For conservatives, privately-owned bike share service = socialism

[Indy Texas]

http://gawker.com/tycoons-pet-newspaper-thinks-for-profit-citi-bikes-are-510283437

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://observer.com/2013/05/just-buy-a-bike/

These people won't be satisfied until the streets of NYC are clogged with F-350 pickups holding one person each, sitting in traffic filling the place with Shanghai levels of exhaust. This is America! We don't share things like bikes or taxis! A government big enough to allow private individuals to share things is big enough to take everything we have!

[Beet]

Next thing we know our children will all be holding hands with Kofi Annan in a multicolored rainbow and singing kumbaya.

[King]

I enjoyed reading Yahoo comments in an article about this saying how Doomsberg and New York Shitty are signing away more freedoms.  Then, "concerned citizens" say all the thugs and criminals of NYC are going to steal all the bikes within a week.  Also, the Citibike design looks like faggy girls bikes lol figures libs r sissies.

Nevermind, that the article clearly mentioned how the bikes are digitally tracked and locked into their stations.  Too long, didn't read.

The advantage of bike rental over ownership in NYC is obvious: finding bike parking and switching to a bus or subway with a bike you own is too difficult, not to mention maintenance.

[bedstuy]

The bike share program is completely paid for by corporate sponsorship and advertising revenue for Citibank.  It does use public property, but so does any means of transportation. 

So, this article is not about the reality of the bike share program.  It's about the symbolism of bicycles.   Bicycles symbolize young, urban, white liberals.  If you don't like that type of person, you don't like bicycles. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

Further proof (as if we needed any) that American "conservatism" is defined less by a consistent set of principles and more by a hatred of anything perceived to be "liberal", whether it be feminism, racial diversity, bicycles, healthy food, or lattes.

[Dave from Michigan]

What a terrible thread more conservative bashing. I'm not even a conservative. Apparently because a newspaper tycoon editorial page bashes this program all conservatives do.   Like it's been said this is a private bike sharing service where is the evidence conservatives oppose it, one article? Yes if this was a government program a lot more conservatives would hate it.  Generalizing a group based on what one person thinks. People on this site love to attack conservatives and tea party types although lots of times they deserve it, this isn't one of them. People who don't like conservative will look for anything to attack them, this type of partisanship is the worst. The poster who started this thread does a great job of generalizing and attacking conservatives not just in this thread. Of course I would guess that a large majority of bikers are liberal and only a small amount are conservative but most big cities where biking is most practical and convenient are liberal. Next time I'm in New York City I will have to try this even though it will cost me $10 dollars.


I personally love biking and think these bike shares are a great thing. Maybe someday Detroit will get them. I will be attending a big bike ride in Detroit this Friday night that like 300 people take part in once a month. My CONSERVATIVE friend invited me, he has gone several times it is suppose to be a great time.  Also just as bad this would have been a great thread to talk about biking and how to have cars and bikes work together to share the road but instead it's more conservative bashing. I should start a thread on that subject.

[Link]

What a terrible thread more conservative bashing. I'm not even a conservative. Apparently because a newspaper tycoon editorial page bashes this program all conservatives do.

C'mon.  You know nothing in politics is 100%.  But you also know that there are plenty of right wing nuts that are going to cry SOCIALISM!!!  This is their MO.  Why deny it?

[Likely Voter]

Yes if this was a government program a lot more conservatives would hate it.

Probably true, but why?

The program is popular and appears to pay for itself. There is no mandate or unfair competition. If this were run by the government why would it suddenly be bad?

It seems to me that one sentence proves the entire point of this thread. There is a new trend in conservatism around the notion of free market = good/freedom loving, government = bad/liberty destroying...which is just silly and somewhat infantile.

[TNF]

If only it were actual socialism. A publicly owned bike share service would be infinitely preferable to a for-profit one.

[traininthedistance]

Maybe conservatives should stop acting as if it was their god-given right to use public property (the streets) to store their privately-owned property (cars) at zero cost.  F'n entitled hypocrites.

Gaaaaaah.

Also, it goes almost without saying, but Bloomberg is of course a massive FF for getting this bike-share program up and running in the face of such incoherent, idiotic opposition. 

