I’m out to get YOU, you ungrateful spandex crusaders. What loser takes the brooklyn bridge to get somewhere quick?? You know where the tourists are in this town so stop acting like you never expected them to not know where they are going. Jeez. You’re the idiot, not them, and ESPECIALLY not other bikers who are in the same situation as you. Please stop freaking out at other bikers who aren’t up to your unreasonable expectations. If you’re really in a freaking rush every second of your leisure life, then you’re in for a spectacular death. As a “biker” myself, I don’t feel bad on your behalf, by the way, I just feel sorry for you and would like you to be forever banished to a velodrome.

IMO, part of the issue is that we like to toss around terms like “community” as if they actually mean something. In many contexts, it’s mental shorthand for something that does not exist. There is no bike community per se, any more than there is a motorist community. Actually, let me take that back – there is a community but is a very thin veneer indeed.

If you check out the Editor’s Selections in the article’s comments, you can see the one I wrote (#86) which pretty much sums up how I think we can get from here to there on this issue. It won’t be easy or quick but I think it can be done.

Clarence is right: it’s a dated article OR it’s about 25 years too soon. We’re not there yet enough to warrant going back to the Future.

I have walked to work every day for 2 years and have never had a problem with a cyclist. However, every day I see motorists speeding, running red lights, endangering others, etc.

And when can we expect to see a positive article about cycling highlighting the convenience and recreational, health, and environmental benefits?

What’s the difference? Power and status. As a businessman or homeowner I have status and power, and nobody’s going to mess with me. As a cyclist I have a little power, but it’s so out of proportion to my status that if anything it makes me a threat.

Also empathy, which comes from solidarity and familiarity. The main difference between people who complain about “bikers” and people who don’t is that the people who don’t either are cyclists, can imagine themselves as cyclists or have loved ones who are cyclists.

The only way to avoid this blame is by having enough power to deflect it, or by having enough solidarity with the community at large (beyond cyclists) that people see you as an individual, not a member of a group. That means working on gaining power or making allies. Everything else is a distraction.

I’m not making an analogy. It’s the same game, where the powerful blame the upstarts for any sin committed by any member of their group. People who play the game aren’t doomed to servitude, they’re just wasting time that would be much better spent fighting for justice or better street design. If you and Sullivan want to wag your fingers until they fall off, go ahead. But if you’re still wagging your fingers ten years from now while continuing to be marginalized, don’t say I didn’t tell you so.

http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/06/mandatory-bike-registration-bill-introduced-in-salem/

The example you give of race-baiting is extreme and hardly characterizes the attitude of the average citizen out there, even the average bike hater. Your analogy doesn’t hang.

I’m a cyclist and a ped too, and sometimes even a driver. It makes me mad to see threatening behavior on the street by anyone, willful or unconscious. The surest way to reduce that behavior in the long term is to raise people’s awareness of it. Yes, a small percentage will remain untouched. They’re called sociopaths.

Just as there is no way for “good Muslims” to prove that Muslims on the whole are good and deserving of respect, and there is no way for “good Black people” to prove that Black people on the whole are good and deserving of power, there is no way for cycling advocates to prove that “bikers” are responsible and thus deserving of infrastructure spending. We all deserve respect, power and infrastructure because we are people. That’s all anyone needs.

The only winning move is not to play.

The ability to imagine how the other guy feels seems to be difficult for
many of us to do (people in general). Yet if we’re going to “share the
road,” that is exactly what we all have to do.

I have been stunned by how some Sullivan’s critics overlook statements like:
“To be clear, cars are more likely to kill nonbikers; we still live in a
world ruled by the ruthless car.” I guess what riles them is that Sullivan is not only critical of drivers, but (sacre bleu!) of cyclists.

The circling-the-wagons, we’re-above-criticism argument invariably comes
down to a relativistic parsing of wrongs: Killing someone while speeding
in a car is much, much worse than buzzing an old lady in a crosswalk even
when she doesn’t fall over. Well, yes. But buzzing peds is still wrong,
dangerous, frightening, inconsiderate, and completely unnecessary. The
argument is sanctimonious, and its arrogance angers the public further.

