The following is my response to Rob Anderson’s post in which he pats himself on the back for being profiled in the Wall Street Journal.
It’s telling that a large majority of your supporters have latched onto your argument simply because they, too, see all cyclists as sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, whiney, liberal weenies whose motivations for riding a bike are more political than practical.
And it’s true: some bicyclists are real jerks—as are, you’re no doubt aware, a similar proportion of the general public. (And, having lived in San Francisco as long as you have, you shouldn’t be surprised that a large portion of any interest group is outspokenly progressive.) But you’re not advancing the discussion by painting everyone who chooses to ride a bike with that brush. There are plenty of responsible, courteous riders out there who do so because it’s healthy, fun, and economical. Most of them don’t go to SFBC rallies or ride in Critical Mass because they don’t have the time, aren’t politically motivated to do so, or just aren’t aware of them at all. Biking is simply the mode of transportation that they’ve chosen, and in the end it really doesn’t matter why. You walk and ride public transit; I ride a bike most of the time; so what’s the big deal?
I’ll tell you what the big deal is: You, in your curmudgeonly role as the anti-bike crusader, are actively thwarting the San Francisco bike-riding constituency’s efforts to make cycling in the city safer. Your cynical arguments, backed almost entirely with anecdotal evidence of cyclist self-righteousness, the unwavering assertion that bikes are inherently dangerous, and the ludicrously illogical suggestion that reducing automobile LOS will result in increased emissions, are all gargantuan straw men that serve no point but to distract from the core issue: your blind hatred of bikes.
Why do you hate bikes so much, Rob? Think long and hard before you answer, because broad generalizations like “cyclists are sanctimonious hippies” isn’t really a tenable argument. And don’t give me that “power-hungry SFBC” bullshit, either, because you and I both know that there are thousands of people riding their bikes in the city that don’t give a rat’s ass about the “pro-bike [or 'anti-car'] lobby”. They’re just trying to get wherever they’re going in one piece. And in your attempt to stymie them, you just come across as a big ‘ol jerk.
So keep fighting the good fight, Rob. And we’ll keep on riding our bikes despite (not, as you seem to think, in spite of) your irrational tirade, with the faith that when the EIA is finished the bike plan will be vindicated and you’ll have forced the city to spend a ridiculous sum of money to prove what we’ve known to be true all along: that making our streets more accessible to bikes is an important step toward making the the city a healthier, happier, and safer place for everyone to live.
7 comments
“You, in your curmudgeonly role as the anti-bike crusader, are actively thwarting the San Francisco bike-riding constituency’s efforts to make cycling in the city safer.”
This is simply wrong on every count. The way the city tried to sneak the 527-page Bicycle Plan through the process is what this is all about. What about the city’s gross violation of CEQA, the most important enviro law in the state? Why would Judge Busch rule in our favor on the litigation? Does he hate bikes, too? Try to focus on the real issues. This is not about Bikes versus Cars. I don’t give a shit who does or doesn’t ride a bike or whether they are buttholes or not. (That’s another issue, but of course the boorish behavior of many cyclists on city streets—it may not be a majority but it’s a substantial minority—surely undermines whatever goodwill non-cyclists have toward those of you who ride bikes.)
But the city can’t redesign city streets on behalf of a small minority of cyclists without doing the legally required environmental review. That’s what this is about.
That’s interesting. You responded very differently on your blog…
“Again, what is it about you bike people and your reading disability? Too much diesel fumes clouding your brains? I don’t give a rat’s ass whether you and your PC friends ride bikes in SF. I just object to the city’s attempt at redesigning city streets on behalf of your small minority, thus making traffic worse for the rest of us.”
So, which is it? Do you object to the skirting of CEQA, or to implementation of the Bike Plan itself? Because I’ve been following your blog for a while, and I can’t help but get the impression that these points are simply justifications for your deep-seated resentment of bikes and everyone who rides them (i.e., me and my “PC friends”). Clearly you do care “who does or doesn’t ride a bike,” since you spend so much time trying to make the case that they’re inherently dangerous and that, because of this, the city shouldn’t waste its precious resources to accommodate them. You’ve written volumes asserting that bikes don’t belong on city streets, and that people who ride them are stupid. And then you expect people to believe you when you say that you sued the city because of a CEQA violation?
