Skip to content

Recent Comments



    And sometimes the response is a fence.



    You make a reasonable point about bikes, however, don’t overstate it. There are plenty of places, and occurrences of people locking bikes to fixtures in the public realm, and those bikes disappearing after private entities (which may or may not own those fixtures) have them removed.

    The other point that’s missing, there is a difference between a parking facility which is public space dedicated to the storage of private vehicles, and a public plaza which not supposed to be monopolized in that way. I would make the argument that if you park your car on a sidewalk/other no parking zone, it would get towed, sadly I’m under the impression that’s not the case. Hence the entire problem.


    Mark Walker

    The M5 and M7 buses (which I ride regularly) really could use a dedicated lane. And those are not the only buses that slow to a painful crawl on Sixth Ave.





    I applaud these challenges to the DOT protected lane template. Hopefully this mile long stretch 6th Av can be the beginning of a new solution that stops favoring traffic flow at the expense of other users.


    Alexander Vucelic

    peak motor volume according to DOT happens at 23rd and Is a mere 1,970 per hour – easily handled by 3 Car lanes and a dedicated bus lane ( exclude parking/loading during Rush Hour to accomodate bus lane)

    10′ of erstwhile lane becomes

    4′ wider sidewalk
    3′ wider bus lane
    2′ wider Parking buffer
    1′ wider bike Lane




    Of course, this point of view is immoral, because it fails to take account of the inhumanity of the law in question. Yet this view persists.

    You know what else is immoral, fining people over $100 for treating T Intersections as yields. Or fining people in excess of $100 for stopping at reds and then slowly proceeding through it when safe on their bike and then be lectured on the importance of “street safety.” That shit is immoral. But you, like the “but they broke the law by illegally immigrating here crew,” are in accord just the same. It’s not just an inconvenience — harassing enforcement of the law outright discourages people from riding altogether. So spare me the f—ing lecture about how I’m an enemy if I slow roll through reds in Alphabet City when it’s safe to proceed. It’s frankly inhumane to take a broken windows approach to bicycle enforcement in light of the fact that, if the NYPD wanted to, they could fine bicyclists all day and night for violations that truly endanger others.



    Just curious, what makes you say it’s legal? I was reading about a proposed protected bike lane in Baltimore, and the city’s DOT quelled backlash from vehicular cyclists by saying that protected bike lanes are considered “bike _paths_”, and therefore the Maryland law which states that cyclists must use a bike _lane_ when available does not apply.

    Is it a similar situation here, or is there another interpretation of the law that makes it so?



    This makes sense for one main reason: it would push enforcement to egregious violations only.
    One of the most irritating things (and I’ve never been ticketed) about the way cycling rules are enforced now is that the community asks for 100% bike enforcement, CO’s set up blitzes to remind beat officers bike violations exist, they trap 300 cyclists in 3 hours for doing nothing out of the usual, and come back to the community and say well we did 300 tickets this time compared to 200 last year-to-date.
    What Reynoso does with this is to codify caution instead of outlaw it. This puts the onus of caution on the bike rider and 9/10 times they will follow it. But if you have a guy going against traffic in the middle of 6th Av, by all means enforce. I’ve always thought the NYPD comstat has lacked a measure of quality. Getting a 50% increase in tickets sounds impressive, but is certainly not when you consider that it was done in 3 hours of relatively wasteful work. I’d much prefer a CO detail 10 tickets to people doing idiotic things, because that would create a better example of what not to do than hunting people down for rolling through a red light at a T-intersection at CPW.
    Treat cyclists with respect by passing a law they can respect. Then you get the safety discussion to a more meaningful place.