[Vosem]

The only problem I can think of is just one, which'll allow these private owners to ratchet up the price. There should be competition between different private bike-sharing companies.

Of course, the line of criticism described in the OP is rare idiocy.

[TNF]

The only problem I can think of is just one, which'll allow these private owners to ratchet up the price. There should be competition between different private bike-sharing companies.

Of course, the line of criticism described in the OP is rare idiocy.

So the city should subsidize or allow for two bike sharing programs, then? Wouldn't it be much more cost efficient to have a single, democratically controlled monopoly? A publicly owned bike sharing program would be much better able to keep prices low than private competition between firms.

[traininthedistance]

The only problem I can think of is just one, which'll allow these private owners to ratchet up the price. There should be competition between different private bike-sharing companies.

Of course, the line of criticism described in the OP is rare idiocy.

So the city should subsidize or allow for two bike sharing programs, then? Wouldn't it be much more cost efficient to have a single, democratically controlled monopoly? A publicly owned bike sharing program would be much better able to keep prices low than private competition between firms.

In many cities, you actually do have competition between two separate car-sharing companies (Zipcar and Enterprise CarShare are the two biggies these days), so it is in theory possible.

I don't think it's necessarily a good idea for bike-share- transportation infrastructure is a pretty clear-cut example of a natural monopoly, so you'll be best off with something that is either publicly-owned, or at least publicly supported and strongly regulated in the public interest.  The nature of network effects makes it pretty clear that one system with 600 stations will be much more than twice as useful as two systems with 300 stations each.

And, again like all transportation infrastructure, some sort of subsidy and funding above and beyond user fees will likely always be necessary, especially in the roll-out period.  I don't have any problem with corporate sponsorship/advertising being a part of the funding mix, and I likewise don't have a problem with contracting operations to a private company who has expertise in doing this exact sort of thing for other cities.  Just make sure to regulate it like a utility, to prevent gouging, and it should be okay.

[traininthedistance]

Oh, I should mention: there's one very important difference between car-share and bike-share that makes competition between two different providers much more viable in car-share than in bike-share.  In car-share, you always need to return the car to the same spot, whereas the bikes can be rode to other stations and left there, and in fact derive much of their utility from the fact you can make one-way trips.  This means that you really do need all of the stations to be a part of the same system.

[Link]

Oh, I should mention: there's one very important difference between car-share and bike-share that makes competition between two different providers much more viable in car-share than in bike-share. 

You are wasting your breath.  There are people who no matter the evidence will swear up and down everything has a unregulated free market capitalism solution.  Their thinking is so simplistic.

[Dave from Michigan]

Yes if this was a government program a lot more conservatives would hate it.

Probably true, but why?

The program is popular and appears to pay for itself. There is no mandate or unfair competition. If this were run by the government why would it suddenly be bad?

It seems to me that one sentence proves the entire point of this thread. There is a new trend in conservatism around the notion of free market = good/freedom loving, government = bad/liberty destroying...which is just silly and somewhat infantile.

Because they prefer a free market solution, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Which this program is. Unfortunately a lot of conservatives have gone like you said "government is all bad". I'm not a conservative and would support this program whether it was private or public but private might be better first since the government doesn't have to spend any money, lets see how it works.

You also completely ignored my point too, one conservative editorial opposes it and all conservatives do. The misleading thread titles where the actual article doesn't match up just so some posters can attack conservatism in general. I never should have made a post in this thread, this is a liberal leaning site and that means conservatives will get treated unfairly sometimes, just like the reverse would happen if it was a conservative site, I used to be a conservative on a conservative site before I came here, and I remember liberals getting treated unfairly.

[Likely Voter]

firstly i thought i was agreeing with you. I wasn't calling you silly and infantile, i was calling the knee-jerk reaction of some that anything related to the government is instantly bad and anything 'free-market' is instantly good. There is a lot of grey area, especially when talking about infrastructure and transportation which is the domain of the government usually.

