As I nurse a sore jaw (it dropped in amazement onto my keyboard), I sense a shift in fundamental attitude towards transportation at one of our local Postmedia outlets.
The writers present bike-friendly arguements that people who ride bikes have brought forward for years. Speed, traffic reduction, pollution-related health. They did miss out on active transportation as creating a highly positive, highly personal health benefit for those who choose to be a bike rider.
“Thinking in the big picture, even a modest bike share program makes sound economic and social sense. . . .
. . . . And doing the less expensive good thing can’t be allowed to become a distraction from doing the more expensive necessary thing. If the new program is worth applause, it’s no substitute for investment in public transit, which is crucial to creating a livable, affordable city.”
The editorial writers stop short of touching on the helmet issue, which is apparently viewed as toxic by the Prov Gov’t, but is fundamental to bike-share’s success. Courage, fellas, courage.
I strongly hope that this big-picture-based endorsement will get a sponsor or two thinking just how much bike-share will enhance their image’s bottom line. Hello Lululemon, Telus?
But really, sometimes things change so fast it’s hard to process it.
I think some flagrant unhelmetedness is called for once bikeshare starts.
This is great but just to pick apart your wording for a minute, why does someone have to choose to be a bike rider? Can’t someone just bike sometimes? Do they have to become something?