    Brian Van Nieuwenhoven

    34th to 14th on Second Ave is not bad.
    South of 14th, it requires some patience, but if you’re on a Citibike then it’s really not a problem (the speeds are slower, the brakes are good, and maneuvering around sudden pedestrians in the roadway is easy enough). If I’m on a dedicated road bike, I take a traffic lane, as my 25mph sprint speed is about as fast as the traffic anyway. And it’s legal to do this, no matter what cranky people say


    Seth Rosenblum

    I think the reason for this has more to do with the “flush islands”. They don’t feel safe enough to pedestrians, so they wait for the light in the bike lanes instead of the pedestrian refuges. Pedestrians in the bike lanes forces cyclists to ride over the flush islands, thus reinforcing the feeling they have. On first avenue, there’s a reassuring amount of concrete that encourages pedestrians to cross the bike lane completely.

    The dimensions of the 6th avenue bike lane will be the same as with second avenue, 6 ft + 3 ft buffer: (slide 27)


    Seth Rosenblum

    The biggest concern expressed by the committee members was that this bike lane would turn out just like 8th avenue north of 42nd, where the volume of pedestrians spills out into the bike lane.

    The DOT’s concern with taking away a lane was that there was a significant volume of car traffic “that has to get where it’s going”.



    Does anyone have the dimensions of the Second Ave protected lane (from 23rd St to Houston St) handy? Because I find it downright unusable and seek alternate routes (without any kind of bike infrastructure) whenever possible, yet am reasonably satisfied with 1st Ave.


    Joe R.

    I agree removing traffic signals is a better approach. Arguably, if NYC didn’t have traffic signals or stop signs everywhere we might not even be talking about an Idaho stop. Unfortunately, for now anyway we’re stuck with the built environment. In the short term an Idaho stop is a good idea. In the medium term we can and should build non-stop bike routes, even if it means costly full-out grade separation. In the even longer term, reducing the number of motor vehicles so we can get rid of traffic signals makes the most sense.


    My Own Private Idaho

    Coincidentally, StreetsPAC is holding a fundraiser for Reynoso on December 8th: If anyone in the Council deserves the support of those of us who read Streetsblog, he’s it.



    What culture has embraced them fully? We should be talking about removing lights and timing the ones that remain for common cycling speed. That’s what bike friendly places, including some in the US, have done.


    Joe Enoch

    Allowing bicyclists to do exactly what this law proposes will make conditions safer because it will focus the spotlight on legitimately dangerous bicycle activity such as riding the wrong way, failure to yield and blatantly running reds.



    I would also like to see some accommodation at T-intersection and for allowing bikes to follow leading pedestrian intervals and other parallel pedestrian signals (or signs allowing these things where appropriate).


    Joe R.

    That’s a big win especially for recreational riders. If you’re riding just to pile on the miles, it often doesn’t matter what route you take. If you happen to have a red light, then with right on red you could legally stay in motion by turning right. You can almost always turn right on red on a bike without causing any conflicts with motorists. So yes, if we couldn’t get a full out Idaho stop or yield law out of this, a right-on-red law would still be a huge gain.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    When I tell scofflaw cycilsts whom I encounter on the road that they ought to stop at red lights — that’s when I am herding cats.

    But when I myself am stopped at a red, I am setting a good example for other riders, and I am behaving in keeping with my (and every cyclist’s) role as a bicycle ambassador to the general public.


    Joe R.

    I’m rarely near other vehicles most times I’m riding. At times when I am, I tend to ride in such a manner that it doesn’t matter if others know my intentions. For example, I’ll time myself so I hit a gap in traffic when going around double-parked vehicles. Or I’ll hang behind someone who looks like they’re turning right so they can’t turn into me.

    I will use gestures at four way stop signs, like waving a driver through if he/she seems unsure of my intentions. In general however, my philosophy is to ride as if I’m invisible, meaning my safety doesn’t depend upon people knowing my actions in advance, or even seeing me.

    Note that often a glance behind from a cyclist is a good as a turn signal. This should be a clear indication to the driver that the cyclist intends to go in the direction they glanced. My experience is this seems to work. So it’s not like I don’t signal turns at all. I do signal them by turning my head, which I should do anyway to assess the situation behind me.

