- An Ohio man, after originally pleading no contest, tries to have his "driving under the influence" charge dropped because he was riding a bike. But he filed his paperwork late, so the issue of whether the law applies to him was never considered.
- I guess this article isn't aimed at me since my answer to the opening question "Ready to trade in your car for a bike, or maybe a subway instead?" Is an emphatic "yes", instead of a horrified "no".
- "A 2008 follow-up report recommended replacing LOS with an entirely new measure known as "auto-trips generated," or ATG. Instead of asking how much congestion a project creates, ATG looks at how many new automobile trips it produces. Since bike lanes or bus-rapid transit or the like don't generate any automobile trips, those projects would no longer be subject to a full environmental review. "
- A Salon article also hits on the Agenda 21 fear that bicycling seems to scare up in the tea party set. "Adam Sternbergh argued in the New York Times that there’s a whiff of the Tea Party in the anti-bike backlash: “the specter of bureaucracy run amok,” in which a subset of society forces lifestyle changes on the majority." But the article is primarily about why cyclists are incorrectly viewed as smug and elitist. Citypaper asks "Do you buy the argument that some of the burden for being a positive advertisement for bicycling is on you?" My answer here is summarized as yes, but really we should be safe and polite for reasons that are bigger than public perception. And if someone is being safe and polite but not legal...what really is the problem there?