When asking around, I heard these three candidates are some potential good bike-friendly options:
Let's use this thread to discuss, bring in articles, quotations, and proof of bike-savviness. Cool?
Eye rolls! Dear me (clutching pearls.)
I have no patience with all this feigned fragility.
Why, thank you, Exhibit B.
Was that a snark?! Have you no decency, sir?
So, in summary, of the two candidates in the run-off, the one who is in the best interests of the cycling community,
-Which holds as its primary interest(s): ____________
-is best served by (lightfoot/preckwinkle): ____________
-because: _____________________________________ .
yes, that's what this discussion thread is about
exhibit a & b
Not sure if those are supposed to be hyperlinks but they arent working on my end.
But yeah I'm all for staying on topic.
Lightfoot seems like she does the occasional bike trail, whereas Toni seems like she has never ridden a bike in her life. So Lightfoot would likely be more interested in issues specific to biking.
However I think Toni would be better for the biking community because:
- she would be a stronger proponent of police accountability given their respective track records, and as I mentioned, Toni actually wants to restructure things to give a citizen oversight board power to appoint the police board vs Lori who wants to have the city council create a commission to oversee the police board. As I mentioned, the police community themselves see Lori as the lesser evil for a reason- not that they see her as an ally by any means. And there is a clear interplay between police accountability and the biking community, as police enforcement of laws protecting cyclists has been pathetic.
- Toni Preckwinkle also has a track record of getting things done in government including the county's first long range transportation plan in 75 years, which included accommodations for biking throughout the county. She is also very pro environmental and biking is inherently part of most pushes for sustainability. She also wants to bring back the Chicago department of environment.
- Toni Preckwinkle has a track record of advocacy for the underprivileged. One of the issues the biking community has faced is a disparity in the treatment of African American bikers including a disproportionate amount of tickets being given to cyclists in south side communities.
I think we have enough millionaire elected officials in this country. Toni Preckwinkle hasnt gotten rich off government, I think the cyclist community is better off with someone who has a track record of inclusivity and advocacy of economic equity.
Ok, got it. I agree, whether they say this or that about cycling directly, there are issues which in play that have a broader effect on cyclists. (cops, traffic, etc.) I'll confess I'm not sure which steps would be taken and to what effect with either candidate, but there are some clues. From that link that had provided us in section 9 at 6:04 Carol Marin asks them about "...greater enforcement of traffic laws for bikers who don't sometimes stop at stop signs and traffic lights...."
From Preckwinkle: "...Well it's incredibly dangerous, um, to ride without a helmet, and many of our bike riders don't pay any attention to the traffic laws, which not only infuriating but scary for drivers..." The implication from her is that the days of riding against the sign on a one-way street might be over. Although I'd be a little surprised if that happened on a large scale, this might put some cyclists into be careful what they wish for territory.
The follow-up question is about double-parking and motorists, and then in the next section, U turns and lane changes. Then they get into police concentrating on violent crime, and how the violent crime arrest rate is low, we're lacking detectives, and folks in the community don't work with the police (Preckwinkle) and then remarks on traffic enforcement and managing travel. (Lightfoot)
So it's multi-faceted for sure, especially if economics are added to the mix.
They both demonstrated a general lack of bike advocacy and bike savvyness in that debate and they both said basically that bikers should follow the law. But saying bikers should follow the law isnt the same as calling for increased enforcement.
The candidates have been hotly debated on this thread. After doing some reading on my own and reading this thread, it's been a reminder that we don't really ever get the "perfect candidate". The perfect candidate is a myth.
What we do have is an opportunity to educate the future mayor in areas they don't understand e.g. cycling and the myths about cyclists being law breakers and forcing helmets on people. Non-issues like these are a distraction provided by motorists (car industry?) and keeps kicking a can down the street rather than committing to a change in culture, infrastructure, infrastructure enforcement, and support. It also redirects the discussion away from where we really should be focusing - DISTRACTED DRIVING. Yes, I am shouting. I am tired of the finger pointing in the wrong direction. Tired of reading of distracted drivers, be it DUI, smart phones, etc. they are the problem. That and the speeding, impatient drivers that seem to think getting to their job a minute earlier is worth putting vulnerable users of the same roads at risk.
Ok, soap box ended. I hope this conversation is had. Again. And. Again. Until it finally sinks in. This is the issue, everything else is an attempt to avoid responsibility.