Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

On The Wretchedness Of A Culture In Which People Get So Upset About Bicycles

Have you not heard? The bike nazis are coming to kill and eat your children and probably tamper with your credit rating!

Okay, so the KIRO FM “bike nazi” rant in response to Seattle’s first bike box was in large part just a PR stunt, but the truth is that in essence that rant is a pretty accurate representation of how mainstream America thinks.

While the Seattle Times may be dismissed as stunningly out of touch in certain Seattle circles, there is no better barometer of how the average greater Seattle resident sees the world. Last Tuesday’s Seattle Times front page story framed the issue of parking rate increases as being all about righteous bikers attacking drivers: The opening sentence reads, “Mike McGinn, the bicycling mayor, is counting on cars to salvage the city’s transportation fund.” There are many other examples.

The comment threads on pretty much any online article that has anything to do with bikes in pretty much any publication are guaranteed to be overflowing with hissy fits about cyclists, most of which can be distilled down to the complaint that bikes get in the way of cars, or more bluntly, that bikes are annoying so who cares if they get run down.

And its not just venom being spewed safely behind anonymous computer screens. Any cyclist who’s spent significant time on the streets has no doubt experienced drivers foaming at the mouth first hand.

Meanwhile, any rational assessment of the challenges we face in creating sustainable cities can only lead to the blindingly obvious conclusion that cars are part of the problem, and bikes are part of the solution. This is not to say that everyone who drives a car is a bad person, or that bike riders are saints. But there is simply no denying that if people are concerned about both the quality of life in cities, and how our way of life is killing the planet, then they should support the use of bicycles for transportation.

So how can there be such a gaping disconnect between people’s animosity toward bikes in the city, and the reality that more biking would benefit all of us?

Short answer: Our society is psychotic. In a sane culture, the city’s leading newspaper would be expressing relief and pride that the mayor of Seattle gets it about car dependence and walks the talk, rather than belittling him for being the “bicycling mayor.” In a sane culture, drivers would be thanking every cyclist they see out on the road, whether or not they may pose a slight inconvenience.

For sure, it’s part of our basic human nature to be self-centered and myopic, but American culture has turbo-charged those traits way beyond the norm of human history. And when it comes to cars, add to that our weakness for being intoxicated  by the power of machines. It’s a virulent mix, and it’s going to take some doing to rise above it.

First thing is coming to grips with the increasingly evident reality that while cars are incredibly useful machines, the world that we have built to accommodate them is a failure, and we must fix it. That shift in mindset is starting to happen, but our car culture roots run very deep, and so far the pace of change is glacial relative the the urgency of the situation.

Second thing is coming to grips with how effectively cars dehumanize us. I say this because I can see it happen to me whenever I get behind the wheel. Egged on by the overpowering goal of getting there faster—which is what traveling by car is all about—I find myself reflexively taking all kinds of little chances that increase the risk I am posing to others around me.  And that’s how most people operate. But if not enclosed in a safe metal and glass cocoon, most of us would never behave so callously toward our fellow human beings.

In the end, though it may take a while, there is no question in my mind about how the so-called war on cars will end: Cars will lose. Not that cars will disappear, but their days of tyranny are numbered. If nothing else, the economics of dwindling resources will see to it eventually.

But I also believe that current cultural trends show unmistakable signs of that trajectory. The picture below shows a young woman in street clothes riding a custom, brakeless fixed-gear bike at 8:30 a.m, probably on the way to work. If you want a glimpse of the future, watch what the cool kids are doing today. Among young people, cars culture is slowly but surely losing its cachet. And that may be the most powerful change agent there is.


  • Guest

    So you show a picture of a helmetless moron on a brakeless fixie to make your point.

  • Jakers

    Dan, you have valid point in your article, but I don’t know what I hate more, listening to hatred spewed by tea-baggers or cyclists.

    Based on the number of articles on cycling/car related articles lately and the large number of comments, I guess PC has shifted from the tunnel controversy to cycling/car controversy as a way to increase ad impressions.

  • gruben

    “If you want a glimpse of the future, watch what the cool kids are doing today. Among young people, cars culture is slowly but surely losing its cachet. And that may be the most powerful change agent there is.”

    I would say this illustrates how out of touch with reality the author is. I know lots of youth. Riding a bike to work is not something any would do.

  • tpn

    It’s about the shrillness and entitlement attitudes coming from many bike advocates, particulalry here. It’s about the refusal to NEGOTIATE with other parties who have interests in other modes of transporation, be it people, frieght, or otherwise. It’s about the eliminationist rhetoric when it comes to people who have to work for a living and drive a car to get there. And finally, it is about using obstructionism, expecting people to take advocates’ hyberbole serious, and the shitty attittude toward people that might have a different point of view other the bikes uber alles, that gets people upset.

    You mayor is all of this, institutionalized. Deal with that, and maybe then can you demand a more civil discourse and be taken seriously by anyone outside of your subculture.

  • eric

    Dan, you say watch what the cool kids are doing. I think you’re showing your age. The cool kids have figured out that the environmental movement has been co-opted by the wealthy as way to limit the upward mobility of the poor while at the same time giving themselves cover for the guilt of their own consumption.
    The cool kids would like a job so that they can buy a home and all the stuff that makes our lives comfortable. But the Sierra Club and Cascade Bicycle people are saying sorry, no good jobs for you, living comfortably is bad for the environment. Here, just ride your bike to your low wage service job.
    It’s elitist to punish service workers living in South Seattle who drive to their job in wealthier North Seattle. Should they spend over 2 hours a day on the bus, or 4 hours a day riding a bike to and from work so that they can save the environment? The wealthy created the problems, and now want everyone else to pay to fix it.
    When Mike McGinn and Mike O’Brien move out of their large houses and into a condo closer to City Hall then I might believe they’re serious about walking the walk. The cool kids can see through the BS.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    I agree with this editorial.The calumny expressed against bicycles and bicyclists is out of proportion — in fact, inverse to — their benefits to society!I am pro car. I like cars.I ride a bike. I am on a bicycle advisory board.Both bikes and cars (and taxis) are Personal Transit Systems. The let the individual go where they want to, at the time they want to and using the route they desire.The whole Conservative/Liberal duality doesn’t work for bicycles. They promote Free Choice, they are Private Vehicles and they don’t impact society as much as say, a train or bus, which requires huge subsidies from non-public transit taxpayers.This is the same sort of illogic, however, the colors the debate on the Tunnel. Why is someone who is “anti-car” willing to spend $6 Billion on an unnecessary car tunnel?This is the same illogic of 1098…which will end up being a tax on us all. Why a blog that is named after the populist Roman, Publicola, would be for such a tax is illogical.I would hope that the writers of this blog will be as perspicacious when it comes to all the hypocrisy…and not just that which does not suit it.

  • Ty

    I find it hard to believe that Dori Monson is an “avid cyclist”.

    I have always found the vitriolic reaction against cyclists to be somewhat puzzling. Why someone who I would otherwise engage with in a civil manner, would choose to treat me differently simply because I chose to make a particular trip on a bicycle, rather than by getting in my car is beyond any rational explanation. In the book “Traffic”, the author describes a psychological state of mind that people get in when they are behind the wheel. This state of mind really changes people and can lead to behavior or attitudes that a person driving would otherwise never exhibit. I personally try to always keep this in mind when I get behind the wheel and find myself boiling over about something, or someone that is completely out of my control.

  • David Sucher

    I think you are exaggerating to a degree which destroys your argument.

    “Refuse to negotiate?” Do you understand the dollars spent on cars per capita compared to $/biker?

    Get a grip.

  • Nice work

    This is one of the best comments I’ve ever read. Nice work, Eric.

    Liberals need to do some soul-searching–when George W. Bush talked about how the liberal elite were out of touch with reality I called bullshit, but this whole bike thing has got me thinking…

  • Anonymous

    There is more than enough road infrastructure to support those who really need to drive cars and trucks at peak commuting hours–freight and delivery trucks, carpools, minivans full of the neighborhood kids, etc. No one is advocating tearing up all the car infrastructure overnight. The bike advocates are only trying to nudge our transportation infrastructure in a more sustainable direction that is better for the environment, society, and for health.

  • Barleywine

    “that rant is a pretty accurate representation of how mainstream America thinks.”

    This is about the only part I disagree with.

