Hate to break it to you, but I live in the UK and lots of people are killed on bikes in London. I had a friend invite me out for a bike ride one time. I was way too chicken for it. Two weeks later, she was hit by a car. She wasn't hurt too badly, but bikers are taking their lives into their hands every time. They may be in better shape than the average person, but that doesn't mean a thing when you bounce off a windshield.

And please be careful. I love this blog. Good luck.

How many accidents are by caused by bikers doing dumb things vs how many are caused by drivers doing dumb things? I biked to work in Palo Alto and never had a problem but getting around safely in LA is much more difficult. Greater concentration of drivers and cyclist both doing the wrong things.

Bikers might want to remind themselves that they have to follow the same traffic rules that car do.

I hate turning down a one way street to find a bike coming right at me.

And, oh yeah always wear a helmet.

Ezra,
The safety problem bikers have is that they often, at least in Seattle, try to be both a pediastrian (not a car) and a car (not a pediastrian) to access both sidewalks and full lanes on streets *at their discretion*.
Additionally, bikes that use busy streets block traffic, causing aggressive drivers to act more aggressively and jam up the works. Bikelanes that are obeyed usually aren't problem but enforcment treats biker with kid gloves around here.
Bikes are great where they don't compete with cars, but I'll duel, Aaron Burr-style (me in my sedan and them on their bike), against anyone that thinks that bikes can compete with cars.

I had a co-worker get hit by a car while she was on her bike a few weeks back. Thankfully, it resulted in just cuts and a few bruises, but still. Bikers here in SF have gotten a bad rep for themselves due to a) the reckless abandon shown for any and everyone by bike messengers and b) the end of month Critical Mass bike ride that snarls city traffic for hours (and has resulted in more than a few loud altercations between bike riders and motorists).

On the other hand, your average biker, in my experience does not have a deathwish nor do they seek to actively provoke cars. My employer promotes transit with cash incentives (a once a quarter raffle for gift cards in the amount of $500 or $100) so lots of people bike, take the train, walk, carpool, etc. Many people bring their bikes on the train, which is nice as there are a couple of cars set aside for that purpose.

Let me second the other comments though, don't get hit riding your bike, Ezra!

Please, can we just accept that cyclists occasionally do dumb things and get hurt and run red lights and all the things that cyclists do that anger drivers so. We get it.

You don't need to appear in every cycling related post to lecture us, as if those people you saw violating a law somehow wipes out the need for better cycling infrastructure--as if your anecdotes somehow make it okay for you to write off cyclists. We got it. Let's move things forward to the next part of the conversation, please.

I spent a day cycling in Amsterdam a few months ago--in the middle of town, and on major thoroughfares, and out to the suburbs.

It was uncanny. Cars kept getting out of my way. It wasn't just better, it was a whole different order of cycling experience.

(We're talking about cyclists, not people who ride motorcycles, right?)

I think driver familiarity with cyclists does make a real difference. Here in Toronto, I do most of my cycling in several of the west end neighbourhoods, only a few miles from the city core. Out here, I feel fairly safe, but I still get a lot of cars passing too closely and almost got the door prize just a few weeks ago. A friend of mine was almost dangerously boxed in by a bus just north of my place (he had to sweep onto the sidewalk to stay clear).

But when I cycle in the downtown core, many more drivers are aware and even, dare I say it, courteous about cyclists. I get waved ahead by drivers, and even got an apology the other day from a driver I had to pass on the left when he was delayed making a right turn at a major street. (Of course, I thanked him right back. It's the Canadian way.) And the bus drivers aren't freaked out by our mere presence.

We've had some cyclist injuries and casualties over the past few months. Some of these people were painfully stupid (e.g. the guy who tried to cross an expressway on his bike, crashed through the windshield of the car that was unable to avoid him but, shockingly, didn't die and only broke a leg).

But we've had people run down from behind in the suburbs, a sedate middle aged man killed uptown when a parked car's open door flung him under a cube van, and other gruesome accidents. While some accidents still happen downtown, where there are a lot of cyclists and sheer numbers mean that some idiot driver and/or cyclist will make a fatal error, many more of the fatal accidents happen in areas of the city where drivers don't have to learn how to deal with cyclists on a daily basis.

