p

“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.

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.

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.

See also: The Myth of the Scofflaw Cyclist.

“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.