    Mainstream America doesn’t care one bit about car/bike wars, or D/R wars; and they wouldn’t even know about it if it wasn’t so darn entertaining to watch.
    Oh, and I like The Biggest Loser, too.

  • mao

    How can you negotiate with drivers who thinks their own convenience matters more than a cyclist’s life? As a cyclist, I’m always willing to hear a driver’s point of view, except when that point of view is “get off the road and out of my f***ing way.”

    I make it a point to catch up to drivers who threaten my life to explain that I actually have legal rights, that I’m allowed to drive on the road, that there are circumstances in which I am allowed to take the entire lane. The responses I receive are always along the lines of “don’t tell me about the law, get of my way” or “you can only ride on bike lanes” or “just be glad I didn’t run you over you sh*t.”

    I just want to get to work and get a little exercise on the way without being killed or injured.

    Why does your convenience matter more than my life?

  • Jakers

    I guess @tpn is suffering from the same problems cyclists are, exaggeration!

  • Guest

    Don’t you know, the 1% of college educated white middle class greens who do this are ‘everyone’.

  • Jakers

    What is mainstream america anyway?

  • Becoming Anti Bike

    I am still waiting to see the first bicyclist stop at a stop sign. I am still waiting to see a bicyclist who does not enjoy holding up traffic in the Arboretum. I am tired of bicyclist racing between lanes of traffic downtown. My experience in Seattle is that pedestrians are more at risk from bicyclist than automobiles. They seem to exempt themselves from all traffic laws as well as common courtesy. No wonder there is growing animosity.

  • tpn

    Blast me all you want about negotiation, but address the other points, please.

  • kurisu

    Last I checked, there was a freight advocacy group obstructing a compromise solution to the trail through Ballard by filing lawsuits. Not only are you insulting and hypocritical in asking for civil discourse, but you seem to be incapable of understanding that many drivers and bicyclists are the same people, and understand that there are tough choices to be made when we choose what to subsidize and create incentives for when we live in a major city. Get a grip on reality. These days there are thousands of people who bike to work – and plenty of them like myself drive part of the time.

  • tpn

    Thank you.

  • Jay

    So you act like an asshole to make Dan’s point for him,

  • Anonymous

    You know what is going to increasingly limit the mobility of the poor? Spending valuable public money on an expensive deep bore highway under downtown and building more highways to farther flung suburbs. That is money that could be spent instead on extending our mass transit system throughout the city and increasing density so that the poor and elderly, and everyone else, are not dependent on cars for their daily needs.

    Imagine instead if we rezoned areas around an expanded rail and bus rapid transit system for a level of density that allowed everyone living there to be within walking distance of schools, parks, grocery stores, restaurants, bakeries, convenience stores, etc. When they wanted amenities not available in their own neighborhood, they could quickly and easily take public transit to other dense cores in the region.

    We have scarce resources. An SOV-dependent society requires that the poor spend a huge percentage of their income on transportation. Used car prices are rising, repairs are expensive, gas is expensive (and will become more so), insurance is expensive, parking is expensive, licensing etc.

    Finally, riding a bus is not hell. I don’t own a car and rely on buses, bikes, trains, and walking to get around the city. I have driven in the past, and a grinding commute is stressful, and potentially dangerous and costly. The poor are less able to absorb the costs of a car accident, medical and financial. Public transit helps those on a low or fixed income from facing unexpected costs for repairs, accidents, vehicle break-ins, etc.

  • David Sucher

    If you are talking to me TPN, I’d be happy to respond. But your comment offers NO specifics but only conclusions. For example, you write “It’s about the eliminationist rhetoric when it comes to people who have to work for a living and drive a car to get there.”Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about — it’s all so vague, so abstract. You are angry about something but I don’t know what it is. Call me Mr. Jones, if you like (I always thought that song showed Bob Dylan as a pretentious snob.)

  • kurisu

    As someone who has both driven and biked to a low-wage job, and to a more stable job, I find your comment ridiculous. I work with people who ride their bikes from south to north Seattle and drive when it rains. And earth to you, it doesn’t take 4 hours.

  • Anonymous

    I think he uses to ride to the station pretty much every day, at least during the summer. Not sure if he still does.

  • kurisu

    “My experience in Seattle is that pedestrians are more at risk from bicyclist than automobiles.”

    Really?

  • tpn

    Your “specifics” are in these types of threads, over and over, visible to anyone who pays attention.

  • Anonymous

    Absolutely

  • Guest

    I reacted to an asshole…..anyone who rides without a helmet on a brakeless fixie is a danger to pedestrians, motorcyclists, possible even car drivers.

    As I cyclist I have zero sympathy for these assholes who risk their lives and the lives of people around them.

  • Anonymous

    I suspect that most of the people on both sides of the bike/transit v. SOV debate here that pops up frequently on Publicola consider themselves generally liberal, and voted for Obama, Kerry, and Gore. In well-educated, coastal cities like Seattle, the debate tends not to be between whether to support John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi, but between those who favor what might be called a New Urbanism approach of increasing density, cycling and transit, and gradually decreasing SOV-dependence versus those who want to see the SOV continue to dominate commuting and believe that such a society is sustainable in the coming decades.

  • David Sucher

    Fair enough, then.
    If what you see is correct then certainly you are.

  • SGK

    This article does more of a disservice to cyclists and bicycles transportation than a help. The article attacks people’s intelligence if the don’t get it and blindly ignores the service that motorized vehicles offer. This is the problem with the mayor, CBC and the article’s attitude—shoving it down the non cyclists throat. Recent bike additions have done little to improve the overall safety and easy of bike commuting. They are simply “bike bling” that look good in photos and press releases. Half the new bike lanes, boulevards and road diets end in a confusing, dangerous mess.

    To help offer idea of efficiency, money and time savings other pluses in a real persons day-to-day life rather than non-tangible ideas of global warming, dehumanization, and suggestion what we do now -s a “failure”.

  • herrnichte

    Absolutely. …and hell, we need the revenue from every possible source that moves, so why not a no-helmet fine?

  • sigh

    Then I would suggest opening your eyes. I see several cyclists stopping at stop signs and lights EVERY DAY in West Seattle and I saw them when I frequented Ballard, Belltown, Fremont, Capitol Hill…The funny thing about the human mind, once you decide what you want to see, it will blind you to what you don’t want to see. And yes, I also see lots of cyclists who don’t. Broad-brushed generalizations kill credibility.

    Reality is, like drivers, there are cyclists who obey the laws and those to break them. The big difference is that the cyclist and his/her bike is less likely to cause the extent of damage and injury as a driver and his/her car.

    As for they cyclists in the Arboretum, sorry, we’re allowed on the road, and it’s a beautiful ride. I don’t believe bikes are allowed on the paths and trails there, so we’re on the road. Of course, with pedestrians and turning traffic, the speed shouldn’t be that great anyway (I think the limit is 20-25 mph??) Maybe slow down and enjoy the drive through there with the cyclists. It’s amazing what you see if you slow down and don’t let yourself get angry about it.

    Lane splitting – Illegal, SPD should ticket for it.

    Riding on the sidewalks – one of the most dangerous places to ride anyway. Yes, cyclists should slow down there. Yes, they should ride predictably there (and everywhere else). Yes they should announce when passing pedestrians. Of course, pedestrians could also try (and I say this a a former downtown-dweller who walked a ton there) to walk predictably, keep pets on a short leash, don’t take up the whole frickin sidewalk.

    Advocacy groups fight hard to gain cyclists a degree of legitimacy and acceptance in the eyes of the public. Those who choose to ignore traffic laws and common courtesy are a bane to them all. Contact David Hiller at Cascade or anyone at the Bicycle Alliance of Washington and ask what they think of those kinds of riders…you might be in for a surprise.

  • DMS

    Why would any cyclist enjoy holding up traffic? It’s scary and dangerous. It’s true that cyclists sometimes “exempt themselves” from traffic laws, but often it’s only because many of those laws put cyclists in dangerous situations. For instance, I will often run a red light (after stopping at the intersection) because being out in front of traffic makes me more visible and less prone to being killed by an aggressive driver.

