behind our culture’s dependence on oil and I support any means necessary to obtain it. I support war and terrorism, and military hegemony; corruption and greed, and misappropriation of public funds and food is fine too; I support the deaths of countless young men and women who were told they would fight a war for freedom and many more who died trying to defend themselves. So What? Iraq’s not in my backyard.

-I support oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon-Mobil. They have proven that capital growth is more important than any resultant negative externalities such as urban decay, climate change or irreparable ecological damage. It’s all about the money, and I like money.

-I willingly support air pollution and carbon emissions, and I don’t care about anyone but myself. I know about the countless studies that tell me driving is one of the worst things I could do to prevent these things, but I ignore them. If the less fortunate souls of present and future generations suffer because of my lifestyle choices, so be it. I won’t be around to see that.

posted by: westvillian on September 1, 2010  9:13pm

despite a rather morphed and abstract bike symbol, seeing the freshly painted “hieroglyphics” inspired me to pull out my bike and actually ride to work this week.  long overdue.  despite the heat, what a way to enjoy new haven and feel that much more connected to the neighborhoods in-between westville and downtown.  having the street reminders did make me as a cyclist feel that cars were more aware.  I do however agree with Bill’s question of why it takes $125k to paint these seemingly simple works of art, but then I remember that I’ve been trying to get the city of NH to add stop signs to an intersection with documented multiple crashes in our neighborhood and months later we are still told a traffic study needs to be conducted.  maybe that $125k includes the same kind of “study” requirement.  regardless, happy to see the bikes and happier yet to be on one in the streets of NH!

posted by: cc in tx on September 1, 2010  9:45pm

Sharrows work very well in Austin.  I use them all the time.  However, the roads here are much bigger than in New Haven.  Also, way too much hostility in New Haven for drivers and cyclists.  Bummer for y’all.
At any rate, when using the sharrow, you must really stick to it, meaning: take up the whole lane.  If you try to hang to the right of it, cars behind you won’t be prepared when you have to dodge a car door opening into traffic, which is always a hazard biking in city traffic.
I hope it gets better up there.

posted by: anon on September 2, 2010  5:57am

Pedro, I said that the vast majority of Americans support an expanded transportation system with more options and less oil dependency, not that they ride buses, bike, walk or “demonize” drivers.

posted by: HewNaven?? on September 2, 2010  7:53am

Michael Zezima makes a good pitch to those who can’t see the light. He argues, why be so subtle in an approach to educate them? The car industry supported by governments and big business has bombarded us with this so-called lifestyle. They haven’t been subtle or cautious. They rammed it down our throats. They’ve actually made us believe that driving a car is equivalent to freedom and opportunity, and the American way. Well, if driving a car is your idea of freedom, you are quite pathetic and I pity your life. I hope that you find true happiness and freedom through non-destructive means.

Here’s Zezima’s 50 Reasons Why Cars Suck:

1. There are way too many of ‘em
From 1950 to 1970, the U.S. automobile population grew four times faster than the human population. Today, there are around 200 million cars in America. Which brings us to reason #2.

2. Traffic
Contrary to all those car commercials in which you see the automobile being marketed as it cruises along all alone on an open road, we Americans spend 8 billion hours per year stuck in traffic.

3. Cars kill people
During the twentieth century, 250 million Americans were maimed or injured in automobile accidents.

4. Cars kill kids
The leading cause of death for children aged 5 to 14 in New York City is pedestrian automobile accidents.

5. Cars kill celebrities
While some may (understandably) regard this as an admirable reason to expand automobile production, it may have been interesting to discover what else people like Jackson Pollock, Albert Camus, or James Dean had to offer. Just a thought.

6. Cars kill every day
Every single day in the U.S., an average of 121 people are killed in car accidents.

7. Cars kill animals
The carnage is even worse for furry, feathered, and multi-legged earthlings. Automobiles, SUVs, trucks, and other fossil field-burning vehicles kill a million wild animals per week in the U.S.

8. Cars exploit dead animals
Substances like anti-freeze, bio-diesel fuel, hydraulic brake fluid, and asphalt binder are all made with ingredients culled from the carcasses of departed animals.