I bike around Brooklyn nearly every day, and while it's not terrible, I do have regular brushes with death — car doors opening in my way, cars pulling out right in front of me, and, occassionally, an irate motorist actually trying to run me off the road.

By contrast, I spent a week in Berlin last summer and felt I was in paradise. Courteous drivers, alert pedestrians, and plentiful bike lanes — and when there weren't lanes, the rightmost lane became the de facto bike lane.

I think I'd be a much less angry person over there.

As a runner in a city with hundreds of miles of trails, my biggest complaint with cyclists is their total disregard for people running. It's almost exactly like the cars vs. bikes debate -- they expect runners to get out of their way, not slow them down, etc.

I mean, if you see me running, chances are I'm going 8.5+ mph and I've been doing so for the better part of an hour or two. If I stop, my legs are going to stiffen up almost immediately, and it's going to be hard to make it where I'm going. If I run through that big puddle that I'm swerving around, I'm going to have soaking wet shoes -- and have you ever tried to run the last four miles of a 12 mile run in soaking wet shoes? Blister city.

As a proffesional crawler, I can tell you I hate getting stepped on by runners, who are trying to avoid bicycles that were just hit by a car.

If your not paying the beloved Barack gas tax....get off the road!!

Went cycling on the road (as opposed to a park) in Manhattan once. Felt like being in a video game.

However, in Manhattan when it's game over, you actually do die, so I never did it again.

"You don't need to appear in every cycling related post to lecture us, as if those people you saw violating a law somehow wipes out the need for better cycling infrastructure--as if your anecdotes somehow make it okay for you to write off cyclists. We got it."

No, you don't got it, if the number of cyclists who run red lights and stop signs on a daily basis in my neighborhood is any indication. Running red lights and stop signs is not an "occasional" occurrence but the norm, rather than the exception. And it's a stupid, irresponsible norm that endangers the lives of cyclists -- when it's car vs. bike, car wins -- and puts an additional burden on the drivers who have to adjust for this bad behavior by cyclists. I'll feel much better about sharing the road -- or building new ones for you -- when you lot do your bit to follow the most basic of safety rules.

Bikes are great where they don't compete with cars, but I'll duel, Aaron Burr-style (me in my sedan and them on their bike), against anyone that thinks that bikes can compete with cars.

Classy!

One thing that often gets lost in all of this finger pointing at bikes' "not following the rules" is the fact that the rules aren't really designed with bikes in mind. For example, many of DC's bike lanes just randomly start and stop at unpredictable points. From a driver's perspective, this sends bikes "irresponsibly" careening out in front of them. Even where bike lanes exist, they're often designed in INCREDIBLY frustrating ways (block access to right-turn only lanes, for example). Narrowing streets with vehicular lanes that start and stop (or randomly become occupied with parked cars on certain blocks) can also force bikes to either cut into traffic or jump up on the sidewalk. Finally, biking on th side of the road often means running across glass and other debris (often not picked up by streetcleaners) that you have to avoid, which again means cutting into traffic.

But none of this is really drivers' fault either. It's just the fact bikers are an afterthought to the city's transportation infrastructure. It's pretty hard to change in an old city like DC too, because road space is kind of a zero sum game. Policies that give bikes dedicated space tend to elicit crazy alarmist headlines about the "War on Drivers". But without those policies, bikes are always going to be an awkward fit, which virtually MANDATES the kind of bad behavior that some drivers apparently think justifies mortality (which is fucked up, but hey).

By the way, I totally agree with Joe's point on bikers vs. pedestrians. It's especially true in DC, where access to trails is actually annoyingly limited. There's almost nothing more frustrating than having to jump into the mud because some biker shoots by you without even trying to slow down. Taking a walk in this city is a huge pain in the ass because you're either walking next to noisy trucks on the street or bikes whizzing past you at top speed in the parks.

My husband was in a bike accident last year serious enough that he needed surgery to repair the damage.

He's barely ridden since. And I'm glad.

I know very little about biking, but here's a question: why do so many bikers not where helmets? This really bothers me. I'm from Canada, and I think there are some towns here where it's illegal not to where helmets. But I still see bikers without helmets everywhere, and in New York and Boston too. Has there been some study that says that helmets don't prevent accidents? Or are these people just reckless?