  • Anonymous

    There are some irresponsible cyclists who blow through red lights and fail to slow to even a California stop at four-way stops; these folks upset me, as a responsible cyclist. That being said, most of them are a danger to themselves more than anyone else. In my experience, they tend to bike in the streets, not sidewalks. I would be surprised if deaths and serious injuries suffered by pedestrians at the hands of cyclists were even close to those suffered by pedestrians and cyclists at the hands of drivers.

  • dh

    I have to say, while I probably agree to most of the points made in the article, and I do believe bike infastructure is incredibly important, and I do believe there needs to be a shift in our culture in terms of how we view biking, and I do believe we have a mayor who is doing the right stuff, I grow weary of the rhetoric on either side of the issue. And I think the cyclist pictured is hot.

  • dh

    I have to say, while I probably agree to most of the points made in the article, and I do believe bike infastructure is incredibly important, and I do believe there needs to be a shift in our culture in terms of how we view biking, and I do believe we have a mayor who is doing the right stuff, I grow weary of the rhetoric on either side of the issue. And I think the cyclist pictured is hot.

  • dh

    I have to say, while I probably agree to most of the points made in the article, and I do believe bike infastructure is incredibly important, and I do believe there needs to be a shift in our culture in terms of how we view biking, and I do believe we have a mayor who is doing the right stuff, I grow weary of the rhetoric on either side of the issue. And I think the cyclist pictured is hot.

  • Guest

    Well, in my years here I’ve never nearly been hit by a car on sidewalk…..

  • Guest

    “I think the cyclist pictured is hot.”

    Yeah, she’ll be smokin’ in those boots and shorts when they put her in a coffin and hang her fixie from a street pole as a monument to stupidity.

  • Anonymous

    Pedestrians have to cross streets, you know.

  • Mr. X

    I’d characterize it more as a debate between those who live in the real world and those who choose to inhabit a mythical fantasy world, myself.

  • dh

    Gee, no shortage of zingers in the comment thread today. [Sigh]

  • Anonymous

    Not ‘everyone’, its just that the rest don’t matter. If you’re not young, urban, white, and hip then who cares what you think? Go back to your blue collar jobs and breeding.

  • Reasoned

    “Second thing is coming to grips with how effectively cars dehumanize us. I say this because I can see it happen to me whenever I get behind the wheel. Egged on by the overpowering goal of getting there faster—which is what traveling by car is all about—I find myself reflexively taking all kinds of little chances that increase the risk I am posing to others around me. And that’s how most people operate. But if not enclosed in a safe metal and glass cocoon, most of us would never behave so callously toward our fellow human beings.”

    Spent any time on the Burke-Gilman or downtown Seattle streets? Chance-taking that endangers others is not limited to vehicle operators, cycle operators, or even pedestrians. All of them do this.

    The best thing SPD could do for cycle safety is to start ticketing cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road. Treat them as vehicles under the eyes of the law and they’ll get the respect. If we need to adjust the rules a little to accomodate cyclists (CA stops at empty 4-way stops, for example) by all means let’s work on this.

    Cyclists need to be more accountable for their actions as sharers of the road.

  • Anonymous

    Eh, people tend to be in a hurry to get where they are going. Just watch cyclists behind slow moving pedestrians on the Burke. And really, you will find the same attitudes just about anywhere in the world. Its not some American uniqueness at work. A combination of our cities mostly arising during the era of the automobile, having lots of resources, and being a big place have a lot more to do with why things are the way they are then some sort of hyper-charged self centeredness.

    And know people love to talk about Amsterdam and sure you have a couple cities where bikes are king, but Europe is not Amsterdam anymore than the US is New York. Plus, its not like Europe built a rail network out of altruism. It was the best way to get what they wanted. I am 100% in favor of better infrastructure for bikes, but you often make me want to not just out of annoyance at your sanctimony. Much like massholes.

  • Mr. X

    But to clarify my snarky comment, that fantasy world applies specifically to those who think that the mode split for cycling is going to increase significantly (transit is another story)

  • tpn

    ” you insulting and hypocritical in asking for civil discourse, but you seem to be incapable of understanding”

    Thank you for illustrating my point.

  • Anonymous

    You cannot argue with the facts.

    There is a documented and significant decline in the number of people under age 30 who own and/or drive a vehicle. There are many reasons for this shift, but one of them is a growing preference for being connected to their digital devices, which is not compatible with driving (for obvious reasons).

    It is true that many young people do still drive. However, this is almost always because they have no other realistic option available to them. When those other options are available, they choose those alternatives. I would love to see some data on young people in Seattle (especially those who aren’t college students, who hold full-time employment) to flesh this out, of course, but the trend is clear and undeniable.

  • Anonymous

    You cannot argue with the facts.

    There is a documented and significant decline in the number of people under age 30 who own and/or drive a vehicle. There are many reasons for this shift, but one of them is a growing preference for being connected to their digital devices, which is not compatible with driving (for obvious reasons).

    It is true that many young people do still drive. However, this is almost always because they have no other realistic option available to them. When those other options are available, they choose those alternatives. I would love to see some data on young people in Seattle (especially those who aren’t college students, who hold full-time employment) to flesh this out, of course, but the trend is clear and undeniable.

  • Guest

    …… and I have been run over by a cyclist in the middle of a cross walk. No serious injuries just a scrape and a, ‘dude watch it.’

  • Johns

    The need for a lot better education for folks in all modes in this city is enormous and goes largely unaddressed. Many cyclists don’t bother to follow the rules for their unique hybrid status; many motorists have zero clue that cyclists are legally allowed to take the lane. I’m not sure that all of SPD’s patrol force understands the laws on this stuff, to be honest. We desperately need both more traffic education (for all, not just folks trying to get a driver’s license) AND a lot more civility. On the part of all of us.

  • Johns

    Having seen Mr. Hiller berate a cyclist engaging in some bad behavior, I can verify this last paragraph as quite accurate :) It’s very true – makes it a lot harder to advocate.

  • SGK

    There is

  • kurisu

    you say that people who “work for a living” don’t ride bikes. that’s insulting. and it’s hypocritical for you to talk about the tone of bicyclists when you can’t keep yourself in line

  • Anonymous

    How does riding a fixed gear (with or without a helmet) endanger other people? A fixed gear bicycle only rolls so long as the peddles are turning. A fixed gear rider can use the strongest muscles on their body, their legs, to stop. In any case, any kind of bicycle is much less of a threat to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers than any kind of automobile.

  • kurisu

    That’s exactly the kind of bizarre rationalization that me, Johns and sigh above are against.

  • seandr

    Troll.

  • seandr

    Troll.

  • Anonymous

    There already is one.

  • Anonymous

    There already is one.

  • Anonymous
  • tpn

    You cannot deny that the tone of the advocates on these threads contributes to the “wretchedness” of the discussion.

    And if you re-read my comment, you will not that I didn’t actually state that “people who “work for a living” don’t ride bikes”. I stated that sometimes people who do have to drive, and cannot bike. Not the same thing. Again, thanks for illustrating my point, again.

  • kurisu

    It’s a wonder you’re alive to tell the tale! People like, say, Tatsuo Nakata weren’t so lucky. Then again, they were hit by over a ton of steel.

  • Anonymous

    Last I checked the city DOT has revisited it’s plans for road diets and bike infrastructure on several streets in response to other parties concerns. Admiral Way for example. Is this not sufficient negotiation for you?

  • kurisu

    I’m happy to use bike lanes, I know what they mean, and I don’t consider them “bling.” They DO make a difference in my life and for thousands of other people in this city.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I’ll be more impolite than I was yesterday on Erica’s post, because, really, wretchedness? If pro-bike people didn’t didn’t sound off in douchebag patronizing tones of voice, they’d get more leverage. Cite evidence, facts, numbers, details, value to bikers AND business AND commuters AND families without ever sounding, as the British would say, like a cunt, and without requiring your readers to wade through walls of patronizing text and rhetoric, and you can win the war.

    Middle-ground people on the matter, like myself, immediately tone out ALL the raging hysterics and ignore them. Flies, honey, etc. This isn’t gay rights, black rights, women’s rights, ending war, or anything that, you know, matters with critical immediacy.

    The past couple of days on here are FAR below both you and Erica.

  • kurisu

    patronizing is to wretchedness as middle-ground is to douchebag

  • elenchos

    There is just as much road rage on the part of bicyclists as drivers. They are just as angry, just as selfish, and just as “psychotic”. Bicycling advocates who think the only ones who need to change their attitudes are drivers are just as much a part of the problem as the Seattle Times.

