This guy is a Republican: Mick Cornett, Mayor, Oklahoma City

[JimK]

What does his party affiliation have to do with the content of the article?

[rpiretti]

Awesome! – a lean right guy

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mstone]

@JimK 73234 wrote:

What does his party affiliation have to do with the content of the article?

I’d assumed it was meant to be educational for the local elected Republicans, who are fairly uniformly anti-bike.

[PotomacCyclist]

@JimK 73234 wrote:

What does his party affiliation have to do with the content of the article?

Not so much the article but about bike policy nationwide. For some reason, certain Republican leaders believe that bike infrastructure is a core partisan issue, even though a majority of both Republicans and Democrats support improved bike infrastructure. If the issue were to become less partisan, then there could be more support for better policies and programs. The success of Cornett and Oklahoma City can alleviate concerns that bike infrastructure somehow harms the economy or that it is somehow an evil UN-sponsored conspiracy or … whatever. Granted, there are probably other reasons for OKC’s success too. Maybe the oil boom and the pipeline from Canada. But OKC seems to be managing its success in a thoughtful manner. There have been other cities and regions that have enjoyed sudden economic booms without improving the quality of life and the health of its citizens. OKC is taking a different route, a superior one.

Many also overlook the fact that perhaps the most important bike advocate in recent years is also a Republican, former Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.

[Two Wheels]

“certain Republican leaders believe that bike infrastructure is a core partisan issue”

and apparently certain forum commenters and readers.

[mstone]

@Two Wheels 73334 wrote:

“certain Republican leaders believe that bike infrastructure is a core partisan issue”

and apparently certain forum commenters and readers.

The voting records speak for themselves, sorry.

[baiskeli]

While some Republican leaders are pro-bike, there’s no denying that on a list of irrationally anti-bike politicians, you’ll find an abundance of Rs. But the OP isn’t bashing Republicans, it’s pointing out that we as bike advocates can make progress among them too. Biking really ought to be something that conservatives embrace – it’s cheaper for taxpayers and and it’s about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

[DismalScientist]

At the national level, Republicans are viewed as anti-bike because they oppose federal mandates on transportation funding. There is nothing specifically anti-bike in this viewpoint, but many bicycle advocates tie advocacy with increasing the size and role of the federal government in transportation issues. Personally, I think this is a mistake. At heart, most politicians, Republican and Democrats, don’t give a crap about bicycle issues.

[Terpfan]

@baiskeli 73384 wrote:

While some Republican leaders are pro-bike, there’s no denying that on a list of irrationally anti-bike politicians, you’ll find an abundance of Rs. But the OP isn’t bashing Republicans, it’s pointing out that we as bike advocates can make progress among them too. Biking really ought to be something that conservatives embrace – it’s cheaper for taxpayers and and it’s about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

I suspect the same way many on the right see bikers in a knee-jerk reaction is how they’re being characterized here. Neither strikes me as all that helpful toward changing the approach. And so I think you have a great point about the way something is sold. Eg, to the right, there is a great argument for biking being economically efficient and improving the lives of the community without impeding upon personal rights.

Similarly, it’s the whole how it’s sold issue that’s needed for some of the local churches (who I doubt host a variety of Republican congregants) who oppose every cycling initiative in DC it seems.

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 73401 wrote:

I suspect the same way many on the right see bikers in a knee-jerk reaction is how they’re being characterized here.

Personally, I doubt very much that Sen. Carrico reads this forum. I think this relates to a variety of economic interests, and culture war memes in local politics (and somewhat similar memes drive some of whats going on among many Democrat voting African Americans in DC – though that seems to have faded a bit – despite the arguments over M Street, when’s the last time that Courtland Milloy has mentioned bike lanes? Now that Fenty is not a factor in DC politics, bike lanes seem to have lost some of their salience in District politics).

At the national level SOME Republicans are driven by similar issues. I don’t think it’s about giving local govts more choice – TAP is itself fairly flexible, and funds things that, IIUC, cannot be funded by other grant programs.

OTOH many Republicans are sympathetic to biking – for example Rep Tom Petri of Wisconsin (and of course my ex-boss Ray LaHood, but he was pretty much disowned after he joined the Obama admin.)

I would add Mayor Bloomberg, but he was not originally a registered Republican. He was elected on the GOP ticket however.

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 73401 wrote:

Similarly, it’s the whole how it’s sold issue that’s needed for some of the local churches (who I doubt host a variety of Republican congregants) who oppose every cycling initiative in DC it seems.

To be fair, I don’t think they oppose every cycling initiative. They oppose those that take away parking they feel a proprietary interest in. I do not agree with their position, but it really is aimed at protecting very specific vested interests, more than its a broad opposition to cycling, AFAICT.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 73391 wrote:

At the national level, Republicans are viewed as anti-bike because they oppose federal mandates on transportation funding. There is nothing specifically anti-bike in this viewpoint, but many bicycle advocates tie advocacy with increasing the size and role of the federal government in transportation issues. Personally, I think this is a mistake. At heart, most politicians, Republican and Democrats, don’t give a crap about bicycle issues.

But there are several examples of Republican leaders, federal and otherwise, specifically attacking cycling, whether it be when justifying opposition to funding or otherwise.

I am not saying that most Republicans oppose cycling, or all Dems support it. That wouldn’t be fair. Most on either side don’t think much about it. But when you hear specific opposition or attacks on cycling, the bulk come from Republicans. They are the side we need to work on more.

[Terpfan]

@lordofthemark 73448 wrote:

To be fair, I don’t think they oppose every cycling initiative. They oppose those that take away parking they feel a proprietary interest in. I do not agree with their position, but it really is aimed at protecting very specific vested interests, more than its a broad opposition to cycling, AFAICT.

Yes, many of them are certainly just loud NIMBYers, but some of their comments were on par with what most of us would consider broad opposition to cycling. And yes, Courtland Milloy has been quiet recently, but it just goes to show the bipartisan nature of cycling. Hated and loved by both sides. Hence the importance in selling it right to the right folks.

I point out the economic/time efficiency to my conservative friends and highlight that former President Bush avidly rode his mountain bike. To my liberal friends, I point out that when I’m riding, I’m using renewable resources, improving my health, and enjoying the environment. Of course neither set of arguments is necessarily exclusive to a given a class, I just find they’re more open to it when presented in terms they care about.

On which note, I’m kind of ticked i didn’t ride today .

[peterw_diy]

@Terpfan 73521 wrote:

On which note, I’m kind of ticked i didn’t ride today .

Well, put down that computer! You’ve got another 133 minutes left!

[lordofthemark]

@Terpfan 73521 wrote:

And yes, Courtland Milloy has been quiet recently, but it just goes to show the bipartisan nature of cycling. Hated and loved by both sides.

That’s the thing. I don’t thing Milloy really does hate cycling. It was a just useful, if stretched, way to connect the Fenty Admin to young whites moving into the District. I mean I bet he likes frozen yogurt too.

I agree that focusing on cycling being low in GHG’s is not an effective way to say, persuade people who don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming to be more pro-cycling. That such folks exist troubles me, but I need to separate that feeling from bike advocacy, to be sure.

[Author]

Posts