"If your not paying the beloved Barack gas tax....get off the road!!"

Most cyclists are drivers, as well. We pay the same taxes as you do and have the same rights to the road.

Years ago, living in L.A. I biked almost everywhere (except up in the hills). Heading down Willshire Blvd in heavy traffic, I paused at a light. A bus dispatcher looked me up and down, then asked "Do they respect you on that?"

Chris:

please provide evidence that bikers running stop signs or even red lights is an ACTUAL SAFETY HAZARD*.

here in SF, we're trying to get the so called "Idaho stop" law passed, so that bikers can treat stop signs as yields - it still means that you need to give others their right of way, but it also means that irate dbags like chris cant scream "BUT YOO GOTTA FOLLOW THE ROOOOOLZ" every time they see a cyclist run a stop sign when theres noone else there.

*hint: THERE ISNT ANY.

Why do people bike without helmets? Because they are idiots. Why do they bike at night without lights? Same reason. From my personal unscientific observations, I'd say the Boston has a relatively high rate of helmets and lights on its cyclists.

To get to Ezra's point, it is really another example of the prisoner's dilemma. As long as a certain percentage of the population drives giant SUVs, Honda Civics are risky. If almost everyone drives a car, biking is dangerous. By using a bike when I can, I am making the world safer in general but perhaps less safe for me.

Are aggregate safety statistics meaningful? I am not sure. I would think that less careful cyclists are far more likely to get in accidents, but it is impossible to protect yourself 100% from winning a door prize. It certainly does not seem that drivers who drive too fast, change lanes without warning, etc. are in vastly more accidents than their more timorous counterparts.

Finally, personal peeve: When driving an auto, please use turn signals even if you don't see any other cars around! A cyclist you don't see may be depending on this information.

darkwing:

the utility of helmets is hotly debated at all times within the biking community. it makes some people feel safer, but statistics suggest that they wont help you in the event of a collision with a car. most bicycle-related accidents do not involve a car though.

in europe, only children and the mentally infirm wear helmets regularly. they dont seem to think it's necessary.

and there is some data that suggests that cars treat cyclists without helmets as potentially more fragile, and give them wider berth. nothing conclusive, of course, but interesting nonetheless.

personally, i wear a helmet, but think it's mostly a wash. i also think that legally mandating helmet use is stupid and counterproductive - it gives many people one more excuse not to ride their bikes, increases barriers to entry in economic lingo.

Chris. Do you jaywalk? Do you wait for greenlights all the time?

Do you complain about pedestrians doing so?

Do you appear in liveable cities conversations to hector pedestrians for crossing against the lights?

Yes. We get it. You don't like it when we run red lights. But understand that we do it for a reason, and pedestrians do it for a reason, and the fact that we do it doesn't immediately obviate the need for better and more liveable cities, no matter how irritated you may be at cyclists and pedestrians violating traffic laws.

We're not trying to get killed. And we'd like some help, making it so our cities are less dangerous. So don't come around these parts and tell us that you'll build us better cities if and only if we promise not to run red lights. It's condescending, and it demonstrates that you're not actually sincere about wanting to build liveable streets in any real form.

"I would think that less careful cyclists are far more likely to get in accidents"

this is tautological.

"it is impossible to protect yourself 100% from winning a door prize"

no it isnt. it is 100% possible to keep from getting doored by a parked car.

take the lane.

you're much safer in the middle of the lane than on the edge.

If it's not a busy situation, I routinely go slowly through stop signs and sometimes red lights. Very simple reason. If I stop, when I start I'm wobbling for a few bike lengths until I get stable. I feel this is more dangerous if I'm right next to moving cars.

Nice post Ezra!

"Yes. We get it. You don't like it when we run red lights."

I don't like it because I don't want to kill you with my car.

Well, then don't complain when we say we want infrastructure that makes it less likely for you to kill us with your car.

In fact, trust me when we say we are trying even harder than you are when it comes to not getting killed by your car. So quit being so condescending.

I'm not being condescending, Stu. I'm saying that bikers should not engage in stupid behavior that makes them far more likely to get hit by a large metal object that will kill them. And that bikers who engage in such behavior do not help the cause of building bike infrastructure in the slightest.

