These are the words my city says to me [Arizona, bicycling]

[rebeccmeister]

The Beg Buttons that are at almost every intersection a bicyclist might use out here serve a dual purpose, as small billboards people on bikes can use to communicate with each other.

I think the city here has tended to fight back most vehemently against stickers that directly modify the sign itself, so there aren't any more "Push Button for Aliens" or the like - at least at the moment.



The posts underneath, however, seem to be attracting more messages.



I always appreciate spotting War on Cars stickers out in the wild:


The above War on Cars sticker is accompanied by an art sticker showing beautiful bike-themed art made by someone I know. And why not?

I'm kicking myself for not having brought more reflective bee and duck stickers with me. I generally don't put those up in public places but I do like to give a duck to people wherever and whenever I can. I just gave all the ducks I had with me to friend S this time. So now I am all out of ducks to give (ha ha I am funny).

I think what I would really like is some sort of "ghost bike" sticker design. Several years ago this City decided the ghost bikes were getting a little out of hand and removed them. The problem is that this undoes the effort to bring visible attention to locations where people have died in crashes with motor vehicles. While I can understand that people find roadside memorials to be "clutter," I think the point still holds that there needs to be some form of visible recognition that these things have happened. I'm going to have to think about how I want to make this happen.

Perhaps I'm biased on this front because every time I am back in Seattle I'm struck (ha!) by the number and variety of signs that people have put up all over the place about various aspects of road safety, including memorials about crash sites.

Comments

[twoeleven]

I read a couple of reviews of the book while I should be doing other things taking breaks, but it appears that the period under discussion is the 1920s and 30s.

To quote one review:

The struggle was difficult and sometimes fierce. In motordom’s way were street railways, city people afraid for the safety of their children in the streets, and most of the established traffic engineering principles of the 1920s. Motordom, however, had effective rhetorical weapons, growing national organization, a favorable political climate, substantial wealth, and the sympathy of a growing minority of city motorists. By 1930, with these assets, motordom had redefined the city street.

So, a couple of points come to mind, which I'll have to check (in addition to everything else I'm trying to do):

• The first cars showed up in the 1890s, and the Model T entered production in 1909. It wasn't the first mass-produced car either, just the first really cheap one.

So, the book is talking about a time about a generation after the changeover started. Had the problems of horse-drawn transport been forgotten over that generation?

• I think the review's mention of the "substantial wealth" means the Roaring Twenties, a time of many changes, not all of which were due to wealth. But in this case, I think it means that cars "suddenly" went from relative rarities to something many people had.

So, on the one hand, the number of cars on the road jumped quickly, leading to many more people being in favor of them staying that way. I'm not sure it's fair to entirely blame the "usual suspects" of big companies for cars' "sudden" takeover of American cities.

And on the other hand(s), I'm reminded of the two big social-technologial changes of our time, first the cell phone, and then smartphone/antisocial media (they appear at almost the same time, and I suspect their growth is interrelated). Both have also resulted in significant changes in how public space is used, and in what's acceptable to do where.

So, perhaps both went through what are normal phases of social-technologial evolution: introduction, when the new thing has obvious benefits and few downsides; mass uptake, when the large number of users produce undesireable side-effects; and then moderation/pushback, when people try to reduce the side-effects.

There's probably multiple rounds of each, so we're probably going through the first round of pushback against phones/antisocial media -- like the 1920s and 30s with cars -- and there will probably be further rounds as technology and society keep changing.

For example, I've read that part of American falling out of love with the car is a consequence of antisocial media: people don't need to go other places to be with their friends, which has led to the younger generations not learning to drive as much, and so are a (big?) part of the current pushback against cars. (Among other things.)