Using the relative danger of automobiles vs. bikes is a lame way to mask the fact that bikers can employ behavior that is dangerous to pedestrians.

It’s not a way to mask anything. It’s a way to measure the relative cost versus benefits, and to put things in perspective.

People have an incentive to go places. They could use bicycles. If you discourage cycling, AND you discourage taking the bus and subway by underfunding it, AND you encourage driving by providing “free” bridges and highways, then you’re giving people incentives to switch from cycling to driving, which greatly increases the danger to everyone on the street.

Do you have any evidence that bicyclists “compromise the safety of others” to any socially significant extent?

Thanks,

–Ian

A lot of US bikers are driven by the same human nature as drivers, yielding similar results: we are impatient, so we run red lights, or stop at crosswalks so we can inch our way through the intersections faster. We don’t yield to pedestrians on tracks like the west side highway one. We weave through crosswalks at high speeds so we don’t get slowed down. It’s really not that different than automobile drivers from a behavioral standpoint. In some ways, we’re worse, because unlike automobile drivers, we cling to this idea that we’re “better” simply because we’re not in cars. Really, that just makes us hypocrites.

The reality is that, many times, and I’ll include myself here, we’re selfish and we compromise the safety of others because of it. Time to fess up.

More and more, it amazes me that most people’s real problem with bikes boils down to “they were insufficiently deferential!” or “they scared me!” Especially when these complaints are leveled at cyclists who were actually doing the right thing.

Not to mention that I can’t count the number of times that I’ve been almost run down as a pedestrian by DRIVERS. And also can’t count the number of times that I’ve almost been killed by a reckless driver while I was driving.

You find bicyclists “dangerous”, but it is automobiles that maim and kill thousands in our city every year. Scofflaw bicyclists are annoying, but scofflaw drivers are deadly. Let’s keep our eyes on the things that matter.

Cheers,

–Ian

Let’s protect everyone’s right to a safe and environmentally friendly city and enforce the laws for all.

Given that one could park on the street for nothing, what might someone be willing to pay? I might be tempted at $10 per month, if a tire pump and a few other amenities were provided.

One could charge more if showers and towels were also provided, though I generally do not find them necessary. One might also offer office clothing storage. I’m not sure which model is more likely to succeed — just protected storage or full service.

On just needs to wait for the bankruptcy and foreclosure sale, and deal with the bank or new buyers (or new RTC if it gets bad enough). Given what merchants located in the same zip code as bike lanes give as a reason for declining sales in a consumer led recession, I hope the default of buildings purchased at the top of the commercial real estate market aren’t blamed on this bill.

For now, the most important thing is to build a strong case for bike access to your building, so in 100 or so days, when the law does take effect, you’ll be well-positioned to take advantage.

By then, the bike advocates should also have some sort of support system in place to help everyone navigate the process.