Well, I've recently fixed up an old Raleigh road bike, and I love riding it. It's only half fixed up, but I really do feel pretty hip riding around a bike unlike anyone elses ;) Living out in the suburbs, I really don't ride it much for transportation as just for a good, fun workout. We have had paved bike routes for years, scenic bike routes, and plenty of sidewalk and shoulder space, so bikers dont really get in the way around these parts. I live in a Chicago suberb, and interestingly enough, I've been reading in the paper a lot about how much mayor Daley is doing to make new bike routes and such, as he is an avid biker, and there has been an explosion of bikers the last couple of years. So as far as around my parts, the tolerance and safty factor for bikers is pretty good.

Chris, the difference between driving in a city and driving on a limited-access highway is that, in the city, there are many potential hazards you must carefully anticipate. When I was in driver's ed class, we were taught to monitor our surroundings for such hazards. See a bunch of parked cars on the side of the road? A kid could dart out between them after his ball. A driveway? A car could pull out unexpectedly. A dog could chase after a squirrel. Oncoming traffic could swerve into your lane for some reason (or no reason). The bottom line is that it pays to pay attention and drive with caution, no faster than you can see. This is called defensive driving, and there are various rules of thumb that are easy to understand. For example, if you can't respond in time to the kind of hazard that you have seen before and are aware occurs on a regular basis, then you are going too fast.

Now, defensive driving is not the law---for example, a woman hit an old man who was jaywalking in Tenleytown a couple years ago, and he got the ticket as he was carried away in an ambulance. And anyone who has seen garbage trucks driving around D.C. knows they certainly do not give a shit about their surroundings. So we can't assume everyone is going to play nice.

However, since you are personalizing the issue, and since you say you don't want to kill anybody, I think you ought to practice this policy yourself. I do when I am driving and when I am cycling (even when I do not make a complete stop at a stop sign). And since you are interested in urban planning issues enough to comment on this blog, maybe you can think of constructive ways to encourage safer conditions from a planning level.

Frankly, you are being condescending, especially if you assume that bikers don't already know that cars can kill them.

In every forum where cycling is mentioned, car drivers come out and declare "I don't see why bikes should be accomodated, because they break the laws and get in my way." Congratulations, on this forum, it was you, when you said "I'll feel much better about sharing the road -- or building new ones for you -- when you lot do your bit to follow the most basic of safety rules."

You are trying to shut down conversation. You should just give it up, though. These complaints are tired, and serve only to avoid actually discussing what a liveable street should look like and how our use of it should go.

You should, however, trust that virtually every cyclist out there on the road is more aware of what's going on than you are (or any other driver), since, yes, as you've pointed out, our lives are more in danger than yours are.

You may even assume that if we're running a red light, we've made the call that it won't kill us to do so. So stop pretending you're the only one who cares if about hitting/being hit.

The world's worst bike lanes:
http://www.slatev.com/player.html?id=1504447505

cyclists are whiny bitches

if you are going to be advocate for douchebaggy riding, go militant a la rageahol, instead of crybaby like Stu.

:-(

:-(

Posted by: Anonymous | July 11, 2008 4:16 PM

If your not paying the beloved Barack gas tax....get off the road!!

It is cruel and unusual to post such an idiotic comment without even a pseudonym.

Its public record that the Highway Fund gas tax and state gas taxes only provides a portion of road funding ... the rest comes out of local and state sales and income taxes.

... and simple (and totally obvious) civil engineering that cars impose far more maintenance costs on road per mile than bikes do ...

... so the idea that transport cyclists should get off the road, when their income and sales taxes are helping to subsidize the costs created by motorists ...

... that should be the basis of pointing and laughing at the person who posted.

But no, it was an anonymous post.

Spoilsport.

A point on the article that is drawn on second hand for the "danger of cycling" argument:

* that lumps together kids riding on the street

* grown-ups riding on sidewalks (which are, on the collision figures, death traps for cyclists)

* grown-ups riding the wrong way on streets (like they never grew up)

* grown-ups forced into dangerous cycle lanes at the edge of traffic, who ought to be riding in the public right of way

Cyclists who follow Effective Cycling techniques, developed in part on the basis of mortality data, are certainly going to cut their risk of death in half or more.

