« RFK Stadium site redevelopment meeting - new bike/ped connections | Main | A brief history of biking in Rock Creek Park II »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Every time I read one of those myths articles at the Post I'm annoyed. It's like they can't think things through, or perhaps they try too hard to be even that they make absurd counterclaims. I still shake my head remembering the writer that said that isn't pollen you see on your car in the spring because pollen is microscopic and too small for the eye to see. Perfect example of how you can be right on the details but still wrong because you didn't think it through.

I am not going to write anything about helmet laws. I am not going to write anything about helmet laws. D'oh!

The modeshare point was so glaringly obvious. Sure, going from 1% to 2% is not going to make much difference. But going from 1% to 30% (e.g. Amsterdam) would make a huge difference.

Also, once we stop thinking of infrastructure as only for cars, we start to think more creatively of other modeshare. More peds, bikes, etc. With greater emphasis on safety, perhaps drivers would not feel the need to drive SUV behemoths and so we get less pollution from smaller cars.

It should be renamed "5 strawmen" about X topic. This one was especially poorly thought out.

The mistakes, misinterpretations, and straw men, not withstanding, I still believe that the cumulative and subliminal effect of mainstream discussion of cycling as a utilitarian activity--even negative coverage--is a net good thing.

And both of these things are the sort of thing that have been settled for a while now to the point where its almost dangerous for cycling advocates to debate it as if there are still legitimate claims. Kind of like when scientists say they won't do high publicity climate change debates.

But when it comes out in the post you can't actually let it stand either.

The title "Five Myths" is deceptive because it implies that it's presenting facts when it's really just an opinion piece. I actually wrote to the Post ombudsman once to complain about the title of the series. If you saw an article called "Myths About Tornado Safety" you would justifiably assume that it presents life-saving information, not someone's opinion. So when used to present an opinion, the title is misleading and confusing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader