Dallas moves forward with bike lanes as part of $375,000 “Complete Streets” Grant
Thanks to MtbLawGirl for alerting us to a story reported by TV 33 in Dallas about how the City of Dallas is moving forward on building bike lanes as part of a “Complete Streets” program. The City will be receiving a $375, 000 grant from the North Texas Council of Governments plus an additional $75,000 from the City of Dallas to create “streets that actually accommodate all sorts of transit, whether it’s cars, bicycles or pedestrians.”
Dallas Councilmember Angela Hunt is shown on screen in the story saying, “We want to attract the creative class to Dallas. Folks who are young, who are educated, who are excited about living in an urban environment. They’re really excited about alternative forms of transit. That means bicycles. That means allowing them to jump on their bike and get to work.”
Kuddos to Dallas on finally moving forward on building bicycle infrastructure. This is especially great when you realize Dallas was rated one of the “Worst Cities For Cycling” by Bicycling Magazine and as Bike Friendly Oak Cliff has pointed out despite being the 9th largest city in the U.S., Dallas currently has 0 miles of bike lanes. (When Houston is kicking your butt on bike facilities, you know you’re bad.)
This is wonderful and a real step forward, so why the reference to the employment status of the Dallas Bicycle Coordinator in the title? Well, it turns out that this project is a radical departure from the policies advocated by the Dallas Bicycle Coordinator, PM Summer. He has been quoted saying, ”As long as I’m the bike coordinator for the city, Dallas will never have on-street bike lanes.” Summer also runs the arrogantly obnoxious site Cycle Dallas where he spews vitriolic statements about anyone who disagrees with his “bikes are vehicles” dogma.
The fact that someone in Texas who is in charge of bike facilities would make such statements is irritating to say the least but not wholly unexpected considering the number of road warriors that inhabit TxDot. What is more shocking is that as city staff, Summer appeared to be setting city policy on this. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere, but under a city manager style government like Dallas has this is highly inappropriate. Under this form of city government, the city manager is an appointed chief executive by the city council (as opposed to an elected mayor having this position.) Since the city council is directly elected by the people, they set city policy and the city manager and staff execute this policy. It is not the job of staff to set policy. They were not elected by anyone.
When Summer made this statement, he was effectively saying this is the policy of the City of Dallas. It now appears by the TV 33 story that this was never the case. So, has the Dallas City Council pried bike lanes out of Summer’s cold, dead hands? Is someone so opposed to this relatively large use of taxpayer money still in charge? There is no staff member listed by name on the Bicycle Coordinator section of the City of Dallas website, but we’ll be checking next week to see where things stand and how this project will be proceeding. (Interestingly enough the Cycle Dallas site has not been updated since mid-December whatever that means.)
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I highly doubt PM is gone. The person advocating for these lanes is city council woman, Angela Hunt. She’s a tireless champion for urbanism, and just returned from trips to both Portland, and Copenhagen. She and PM do not see eye to eye at all. You can note that from the following Dallas Observer article related to bike lanes comment section…the commenter named byx is PM…Angela comments as well.
The VC community in Dallas is an older group of small but loud mostly men who belittle and berate people who disagree with them. It’s useless to enter a debate, because they start in with insults and derogatory dialog. They came from an era where bicycles had to fight to use the streets. Since that fight was hard won, they’re extremely reluctant to acknowledge the success of new bike infrastructure strategies. They call places like Portland and Austin failures, and regularly cite any accident in upholding their outdated philosophies (nevermind the accidents in their own cities).
Fortunately, the incredible, undeniable success of every major city implementing bike lanes is shooting holes in their arguments on a regular basis now. The tide has changed, and at this point, whoever comes in as a future bike coordinator for Dallas will be seen as a giant in planning, because the Before and After pictures will be so dramatically different.
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Forgot to include a link to the Observer article:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2008/12/this_katy_trail_arts_loop_soun.php
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I still want to know when, and if, the do these bike lanes (which I doubt) will motorists think I can only ride in the lanes?