And, yes, courtesy from motorists taking a free ride on road funding on the cyclists back would be nice, but that does not have to be the first step ... the first steps to take for safer cycling is for cyclists to cycle more safely.

Posted by: Joe | July 11, 2008 4:04 PM:

As a runner in a city with hundreds of miles of trails, my biggest complaint with cyclists is their total disregard for people running.

There are large numbers of untrained cyclists who think that they are being safer by hugging the curb, when in fact they are in greater danger.

The only time I have noticed runners while riding has been on a bike and hike trail ... and of course, I waited until it was clear to passed, and passed the runner on the left ... but if I passed any runners on my way to or from work at the moment, since they would be on the sidewalk, and I do not have such a strong death-wish that I regularly ride my bike on the sidewalk.

Posted by: obey | July 11, 2008 3:35 PM

How many accidents are by caused by bikers doing dumb things vs how many are caused by drivers doing dumb things?

According to Jay Forrester's work, at least for dumb things leading to cyclist traffic mortality, its about 50:50. And, further, the dumb things that motorists do can be controlled by effective use of proper road-riding techniques.

I recently had a driver who couldn't figure out how to pass me on what is essentially a two car lane, but three actual lane Chicago street scream at me that you were supposed to ride your bike on the sidewalk.

No, moron, anyone over 12 riding a bike on the sidewalk is breaking the law here.

A small example, but one that illustrates the need to educate drivers.

I should add that the driver was holding a cellular phone while screaming at me.

People talking on the phone while drive is my big pet peeve.

I have to fight the temptation to shout, "You'd drive better if you hung up your fucking phone!" because that's not very constructive and is really the type of thing that gets people to hang up and spend their time trying to run you over.

Also, no one cares about being a better driver, so it's not the best insult.

"Why don't you go back to Jersey, you fuck?" is actually much more effective, especially if people are not actually from New Jersey.

A commenter on this page noted that:

"One thing to note about Dutch car drivers, there are no such thing, they are just cyclists that are behind the wheel of an automobile."

I think as more and more folks start using bikes for transportation, relations between cyclists and motorists will improve.

Then again, the only two "debates" I've had with motorists here were a gentleman who passed me dangerously on 4th coming south through Ledroit Park and yelled, "you need to get on the sidewalk!" He also called me an MFer, but I don't think he was asking for iced tea. I got the same advice from a classy young lady who rolled a stop sign and nearly took me out on the MD side of Eastern on Varnum. She additionally admonished me that I needed to learn to "look out". I don't know that there's any amount of consideration I could give to either of these folks that would smooth relations between us.

Oh, and to Chris, I'll cop to the fact that there's a lot of bad behavior going on downtown that's flat out stupid. I don't condone cycle anarchy or practice it, I figure the least I can do for you is make every effort I can to be predictable to you.

But as long as we're giving each other advice on how we can get along better and be safer while we share the road...

Stand on any corner and count the number of motorists on cell phones that pass over the course of 5 minutes. See the vacant look on their faces as they get lost in their conversation and lose their focus. Do it at a stop sign, and you can see how many of them roll through it as well.

The cyclists in this city might be a hazard, but they're mostly endangering themselves. DC drivers, however, are both oblivious to their environments and dangerous to everyone else on the road, bike ped or car. And lest anyone think I'm talking about drivers everywhere, I'm not. DC drivers suck out loud.

I will stop at every single stop sign whether there's another living being within a mile or not, and do so happily, if you drivers will get off your goddam phones and pay attention to driving your cars. In fact, I'd consider that a bargain.

Another thing: that funny little lever to the left of the steering column? It's a turn signal. Learn to use it.

Rageahol: What's this bizarre term "Idaho stop"? Could it be what we in the lovely Evergreen State refer to as a "California stop"? Shows which ways the prejudices flow. Apparently, some folks somewhere actually call it a "n!gger stop," but then that's another order of prejudice altogether.

I grew up on WA and always called it a California stop as well.

I'd love to cycle to work but I have to commute an hour and fifteen minutes each way, and even if I was closer to work I have to wear a suit and can't be sweaty upon arrival. Maybe some day.

A couple of years ago I saw a cyclist come barreling over a bridge on the Rock Creek bike path, onto a stretch lined with cookout grills - which was, on that summer afternoon, filled with families. As he swung down the slope he ran straight into a kid on a tricycle, and both of them flew off into the grass. The cyclist sat up and shouted at the crying five-year old, "Why don't you watch where you're going!"