    Instead of preaching at drivers, why not have a little talk with the macho jocks who dominate Seattle bike culture?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Cyclists grumbling at slow moving pedestrians on that trail or the Seaview Ave out past the Locks, where bicyclists often have barked at me to “move over” are prime examples. Bicyclists are to pedestrians as car drivers are to bicyclists. None of them are entitled to act like entitled assholes. Wait, drive around, pass. You don’t need to act out like a child to let the other party know you’re storming along.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Everyone just needs to put their dicks back in their pants, I say.

  • Diogenes

    Well, I’m amazed that you can tell it’s a fixie and not a single-speed freewheel, and I’m in awe of that x-ray vision that allows you to see the rider doesn’t have a front brake (you know, the one that actually has the stopping power).

  • Anonymous

    Dan was referring to this:
    http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=144155
    While cool is a subjective judgement, it is a fact that young people as a group heavily favored McGinn in the last election. This would suggest support from young people for McGinn’s policies, regardless of what kind of house he lives in. The Mike Bikes stickers struck a chord with people. And really, could you imagine “Mike owns a condo” stickers making anyone want to vote for someone?

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Also: still waiting for you, McGinn, Josh Cohen, Erica, or the Cascade Bike Club to condemn bicyclists that don’t wear helmets and act as courteous users of the road that obey traffic rules and laws, equal to the levels of scorn heaped upon car drivers or oblivious walkers.

    Seriously, the way this rhetoric is growing, we’ll have calls soon for bicyclists to be a protected class under civil rights and employment law.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I’ll buy those facts when I see breakdowns of urban areas and “near” to urban areas versus the rest of the United States. There are whole states in this country with totally shit mass transit for in-state use. You think the people in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and 99% of Minnesota for example are driving less to ride bikes all over?

  • takes two

    I am outraged by that saddle. Someone buy her a brooks.

  • Blue Collar Biker

    If the person in this photo is an example of one of the “cool kids,” then one thing that the cool kids are doing is giving me unsolicited snotty advice on account of my riding — as a commuter — an old mountain bike with apparently unstylish panniers. Maybe twice a month when I’m stopped at a light someone on a flashy number will pull up beside me and tell me, for example, that I’m pulling more weight than I need to so really I should get a road bike. The assumption that of course I have the money to make the switch is galling. I definitely perceive the elitism and myopia of a certain “cool” segment of the pro-bike population (hat tip to Eric above), which unfortunately tends to be the segment that dominates public discourse on cycling. Car proponents are not the only perpetrators of wretchedness.

  • Anonymous

    Take your facts and shove ‘em, I say. Anecdotes are so much more poignant and easily fabricated.

  • sigh

    >>”will often run a red light (after stopping at the intersection) because being out in front of traffic makes me more visible”

    in other words, “I want the drivers to see me carelessly shrugging off the rules of the road…because I can”

    Thank you, you’re part of the problem.

    Please explain, DMS, which of those “so many” traffic laws “put cyclists in dangerous situations”

  • Anonymous

    Vermont has fewer people in the entire state than Seattle has within its city limits. I don’t think anyone here is proposing subway lines in rural areas. But when you live in a major CITY, you should not expect to have a painless SOV driving experience.

  • takes two

    We should just have a ‘condemn bad people’ day in Seattle. It is Seattle, though, so it would have to be very passive-aggressive.–Maybe just a lot of eye-rolling, sighing, and slow espresso service. To get back at bad baristas we could just talk on our cell phones while in line.

  • Anonymous

    The real world was shaped by public policy decisions in the past, and the future real world can be shaped by the policies we implement today.

  • Anonymous

    And yes, I agree to an extend about cycling share. I think there is room for growth, but I’m more bullish on transit growth given Seattle’s hilly terrain.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not defending irresponsible cyclists, but it’s basic physics. Multiple a mass of say, 4000 pounds, times the average speed of car compared to a mass of say, 200 pounds, times the speed of a bicycle. There’s a lot more deadly force wielded by car drivers.

  • Brad

    I would actually draw the complaint about this article that states that the Seattle Times reflects the thinking of the average Seattleite. This could not be true since the Times editorial board typically roots for Republicans, Tim Eyeman initiatives, repealing inheritance taxes (or any taxes for the rich), and picking on the poor. I would submit that the real issue is why the Seattle Times is writing this and putting their editorial board on the front page. Perhaps we should all, as Seattleites, cancel our subscriptions to the Times and fix our gaze on other news outlets. Of course if they do represent the outlook of the average citizen, perhaps I should move to a more friendly climate.

    Marginalize them.

  • elenchos

    I forgot:

    I was going to mention Darin Strauss’s Half a Life.
    http://www.darinstrauss.com/halfalife.html

    Maybe this book will help someone understand why helmetless bicyclists are such assholes. What kind of turd *hopes* for a future with more preventable death on our roads?

  • elenchos

    I forgot:

    I was going to mention Darin Strauss’s Half a Life.
    http://www.darinstrauss.com/halfalife.html

    Maybe this book will help someone understand why helmetless bicyclists are such assholes. What kind of turd *hopes* for a future with more preventable death on our roads?

  • Anonymous

    “My experience in Seattle is that pedestrians are more at risk from bicyclist than automobiles.”

    If you look at statistics of pedestrian crashes, injuries and fatalities you will see that auto vs pedestrian collisions account for more of each of these categories than bicycle vs pedestrian ones. If you average it by “per trip” or “per miles traveled” then again you’ll see that cars cause a lot more harm to pedestrians than bikes do. It’s not hard to figure out why: cars are bigger, travel faster, and on average drivers have less situational awareness. This is as true in Seattle as it is everywhere.

  • sigh

    Joe, have to ask…is there plenty of room when cyclists “bark” at you to move over?

    I ask because on the Burke, the Alki bike path, and others in Seattle, I tend to see walls of pedestrians walking down the path. They don’t tend to want to give room for other pedestrians, much less cyclists. Just curious.

  • sigh

    Joe, have to ask…is there plenty of room when cyclists “bark” at you to move over?

    I ask because on the Burke, the Alki bike path, and others in Seattle, I tend to see walls of pedestrians walking down the path. They don’t tend to want to give room for other pedestrians, much less cyclists. Just curious.

  • Jay

    Driving helmets for everyone! It could save some moron’s life.

  • Reasoned

    “The past couple of days on here are FAR below both you and Erica. ”

    Only the past couple of days?

  • Reasoned

    “The past couple of days on here are FAR below both you and Erica. ”

    Only the past couple of days?

  • Reasoned

    “The past couple of days on here are FAR below both you and Erica. ”

    Only the past couple of days?

  • Reasoned

    CBC advanced that bill last year at the Legislature. It mandated any bike/car collision is automatically the fault of the vehicle driver without any examination of contributory negligence.

  • Reasoned

    CBC advanced that bill last year at the Legislature. It mandated any bike/car collision is automatically the fault of the vehicle driver without any examination of contributory negligence.

  • Reasoned

    CBC advanced that bill last year at the Legislature. It mandated any bike/car collision is automatically the fault of the vehicle driver without any examination of contributory negligence.

  • Anonymous

    Cyclists are ticketed. I’ve been ticketed (back in my less cautious youth).

  • Anonymous

    Cyclists are ticketed. I’ve been ticketed (back in my less cautious youth).

  • Anonymous

    Cyclists are ticketed. I’ve been ticketed (back in my less cautious youth).

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I can even link you the exact spot it happened last to me a couple weeks back: right here. I was about even with that little raised island, walking on the far right side of the sidewalk toward Golden Gardens, and three bicyclists came flying up behind me at great speed (which is fine) and one of them yells, “Move over! Coming up!” and I looked back and moved over.

    Two of them were riding side-by-side with the third taking up the rear. Why is their usage more valuable than mine? Why couldn’t they fall momentarily into single file? They kept going 2 abreast, one beyond, off to the distance. That’s very typical of what I run across.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I can even link you the exact spot it happened last to me a couple weeks back: right here. I was about even with that little raised island, walking on the far right side of the sidewalk toward Golden Gardens, and three bicyclists came flying up behind me at great speed (which is fine) and one of them yells, “Move over! Coming up!” and I looked back and moved over.