    I also think riding predictably is important here. I see too many cyclists who change lanes or direction on a whim. I tend to hold a straight line other than to go around obstructions. When I deviate from that line, I always check behind me.


    Doug G.

    You’re herding cats.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    Turn signals are essential; it is good sense to inform the drivers behind you what you intend to do.

    Even giving the right-turn signal (with the left arm bent at the elbow) is important. There is one section of my commute into work, on Central Avenue where new sharrows have been installed, where this has signalling has been effective. From eastbound Central I turn north onto 69th Place; and my right-turn signal upon my approach to that corner often causes the driver right behind me to noticibly slow down. Often this driver later makes the same turn; which means that my signal reminded him/her that I am there, and possibly prevented an unpleasant close call as we both negotiate that turn.

    And how anyone gets by without left turn signals is utterly unimaginable. I cannot count the number of times that I am forced left by double-parked cars. The only way to handle this type of lane change is to forcefully and repeatedly give a left signal (arm straight and at a diagonal from the body; palm facing back, or else finger pointing).

    Wearing gloves that are white or as light-coloured as possible is also a big help in all signalling. For summer, baseball batting gloves are the best gloves to use. In winter, the task is to find the lightest-coloured winter gloves available. Typically grey is the best you’ll do.

    If you are really not signalling your intentions often with hand signals, then you are just needlessly compromising your safety.


    Joe R.

    Pedestrian “desire lines” are another good example of this. Cities have added or modified crosswalks based on the (illegal) behavior of pedestrians crossing outside existing crosswalks. When large numbers do this, it’s a clear indication that perhaps we should just legalize this behavior by putting a crosswalk in this location.



    Even if we got right-on-red for bikes out of this, I’d consider it a win.



    Bravo to Antonio. This is a discussion we were going to have to have as cycling continues to grow in popularity. The chief rap against cyclists is that we’re renegade lawbreakers because we almost uniformly go through reds. Normalizing this behavior by changing the law — or even by having a conversation about changing the law — will help remove the “lawbreakers” association cyclists are currently saddled with, which will draw more risk-averse would-be cyclists, who don’t want to be lumped in with lawbreakers, to the streets. Besides this, being able to go through a red when there is no crossing peds or traffic is simply safer because it puts the rider out ahead of motor vehicles, making him/her more visible.


    Doug G.

    This is exactly what happened on Plaza Street – a large percentage of people were salmoning around Grand Army Plaza to get to connecting bike lanes, proving the need for a two-way bike lane. Had cyclists had some common sense that “we” needed to be on “our” best behavior and not salmoned because of what drivers might have thought of “us,” DOT never would have seen the need for a contra-flow solution.


    Joe R.

    Pretty much the same reactions I got when I stopped and waited the full cycle at every red light decades ago (unlike you, I never bothered completely stopping at stop signs, and never bothered using turn signals). I stopped doing it because I realized nobody cared, it annoyed drivers who might be stuck behind me, I had things thrown at me while stopped, and it made riding much more strenuous and time-consuming. The kicker was one time when I was stopped and an out of control car came barreling from behind. Fortunately I was able to notice it far enough in advance to roll into the intersection before it went by. After that I realized how vulnerable a stopped cyclist is. They can’t maneuver at all, and it takes a few seconds to get back up to a speed where you can. Those few seconds might mean the difference between living and dying. I decided given all the other downsides, there was little point to stopping at red lights unless cross traffic forced me to. I haven’t regretted that decision.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    I have received comments telling me that I give bicyclists a good name both from drivers and from pedestrians.

    (But I have also been honked at by drivers whose lawbreaking I am impeding by my legal riding.)

    It’s great to read that you ride legally! Even if no one pats you on the head, you can be sure that they notice. And, when some blowhard asserts that “all bicyclists break the law” (encouraged by having seen one of our scofflaw fellow bicyclists), perhaps one of your witnesses will be moved to offer an opposing view. And then any impressionable people hearing that discussion might understand things differently than they would have done if they had heard only unrebutted assertions of bicyclists’ misdeeds.