I live in Madison, WI, a city with lots of cyclists (especially in the last few years, what with the price gas) lots of bike lanes and off-street paths, and drivers who are well accustomed to sharing the road with cyclists, so I'm a little spoiled. Drivers' knowledge makes a huge difference. The streets near the UW campus are usually very safe for bikes, even in heavy traffic, but when the state high school sports championships come to town the roads are clogged with cars from parts of the state w/o a lot of bike traffic and suddenly become much more treacherous.

you make cyclists look bad you jerk-off

It's just the fact bikers are an afterthought to the city's transportation infrastructure. It's pretty hard to change in an old city like DC too, because road space is kind of a zero sum game.

This may seem like common sense, but after the last couple days I've spent walking around Paris, I really doubt the age of the city makes it harder to accomodate bikes.

Posted by: MosBen | July 12, 2008 9:32 AM

I'd love to cycle to work but I have to commute an hour and fifteen minutes each way, and even if I was closer to work I have to wear a suit and can't be sweaty upon arrival. Maybe some day.

That's one difference between the US and Australia ... far more office workplaces with showers in Australia.

I'm a cyclist and I wish my city would do more to accommodate cyclists -- I think more people would ride to work, etc. But in the meantime, I wish cyclists did less to incur the irritation of drivers -- they weave, they flip between being part of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, they feel they are morally superior to drivers and flip them off if crowded, they brag at work about the fact they ride to work (incrementally worsening the cyclist-driver tension).

And perhaps their most lethal mistake is ignoring the laws of physics -- they "claim" rights even when a driver error will kill them.

I hope more people will cycle as gas prices rise -- and since they are doing it for the savings and not because they are "more evolved" than drivers, I think it will contribute more rationality to the long-term institutionalizing of cycling as a viable mode of transportation.

How would this Ezra know what drivers think about bikers since he can't even drive a car?

So, for my sake, buy a bike!

Or he could, you know, make himself safer by learning how to drive instead of trying to guilt-trip the entire world into adjusting to his inability to do so. Or move somewhere with less traffic or better bike paths where he'd be less likely to get into a collision.

I swear every time I see this fellow linked his foot goes a little further down his own throat.

I guess the left needs it's own K-Lo.

I love hearing people blame the whole thing on the cyclists who ignore the laws or safety. Did I miss when America became a nation of 100% law abiding motorists? There are crazy people behind the wheel and behind the handle bar that live on, then there are also those who play by the rules that get killed. We will never eliminate accidents 100%, but instead of pointing fingers, perhaps everyone can start working a little harder to coexist on the roads better.

I knew someone that always hated cyclists and loved acting like he was going to hit them in order to make the bike swerve. Now this same guy has lost his job (due to out sourcing) and has had to take a job at a retailer. In that same time his car died. Guess how he gets to work now? By bike and now he has a totally different perspective on this mode of transportation. So those who want to diss cyclists, just remember - you too could end up being one of us, and not by your own choice. Then you will get a different view.

Shinyk, Ezra can drive. Not sure how that affects your argument.

Shinyk, Ezra can drive.

If true, that's a positive new development. Better late than never, I guess.

I actually don't have any problem with people who choos cycling (or, better yet, walking) over driving, if it's feasible. Any time that option's been available to me, I've availed myself of it.

What I am irritated by is seeing this one particular guy make arguments in the form:

1) Ezra is happy with himself and not unhealthy.
2) Ezra does X, therefore X makes one healthy and happy
3) If someone else doesn't X, they must be unhappy or unhealthy
4) Everyone should be made to do X so that they, like Ezra, can be free of sadness and unhealth

I don't even read this blog and I've seen, from this one blogger, framing like this about everything from where one must live to how one must commute to what one must eat.

Perhaps I'm overreacting in this one particular instance, since he humbly asks every non-cyclist in the world to change what they are doing instead of demanding a government mandate, as usual. It still bugs me, though.

he humbly asks every non-cyclist in the world to change what they are doing instead of demanding a government mandate, as usual. It still bugs me, though.