    Two of them were riding side-by-side with the third taking up the rear. Why is their usage more valuable than mine? Why couldn’t they fall momentarily into single file? They kept going 2 abreast, one beyond, off to the distance. That’s very typical of what I run across.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    I can even link you the exact spot it happened last to me a couple weeks back: right here. I was about even with that little raised island, walking on the far right side of the sidewalk toward Golden Gardens, and three bicyclists came flying up behind me at great speed (which is fine) and one of them yells, “Move over! Coming up!” and I looked back and moved over.

    Two of them were riding side-by-side with the third taking up the rear. Why is their usage more valuable than mine? Why couldn’t they fall momentarily into single file? They kept going 2 abreast, one beyond, off to the distance. That’s very typical of what I run across.

  • Jay

    Go spend some time at the orthopedic clinic at Harborview, almost everyone in there is the victim of a car.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Bike-vehicle collisions aren’t child rape, where one party is 101% of the time in the wrong — the adult. Painting that as an absolute like that is stupid. Hopefully that wording of the law was killed? Or is it still pending in the system?

  • sigh

    No, it actually pushed for stiffer penalties for drivers found to be at fault for accidents that resulted in death or great harm to “vulnerable users.”

    Nice try, but get the facts (and maybe cite the bill number, but of course that would make it easier to discredit your claim). BTW, the bill I referred to was SB5838.

  • sigh

    No, it actually pushed for stiffer penalties for drivers found to be at fault for accidents that resulted in death or great harm to “vulnerable users.”

    Nice try, but get the facts (and maybe cite the bill number, but of course that would make it easier to discredit your claim). BTW, the bill I referred to was SB5838.

  • Bill B in the Central District

    more myopic thinking in the frame “Seattlites live on Capitol Hill or the Central District, do nothing but commute downtown and back for their desk job, and are young and single”.

    not only should those advocating unlimited density demonstrate their enthusiasm and commitment by moving to Belltown as suggested above, they could give up their cars for a bike and try living in White Center.

    but in the real world of Seattle, which I sadly just experienced this afternoon on I-5 at 2pm, there is bumper to bumper traffic on our regional arterials.

    this is the outcome of too much unbalanced growth in the region and a distorted concentration of jobs in downtown Seattle (Seattle has several hundred thousand more people in the daytime than at night).

    that said, I support higher parking fees and car taxes. getting the cool kids to move to Redmond where they work and taxing the heck out of their cars (FU Tim Eyman), and stop doing everything to benefit the millions of square feet of office in downtown (charge them for parking and reinstate the head tax with a vengeance) is a start.

    if this Mayor and the pundits were serious about this car/bike/ped thing we would see calls for reduced speeds on our arterials and residential streets, dedicated bike corridors throughout the city, and a more aggressive action on fixing our dysfunctional and imbalanced downtown core rather than continually catering to its whims (by building its own daytime park for example).

  • Bill B in the Central District

    more myopic thinking in the frame “Seattlites live on Capitol Hill or the Central District, do nothing but commute downtown and back for their desk job, and are young and single”.

    not only should those advocating unlimited density demonstrate their enthusiasm and commitment by moving to Belltown as suggested above, they could give up their cars for a bike and try living in White Center.

    but in the real world of Seattle, which I sadly just experienced this afternoon on I-5 at 2pm, there is bumper to bumper traffic on our regional arterials.

    this is the outcome of too much unbalanced growth in the region and a distorted concentration of jobs in downtown Seattle (Seattle has several hundred thousand more people in the daytime than at night).

    that said, I support higher parking fees and car taxes. getting the cool kids to move to Redmond where they work and taxing the heck out of their cars (FU Tim Eyman), and stop doing everything to benefit the millions of square feet of office in downtown (charge them for parking and reinstate the head tax with a vengeance) is a start.

    if this Mayor and the pundits were serious about this car/bike/ped thing we would see calls for reduced speeds on our arterials and residential streets, dedicated bike corridors throughout the city, and a more aggressive action on fixing our dysfunctional and imbalanced downtown core rather than continually catering to its whims (by building its own daytime park for example).

  • sigh

    Or the poster is full of it…I followed bike-related bills last session, and didn’t see any bills of the sort.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    “this is the outcome of too much unbalanced growth in the region and a distorted concentration of jobs in downtown Seattle (Seattle has several hundred thousand more people in the daytime than at night).”

    New York, Boston, Miami, Dallas, LA, San Diego, San Fran, Chicago, London, Paris, Rome… you’re describing nearly every city on earth here.

  • Bill B in the Central District

    last sentence should be: … catering to its whims and needs by building it its own daytime park, DBT, expanded 520, or awesomely expensive light rail system…

  • kurisu

    which bill was that?

  • Grover

    And when those young people grow up and become adults, they will buy cars and drive, like adults do. I rode a bicycle when I was a college kid, too. Then I grew up and got a car.

  • sigh

    Thanks, Joe. Rudeness is uncalled for, that’s for sure.

    One thing about that section, and other multi-use paths in Seattle. There are two sections. One for pedestrians, one for cyclists (look at the Greenlake path, the Alki path, or even the markings at the intersection on the path in your link). Which part of the multi-use path were you on?

  • kurisu

    Bill, who is advocating for unlimited density?

  • kurisu

    Bill, who is advocating for unlimited density?

  • Anonymous

    If you’re talking about the bill I think you are (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5838&year=2009), I don’t think your description is accurate. In that bill, even before it was amended to be more lenient, the driver had to be committing a traffic infraction (i.e. acting negligently) that was the “proximate cause” of death or substantial bodily harm.

    That means that if a hipster on a fixie blows through a red light and gets T-boned by a driver going responsibly through a green light, the driver would not be at fault under that bill.

  • Anonymous

    If you’re talking about the bill I think you are (http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5838&year=2009), I don’t think your description is accurate. In that bill, even before it was amended to be more lenient, the driver had to be committing a traffic infraction (i.e. acting negligently) that was the “proximate cause” of death or substantial bodily harm.

    That means that if a hipster on a fixie blows through a red light and gets T-boned by a driver going responsibly through a green light, the driver would not be at fault under that bill.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Like I said, on the far right side on the area that’s concrete and looks like a sidewalk. The bike rider was about a third of the way over it to ride abreast with his buddy, and I really do see things like that often.

  • http://www.joeszilagyi.com/ Joe Szilagyi

    Like I said, on the far right side on the area that’s concrete and looks like a sidewalk. The bike rider was about a third of the way over it to ride abreast with his buddy, and I really do see things like that often.

  • Anonymous

    Given the imbalance between workers and residents in the downtown core, you would support lots of upzoning for high density, market-rate apartments and condos in downtown, Belltown, Chinatown, First Hill, Central District, Capitol Hill, SLU etc., right?

  • Bill B in the Central District

    that’s right nearly every mega city – and each of those suffers from sprawl, urban centers that typically cater to the affluent and price out the working poor, and are largely dependent on the automobile rather than the bicycle. and even those that built their mass transit infrastructure a long time ago, are a long way from getting to the sustainable world we aspire to.

    Seattle “deciding” to grow beyond its sleepy neighborhoods, and its continual taking of regional job and housing growth – without realistically looking at how people get around – is why we are debating these issues about our HAC.

    just having Council/DPD do realistic Growth Management/SEPA analysis would help us better frame these issues and solutions better. instead we have a ‘what me worry’ kick-the-can-down-the-road planning process that results in our citizens pointing (or giving) fingers at each other.

  • Bill B in the Central District

    i do advocate quite a bit for density that includes housing for all affordability levels.

    i also believe that we have plenty of development potential (in our existing zoning envelope) in most of the parts of town that you mention for adding tens of thousands of units of housing.

    to me continual upzoning isn’t always the answer. focusing our limited development dollars and capacity to certain areas may be a better one…

  • Mongoose

    Dan, as a cyclist, I really appreciate this article. I have to say though that I don’t think people have animosity toward cyclists because they are insane, as you say. The same animosity exists against vegetarians. I know very few who are smug or preachy, but meat eaters often assume we are. People sometimes ask me if I am vegetarian and then start challenging me about it in a fairly aggressive manner. I think the reasons are obvious. Deep down, people know that driving and eating meat are really bad for the planet. But they are able to avoid thinking about it until they are confronted with something that makes them, such as a cyclist or a vegetarian. It just makes people feel very defensive about their own behaviors.

