home
Advertise on BikePortland

Friday Cartoon: A bigger piece of the pie?

Posted by on January 22nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Download full size (200kb jpg)

– Illustration by Mark Markovich
– Concept and writing by Jonathan Maus
– Related story: Delving into PBOT’s 2010-2011 budget
– See past cartoons here.

Email This Post Email This Post

NOTE: At BikePortland, we love your comments. We love them so much that we devote many hours every week to read them and make sure they are productive, inclusive, and supportive (heck, sometimes we even fix your typos!). That doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone. It means you must do it with tact and respect. This is our business and we do not tolerate mean commenters who add nothing of value to the discussion.

Unfortunately, we are not robots and we don't always catch everything. You can help by notifying us if you see inappropriate comments. Thanks! — Jonathan and Michael

Comments
  • Tobi January 22, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    It looks like even in Portland cyclists want a bigger piece of the pie! Good thing you guys are leading the way for the rest of the country though, keep it up!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anne Hawley January 22, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Great caricature of Sam–but…the other figure can’t be intended as Sue Keil, can it?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor-in-Chief) January 22, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    Anne,

    yes… it’s Sue Keil, director of PBOT.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Picio January 22, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Best. political. cartoon. ever.

    Certainly describes how it feels on our end, though I don’t think it’s a conscious choice on Sue Keil’s part (or Sam’s) – they’re making tough choices that are bound to anger, disappoint or disillusion SOMEbody. Our job as cyclists is to continue to be a vocal constituency, to continue to request funding, help the city find it when we can, and most importantly – ride our bikes! The economy’s not getting any better, and at some point a lot of people are going to decide it’s a lot easier to spend under $1,000 a year on a bike rather than $6,500 a year on a car. That’s a difference of over $100 a week, and more people are choosing each year to keep that money in their pockets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • h January 22, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    LOL!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • AaronF January 22, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Why does Sue look so nasty?

    I’m sure this will motivate her to help us out!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • carlos January 22, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Until we change the public perception that cyclist don’t pay their way, we’ve got to figure a way to pay for these things ourselves. How hard is it for a group like the BTA to step up donations, and charitable giving, then invest it directly into bike lanes, bike parking, etc. Let’s show the na-sayers that we are willing to do our part and then some.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor-in-Chief) January 22, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    carlos,

    problem with that idea is that people who primarily ride bicycles are doing their part already… simply by riding! We heavily subsidize motor vehicle use.

    I think, sadly, the only reason sentiments like yours are coming from pro-bike people (even Blumenauer has advocated for a “tiny tax” on bike products along the same line of reasoning) is because no one in a position of real power and influence (like Mayors, advocacy leaders, etc..) has made the case for non-motorized transportation in a bold and engaging that doesn’t alienate much of the population.

    in short: the BTA, Mayor, Metro, etc… should focus on changing public perception instead of planning for a bake sale.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Grimm January 22, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    This is great. Im glad you have teamed up with some good talent. You can say so much more quickly like this.

    I have personally always envisioned a chihuahua (cyclists) and bulldog (motorists), both eating from the same bowl getting food from their owner (transit dept). Even if there is more than enough food to sustain the smaller dog, if the bulldog is greedy it doesnt matter he will gluttonously fill himself while alternative transit begs for table scraps.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brad January 22, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Don’t you have to pay extra to supersize your order?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jackattak January 22, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    @ J Maus #8 –

    Gotta agree with you there. Cyclists (and pedestrians) are “paying” all the “taxes” they need to just by promoting the following:

    1) ~0 impact on the environment.
    2) ~0 impact on the roads.
    3) Just being overall nicer and cooler people. :P (halfway joking there)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Picio January 22, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Brad (#10) – if you were already paying the same amount as the other diners, but those diners were getting a much larger plate of food, wouldn’t you want that bigger plate too?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Flying Dutchman January 22, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Shouldn’t it be: MAY I have a bigger piece?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike January 23, 2010 at 2:27 am

    #11: well there’s not 0 impact on the environment. It still uses plenty of energy to make and ship bikes, bike parts, bike accessories, and bike clothing. And things like tubes, tires, helmets, brake pads, chains, brakes, all need to be occasionally replaced – which creates waste when they’re thrown away. Most people use battery powered lights as well (even though there are expensive alternatives), and batteries are toxic waste when they’re thrown away.

    In summation, bicycles pollute a bazillion times less than cars…. but it’s not 0 impact. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike January 23, 2010 at 2:27 am

    #11: well there’s not 0 impact on the environment. It still uses plenty of energy to make and ship bikes, bike parts, bike accessories, and bike clothing. And things like tubes, tires, helmets, brake pads, chains, brakes, all need to be occasionally replaced – which creates waste when they’re thrown away. Most people use battery powered lights as well (even though there are expensive alternatives), and batteries are toxic waste when they’re thrown away.

    In summation, bicycles pollute a bazillion times less than cars…. but it’s not 0 impact on the environment. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel January 23, 2010 at 9:06 am

    “and batteries are toxic waste when they’re thrown away.”

    Low self-discharge NiMH batteries (e.g. Eneloop) can be recharged tens of thousands of times with little capacity loss.

    Heavy metal rechargeable batteries can be recycled:
    http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=571/level=3

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ford January 23, 2010 at 11:10 pm

    “I think, sadly, the only reason sentiments like yours are coming from pro-bike people (even Blumenauer has advocated for a “tiny tax” on bike products along the same line of reasoning) is because no one in a position of real power and influence (like Mayors, advocacy leaders, etc..) has made the case for non-motorized transportation in a bold and engaging that doesn’t alienate much of the population.”

    Everybody’s waiting for that holy grail message. Do you have it?

    […]

    Didn’t think so, because it doesn’t work like that. If and when you’re willing to accept reality for what it is, (sadly), you’ll appreciate the reasoned pragmatism of Earl’s message.

    Perception is reality in politics. That can be a hard lesson to learn.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • david....no the other one January 24, 2010 at 11:36 am

    Not just the PIE how about the icecream and cup of joe also, please(lane striping, bike parking i.e.).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Travis A. Wittwer January 25, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Any thoughts of a cartoon collection book?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe January 25, 2010 at 8:46 am

    LOLZ! CLASSIC

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steph Routh January 27, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    . . . and nothing for pedestrians. *le sigh*

    Recommended Thumb up 0