9. Those Christmas tree-shaped air fresheners
Enough to turn anyone’s lungs into a potential Superfund site.

10. Car bombs
An uncomplicated equation: no cars = no car bombs.

11. Drive-by shootings
A touch more of the old math for ya: cars + automatic weapons = drive-by shootings

12. Sprawl
During the last century, an area equal to all the arable land in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania was paved in the U.S.

13. Expensive sprawl
The area equal to all the arable land in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania requires maintenance costing over $200 million a day.

14. Very expensive sprawl
The surreptitious cost of the car culture totals nearly $464 billion a year in the U.S. alone, much of that going to the sustentation of a military presence in the Persian Gulf.

15. Bumper stickers
Another truism: Without bumpers, there wouldn’t be any bothersome bumper stickers.

16. Malls
Need I say more?

17. Horns
Especially when they are used in lieu of a door bell. Especially at 3 a.m.

18. Alarms
Especially at 3 a.m.

19. They take up too much space
A car demands 300 square feet when parked or standing still and 3000 square feet when moving at 30 miles per hour. A pedestrian requires only 5 square feet when standing and 10 square feet when walking.

20. There’s less room for bicycles
With the possible exception of written language, the bicycle just may be the neatest idea we humans have ever come up with.

21. Global warming
Automobiles emit one-quarter of U.S. greenhouse gases.

22. Car toys
An entire industry designed to lay the foundation. Imagine that.

23. Drivers who ignore what traffic lights mean
Green means you drive through the intersection above the speed limit. Yellow means you drive through the intersection while making a mockery of the speed limit. Red means you drive through the intersection at a rate approaching the speed of sound.

24. Traffic lights
The next time you’re feeling “free,” see how far you can walk without being legally compelled to stop . . . so cars can pass.

25. Oil addiction
The U.S. spends $60 billion per year on foreign oil.

26. Serious oil addiction
Eight million barrels of oil per day is combusted in U.S. cars.

27. Very serious oil addiction
That’s 450 gallons per person per year.

28. Walking in right angles
Thanks to our car-centric civilization, most cities are designed in grids forcing pedestrians to forever walk in right angles.

29. Poor posture
That’s what we get from sitting hunched over a steering wheel 8 billion hours a year.

30. Car songs
With all due respect to Bruce Springsteen, I’d suggest we’ve heard all we need to hear about the joys of souped-up hemis, drag-strip romance, and the mythical ‘57 Chevy.

31. The drive-thru life
From drive-thru eating to drive-thru funerals, isn’t it safe to insinuate we’ve forfeited a little bit of perspective here?

32. Waste
Cars create 7 billion pounds of un-recycled scrap and waste annually.

33. Car commercials
They say: “Cars make you sexy, smart, cool, and successful.” I say: “Go back to reason #3 to see what cars really make you.”

34. Parking lots
These structures, sitting atop once-thriving eco-systems, are rivaled only by cemeteries in the post-modern space-wasting competition.

35. Parking tickets
The inescapable consummation of the dreaded “alternate side of the street” abstraction.

36. Parking
How much time have you wasted looking for a spot, squeezing into that spot, and then trying to recall where the hell the damn spot was in the first place?

37. Tires
With approximately one billion discarded tires littering our increasingly paved landscape, meditate upon this: Every tire loses one pound of rubber per year, spewing minute grains of rubber into the stratosphere and then back down to find a new home in our water and/or our lungs.

38. Road rage
These equations just keep getting easier. Road rage cannot exist without the automobile. Hey, when was the last time you saw a cyclist brandishing an Uzi?

39. Mechanics
Your car dies, you walk into the repair shop, and you just know what the mechanic is thinking: “I know something you don’t and, man, am I’m gonna make you pay for it.”

40. The internal combustion engine
Or, as Ralph Nader calls it, the “infernal combustion engine.” Possibly humanity’s foremost folly.

41. Humans did not evolve to ride in cars
Or in boats and planes, for that matter. A transparent case of stone age biology in a space age society.

42. Carchitecture
How many structures exist exclusively to nourish the car culture? We can start with the highway, on-ramp, off-ramp, gas station, strip mall, car wash, auto repair shop, car rental establishment, bridges, tunnels, and, of course, the suburbs.

43. The suburbs
Phase one of a cunning master plan to facilitate automobile dependency.

44. De-funded public transportation
Phase two.

45. Campaign contributions
Phase three.

46. Corporate welfare
Phase four.

47. Cars are hell
During the 40 days of the Gulf War, 146 Americans died keeping the world safe for petroleum while at home, 4900 Americans died in motor vehicle accidents.