As a VCer I resent the Tim’s blanket statement. I for one have always said you have your opinion, I have mine, neither is correct neither is wrong they are just different and I don’t want to be forced into the gutters with the parked cars, in the door zone with the other trash.
I want to be free to ride where I wish, like any other vehicle, obeying the same laws, and having the same privileges.
The success of bike lanes is neither incredible or undeniable it is inevitable because we choose to let others think for us. Bike lanes are less safe than just obeying the traffic laws. There are holes in both sides of the statistical arguments. After 30 years riding and commuting in Dallas I doubt the before and after pictures will be any different, that is unless gas gets to $5.00 a gallon and stays there.
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
By the way, What is TV33? I have never heard of them in Dallas, and why was this only mentioned there?
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
First of all, you should realize that the statement “[bike lanes are] inevitable because we choose to let others think for us”, is derogatory. I’m actually stunned that you don’t notice that.
Would other people be the planners of every single city that has successfully added bike lanes? What you’re seeing in planning now is a complete challenge to the broken planning of the 1950′s that advocated for more and larger roads. There is absolutely nothing wrong with implementing a complete streets plan for Dallas. Our urban core has more than quadrupled in 5 years. And T. Boone Pickens himself stated that gas would only drop in price if a recession occurred, and that it would bounce right back up to $4 a gallon by summer. Regardless of if your a fan of his, he’s made billions of of gas, so I’m pretty confident with his forecasting.
The recent study by Jennifer Dill, associate professor at PSU (http://www.portlandtribune.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=122402296838932000), notes that women are the one’s who will begin riding bikes if you add lanes. Right now, the vehicular cycling philosophy might be valid, and safe, but women are not riding on the streets due to a fear of riding in a lane with a car behind them. I understand the idea of VC bike transit, and the principles laid out by Forester, but it’s only appealing to men.
When PM states in the DO article that “if Big D is such a bad, scary place to ride a bike then…”, I think he honestly doesn’t see how this is berating. It may be very well generational…the same way my grandfather doesn’t have a problem throwing around racial epithets. Angela Hunt is an extremely strong and assertive leader, and his statement is not only low, but it comes across to anyone born after 1965 as sounding like an older man patting a grown woman on the head and saying: “I’ll show you those big bad scary roads are nothin’ for you to be afraid of little lady”.
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
[...] Read the full post at Austin Bike Blog. [...]
on Jan 24th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Great news for Dallas! Too bad for “PMS”
on Jan 25th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Perhaps because I do enjoy thinking for myself, I don’t notice how much you that let others think for you miss it. ( that is derogatory and if I must say so myself inflammatory)
I would love to see just one survey from somewhere that is not in the Pacific Northwest where even they admit they have an agenda.
If you “Pathers” (Derogatory) and Cagers (also Derogatory) want to keep Cyclists in their place (the gutter and door zones) that is fine, I guess I will ride where I want and when I want till I have to sell all my bikes to pay the fines that will surely follow. When you free thinkers have your way.
Derogatory and Inflammatory
on Jan 25th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Got it.. got it.. You don’t like bike lanes, you don’t like bicycle infrastructure (regardless of quality), and you believe all bicycle infrastructure studies are mostly flawed.. Portland and other cycling communities obviously aren’t biking because of the infrastructure in place.. All people need to do is “man-up” (or woman-up) and take the road. And that by not “taking the road” that we’re hurting cycling where cyclists get too comfortable in “bike lanes” and will no longer take non-bike laned paths. So again, got it.. Your Idiolistic viewpoint is clear and your last post certainly validates your initials.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of cyclists have a different opinion. And your typical responses do not seem to do anything that will encourage more people to commute by bicycle..
on Jan 25th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I’m of 2 minds about this. On the one hand bike lanes are proven to increase the number of cyclists in spite of creating almost as many problems as they solve. On the other hand educating drivers that share the roads doesn’t mean for bicycles to get the hell out of the way is MUCH cheaper than new infrastructure. The bonus on education is that it applies to the entire roads system, where infrastructure is immobile and only usable in one location.
But I would still like a few bike lanes on some busy streets…
on Jan 25th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
The only streets in Dallas that need bike lanes are the major streets like Preston, NWHwy, Greenville, etc etc. All the side streets are fine just the way they are now.