    So please keep it up. One person can do only what one person can do.



    The more things people think are political kryptonite, the more things stay exactly the same. This administration thinks a lot of things are controversial that were proven popular a long time ago and look where that’s gotten us! I give Reynoso a lot of credit for being willing to introduce an idea that he had to know would go nowhere. A mature society is able to talk about ideas even before the culture might be ready to embrace them fully.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    Asserting that I thought no one noticed scofflaw behavior or appreciated compliant behavior was certainly a strawman.

    No, it was not, as you previously said: “The only people who notice or care that you’re stopping for red lights at empty intersections are the cyclists behind you.”

    (But I am gratified to see your implicit acknowledgement of the fact that our behaviour is indeed noticed by members of the general public.)

    Also, your assertion that I say “[n]othing about building widespread public support for bike infrastructure” entirely wrong. I have made it clear that my advocacy of riding legally is aimed at building this public support — and also at the necessary corollary: minimising public opposition.

    But the best way to get things done is certainly to elect a pro-bicycling mayor who’s going to take no guff. Then, once that mayor is gone, the thing to do is to protect what we have gained.


    Brian Howald

    Drivers really applaud you?

    I wait at every red light, stop at every stop sign, announce every turn and lane change, and all I get is very annoyed honking at following the rules the drivers behind me were going to ignore to varying degrees.


    Joe R.

    For those in a good portion of the city the strategic loss you mention by riding “illegally”, assuming it even exists, is just about moot. Even under Bloomberg it would have been many years, probably decades, before we ended up with any kind of infrastructure which would truly change the cycling experience for the better in the outer boroughs. Why? Because the type of infrastructure necessary to do that wouldn’t be paint, or protected lanes. Many arterials here can’t really spare a lane for bikes, and in any case a protected lane wouldn’t make things a whole lot better anyway, at least not without overpasses or underpasses at major intersections. We would need to unravel cycle routes from car routes, liberally use grade separation, basically spend a lot more money than even Bloomberg was committed to spend. In order to budget that much for cycling, we will need a cultural sea change. That in turn will take a long time to happen. Arguably, riding illegally wouldn’t matter in either the long term or short term in this scenario. In the long term, the cultural change towards bikes will happen anyway, just as it is in many other cities. In the short term it makes no sense to sacrifice the immediate safety and convenience gained by passing red lights for remotely possible gains decades in the future, assuming of course your theory that riding illegally will prevent new infrastructure even holds water.

    At best then your so-called strategising would amount to relatively small gains for a minority of cyclists (i.e. those riding in places where the city is likely to build bicycle infrastructure in the near future). That’s assuming of course you’re right, which for various reasons I feel you’re not. And note it is relatively small gains we’re talking about even if you’re right. Most of the bicycle infrastructure the city has built doesn’t make cycling any faster. If anything it makes it slower. And it only makes it marginally safer or more pleasant, if at all. Remember under Bloomberg we didn’t get a single mile of new greenways. Greenways are really the best type of infrastructure if getting more people riding is the goal.



    The Idaho Stop is de facto legal. There are many times that I have rolled up next to a police officer at a red light and then rolled right on through after stopping and seeing that the intersection was empty, before the light changed. If they see you stop and take due care before crossing (assuming there’s no ticket blitz on and it’s not a targeted intersection) the vast majority will not do anything. Even traffic cops know that they have better things to do, which is another reason that the law should be changed, if only to codify the standard practice and enforcement already in place.



    Political kryptonite that will take the focus even further away from creating a comfortable cycling network than it already is.



    Gotta pause and express deep admiration for WalkingNPR’s comment. A keeper.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    Riding in an illegal fashion was indeed strategically counter-productive even when I did it. But at that time, attaining bicycle infrastructure through the normal functioning of the political process could be considered all but impossible; so the question of strategising for an impossibility was moot. Therefore it was ethically defensible for a bicyclist to maximise his/her immediate convenience and to disregard long-term issues, as the strategic loss didn’t amount to anything.