Which just goes to show that libertarianism and conservatism have nothing to do with issues regarding government intrusion into people's lives, but are both about merely advocating for a specific culture and lifestyle that promote their own agenda and identity.

It's similar to how libertarians will say that private charities should take care of many of the social functions that government serves but, when pressed, will admit that they're personally against private charity for the poor and marginalized, as well.

It's funny how someone who "doesn't even read this blog" somehow claims to be able to sum up how arguments are always made on it.

Anyway, Shinyk, if you'd even bothered to make it to the end of the article (which you must have done, since you quoted the last line of it), you could potentially have noticed that the argument is: if there are more bikers on the road, it becomes safer for bikers to be on the road. So Ezra's kind of tongue in cheek response was to encourage there to be more bikers on the road, to make it safer for him.

But you're obviously not arguing in good faith--obviously, the only time you see Ezra Klein is you swoop in from whatever right-wing site's unleashed you to make ignorant comments--so I see no reason to take this any further. Good day, sir.

This country is not set up for bikers like Europe is, with its smaller city streets and huge population of bikers. Biking to work in most American cities is just taking an unnecessary risk. Go bike on a bike path for fun, but get the hell out of traffic. Biking to work is an affectation, and selfish in many ways. Look at the consequences to the family of that poor girl who was killed.

obverse, you're really claiming that a city like New York City or Chicago is harder to get around on a bike than, say, Prague or Paris, where the streets are made out of cobblestones?

There's no reason a bike should be just a leisure toy. I take mine to work a couple of times a week, 15 miles each way, and the streets of Manhattan and Brooklyn work out just fine.

And if your argument is that European streets are good for bikers because there's a huge population of bikers, well, then, shouldn't that be an argument towards us having a huge population of bikers?

It's always really funny, albeit patently absurd, when people say that' it's "selfish" for bikers to bike. They should be selfless, like all those SUV drivers on the road.

Tyro

but are both about merely advocating for a specific culture and lifestyle that promote their own agenda and identity.

I don't know how you got that from this: "I actually don't have any problem with people who choos (edit: choose) cycling (or, better yet, walking) over driving, if it's feasible. Any time that option's been available to me, I've availed myself of it."

It's similar to how libertarians will say that private charities should take care of many of the social functions that government serves but, when pressed, will admit that they're personally against private charity for the poor and marginalized, as well.

I'd be interested in seeing even a single instance of any libertarian or conservative saying anything like that.

Maybe an objectivist, but I expect there are more people who claim to be Abraham Lincoln than claim to be objectivist, so that's a bit of a red-herring, isn't it?

Stu

It's funny how someone who "doesn't even read this blog" somehow claims to be able to sum up how arguments are always made on it...But you're obviously not arguing in good faith...unleashed you to make ignorant comments

Well, here's another post where Klein argues there's an inherent unhappiness attached to living some way other than he does, so no, I'm not arguing in bad faith.

I'm actually not arguing any point other than one that suggests that this Klein guy's a self-obsessed, childish little diva.

It IS selfish to unneccessarily risk your life if you have a family. Of course you can find cities in Europe that are not good for biking -- such as Paris and Prague. Those that are, and have by COMMON practice and agreement, a large urban bike population, like Amsterdam, are the ones I was speaking of. Here, biking to work is eccentric, and therefore often done by people trying to strike a pose. There are some people who refuse to go along with the herd on most things, insisting that every single thing they do be marked by the stamp of their individuality. In my experience, that's the person who bikes to work in a large U.S. city. And what is so wrong with the bike as a leisure toy? What about the people who skateboard to work down a sidewalk overwhelmingly occupied by pedestrians? That's okay too, I guess.

obverse, the person who bikes to work in a large city probably lives further than walking distance from work, but has a workplace where parking is expensive.

I've biked to work for a few summer jobs, and the reason I did so was because it was more practical than the alternative. Plus, I got exercise. But then, I lived in a city where such decisions were practical ones.

Once again, different strokes for different folks. What you're conjuring up is a certain resentment against people who are making what is essentially a good decision, under the circumstances.

I, myself, am not really a big biker, because I live within walking distance of most places I want to go to regularly. However, if biking to work were a possibility, I'd do it, in the same way that I biked to work under circumstances when it made sense. Your problem is that you're choking with resentment for someone not doing what you thnk they should do.