Furthermore, that rep for sanctimony gets thrown back onto activists
trying to improve street conditions for cyclists (and just ordinary
nonhazardous cyclists, as Sullivan observes). Remember Ben McGrath’s
“Holy Rollers” in the Nov. 2006 New Yorker?

The nonthinking public may be wrong to tar all cyclists with the same
brush. But it happens, and it takes a lot of effort to undo
it–effort that at this point should be spent organizing for positive,
practical accomplishments.

Which is another thing I like about Sullivan’s article. He basically
concludes that for all the chaos and anger, bicycling is on the rise and
seems to be almost unstoppable. Let’s keep it moving.

The piece makes a pragmatic argument, not a moral one, for cyclists to adhere to a set of sensible, non-onerous rules. One of which was to stop for red lights at major intersections (at least one commenter ignored the fact that Sullivan was okay with “Stop and Go” at other intersections.)

It is true that the Times has never run a feature article, in the City Section or elsewhere, on driver misbehavior, pedestrian car-nage, the fecklessness of the NYPD’s crash “investigations,” etc. That is shameful. But it’s not Sullivan’s fault. Ditto the photos and the headline, neither of which any newspaper writer ever has anything to do with.

Once upon a time I too would have fulminated against “accommodation” (such as Sullivan’s four rules) unless drivers too were faced down. While I yearn to see dangerous drivers brought to heel — BTW, I was at the Chinatown community’s stirring demonstration today demanding that D.A. Morgenthau impanel a grand jury in the case of the killing of Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng; if any of our commenters were there, I didn’t see ‘em — I am now willing to countenance appeals such as Sullivan’s, especially when they are rendered as thoughtfully as his.

Why? Maybe it’s ’cause on a recent ride home from work I was nearly hit by three wrong-way cyclists, one of whom swooped around a corner (wrong-way into wrong-way), the other two also going really fast. Maybe it’s ’cause I believe in reciprocity and, for the first time in my cycling life the City is indeed starting to put itself on the line for cycling. Maybe it’s ’cause Sullivan’s article brought the bad old ’70s and ’80s back to life for me and reminded me how much safer I feel riding now.

To Sullivan’s modest proposal I’ll add mine: don’t trash his piece for “ignoring the real killers” until you’ve written to Morgenthau and demanded that he stop coddling killer-drivers, of whom Hayley and Diego’s killer is just the latest in a terribly long line.

Cyclists have a right to the road because they’re people using a relatively safe, efficient mode of transportation. They’re people, and you get them to behave in acceptably safe ways by facility design and enforcement, not by browbeating them and making them feel like they don’t belong – even as you pat yourself on the back about being “one of them.”

Also, what Jonesy said.

Every day on my commute bikers pass me at red lights and every day I catch up to almost every single one of them. Something like one out of every ten red light running nimnuls manages to get ahead of me over the length of my commute.

Running red lights is illegal and gets you nothing. Nothing. If you do it, you’re part of the sick culture of the New York streets, not part of a healthy, civil culture that, without much effort, could make all of our lives much easier.

And, yes: calling fellow bikers “nimnuls” is proof that I know everything there is to know about civility.

Sound like a good idea, especially for those rednecks and yahoos that don’t understand that bicycles belong on the road, NOT on the sidewalk.

Bicycle trails, side paths, and bike lanes are nothing more than a successful means to get bikes out of the way of motorists and off the roads.

Education is the key for both cyclists and motorists. State drivers courses and certified cycling courses can take care of a vast majority of the education part of the solution.

Get out and ride is the other part! Happy Riding!

As for PR, I kind of take this article as a positive sign. There wouldn’t be this type of article if biking was flat or on the decline. Automobile traffic certainly is delining, and streets are constantly being redesigned to improve safety and reduce auto traffic. The change is slow, but it is steady. Widenend sidewalks, narrowed lane widths, retimed signals, pedestrian refuges, and new bike lanes all contribute to slower vehicle speeds. These, more than any news article, will truly change driver behavior. Since we spent 40 years making our streets move cars as fast as possible it’s going to take a fairly long time to tame them again.

The lesson, though, is that we aren’t going to merely design our streets to move any one mode as fast as possbile. Speeding bikes, buses, and cars whizzing down the street are all terrifying, and a small mistake will probably send someone to the hospital or worse. Copenhagen really got it right when they timed their lights for a steady pace of around 12 mph.