    Bloomberg was a game-changer. The transformation that happened under him was not a gradual result of anything that bicyclists had been doing or had not been doing; this sudden transformation was down completely to decisive actions taken by a powerful executive who had the intellilgence and the integrity to look around the world for best practices and to implement these practices here. Bloomberg’s leadership redefined the whole situation; and it reset the parameters — both ethical and strategic.

    We are now in a period where, thanks to Bloomberg’s legacy, advocates for livable streets and for various modes of transport have a seat at the table, and have access to decision-makers. For the time being, the pre-Bloomberg sense of hopelessness no longer exists; thus the path to reform for all excluded sectors of the transportation diaspora (including E-bikes) is through playing mainstream politics, and strategising accordingly.


    Simon Phearson

    Asserting that I thought no one noticed scofflaw behavior or appreciated compliant behavior was certainly a strawman. You used that strawman to launch into a refutation and then (as I’ve described) an argument that scofflaw/compliant behavior has a causal effect on progress.

    Taking an aggressive tone with you may not elevate the conversation, but certainly your lengthy and specious comments do more damage than telling you to “shut up.”

    Again it is a red herring to point to Bloomberg in describing the cause of progress we’ve made and are sustaining. Never mind that half of the progress we can point to since BdB has come at the urging of CBs, who are independent of the mayor. Never mind that BdB could have stopped any project as easily as an avowed anti-bike mayor, including projects designed and approved before his term, since there is no such thing as political “momentum” that naturally impels these projects when constituencies oppose them. The simplest point here is that you’ve claimed that scofflaw behavior has an effect that’s not demonstrable on the evidence, and you continue to avoid this central criticism.

    Your fourth bullet, in usual fashion, invests disproportionate attention to a parenthetical aside and begs the question. This is getting tiresome.

    Finally, your last point is trivial and irrelevant. Again, what you’ve asserted is not that people notice and complain about or compliment cyclist behavior, but that this fact implies that cyclist behavior has some causal effect on the progress we make in building cycling infrastructure. No such causal effect can be demonstrated, and is indeed belied by what we’ve seen. We have made progress despite widespread scofflaw cycling behavior, and we continue to make progress (though less quickly under BdB) despite that scofflaw behavior showing no signs of abating.

    Strategically speaking, the only approach that demonstrably works, on the arguments and evidence you’ve provided, is electing a mayor with a pro-cycling agenda who has the political capital necessary to ignore bikelash. Nothing about building widespread public support for bike infrastructure – because indeed that did not exist prior to Bloomberg’s election – has been demonstrated to be effective.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    Evidence of drivers’ sociopathy is reported in this website every day.

    Don’t forget that we have a culture in which it is widely believed that “accidents (and I use that term intentionally) will happen”, and that human lives are a legitimate price to pay for an automobile-dominated society.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    * There has been no “strawman” tactic on my part. I have attributed to you no imagined or exaggerated viewpoint. Please desist in this false claim.

    * Whether or not I have your respect is of no consequence. The problem with your tone is that it lowers the standard of discourse here.

    * The source of the progress we have made is an important question. The assertion that the driving force was not the progressive policies of Bloomberg (whom you inexplicably smear as “authoritarian”) is theoretically valid, considering that other cities have made progress even without a Bloomberg. But this theory loses validity in light of the meteoric rate of New York’s progress from having had almost zero real bike infrastructure to becoming a leader in the U.S., and also in light of Bloomberg’s role in appointing and protecting the visionary Sadik-Khan.