  • sigh

    Sorry, Joe…missed the “Far right side” part of the comment. I’d have directed the rider to stay in the bike portion of the path. Just like i try to do with pedestrians in the bike portion of multi-use paths that I ride and walk along.

  • Steve

    I’m waiting to see the first driver who realizes that the speed limit on Lake Washington Blvd. through the Arboretum is 25 mph, not 40.

  • sigh

    “Deep down, people know that driving and eating meat are really bad for the planet”

    From one biking vegetarian to another, there you go being preachy.

  • Anonymous

    People will use the mode of transportation that makes the most sense to them given the wider economic context they are in. Copenhagen has shown that cycling infrastructure can make it convenient for 40% of trips to be done by bicycle, and yes that includes lots of older people with families. http://www.streetfilms.org/copenhagen-cargo-bikes/

  • SGK

    I’m mainly talking about the bike boxes, 3 block separated bike lanes (like 7th…no need for it there) and the such. There’s already backlash by cyclist in NYC on their new separated bike lanes.

  • JD

    Critical Mass…. and bicycle messengers that is where i get all my bad bike vibes. Critical Mass is a good enough reason to never give a benefit to any bicyclist. I walk and bus. For the most part bicyclists are ok.

    The ones that bug me are the ones that run the light when me and the cars are all waiting our turn. It throws peoples decision making off and makes the road more dangerous for all. Or the ones that play “Now I am a car, now I am a car… Now I am a pedestrian… Now I am a pedestrian” Again making the road unsafe for all as they jump around the road.

    80 percent Pedestrians consistently jaywalk. I just watched an old white couple jaywalk 10 minutes ago oblivious to oncoming traffic. I mentioned it to them they ignored. Bicyclists are the most immature road ragers out there on the road. Car drivers are the most inattentive. Of all three groups I think bicyclist put themselves in harms way more often and unnecessarily because they want to get somewhere faster.

  • Mongoose

    I never say that to a person directly. How is it being preachy to state that in a comment thread?

  • JD

    Why not just turn this deep bore tunnel into a bikes only ride? I might ride a bike downtown if I thought it was safe. It seems like if a few cars currently using the viaduct transformed into cyclists because of incentives, then a surface street where bikes have priority would be a great thing.

  • Barleywine

    “Of course if they do represent the outlook of the average citizen”

    I don’t want to get stoned, at least by PubliCola readers.
    But the Times is the only thing right now that does represent the outlook of the average citizen, at least if you overlook most of the editorials. But really, seeing the signs, maybe it does even there.

    It’s got national, local, entertainment, biz, comics, ads, etc., and geared to the general reader, not so much the fanatic.

    If they go, we got nothin’ but opinion.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t mind bicycles in theory, and I’ve been known to enjoy riding one around Seward Park.

    What bothers me is the self-congratulating sense of entitlement that commuter bicyclists seem to revel in. They’re worse than Prius drivers. Yes, it’s great that you bike, but no, I don’t feel like that gives you the right to ride in the middle of the road when there’s a bike lane, or ride two wide when there’s no bike lane, or stop traffic with your Critical Mass protests, or act like you’re better than me because your calves are the size of a tree trunk, or expect the rules of physics and nature (big things crush little things) to suddenly stop working because you’re so sanctimonious, so green and so responsible that we should all just bow down in gratitude to you for saving the whole entire planet. Bicyclists pretend that they want to share the road, but then they whine that the road doesn’t belong completely to them. That’s what I don’t like.

  • Anonymous

    “While the Seattle Times may be dismissed as stunningly out of touch in certain Seattle circles, there is no better barometer of how the average greater Seattle resident sees the world.”This claim is terribly flawed.Despite the fact that the Seattle Times has pushed anti-transit/cycling rhetoric for years, Seattle residents have overwhelmingly supported every pro-transit measure in the last few years, have the largest Cycling Club in the United States (CBC), and recently elected a vehemently pro-transit/cycling mayor in the last election cycle. Currently, in the midst of one of the worst budget situations this city has ever faced, pedestrian and cycling improvements are one of the few things that will receive additional funding.All of this from the citizens of Seattle, even though the majority of us use vehicles to get around!Any time you have a group of constituents who feel politically marginalized, they are going to make a lot of noise and try to gain attention. Reacting to them with this kind of animosity only fuels their cause and helps to exacerbate the exact kind of divide that they are trying to establish.As just an example let’s take a look at your image:You show a young, hip, female, on a fixie bike, on Capitol Hill.Most people, because they live much further from downtown, because they aren’t physically fit enough to use a fixed gear bike, because they are no longer young and as carefree as they used to be, will in no way identify with this image. All it does is reinforce the very false concept that biking is for “others” and not suitable for the average Seattlite.In the new journalistic climate, the Seattle Times has found that the only way it can survive is to pander to a radicalized minority. As a progressive leader in this new journalism, Publicola has an opportunity to be much saner, and embracing voice for the citizens of Seattle,. Unfortunately it has yet to firmly prove that it is above its competition.

  • sigh

    Ride in the middle of the lane, well the law says we are vehicles, and we can do so. Yes, even when there’s a bike lane.

    Two abreast, legal too.

    We want to share the road, but when we’re being forced off it, we tend to push back.

  • Anonymous

    The severe impediment automobiles present to other fundamental modes of travel (walking, bicycling, mass transit) amounts to a transportation monopoly and constitutional inequity. Automobiles become an impediment to their own optimal function when they dominate an urban/suburban travel system. The only way to optimize the use of automobiles is to insure other modes of travel function; and this requires specific infrastructure (bike lanes and seprated paths, curb extensions at crosswalks, lane reductions, sufficient mass transit with commodious stops), subtracted from roadways.

    Steer the discussion in this direction and Seattle might one day become less of a shithole for fat ass idiot motorists.

  • Barleywine

    Deep down, people know we’ve been omnivores forever, and the vegetarian thing is a fad. Agriculture is a fad, really.

    We’re hunter/gatherers gene-wise.

  • Mongoose

    Completely off topic. We’re talking about environmental impact. It is common knowledge that the meat industry is a horrible polluter, as bad as automobiles.

  • sarah

    I’ll just throw this in here.

    Doug Porter, head of WA state Medicaid office, said today that it’s likely that because of cuts, the state will likely terminate all Medicaid pharmacy benefits next year.

    Perhaps you know someone on Medicaid. Someone who’s poor, or disabled, or both, and needs their medications.

    Perhaps the war between bikes and cars isn’t the most important thing right now. If not, maybe you could write the Governor about Medicaid.

  • Ggelinde

    I am Dutch and live in Seattle for 8 weeks. Ofcourse I use a bike to go to my work, study, shopping, everything, just as I do at home. For the first time in my life I have to wear a helmet. I am really amazed by the discussions here. The public area’s (such as the streets) are for everyone, not only cars. In Holland we have (on the main, busy routes) seperate bike lanes where only bikes may ride. Come and see!

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Get ready for more cars on the road in 2012 if there isn’t a new revenue source provided by the state legislature this coming session.

    You can imagineer a euro-Seattle of multiple-modal transportation, but the facts are that Metro is using one-time funding and Constantine is hoping for some help from the state.

    Good luck, and goodbye.

  • Anonymous

    We’re stuck with agriculture now. The Earth can’t support 6.5 billion hunter/gatherers.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    Had the editor stuck around after the cool kids asked for bike lanes they wanted from the city council, and watch the parade of people asking for food, shelter, healthcare, at the Northgate Community Center you would not have to “throw this in there.”

    The state and county cutting, compounding, the same services while we are raising taxes for bike lanes makes me want to throwup.

  • Anonymous

    Raise the gas tax, or at least stop exempting it from sales taxes. There’s your revenue source!

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr. Baker

    I propose a bike tax, $25, to restore funds to the King County counseling for sexual abuse victims.

  • Barleywine

    Got no problem with your environmental impact statement, but genes win, in my book. Not philosophy.

    And I have a well-worn copy of Diet For a Small Planet.

  • Barleywine

    I agree, but I can still buy chicken breasts and fish. And chard.

    And both you and Joe have posted lots of stuff here, and because you haven’t suggested we could supplement our protein with homeless people and Mexicans I’ve plugged you with lots of “likes.”