As someone who’s been getting around exclusively by bike for at least half my life, {20+yrs} I can’t help but feel that the $375,000 will be just enough to design a “system” that serves to get us out of the way of the non-cycling public.
When I see pics like those http://austinbikeblog.org/2008/11/20/new-bike-lanes-from-38th-45th-on-medical-parkway/ I see me being forced to ride thru lots of road debris, {do you really think big D will use street sweepers to sweep them? lol! I sure don’t}
The second pic shows a death trap. Why would I want to turn left by crossing lanes that go straight? Am I supposed to stop there and look behind me before proceeding? Do the cars stop for me?….or do I just have to trust that the drivers will see me and not hit me as I follow my lane that suddenly takes me across their lane? Personally, there’s no way I would ride in that lane. I see it as increasing the risk posed to me as a cyclist because it violates long established rules of safe traffic movement.
Not to mention the fact that that road doesn’t really look to need a bike lane, as there are very few cars in any of those pics.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Austincylist
RIGHT! Now you’ve got it.
Take care of Austin and let Dallas go it’s own way.
What about Fort Worth? or Houston, isn’t there another city you can “help improve it’s self”?
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 11:09 am
There was already an article published detailing the Dallas coordinator misrepresenting testing results from Portland in order to maintain his VC ideology:
http://bikefriendlyoc.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/portlands-bike-coordinator-roger-geller-responds-to-dallas-coordinators-claims/
What you notice here is that PM’s “mass conspiracy” claims of testing “bias” and “boosterism” on the part of all transit studies that have come out in favor of bike lanes, is actually perverted by himself making up a complete fictional account as to how the testing was “really” done. Roger Geller, Portland’s coordinator, quickly (and thoroughly) dismantles PM’s made up claims.
Ironically, in the end, PM’s story was obviously created out of his own VC bias and boosterism.
Keep up the great work, Austin! Yes, Dallas needs your help! Especially, when the anti-bike lane CycleBlog setup by PM, regularly posts pictures of your own city and it’s lanes as examples of failures.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Black, I lived in Dallas for 10 years and have friends that still live there. I want the best for it.
Isn’t it a bit hypocritical that you’re posting comments on the Austin Bike Blog? Why not stay on the Dallas blogs?
Anyway… Sounds like big D has some great representation from Angela and the majority of cyclists who support what she’s doing..
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Unfortunately, Angela is only one of the council members and, as far as I can see while she is very popular in her district she is not that powerful on the council.
If the members were polled most would say “why would anyone want to ride a bike?”
It is not hypocritical that I am posting on a blog that is outside the city and telling us how we should behave, because a small minority (The Bishop Arts District) has captured your fancy and your friends in the Pacific Northwest, disagree with the way we run our city.
I started commenting when you, picked up the theme of “the Dallas Bicycle Coordinator is wrong” again. Now you seem to be trying to take credit for getting the guy fired.
By your own admission, Houston is in worse shape than Dallas. Why don’t you preach to them, and leave us to our own policy.
TAKE THE LANE.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Have you noticed that all of the angry Vehicular Cyclists are mirror images of Dwight from the Office?
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
My, my, who would think bike lanes would be such a problem for some people?
Cyclists are not required to use bike lanes. They are supposed to use them, unless there is some reason otherwise. Will motorists think you have to stay in them? Probably, but motorists also think bikes must ride on sidewalks too. Motorists think that bicycles should not be on the road. I think this sort of argument is silly.
Bike lanes are not a real solution to bicyclist safety, for the most part. Experienced cyclists know that being hit from behind is a very small percentage of bicycle-car accidents. Inexperienced cyclists focus almost completely on this possibility.
Bike lanes address this fear. It is probably the single most important factor in getting people to try bicycling. If you don’t want to encourage bicycling, then don’t have any bike lanes.
Another thing bike lanes do is make it easier for motorists to deal with cyclists. Take a perfectly nice sized lane, and lots of people will have difficulty passing you. Add striping for a bike lane, and suddenly they can pass.