But to your point of "private might be better first since the government doesn't have to spend any money"...It seems clear that the way this system is being implemented in NYC (and also DC, Portland and elsewhere) is funded through the usage fees and not taxes. If anything it saves taxpayers money by reducing congestion and therefore reducing need for roadworks.

[Indy Texas]

What a terrible thread more conservative bashing. I'm not even a conservative. Apparently because a newspaper tycoon editorial page bashes this program all conservatives do.   Like it's been said this is a private bike sharing service where is the evidence conservatives oppose it, one article? Yes if this was a government program a lot more conservatives would hate it.  Generalizing a group based on what one person thinks. People on this site love to attack conservatives and tea party types although lots of times they deserve it, this isn't one of them. People who don't like conservative will look for anything to attack them, this type of partisanship is the worst. The poster who started this thread does a great job of generalizing and attacking conservatives not just in this thread. Of course I would guess that a large majority of bikers are liberal and only a small amount are conservative but most big cities where biking is most practical and convenient are liberal. Next time I'm in New York City I will have to try this even though it will cost me $10 dollars.


I personally love biking and think these bike shares are a great thing. Maybe someday Detroit will get them. I will be attending a big bike ride in Detroit this Friday night that like 300 people take part in once a month. My CONSERVATIVE friend invited me, he has gone several times it is suppose to be a great time.  Also just as bad this would have been a great thread to talk about biking and how to have cars and bikes work together to share the road but instead it's more conservative bashing. I should start a thread on that subject.

Dave, the New York Observer is one of the largest conservative-leaning newspapers in the country. It's not as if I'm posting some screed from an obscure blogger posting from a cabin in the woods. Newspapers generally don't publish things that are going to be completely abhorrent to their audiences. I never said all conservatives believe this. However, the fact that this made it into a major conservative paper suggests enough do or at least don't disagree that it isn't going to harm the paper. Many comments on the website actually did disagree with the premise.

You say "if this was a government program, a lot more conservatives would hate it." Dave, if it was a government program, I would probably hate it, though not with the conspiratorial mania that so many of your counterparts would. But it's not a government program. And the idea that a privately-owned, for-profit bike-sharing program that is at its best adding to the transport options for New Yorkers and at its worst a PR campaign for a major bank is government intrusion into the marketplace is simply foolish. This program doesn't cost taxpayers a dime or stop anyone from purchasing a bicycle themselves.

Have I posted threads calling out conservatives before? Yes, I have, Dave. But I don't do so out of love for liberals. I do so because your side makes it so damn easy for me. Where is the left's Glenn Beck? Where is their Michele Bachmann? Where is their Rick Santorum? Some of the OWS protesters were low-hanging fruit for a while but they've largely faded from relevance.

There are many people who I strongly disagree with on this forum. On the Left, I don't agree with people like Opebo. On the Right, I don't agree with people like Krazen. What's the difference? There are no Opebos in Congress. There are no Opebos on major network news. There are no Opebos in prominent public positions in the Democratic Party. There are Krazens all over the place. Congress is full of them. Fox News, RedState.com and NRO are full of them. Krazens on the GOP payroll who say stupid things with a video camera or a tape recorder present are a dime a dozen. So who do you think I'm going to talk about? Who do you think I'm going to make fun of?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, I don't see how this is anything but a great idea... whether by a private company or the government.  Biking is a surprisingly efficient mode of transportation in dense cities.  And in NYC, you can pretty much use them year round outside of those few snowy days.

[traininthedistance]

Dave, the New York Observer is one of the largest conservative-leaning newspapers in the country.

What?  No.  The Observer is neither large (it's quite small) nor particularly conservative-leaning (it's more conservative than the Times, but its politics would be better described as "idiosyncratic").  You might be thinking of the New York Post, which is very large and right-wing and generally odious.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Minneapolis has had a similar program for a couple years now...AND it actually is government ran and funded (by the Metropolitan Council, same group that runs the public transit)....AND no one has ever complained or given it anything but praise. The freakout here is weird. Seeing any type of freakout is, I'm trying to imagine Mr. Teabagger from the suburbs or exurbs driving in to Minneapolis to go to a Twins/Vikings/Timberwolves game, spends about an hour in the car just finding parking and then ends up paying $8 for a couple hours worth, notices the public bike rental rack, and then freaks out about it. It makes as much sense as freaking out about seeing public buses...or even libraries really.