48. Personalized license plates
To foster one’s singularity . . . while keeping the homogenizing car culture alive and well.

49. Speed kills
If the national speed limit is no higher than 65 MPH, why are cars capable of going twice that fast?

50. Humans drive ‘em
After you’ve cynically dismissed all of the other 49 reasons why cars suck, take a good hard look at the person sitting behind the wheel of the next car you see.

Case closed.

© Michael Zezima

posted by: Steve Ross, Human on September 2, 2010  10:03am

I find this ongoing argument depressing. As much as some us believe it to be, bald antipathy isn’t critical thought .

posted by: A word from Ivan Illich on September 2, 2010  11:52am

“The model American male devotes more than 1600 hours a year to his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for gasoline, tolls, insurance, taxes, and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking hours on the road or gathering his resources for it. And this figure does not take into account the time consumed by other activities dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts, and garages; time spent watching automobile commercials or attending consumer education meetings to improve the quality of the next buy. The model American puts in 1600 hours to get 7500 miles: less than five miles per hour. In countries deprived of a transportation industry, people manage to do the same, walking wherever they want to go, and they allocate only 3 to 8 percent of their society’s time budget to traffic instead of 28 percent. What distinguishes the traffic in rich countries from the traffic in poor countries is not more mileage per hour of lifetime for the majority, but more hours of compulsory consumption of high doses of energy, packaged and unequally distributed by the transportation industry.”

-Ivan Illich

posted by: Anon on September 2, 2010  12:42pm

And I will add to Ivan Ilich:

... All while their cholesterol rises into the 300 range.

No wonder they are so angry.

That hour at the gym after work often seems to do little and that is because it can never make up for what your car is doing to you.

Like making the minimum payments on a credit card, it will take you years and never really succeed. In a month on a bike just commuting to work you will reach your goals.

Get on your bike, join us and feel much much happier. See your cholesterol and blood pressure drop without even really trying. 

Park somewhere else and drive from there, save the cost of that parking garage spot that always goes up, never down.

Only use your car when you can’t get there by bike.

posted by: Anon on September 2, 2010  12:48pm

“38. Road rage
These equations just keep getting easier. Road rage cannot exist without the automobile. Hey, when was the last time you saw a cyclist brandishing an Uzi?”

Well, it wasn’t an UZI, but when that bicyclist shot at a cop on a walking beat in New Haven in 2005, so, five years ago.

posted by: William Kurtz on September 6, 2010  12:56pm

Objections to sharrows are silly because a) the cost is low, a tiny fraction of the money spent to maintain roads, paint lanes, post signs and fill potholes, and b) they don’t put any new obligation on anyone.  Cyclists already have the same rights to use the streets as motorists.  This is a fact, not a trendy liberal elitists opinion—it’s the law, simple as that.  Objecting to cyclists on the road is like objecting to stop signs, red lights, that pesky yellow line down the center, one-way streets, yield signs, etc. etc.  You simply don’t have a choice in the matter.  Time to get used to it.

The ongoing petty whining about scofflaw cyclists is getting pretty old, too.  No one should condone dangerous or irresponsible behavior by any road user.  Certainly, cyclists sometimes-perhaps often, I don’t want to quibble-violate the letter of the traffic law.  You can complain about a guy on a bike treating a stop light as a stop sign, Alphonse, when we have your sworn affidavit that you never exceed the posted speed limit at any time, on any road, and have never rolled through a light that “just turned red while you were under it”.  And Roger, I might point out that it’s typically the motorists who are ‘blocking traffic.’  I was trying to ride down York Street last Friday while the students were moving in.  Completely choked with out-of-state cars, trucks, and vans.  And do I even need to mention the 91-95 merge?

The sooner we start drawing the line not between cyclists and motorists, but between safe responsible streets user and reckless and irresponsible ones, the faster sensible changes to transportation infrastructure will start happening.

posted by: carol on September 9, 2010  1:17pm

I was wondering what these were! I love them! For the last two weeks or so I’ve been noticing them when I bike and I think that they’re the greatest. New Haven is on its way to becoming a bike friendly city—now if we can only get drivers to stop at stop signs and red lights.