With regard to the “death trap” mentioned by dallasbikerider, I don’t think those stripes make the situation any more dangerous than it is without them. At a minimum, it might alert drivers to the possibility of a conflict with cyclists. This situation is similar to crossing entrance ramps and merge lanes, and I think its one of the hardest things to do safely that I’ve come across.
It is also silly to think that obeying traffic laws will make cycling safe. The experienced cyclist knows that obeying the law will not stop motorists from turning into you, turning in front of you, and pulling out in front of or into you. These types of accident are the vast majority (>90%) of accidents.
The simple conclusion one must draw about the Dallas Bicycle Coordinator, is that he is a person hired in order to discourage cycling in Dallas. Why should there be a bicycle coordinator, if the streets are already just fine for cycling?
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Dave, IMO the stripes do indeed make it more dangerous.
With a single lane that splits, everyone takes their turn, and it’s alot harder {almost impossible} for a person in a car behind me to make a right turn into me while I’m trying to go left.
However, when you create two side by side lanes that are permitted to cross each other as shown, you are inviting collisions to happen.
In that situation, the bike lane should end at least 100′ before the intersection to allow traffic to merge into a single lane, thereby virtually eliminating the chances of getting struck by an approaching motorist who wants to go right.
It’s like this, if it’s so great for bikes to have lanes routed like that, why don’t they allow people in cars to make left turns from the right lane? Because we all know it isn’t safe to do so. So why route lanes for light-weight unprotected vehicles into that situation?
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
I’m sorry to tell you that it’s far more than a small minority in Bishop Arts District pushing for bike lanes in Dallas. The head of the Freinds of Katy Trail along with members of the Uptown PID are leading the charge to create bike lanes in the city, and pulled in over $60K worth of donations from people in their area to hire an outside consultant for planning of lanes. At their unveiling in December at the Nasher, there was a standing room only crowd of citizens who were all extremely enthusiastic about the bike lane plans. There was easily 150+ people in the room, and the meeting ran long due to the length of the audience Q&A. I only heard one person, a driver, state an objection.
Also, If you happened to listen to the KERA Think episode earlier in the month where bike lanes in Dallas were discussed, you would have also noticed call after call advocating for lanes…and those came in as far as Arlington.
I’m afraid it’s not really a trickle of support…more like a groundswell. You might want to clean your glasses.
and FWIW, Portland, whose ridership is 800% higher than Dallas, had 0 bicycle fatalities in 2008. Unfortunately, Big D couldn’t say the same.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Dallasbikerider: its a nice theory, but I can tell you from experience that even when I’m taking the right lane on a 4 lane street, and there’s a cutoff like that, cars will cut from the left lane across me to take the street. There is nothing to prevent similar behavior in this situation.
To be more philosophical, this is the situation at every corner, as well as cutoffs like this one. The written law is for bicyclists to ride to the right. This inherently creates this kind of problem.
“So why route lanes for light-weight unprotected vehicles into that situation?” This is done for the convenience of motorists.
The underlying truth of bicycling is that we are considered to be taking our lives in our hands when we ride, and when an accident does happen, it is our own fault for putting ourselves into a hazardous situation. This is why motorists are virtually never even ticketed when there is a bike-car accident.
In lands far, far away, motorists are held responsible for creating hazardious conditions for other road users. In our country, they are praised for removing vermin(bicyclists) from the roads.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Dave, the the situation you mention is easily avoided by “taking the lane” in a 551.103 manner.
If the lane is less than 14′ {as virtually all lanes on multilane streets are} you aren’t supposed to ride all the way to the right edge, as that encourages the drivers to attempt to fit into the lane alongside of you, thereby greatly decreasing your safety in the way you mentioned.
Riding in a 551.103 manner also alleviates the same issue at every other type of intersection too. {makes it a virtual non-event}
Sorry, but I don’t care to have MY personal safety diminished as a convenience to people in cars. Thanks anyways.
Yes, drivers SHOULD be held accountable for the hazards they create, but unfortunately because of the very attitude you’ve mentioned, most street cyclists tend to ride in ways that remove any protection the law would otherwise allow them.