[Dave from Michigan]

firstly i thought i was agreeing with you. I wasn't calling you silly and infantile, i was calling the knee-jerk reaction of some that anything related to the government is instantly bad and anything 'free-market' is instantly good. There is a lot of grey area, especially when talking about infrastructure and transportation which is the domain of the government usually.

But to your point of "private might be better first since the government doesn't have to spend any money"...It seems clear that the way this system is being implemented in NYC (and also DC, Portland and elsewhere) is funded through the usage fees and not taxes. If anything it saves taxpayers money by reducing congestion and therefore reducing need for roadworks.

Ok sorry I misread what you were saying. I don't actually oppose this program.

[Dave from Michigan]

What a terrible thread more conservative bashing. I'm not even a conservative. Apparently because a newspaper tycoon editorial page bashes this program all conservatives do.   Like it's been said this is a private bike sharing service where is the evidence conservatives oppose it, one article? Yes if this was a government program a lot more conservatives would hate it.  Generalizing a group based on what one person thinks. People on this site love to attack conservatives and tea party types although lots of times they deserve it, this isn't one of them. People who don't like conservative will look for anything to attack them, this type of partisanship is the worst. The poster who started this thread does a great job of generalizing and attacking conservatives not just in this thread. Of course I would guess that a large majority of bikers are liberal and only a small amount are conservative but most big cities where biking is most practical and convenient are liberal. Next time I'm in New York City I will have to try this even though it will cost me $10 dollars.


I personally love biking and think these bike shares are a great thing. Maybe someday Detroit will get them. I will be attending a big bike ride in Detroit this Friday night that like 300 people take part in once a month. My CONSERVATIVE friend invited me, he has gone several times it is suppose to be a great time.  Also just as bad this would have been a great thread to talk about biking and how to have cars and bikes work together to share the road but instead it's more conservative bashing. I should start a thread on that subject.

Dave, the New York Observer is one of the largest conservative-leaning newspapers in the country. It's not as if I'm posting some screed from an obscure blogger posting from a cabin in the woods. Newspapers generally don't publish things that are going to be completely abhorrent to their audiences. I never said all conservatives believe this. However, the fact that this made it into a major conservative paper suggests enough do or at least don't disagree that it isn't going to harm the paper. Many comments on the website actually did disagree with the premise.

You say "if this was a government program, a lot more conservatives would hate it." Dave, if it was a government program, I would probably hate it, though not with the conspiratorial mania that so many of your counterparts would. But it's not a government program. And the idea that a privately-owned, for-profit bike-sharing program that is at its best adding to the transport options for New Yorkers and at its worst a PR campaign for a major bank is government intrusion into the marketplace is simply foolish. This program doesn't cost taxpayers a dime or stop anyone from purchasing a bicycle themselves.

Have I posted threads calling out conservatives before? Yes, I have, Dave. But I don't do so out of love for liberals. I do so because your side makes it so damn easy for me. Where is the left's Glenn Beck? Where is their Michele Bachmann? Where is their Rick Santorum? Some of the OWS protesters were low-hanging fruit for a while but they've largely faded from relevance.

There are many people who I strongly disagree with on this forum. On the Left, I don't agree with people like Opebo. On the Right, I don't agree with people like Krazen. What's the difference? There are no Opebos in Congress. There are no Opebos on major network news. There are no Opebos in prominent public positions in the Democratic Party. There are Krazens all over the place. Congress is full of them. Fox News, RedState.com and NRO are full of them. Krazens on the GOP payroll who say stupid things with a video camera or a tape recorder present are a dime a dozen. So who do you think I'm going to talk about? Who do you think I'm going to make fun of?

Ok I'm not a conservative well on some issues I am, but not most. I just felt that conservatives were getting unfairly attacked over what a few opposed and sometimes in general on this site.  I actually like this program. Your right that lots of people on the far right are stupid. It seems I have trouble getting my point across, I'm come across as very inarticulate even in real life.