Give me a break. And, for what it’s worth, I never even mentioned cars in my reply. So don’t even try to paint me with that “anti-car” brush. Automobiles (MUNI buses, for instance) are obviously an integral component of city business and transport. I just wish that you’d consider the somewhat radical idea that they could share the road with cyclists in a way that’s safe and increases the level of service for everyone.
Cyclists cannot be taken seriously in the current state of affairs. In order to be considered vehicles that should share the roadway, they need to be licensed and have liability insurance like any other vehicle. That would provide a huge disincentive to certain cyclists’ dangerous behaviors, witnessed daily on the streets. Sailing through a red light, blocking a cross walk, scratching a parked car, or knocking down a pedestrian should all have consequences financial and legal. Without a registration system, the small but prominent crazy bikers out there will continue to cause trouble for everyone.
Nice straw man, Law Abiding Cyclist. This isn’t about bikers obeying the law. But now that you mention it, one thing to consider is that increasing the number of bikes on the road also increases the need to enforce the laws that govern their operation. In other words, police will pay more attention to cyclists if there are more of them out there.
See also: The Myth of the Scofflaw Cyclist.
Your response to the WSJ article is much more eloquent than what I posted on my tumblr for about 5 mins, before deciding to take it down because I realized it’s inappropriate to wish physical harm on old men.
I’ve also had some thoughts brewing for awhile in regards to bike laws and what it means to be a “law abiding cyclist”. The short of it is that the laws make absolutely no sense and need to be rewritten. It’s nearly impossible to be a completely law abiding cyclist because the laws were written for CARS and don’t take into account what it is like to actually ride a bike in the city. Ugh.
“Do you object to the skirting of CEQA or to implementation of the Bike Plan itself? Because I’ve been following your blog for a while, and I can’t help but get the impression that these points are simply justifications for your deep-seated resentment of bikes and everyone who rides them.”
Failing to find any actual facts to back up your case, you fall back on a murky psychological analysis. There are a number of issues here. First, there’s the law the city clearly flouted, which is why we won the litigation. Second, there’s the bad behavior of many cyclists on city streets. Third, there’s the reality that cycling is a risky way to get around the city, regardless of how many bike lanes are or are not painted on city streets. Many of the commenters to my blog are in denial on all three points. The safety issue: I really don’t mind that you and your comrades want to risk injury by riding a bike, but, as cyclist/author Robert Hurst points out, it’s just silly to deny the dangers of urban cycling. I’ve never written that “bikes don’t belong on city streets.” That’s pure invention on your part. What I object to most of all is the attempt to redesign city streets on behalf of cyclists without any serious study being done beforehand, not to mention the fact that people in the neighborhoods knew very little about the Bicycle Plan before the litigation stopped the city from implementing it and forced it to do an EIR first.
Eventually, there is going to be a Bicycle Plan implemented on city streets, but at least now city neighborhoods will have some warning and will be able to give city officials some input before their streets are redesigned on behalf of a tiny minority.
“Murky psychological analysis”? I don’t think that I need any “facts” to back up the assertion that your view of cyclists is less than favorable. But, for posterity, here are a couple of choice quotes:
“Speaking of delusions, the central delusion you folks hold is that somehow riding a bike can ever really be made safe. It’s an intrinsically risky way to get around the city.” (here)
“In short, the greatest danger to cyclists is their own cognitive shortcomings that lead them to adopt cycling in the first place …” (here)
“Regardless of the obvious dangers, some people will ride bikes in San Francisco for the same reason Islamic fanatics will engage in suicide bombings—because they are politically motivated to do so.” (here)
“People do some amazingly stupid things because of fashion and politics. Cycling and all its accessories is just the latest with-it political fashion in SF.” (here)
“But then the whole bike trip is essentially about style, with bikes an accessory to your lame, PC lifestyle.” (here)
And when you aren’t calling people assholes directly, you use others as your mouthpiece by posting belligerent anti-cyclist mails on your blog as evidence that there are others out there who share your disdain. What does some guy in Alabama’s hatred of “Lance Armstrong wannabes” have to do with anything?
And don’t even try to play that Robert Hurst card again. You lost your right to quote him when Hurst himself posted the following comment on your blog:
“I believe it’s silly to overlook the dangers of cycling in traffic, and there is a faction of cycling advocates who seem to want to do that. On the other hand, I hope I made clear in my book that the benefits of bicycling far outweigh the risks.” (emphasis mine, here)
I’d really love to hate you back, Rob, but really I just pity you.