Most of the stats I’ve seen over the years show that the reason the motorists oftentimes aren’t cited is simply because the cyclist was riding in a manner that wasn’t exactly legal, and were treated as any other un-lawful user of the public ROW. i.e. wrong way riders, those without lights at night..etc etc.
As far as the 150+ people who were so eager to hear about this, how many of them are full-time riders that understand the risks currently posed to VC cyclists? I get the feeling they don’t care about us at all and are so obsessed with the relatively low danger posed by the car from the rear, that they become blinded to where the real risks are actually at.
on Jan 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
You seem to be making the argument that having a bike lane precludes you taking the lane if you feel it is necessary. It does not.
The law does not afford the cyclist any protection. It will merely allow for some punishment after the fact. In practice, there is no penalty for hitting cyclists.
on Jan 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
The post smacks of kicking a downed person in the stomach just to watch him winch. PM Summer may have a different approach than bike lane advocates, but I hate to see cycling advocates punished for their advocacy whether I agree with all their positions or not.
Personally, I strongly believe cyclists should have the RIGHT to use the roads in accordance with traffic rules. I’m suspicious of anthing that might infringe on that right or cause others to disrespect it (see website link). It doesn’t mean I rejoice when a cyclist who advocates paint gets knocked down by politics…
on Jan 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Dave, I understand that I don’t have to use the bike lane in instances where it obviously impairs my safety, but that isn’t the problem. The problem is that the generally non riding public will think that I DO have to, and it will likely lead to greater driver hostility towards cyclists not using the bike lanes, or when we are riding on other nearby streets that don’t have them, but are more direct for our route.
Another problem is that inexperienced riders will be led to believe they are safe in places such as the one I pointed out in the pics, but they won’t figure that out until they almost get hit, or actually do get hit. To me, it’s just not right to give people a false sense of security that could end up costing them their life.
Then you have issue that Steve posted a link to. The #6 comment in that link sums it up pretty well. If the gov spends tons ‘o money on a bike lane system, you can bet there will be pressure to use it even if it forces cyclists to use parts of it that are much less safer than what we have right now.
FWIW, I’m not totally against bike lanes, I’m just against those that route me into places that increase my danger, are added to streets that don’t need them and those that diminish in any way my Rights to travel that I currently enjoy.
My question is, when they plan to build/rebuild roads like 75, 635, etc…why don’t they incorporate bikelanes there? Or put them on the big streets that could actually use them, so that cyclists can also enjoy a “straight shot” type of route across town as motorists already do?
and the police {at least for awhile} would have to be willing to take a zero-tolerance approach when enforcing “no right turns from the center lane” to get it through to motorists that it’s our Right to be there.
Here’s a good idea that won’t cost much money. Right now they could give us the right lane on all multi-lane major through-fares.
The whole right lane could quickly and easily be transformed into a combo 12′ wide bike lane and “right turn only” lane for cars. No pouring of concrete required. The lanes are already there.
All it needs is magic paint,
In a nutshell, I want a system that ENHANCES our ability to get around town. One that educates drivers, and one that generally increases our ability to be able to efficiently get somewhere, quicker.
Another question I have is why does this whole bike lane thing have to be snuck in the back door the way it was? When was input sought from those who currently ride the streets of Dallas? Everyone that does seems to have been caught by surprise by this.
I get the feeling they don’t really want to hear from us.
As far as the law not affording any protection, it should afford the same “protection” whether you were in your car, on your bike, or as a pedestrian. Assuming of course, that you were the one with the ROW. If the po-po don’t treat it as such, then they’re not doing they’re job. Which is a whole other topic.
on Jan 28th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Dallasbikerider,
It is kind of a catch-22 about the bike lane leading inexperienced riders into a dangerous situation. An inexperienced rider in the same situation would probably ride in much the same way with no bike lane present.
In mulling over the situation, I realized that drivers are often required to turn across other lanes, but that in those situations, they are trained to watch for other road users. In the same way, they should be trained to watch for cyclists. Practically speaking, I doubt this will ever happen until bikes outnumber cars.