    * You are free to speculate that scofflaw bicycling would increase modeshare, which would in turn create a bigger constituency for bicycling. However, you should ground your specuation in reality. To wit: even if, for the sake of argument, one grants the correctness of this speculation of yours, the fact remains that bicyclists would still be a small minority of the overally population. The fate of bicycle infrastructure would therefore still be dependent upon the views about bicycling on the part of the non-cycling majority. So it would stil be strategically unsound to risk pissing off the people who hold our fate in their hands. Our best course of action would still be to pursue the policy of normalising bicycling by riding legally, thereby promoting bicyclists becoming regarded by the majority as a normal part of the set of street users. This approach would be worth it even if by such strategy we’d forego attracting to bicycling some people who would ride only if they could do so illegally.

    * Every event is a datum, even if it is not gathered in a scientific poll. When random people repeatedly make the same comment, it is valid to suppose that the sentiment underlying this comment is out there in the wild.



    I agree with this in a way. I also suspect this is more a cultural issue. Cyclists challenge drivers–they don’t behave in the expected ways other cars do (even when behaving perfectly within the law). On a lizard-brain level, they scare drivers with their ability to get around without buying into the whole image/status symbol junk that is so tied to cars and without paying all the price–car payments, insurance, gas, time spent stuck in traffic. I’m not convinced even if every cyclist followed the law perfectly as written that this would do much about drivers’ mental image of them or respect for cyclists.

    Why do drivers never seem to notice the wanton and constant disregard for the law of their fellow drivers? Because they understand it. They see it as just the compromises and little cheats you have to make to drive in the city. They don’t understand why cyclists do what they do. I think critical mass is really the thing that’s going to change minds–when cycling becomes more normative. Infrastructure and policy that makes it easier and safer to cycle for more people is key–of which it seems to me this law is a part.


    Simon Phearson

    It’s perfectly civil (and correct) to describe you that way.


    Simon Phearson

    This narrative doesn’t make sense. Why does strategy support your approach now, but not undermine your approach previously? You say that you felt ethically entitled to ignore the law when you felt that cyclists were outside the social contract, but wouldn’t it have still been true that acting as though you were outside that social contract was the best assurance that you would always remain thus – at least, according to your assertion that scofflaw behavior is strategically counterproductive?

    There’s another aspect to this narrative that I find amusing – consider e-bikes. By any sensible account one has to acknowledge that e-bike riders are firmly outside the social contract (as you’ve put it), and moreso than bike riders without “accommodations” would have been – being “prohibited” within the city primarily by virtue of an arbitrary administrative loophole and subject to unnecessarily vindictive forfeiture laws. E-bikers would seem to be ethically entitled, then, to break the law safely, despite the strategic consideration that (per your prior reasoning) wouldn’t outweigh their own personal convenience. Yet I can’t imagine your condoning their scofflaw behavior; indeed I would expect you to cite their scofflaw behavior as being one of the key strategic things we must change in order to preserve the progress we’ve made.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    So clearly you figured that you’d have a go by dispensing both with substantive argument and with civility.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    That is exactly what the enemies of immigration reform do say, arguing that people who break the law shouldn’t be rewarded. (I as an Italian-American have heard this line of garbage more times than I want to remember from my racist relatives, immigrants and the children of immigrants themselves, and from other Italians.)

    Of course, this point of view is immoral, because it fails to take account of the inhumanity of the law in question. Yet this view persists.

    So it’s no surprise that this sort of view exists with respect to traffic laws, which are merely inconvenient and annoying rather than inhumane.


    Ferdinand Cesarano

    The “black and white view” is not mine; it is that of the majority, the people whose ill-founded viewpoints will ultimately determine the laws and the conditions under which we must live.

    Understand that I have no problem with cyclists running red lights on the pure merits. Of course I can see that bicyclists have the ability to do this without putting people in danger. Indeed, I used to do this myself in the pre-Bloomberg days.

    But when circumstances changed, so did my behaviour. When the bike lanes began to proliferate, I saw that we were getting accommodations.

    This impacted the ethics of ignoring the law. As I have mentioned before, from that point the social contract applied to us bicyclists as it had not done before.