    Lots of likes.

  • Barleywine

    In Seattle we view posts such as yours as porn, and you might get in a bit of trouble. I’m only saying this to help.

    For example “wear a helmet” could be taken many ways.

  • Barleywine

    I can’t believe Mr. Baker is fawning.

    But I have a thought.
    Isn’t there a chance that states are dumping their coverage for everything because of the healthcare bill?

    I mean, ever since its passage states, counties and cities are running away from stuff they used to cover. And doesn’t this make sense?

    We’ve got something like universal coverage now.
    Why should the states pay?

  • Reasoned

    Lemme guess. Lake Forest Park for running a stop sign or not using a helmet? There should be emphasis patrols on cyclists.

  • Reasoned

    It is a traffic infraction to not yield to a bicyclist. You need to separate the actual effect of the law instead of listening to Hillard’s spin on it.

  • Reasoned

    Every writer at PubliCola, particularly Dan who believes we should get rid of all our single family.

  • Reasoned

    What are you calling jaywalking? Crossing at a corner with no crosswalk or crossing mid-street?

  • Mongoose

    I don’t mind drivers in theory, either, but what bothers me…where should I begin?

  • Anonymous

    Why not an increase in the alcohol tax? I’m sure you can link a lot more sexual and physical abuse to alcohol than to bicycles. If we must tax, why not tax things that cause harmful externalities that must be born by the taxpayer?

  • Anonymous

    No. Red light on Westlake.

    Why should we target bikes disproportionally? Your moniker is wrong.

  • Forrabbits

    um because it doesn’t have brakes or a braking hub? Or maybe she just drags her feet to stop, Flintstone’s style.

    I’m bugged by the vibe of the photo too. The article feigns logic but basically relies on invective. Then the photo favors style over substance. Would have much rather seen a helmeted suburban commuter on a Rodriguez than short-hopping trendster on a fixey.

  • Horsesfour

    what? this is a constitutional issue? Are you on glue? Or is it just that you’ve been emboldened by the nodding agreement this big-words-saying-nothing palaver gets over PBR tall boys on Pike Street?

    this is why there is so much resistance to bicycle advocacy. I commute on a bike every day (crosstown no less) and the previous poster’s sort of idiot rhetoric and name calling creates more friction than it resolves.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    The rest of the state might not want to pay for King County Metro, or ST, or CT, or Everett Transit.

  • Spoton

    wow this is so spot on Eric — really insightful (really — no sarcasm, I’m impressed by your clarity). I came upon this thread via a Facebook post by a middle-aged “green” who drives to work downtown everyday from an expensive Northend surburb (as does the partner), makes maybe 200k, and lives just like everyone else at that income level (flying vacations, driving on weekends, big watt sucking tv, etc). All I see is talking the talk (because in that circle it’s the talk that makes you a VP at your “socially responsible” for profit ad firm) and not a speck of riding the ride.

    I’m souring on the mayor big time too — stop fucking posing and live what you are prescribing to everyone who can’t buy their way out of it. It is an insidious form of hidden regressivism cloaked in progressive backslappping.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    The privatization of alcohol sales will reduce that, and the state is broke, the county is broke.
    Seattle needs to wake up to that fact.

  • Southend Mom

    Thank you Gg for your comment on using a helmet for the first time. Helmets are a safety improvement but in Europe you rarely see them on anyone. My husband and I and my seven-year old rode all over the place in Italy without helmets. It felt really weird and freeing. We came home and we always wear our helmets again. It is fine. When will we grow up and accept that people do things differently and it is OK? If folks want to ride in work clothes or playclothes or cocktail clothes with or without helmets that is fine with me. Round my hood I go out without a helmet sometimes but not with my kid. Righteousness is the true silliness. Bikes are great, cars are a necessary evil for many still and we try to minimize their use. Reducing the car monopoly is great and maximizes the efficient use of them when they are necessary. Exploring changes in parking fees is OK too. We can always change them back. Don’t be afraid to try things. Adaptation is smart! I won’t sign my kid up for the soccer leagues because I think the driving is just too much. We hope to organize a neighborhood sports league of multiple sports, ages, genders for regular play in our hood. No car driving necessary, just fun. And yes there are plenty of spaces to play actually that aren’t pre-programmed when you really look around. Make it your own idea, because you never know why someone else has to do what they do. Maybe they are just on the cusp of doing something different tomorrow.

  • Anonymous

    It is a constitutional issue, horsesfour idiot. Automobiles are a severe impediment to safe bicycling and to safe street crossing for pedestrians. Those who use mass transit are first walkers. Gas taxes are constitutionally directed to “roads only” even though this mandate murders people. Go F yourself, punk.

  • JD

    The arboretum seems like a place that was made to have a couple of bike paths through it. Insightful city leaders should be forwarding looking and progressive.

  • kurisu

    Lisarobot – So what your saying is that you don’t mind bicycles, you just hate anyone who rides them and assume they can be lumped into a category. If you think that most commuter bicyclists approve of Critical Mass you’re sadly, pathetically mistaken. Do you own a bike? When was the last time you rode it?

  • JD

    I’ve been hit by a slow moving car and a bike in the u-dist. The bike did a sharper type of damage, I was able to avoid the car a bit by rolling up on it. But I would worry about cars a lot more then bikes. Just because of the population size and the hazard potential.

  • JD

    It’s zoning that keeps the poor from having affordable housing. the city politicians try to keep single family home zones a quality goal in the city. IF they doubled the height restrictions in L3 zoning and made L3 the standard residential zone both sides of all arterials then people would start making more housing. Rents in low income housing will tend to creep up. The city needs to designate low income housing and lock in the rents in exchange for utility or property tax breaks.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry to say it, Dan, but it looks like most commenters on Publicola would fit right in with the Times crowd.

  • sarah

    Thank you for having a heart as well as a brain, Mr. Baker. I was one of those people.

  • Bry

    It appears from the commenters who hate!-hate!-HATE! cyclists that from now on all the habits and perceived problems associated with the very worst car drivers should be the beginning and end for all policy decisions regarding: private transportation by motorized vehicle, road design and construction, and appropriate levels of maintenance and spending on behalf of cars.

    IF it seems ridiculous to consider basing these sort of planning and policy decisions on the assumption that every single car driver is an irresponsible privileged asshole, then re-read most of the anti-bike comments above. They prove the point of this post in spades.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Dude…you were looking at the bike?

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Dude…you were looking at the bike?

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Most kids today grow up expecting minivan or SUV taxi service from parents…drop off and pickup. Couple that with the spread of infantile adultism especially in places like Seattle, and you can imagine the 29 year old who still calls his Mom for a lift from community college because his backpack is “really heavy” from having to bring his science project home.

  • http://spifflines.blogspot.com/ John Bailo

    Most kids today grow up expecting minivan or SUV taxi service from parents…drop off and pickup. Couple that with the spread of infantile adultism especially in places like Seattle, and you can imagine the 29 year old who still calls his Mom for a lift from community college because his backpack is “really heavy” from having to bring his science project home.

  • JM

    As a former Seattle-ite living on the East Coast I’m still amazed at how overheated the bike/anti-bike debates can get. In DC, many of these same threads come out, but not as raw. Fundamentally, this isn’t really about transportation – it’s about the cultural divide that exists in Seattle and underpins so many fights in the city. Two observations:

    1) drivers need to chill and respect the fact that one more bike = one less car (that’s less traffic and lower emissions – even if you can’t/won’t bike, be glad that others do);

    2) bikers can’t have it both ways – if you expect the same “respect” that cars get, you need to obey the rules of the road, come to full stops, stop running red lights, etc.

    This only speaks to the transportation parts of this issue – as far as all the cultural hyperventilating…I can’t help you with that.

  • Anonymous

    So you would support an increase in alcohol taxes then, right?

  • Anonymous

    That’s hardly an insuperable obstacle. Just allocate the portion of revenues collected in the respective counties to the appropriate agency or subarea. Anyway, from what I’ve read, many of the more urban counties subsidize roads in the sparsely populated places. Time to return the favor.

  • sarah

    We have nothing like universal coverage, not when Medicaid will be terminated, which is the last resort of anyone who can’t pay for or be issued commercial health insurance.

