bleep blop

Why do you hate bikes so much, Rob?

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:21:58 -0700

The following is my response to Rob Anderson’s post in which he pats himself on the back for being profiled on the Wall Street Journal.

It’s telling that a large majority of your supporters have latched onto your argument simply because they, too, see all cyclists as sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, whiney, liberal weenies whose motivations for riding a bike are more political than practical.

And it’s true: some bicyclists are real jerks—as are, you’re no doubt aware, a similar proportion of the general public. (And, having lived in San Francisco as long as you have, you shouldn’t be surprised that a large portion of any interest group is outspokenly progressive.) But you’re not advancing the discussion by painting everyone who chooses to ride a bike with that brush. There are plenty of responsible, courteous riders out there who do so because it’s healthy, fun, and economical. Most of them don’t go to SFBC rallies or ride in Critical Mass because they don’t have the time, aren’t politically motivated to do so, or just aren’t aware of them at all. Biking is simply the mode of transportation that they’ve chosen, and in the end it really doesn’t matter why. You walk and ride public transit; I ride a bike most of the time; so what’s the big deal?

I’ll tell you what the big deal is: You, in your curmudgeonly role as the anti-bike crusader, are actively thwarting the San Francisco bike-riding constituency’s efforts to make cycling in the city safer. Your cynical arguments, backed almost entirely with anecdotal evidence of cyclist self-righteousness, the unwavering assertion that bikes are inherently dangerous, and the ludicrously illogical suggestion that reducing automobile LOS will result in increased emissions, are all gargantuan straw men that serve no point but to distract from the core issue: your blind hatred of bikes.

Why do you hate bikes so much, Rob? Think long and hard before you answer, because broad generalizations like “cyclists are sanctimonious hippies” isn’t really a tenable argument. And don’t give me that “power-hungry SFBC” bullshit, either, because you and I both know that there are thousands of people riding their bikes in the city that don’t give a rat’s ass about the “pro-bike [or ‘anti-car’] lobby”. They’re just trying to get wherever they’re going in one piece. And in your attempt to stymie them, you just come across as a big ‘ol jerk.

So keep fighting the good fight, Rob. And we’ll keep on riding our bikes despite (not, as you seem to think, in spite of) your irrational tirade, with the faith that when the EIA is finished the bike plan will be vindicated and you’ll have forced the city to spend a ridiculous sum of money to prove what we’ve known to be true all along: that making our streets more accessible to bikes is an important step toward making the the city a healthier, happier, and safer place for everyone to live.

San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution? - WSJ.com

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:07:22 -0700

San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution? - WSJ.com: As much as it pains me to see this jackass getting nationwide media exposure, it’s actually a pretty accurate portrayal of the struggle between Anderson and San Francisco cyclists.