    But I am leaving aside that ethical/philsophical dimension, and making a strategic argument: we now have something to lose, so we need to protect it. Surely you see that we make things worse by prodding our already formidable enimies by displaying our illegal behaviour in front of them.

    When I call red-light-running “destructive”, I am referring to the real-world outcome of dealing with the ignorant and irrational majority who. And even when I called red-light running “unethical”, I was referring mainly to persisting in a pattern of behaviour that is demonstrably harmful to the general interest. (Again, it is harmful because of how the idiot public sees it, not on account of its inherent properties.)

    It makes perfect sense to take stock of one’s enemies and of one’s own side’s strenghts and weaknesses. It’s a shame that some are so focussed on how it should be (i.e., people should think rationally) that they cannot engage in this real-world analysis of how things really are.



    You’re dishonest, you argue straw men and you think civility is a viable substitute for a substantive argument.



    This is really stupid Ferdinand. It’s like saying allowing illegal immigrants to remain here would be wrong, because they “broke the law” as opposed to, ya know, changing the law.


    Simon Phearson

    I take the tone I do with you because you’ve shown yourself to be impervious to reason and unconcerned by the weaknesses in your argument, which I have demonstrated on multiple occasions and you have never successfully rebutted. Here, once again – for instance – you attribute a strawman to me and ignore the main substance of my criticism. I offered you my respect when it wasn’t clear to me you were an obtuse charlatan. You have worked hard to lose it. Congratulations.

    The anecdotal experiences you’ve cited and the smattering of Post quotations you choose to give great weight to do not amount to evidence that scofflaw cyclist behavior itself impedes the introduction or maintenance of cyclist infrastructure or pro-cycling legislation. As I’ve mentioned before, such impediment could exist regardless of the rate of cycling compliance, given the profound incumbent interests that drivers have in free parking, traveling at high speeds, etc. On the other hand, the fact that we have made as much progress as we have despite all of the scofflaw cyclist behavior you’re fixated on is strong evidence that scofflaw behavior does not itself impede progress. The just-so story you’ve developed – that an authoritarian mayor is the only thing that made progress possible – is a red herring. The question is not what causes progress, but what causes hindrance. You have no evidence that scofflaw cyclist behavior has caused or will cause more than dinner-table resistance to pro-cycling progress, but plenty of evidence that progress has been made despite it.

    Look, it’s a fairly simple hypothesis to formulate and test. Your claim is that scofflaw behavior prevents progress on cycling issues, while compliant behavior is a necessary condition for making that progress. What someone tells you at a stoplight is simply not a relevant datum. What matters is: what progress have we made? What has the rate of cycling compliance been? We have as much data suggesting that scofflaw behavior causes progress as we do that it hinders it.

    (More, actually. I’d speculate that scofflaw behavior is positively correlated with the experienced convenience of biking, which in turn is positively correlated with modeshare. This, in turn, translates to more of a political constituency in favor of better bike infrastructure. But if everyone were to comply with the law, as you argue they should do, modeshare might well go down, since biking would be less convenient, which would reduce the political constituency actively pushing for better infrastructure, even if (as you’ve claimed) the population at large would theoretically be more receptive to bike infrastructure. Which they wouldn’t be, of course – they would point to how few people bike! Evidence: the Post.)

    But it’s clear to me that you are not up to the challenge of properly defending your positions. You haven’t said a single new thing in dozens of posts on this very point, and your inability to adapt your talking points to my criticism helps to demonstrate that reasoning with you is a futile endeavor. Hence, “shut up.” You’re a fool, and there’s not much more to say about it than that.


    Jonathan R

    You attest that the mass of motor vehicle operators are like elephants, never forgetting a single incident of a bicyclist running a red light.

    Yet individual motor vehicle operators found at the site of bicycle crashes invariably say, “He/she came out of nowhere. I didn’t see him.”

    If they were so torqued about bicyclists going through red lights, wouldn’t they drive extra cautiously? Not to do so would be textbook sociopathy.