But why? To follow the demonization, you’d think that people were being sent to the hospital by collisions with bicycles several times every day.

The Post turned hostile to bicycles due to the Times Square pedestrian improvements. Those have been so popular with business interests that the Post has redirected its outrage to people who ride bicycles.

Other opposition has been orchestrated by opposition to protected bike lanes. Not only are they perceived to inconveniece motorists, but they are rightly perceived to breed new bicycle riders. It is fear of being struck by motor vehicles that keeps the number of people riding bicycles down. Just ask someone who doesn’t do it.

“Some areas take a while…their random side street in Bk/Qnz”
Exactly the nonchalant attitude that infuriates people in “Bk/Qnz”
NattyB sounds more like Mayor Mike B.

“But why? To follow the demonization, you’d think that people were being sent to the hospital by collisions with bicycles several times every day.”

They follow this chain of “reasoning”:

I intend to keep driving my car as much as I always have.

Bicycling would be just as convenient as driving for many of my trips – and healthier.

Therefore, I hate bicycling because it is a threat to bad habits that I don’t want to change.

Things aren’t working the same as they have in the past, and that makes many people angry. More and more people and jobs in the city means more cars in the city (even if a smaller % drive). Bicycle lanes and bicyclists are an easy target because they are highly visible, and still largely (and I say this with some hesitation) relegated to the young, the physically fit and immigrant workers, and bike lanes are seen (or characterized) as only benefiting that small group. Many people simply don’t believe that many New Yorkers will try biking. I, however, disagree.

Once numbers grow to the point that cyclists are a better cross-section of society, it becomes MUCH harder to stereotype and demonize us, since you’ll likely piss off everyone. That is when you hit the tipping point. Then, these types of improvements are no longer contentious, since they benefit everyone. We are starting to see this happen in Brooklyn and in parts of downtown, but I think there will need to be some patience.

We aren’t going to convince anyone that we aren’t a small minority except through growing numbers. This includes our fiercest opponents. Let’s engage our opponents in open debate. Why not publicly ask Normal Steisel and Iris Weinshall to go for a bike ride down several different types of bike lanes in the neighborhood? It’s easy to write an article demonizing the “other” on both sides. Let’s show them how we see the world, face to face, and hopefully tone down the rhetoric a bit.

I agree it’s more important now than ever for the cycling community to present a unified face to the world supporting what the city has done so far. Let’s all leave our individual differences aside. Sure, I’ll admit to saying most current new cycling infrastructure is useless to me personally as it doesn’t mesh with my riding style, or isn’t near where I live. However, my support for this new infrastructure remains steadfast because I recognize its value to a broad range of potential cyclists. The key word here is “potential cyclist”. Nearly anyone who can walk is a potential cyclist. The key then to growing our numbers to the point where demonizing us is political suicide is doing things which get these people to go from “potential” to “actual” riders.

‘Exactly the nonchalant attitude that infuriates people in “Bk/Qnz”’

Speak for yourself. This resident of Bk/Qnz is more concerned if his bridges or subways are unavailable, than the two blocks of Love Lane & co.

I work on multi-modal transportation solutions, including increased bicycle infrastructure, as part of my job. I also interact considerably with the general public. Reading the above I can only conclude that you just don’t get it, willfully so (see Charles at 2:51 yesterday) in some cases.

Jonathan, I absolutely believe in bicycle infrastructure and liveable streets and work to make those things happen. The long answer to your question will take too long (for me to write) and the short answer is probably too glib. I am genuinely sorry.

Perhaps I’ll try to take some time, over an extended period of time, to verbally work out the long answer. If I could get it right, it would probably be one of the most useful things I have done in my career. In the meantime, I will continue to work on projects that are harder and harder to implement because of rational arguments by rational people. (As opposed to selfish people with selfish motives–see PPW–or the members of the car culture who cannot understand anything but.)

Not to sound conspiratorial about this, but we’re only a few weeks past the NY Post’s story (planted by a Bloomberg-friendly city councilman) that multiple Sanitation workers (who wouldn’t go on-record) were claiming that the city’s failure to respond to the snow was all a Union plot.

Murdoch is not above doing a favor for a fellow media mogul, and this story (like the union-bashing ones that preceded it) are all deflecting blame from Bloomberg for the city’s lousy response on the Christmas Blizzard.

A lot hangs in the balance here. I can’t think of anybody who could replace JSK in terms of her enthusiasm for cyclists and pedestrians and her willingness to think outside the box. But if Bloomberg has decided to throw her under the bus (so to speak), this isn’t about the Post. And coming as it does at the same time that Ulrich’s ‘initiative’ on bike license plates came out, it tells me that livable street activists better start assuming they have no friends at Gracie Mansion.

I have a beautiful argument which disproves Jeffrey Hymen’s rational arguments from rational people, which I also will not share at this time. For the moment, just accept that everyone but myself is quite wrong!

Not quite as jowly, but the images on Wiki’ are probably of Pete when he was older than I am now.

Here is an attempt at a short synopsis (based, Jonathan, to a large extent but not exclusively on what I read on Streetsblog) of what I would try to convey if I had the time to write such a policy piece:

The discourse on bicycling in New York and the infrastructure being built to support it is becoming more polarized. There are staunch advocates at both poles whose opinions are unlikely to change for any reason. Like many contests for elected office, it is the opinions of the people in the middle that are movable. However, the rhetoric and actions of many cyclists are having an effect opposite of their own self-interest. Or, to put it another way, the “independents” (to stay with the earlier analogy) are deciding, as they take sides in the increasingly polarized discourse, what the pundits at the NY Post (for example) are saying is closer–not necessarily close but closer–to their own thinking and feeling.

One of the projects I am working on is traffic calming and bike lane in a community board that has been generally supportive, occasionally even progressive, on the issue. However, the tenor of the discourse has become so poisoned–as much by bike riders and advocates as their opponents–I fully expect the community board to oppose the plan. Of course, DOT will implement the plan regardless of the board vote because that’s how we roll here … and that will only alienate the “independents” further.

Most of America and certainly its cities are going to need to re-think transportation. I believe bike riding is going to figure prominently in the new paradigm, certainly so in cities. But too often bike riders and advocates do their own cause a disservice. They do not have to respond in any meaningful way (Snark on Nate!) to the concerns expressed by people who might become sympathizers but instead of treating those complaints as strategy for making converts, there seems instead often to be a stubborn philosophical opposition to do so. I find it irrational.