You say:
“My question is, when they plan to build/rebuild roads like 75, 635, etc…why don’t they incorporate bikelanes there? Or put them on the big streets that could actually use them, so that cyclists can also enjoy a “straight shot” type of route across town as motorists already do?”
I couldn’t agree more. For years, all I have wanted were streets built wide enough to comfortably accommodate bikes and cars. I didn’t really care much about bike lanes. I have come to realize, however, that they are quite important in getting more people to ride bikes.
When Mopac was about to be opened (and for a short time thereafter) I used to ride on it (on the left shoulder) from about Steck (as far north as it went!) to Enfield. It is enormously fast (an easy 22mph average!) going south, and very quick! Hard to imagine that now, but then there were hardly any cars on it.
I sometimes fantasize that since it is harder to ride a bike than drive, that cars should be given the inconvenient routes, and bikes should be given the optimized routes, like mopac!
I wish the law did afford the same protection in practice.
on Jan 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Not that this thread needs anymore comments but Bike Friendly Oak Cliff has a story today about a cyclist who was killed last fall because they took the lane as PM Summer has suggested.
on Feb 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Elliott, that’s the one thing that irks me the most about this debate. Everytime someone exercising their Right to the lane gets hit by a reckless driver, bike lane advocates hold it up as proof that VC is unsafe.
Newsflash here Elliott. Cyclists get struck while riding in bike lanes too. As well as on sidewalks, parking lots, alleys and everywhere else that un-aware people tend to ride bikes in a futile attempt of “staying out of the way” of motorists.
So you guys need to quit acting as though bike lane cyclists never get struck by cars.
Adding bike lanes to Dallas streets would intentionally create danger zones for cyclists like what’s shown in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMoE2flLqg&eurl=http://www.sfbike.org/?octavia
People just don’t pay attention to signs.
If that guy had been over to the left, he couldn’t have gotten hit like that. Motorists don’t tend to look to the sides, but do tend to see what’s directly in front of them, like say, a 551.103 cyclist.
However, had he not used the bike lane in order to be safer, he would have likely faced driver hostility for not using it. So in this case, the mere existence of the bike lane increases the danger posed to all cyclists, VC or not.
on Jun 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Make sure you watch what they’re doing. Here in Fort Worth they spent $1600.00 each for 20 “bike racks” that were fancy stars on posts that you were supposed to lock your bike to when you couldn’t even lean your bike on them. They are too short and face the wrong way to be used correctly. If you could use it it would only take 2 bikes. Don’t let them spend big bucks on fancy crap that doen’t work. Get some bike riders in on the planning and spending!
on Jun 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Ron,
If done well, art racks can really enhance a street while giving cyclists a place to lock u, but they need to remain functional. It seems like they were more interested in the art than the function in this case. Don’t dismiss the general concept, but if it doesn’t work, get real racks!
on Jun 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Lets face it, dedicated bikes lanes and roads make most cyclist feel safer. When you don’t have to compete with 3,000 – 6,000 lbs of detroit steel, then most people will feel and actually be much safer and will then use their bikes more – its as simple as that. The places with the highest number of dedicated bike lanes and roads also have the highest number of cyclists. Without these lanes, most “normal” people will just stay in their cars.
As far as PMS goes, he should be fired. If your job was to be the coordinator of something and after 10 + years, the thing you were supposed to coordinate was ranked “5th worse in the nation” you have NOT been successful. Oh, and he had to fight AGAINST the pro-cycling council member to achieve this level of “success”.
Additionally, he has managed to divide and alienate many cyclists, both in Dallas and in the rest of the world. As an employee of the citizens of Dallas, he should be answering to their needs, not pushing his will against them. In any other city a coordinator would be working WITH the pro-cycling Council member, not against.
I agree with the statements above regarding some of the older bike commuters – They had to be “hard-headed” to do what they did in the past, but now that “hard-headedness” just makes them difficult to deal with and unable to compromise to move to the next level. They seem to feel that everyone needs to ride in the streets and compete with the cars and trucks just like they did 10-15 years (or more) ago.