People get very defensive about their own choices when they see someone else making different choices. I've never been able to understand this. Some meat eater take personal offense when they meet someone who turns out to be a vegetarian. Lots of people take personal offense when they find out a coworker doesn't own a car. Not that either of those people ever intended to make the other feel guilty about those choices, but people get very sensitive and defensive when they meet someone who's doing something different, because they're constantly feeling they're being judged. The bike rider, however, never feels this level of personal insecurity regarding people who drive to work.

"the obverse" also brings up another issue which I hadn't thought of before, which explains part of his problem: he lives in a place with a lack of diversity on the part of his coworkers and friends. In places where I've lived in and, some people drove to work, some walked, some biked, and some took the local metro system. No one was "making a statement"; everyone was just doing what worked for himself or herself. It wouldn't have occurred to any of us to claim that one person was attempting to "strike a pose," mostly because no one was doing anything that seemed irrational.

On the other hand, if someone comes from an environment where most everyone does the same thing, then the person doing something different might appear to everyone else to look like he's doing it to poke everyone else in the eye. But when everyone is doing half a dozen different things, it doesn't strike anyone to single out any individual for doing something unusual. I can imagine, however, if one were from a particularly provincial environment, that reactions like that of "the obverse" would be fairly natural. But that's why people leave provincial environments for ones that are more cosmopolitan.

That's right, I am a hick in need of the wise and patient counsel of Tyro. Trying to put the biking in city problem under the umbrella of "diversity" -- so that objecting to it, or to any human choice, however foolish, becomes prejudice or intolerance -- is absurd. What about people who choose not to wear a helmet when biking. Is someone objecting to that also being intolerant, racist, whatever? You fail to respond to my most important point: in a city like DC, there is ample public transport. Taking a bike is not a practical choice, but some other kind of choice. If you drive a car and are honest about your observations, you know that the lives of bikers are entirely dependent on your driving accuracy and attention in a way that other drivers' lives are not -- yo0u are behind tons of steel, and they are exposed. It's just that simple -- a huge risk, with utterly predictable tragic consequences for some bikers and their poor families. It's just not a risk worth defending.

And p.s. it's not that I am defensive about my choice to drive. What would that mean? There's nothing to defend. I like to drive AND I love to bike. But as a driver, I am annoyed, yes, at being put in the position where it is easy, way too easy, for me to do terrible harm to another person. Just a moment of inattention on my part, or the biker's, just one second of less than perfect attention, and boom, it's done. Yes, that is annoying. You may be the perfect driver who never veers two millimeters from the lane. I am not.

I am annoyed, yes, at being put in the position where it is easy, way too easy, for me to do terrible harm to another person

Then get rid of your car, asshole. I didn't put you behind that wheel, you did.

It's not my job to hold your fucking hand and make the world a perfectly safe place for you. It is, however, your obligation, if you're going to careen around the streets in a two-ton tank, to be focused on the task at hand, to drive at safe speeds, and to not hit things. That applies to peds, bikes, people's houses, etc.

If your pucker factor goes up to 11 every time you get behind the wheel because you might hit something, then maybe you're not competent to drive. Then again, in this city, that puts you in the majority.

But to suggest that bicyclists should get off roads that belong to all of us, that are perfectly legal for all of us to use, because you're uncomfortable? Up yours.

My chances of hitting something are quite different. A drunk pedestrian careening down the road has a greater chance of being hit than an alert one. But hey, the roads belong to all of us, no? The best safety occurs when moving vehicles are roughly equal in maneuverability and durability. How about skateboarding in traffic? Okay with you? A personal lifestyle choice? You sound like someone with no sense of responsibility, either toward strangers or toward his/her family. Because who is gonna come and pick up your injured bones when you get hurt???? Get the f#@# off the roads!

I was going to respond to your points, but you're not making any, and it's just not productive to continue this conversation with you.

The "best safety occurs" when you don't leave your couch. You should probably go with that option.

You sound like someone with no sense of responsibility, either toward strangers or toward his/her family... Get the f#@# off the roads!

Learn to drive safely or stop driving. There's ample public transport available, so it's the only responsible thing for you to do.

And to be clear, they're not the roads. They're our roads. And I'll continue to use them safely and legally. Here's hoping you can do the same.