Prepare to dislike Ryan Sager in 3-2-1

Ryan Sager with True/Slant wrote an especially classy opinion piece and posted it today - the day of the World Ride of Silence - entitled "Death to Cyclists." This was in response to a New York Post story on a study that shockingly discovered that cyclists break the law.

At least 37 percent of riders blew right past red lights, while 13.2 percent bucked traffic and 8.3 percent were yapping on a phone or jamming to an iPod, the study says.

Also, a careless 29.3 percent of the bikers in the study didn't even use a nearby bike lane, and 75 percent of all bikers didn't use headlights or taillights during evening hours -- a clear violation of state law, the study found.

You have to love the Post and their willingness to use inflammatory language like "yapping" and "careless." I'm not going to deny that this represents some bad behavior, but some of it isn't illegal or even wrong.

For example, while cyclists in NYC are required to use a bike lane when one is present, there are a number of exceptions such as "for access, safety, turns, etc." Which sounds like it isn't really required at all.

"Yapping on a phone" isn't illegal, though I don't recommend it. Nor is listening to an ipod if you only have one earbud in. And there would be less wrong way biking if there were fewer one-way streets.

But yes, cyclists do break the law and, though I wish otherwise, ride unsafely. It would have been interesting if they had compared the illegal behavior of cyclists to that of drivers, but that opportunity was missed. Transportation Alternatives criticized the report

But cycling advocates dismiss the study's findings, pointing out "several major flaws" that cause it to "border on irrelevance."

"They virtually excluded most of the bike lanes in the network. The 640-block area of Midtown has only six bike lanes," said Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives.

Also, he said, the researchers -- many of them students -- weren't able to determine between a commercial or everyday rider

I'll agree that cyclists should "receive instruction on the rules of the road" preferably in school and at an early age. And I think taking a cycling class is always a good idea (I'd love to see cyclists and drivers who are ticketed be allowed to get out of it by taking a confident city cycling course). Here are the other recommendations:

The report's authors are calling for increased police enforcement of bike rules, and are also asking that people who bike for commercial purposes, such as messengers, get registered and have license plates.

Still none of this quite rises to the level of "Death to Cyclists." And what are Ryan's complaints? When he's on the Brooklyn Bridge and he steps off the pedestrian walkway onto the bikeway, cyclists ring their bell or swear at him.

And on top of that rudeness,

In Connecticut, bikers take leisurely rides down the tiny, twisty back country roads — which are usually too dangerous to pass them on. And it’s really a problem to have to drive 15 miles per hour behind some asshole biker when you’re trying to get to school or the store.

Nuclear proliferation is a real problem. The global AIDS pandemic is a real problem. What Ryan has is a minor inconvenience. He later states

From hundreds of Internet comments threads, it seems clear that bicyclists really believe they’re morally superior to people who can’t or don’t want to commute by bike.

But he doesn't quote one.

He does later back off his previous title with another post entitled "Bicyclists, Please don't die."

Dear bicyclists: I do not literally wish you dead.

Now, as I tried to acknowledge tongue-in-cheek in the first post, most of my hostility toward bicyclists comes from the fact that I’m not one.

I’m not sure I have any overarching answers here. I think the first principle, where possible, must simply be separation. In the Brooklyn Bridge situation, there’s a simple solution: pedestrians on the Brooklyn Bridge, bikes on the Manhattan Bridge (or, in traffic on either bridge, if bikers want).

As for sharing city streets, I don’t have any easy answers. I don’t think bike lanes work very well, especially when bicyclists just ignore the rules of the road. If we’re going to carve out lanes for you, you have to stop at red lights.

I don't think taking a bridge away from each user is a good choice. And I don't see the quid pro quo for bikes lanes and red light respect. Cyclists should be given bike lanes. And cyclists should not blow through red lights. The two are not related.

Update: Don't look for these articles. Ryan Sager gets paid each time you click on the article.

Comments

[Eric_W.]

OMG! Cannot believe they actually let someone write "Death to Cyclists" in a paper (however loosely defined).

The same old, tired set of tortured "arguments" that really have no relevance.

In any event, he seems to have had a lucid moment and admitted that he just hates bicylcists because they get around town faster than he is and for no other reason. Oh wait, they make him late for picking up his latte at Starbucks on Saturday mornings when they are enjoying the outdoors.

This is exactly the kind of vitriole (on par with the Chris Core diatribe we had a little while ago) that will encourage drivers to intentionally bring bicyclists in dangerous situations in which they might well experience severe injuries or worse.

[Scott F]

I don't understand the point of posting this. Is this writer a celebrity or something? Is the website notable in any way? Because I've never heard of either before. Unless what the guy thinks is somehow relevant, can we please not give hateful nutcases attention?

[Colin]

I'm with Scott here. Don't feed the trolls.

[Washcycle]

Ryan Sagar wrote the book "The Elephant in the Room" about the Republican Party. It was pretty successful. A journalist friend pointed me to the article but I'd heard of True/Slant before.

I'm taking down the links though. Turns out True/Slant pays an author for each pageview they get. So don't go to the site.