    But then maybe you’re young and don’t figure you need health insurance, or maybe your employer pays for it, or maybe your parents pay for it, or maybe you just figure you’ll go to the nearest ER if you need treatment.

  • Mr. X

    Way to keep it classy, Sirkulat (Wells).

  • Anonymous

    Medicaid is not the last resort; you hit on it with your last sentence–the emergency room is the last resort. That’s what the so-called conservatives don’t seem to get about the health care debate. They say they don’t want to pay for other people’s health care. “It’s stealing from THEM to pay for the uninsured.” Well, what do they think is going on now? We don’t let those who can’t pay die in the streets rather than admit them to a hospital. And as far as I’m aware, even the fringe Tea Party folks aren’t advocating that we repeal the policy that hospitals must treat those who need serious care regardless of ability to pay.

    In both our current system and a single payer system like Canada’s, someone who needs care will get it. But in Canada, they try to treat people with lower cost options like preventative care or scheduled visits with a doctor instead of a much more expensive trip to the ER. In our system, the poor person gets care, but the taxpayer or those with insurance still bear the burden, and the poor person who was treated who clearly can’t pay gets to be harassed by debt collectors for a condition they may not have been able to purchase insurance for.

    I don’t know how anyone can defend the status quo in health care. It is the MOST EXPENSIVE system in the world and produces results that are at best on par with systems spending 2/3 to half as much. It makes no sense from either a liberal or conservative perspective. It only makes sense from a Big Pharma/AMA/Insurance company perspective.

  • Anonymous

    More nonsense from brand X.

  • Anonymous

    No, what you said was that there was “eliminationist rhetoric” toward people who “have to drive.” I didn’t see any, but I think that’s beside the point, because there are not many commuters today that “have to drive.” Saying that “sometimes people..have to drive,” therefore we should [blank] is as dumb as when pro-choicers say that abortion should be legal because some women get raped (No, I’m not a misogynist, realize I’m making a logical argument here).

  • TMN

    You’re kidding, right? The upper middle class is rapidly shifting to a bike/transit lifestyle, in large part BECAUSE they have good jobs and can afford to do so. Driving yourself everywhere doesn’t have the status symbol effect that it did 10 years ago. Of course we shouldn’t be forcing anyone to use alternative transportation if they don’t want to, but the pattern seems to be: the city provides bike or transit infrastructure for people who actively want it; someone posts about it here; a bunch of car advocates come out of the woodwork to attack the people for wanting it, and the city for providing it, as if they’ve been personally insulted by people having preferences they don’t share. It’s ridiculous.

  • Anonymous

    Wrong argument. A brakeless fixed bike is incapable of safe stopping distances. Panic stops are out of the question. It’s really important for all bikes to have proper hand-operated brakes.

  • Anonymous

    I am young and have been commuting via bike since I started going to college; many of my young coworkers also commute by bike; a large percentage of my friends ride their bikes around town. Even more ride buses, and I can count on one hand the number who own cars.

    Hooray for anecdotes.

  • Anonymous

    Today, had I not been alert while cruising home from work on the Burke-Gilman trail, I would have been hit by a car. I saw her flying up to Northlake, craning her head to the left ready to make a high-speed right turn. When she saw no traffic coming, she hit the gas and flew through the stop sign. I had expected such slovenly driving and had come to an almost stop.

    So like, I am tried of drivers who “seem to exempt themselves from all traffic laws as well as common courtesy.” Right? And regarding the threat to pedestrians posed by cyclists, perhaps one should take a look at the statistics. I’ll save you the effort: you are absolutely wrong. Pedestrians are killed in large numbers almost exclusively by cars.

  • Anonymous

    You’ve never seen a car pull into a parking garage? They have buzzers and flashing lights for a reason.

  • Anonymous

    sure, I’ll concede that. Fixed gear bikes are still way less dangerous than automobiles. Guests suggestion that any kind of bicycle is a meaningful threat to drivers is laughable.

  • Anonymous

    dangerous to other people I mean

  • Barleywine

    “But then maybe you’re young and don’t figure you need health insurance, or maybe your employer pays for it, or maybe your parents pay for it, or maybe you just figure you’ll go to the nearest ER if you need treatment.”

    Actually, none of the above.
    I plan on laying there until I get better, saving you some money.

  • Obijohn

    Here’s the problem with all of the bike Nazis… and I say this as someone who regularly commutes on a bike.

    Trying to get rid of cars is a losing battle. Instead, try to make room for bikes.

    I was just in Amsterdam. There, bikes and cars and motorcycles and scooters co-exist. The Dutch have rationally-designed roadways that separate slow-moving vehicles from fast-moving vehicles, making it practical for vast adoption of the bicycle as a means of transportation.

    Contrast that with the situation here in America, and specifically in Seattle. Yes, we have the Burke-Gilman, but only cyclists can use it (in Amsterdam, any low-speed two-wheeled vehicle with a blue plate can use the separate cycling paths). On the regular roads, especially given our hilly terrain, only the young and well-conditioned can reasonably use bicycles.

    What if, instead of attacking motorized vehicles, cyclists tried to accomodate with scooter/moped owners, sharing dedicated low-speed pathways (on-road or separate) with them? Now you’d have a much larger portion of the population wanting to protect and extend these separate pathways, leading to more pathways… leading to safer cycling.

    I have rented a bike and used it while on business in the Netherlands. I would never rent a bike and use it for business in the average US city. Riding in traffic is extremely risky, even for someone like me who has been doing it for decades. It’s just a matter of time until either I or a driver makes a mistake… and I as the cyclist will pay the price.

    You want more cyclists? Create more separate pathways, and enlist low-speed motorized commuters to help forward the cause.

  • Anonymous

    With all due respect, I think very few people here want to get rid of all cars. And I think I speak for most cyclists in saying that we’d all be thrilled to have half of the investment in bike infrastructure as Amsterdam.

  • Mongoose

    Who are these low-speed motorized commuters to which you refer? I’d be happy to enlist them but I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about!

  • Ross

    I want to point out that in addition to a fine (and honestly, the only reason bikers need helmets is because of cars, few people in europe wear helmets), you can also get your driver’s license suspended. Not everyone who commutes mainly by bike has given up cars completely (long drives, furniture, zipcar, etc) and it irks me that not wearing a helmet is somehow cause for license suspension.

  • Ross

    20 something here. Recent college grad. Haven’t owned a car since moving to the NW. In the last year or so I make most of my trips on bicycle or by walking, I bus if it’s too far / too much to carry / too lazy. Which is maybe 25% of the time.

    I’d say about half of the people I went to school with rely on public transit. A small amount get around mostly or entirely by bike. The ones most likely to have a car either still live with their parents or live in a suburban and or rural area.

    For the most part, if you are young and live in a city, you do not drive.

  • Ross

    I’m just gonna respond directly without reading what is obviously a long argument, that is probably mostly just people yelling at each other irrationally.

    I think the mayor is pretty conservative on the whole thing really. There are a lot of bikers that have far more hardcore views than the mayor, I just think McGinn gets a lot of heat just because of the fact that he rides a bike. Would people really be hating on McGinn so much if he drove a car, but still pushed through bike lanes?

    Personally I really dislike the amount of shouting on both sides. Bike lanes and paths can be built that don’t impact car traffic, and most don’t. I’d much rather ride in a separated (read: buffered, not part of a car lane) bike lane than try riding in the middle of the road. If I can take a bike path completely separate from cars I will. I don’t want to ride with cars just as much as you don’t want to have share the lane with bikes. Unfortunately I don’t have that option 90% of the time.

  • Ross

    I just want to point out that I ride a bike as my mode of commute consistently and have never attended a critical mass.

    And I’ve yet to see an argument on here, or by anyone else, and definitely not by anyone I know that bikes that suggests that bikers want to completely take the road away from SOVs. That’s a slippery slope argument to suggest that, and I get tired of hearing it.

  • Way to be dismissive

    I agree that car drivers need to be more careful of others on the road, but Kirisu’s dismissive attitude is pissing me off. To say that because the potential for harm is greater for a car driver does not give cyclists carte blanche to act like assholes. I’m not saying all cyclists are assholes just this particular one and I don’t feel that just because someone was hit with a bike does not make it permissible because it wasn’t a heavier vehicle. You are not doing yourself or other (responsible) cyclists any favors by acting like it’s not a big deal.