Skip to content

Recent Comments


    Clyde S. Dale

    If you’re not going to comment from an INFORMED standpoint, STFU.



    What you do with bullies is you beat them up. Then they stay the hell out of your way — they only understand power.

    I’m not quite sure what the metaphor implies here, but I think it implies throwing these clowns in jail.



    Why the hell do people think that larger highways are the keys to economic success? Maybe they’ve never been to a successful city. Boston and New York, two extremely successful American cities, have TERRIBLE traffic with insanely clogged highways, and yet they have among the strongest local economies in the country. People and money flock to them, and it’s not because of their plentiful highway mileage. It’s because they work to be places people enjoy walking around, living in, working in, existing in on a human level, not trapped inside of a car.

    I suspect this is much more about the culture war than things than reason.


    Kevin Love

    $1.2 billion! Cough, choke… For that kind of money, the entire City of
    Milwaulkee could be completely transformed with Dutch-style CROW-compliant bicycle transportation infrastructure everywhere in the entire city.


    R.A. Stewart

    Well heck yes. You have to be an America-hating commie to have anything to do with trains.


    Angie Schmitt

    And that might be a big part of this in a lot of states, sadly. Cities are D, governors are R, feel threatened by urban strength.


    Greg Costikyan

    Interesting. I was in Cleveland a few months ago, and thought the waterfront highway was an obvious fail, but didn’t know about this history. Other things I noted: the bus system is regional, and seems to prioritize long lines into the suburbs, even though highest ridership is in the city proper; also, outside the city center, the “bus stops” are typically nothing more than a small metal sign, with no shelter or even curb treatment to indicate that this is a stop. (So yes, they have a BRT line, but otherwise it’s kind of broken.) Also, I saw only a handful of cyclists, and almost no cycling infrastructure.


    Shaun Jacobsen

    Oh I don’t doubt that he is a car-first thinker from the suburbs, and is spending transportation dollars as such. But his similar disinvestment in other transport options (Milwaukee streetcar, notwithstanding its merits) in Milwaukee leads me to believe there’s a bit of retaliation in there, for Milwaukee and its mayor.


    Angie Schmitt

    Except for the half dozen other enormous projects throughout the region inside and outside of Milwaukee. He’s a true believer for sure.


    Shaun Jacobsen

    This is probably less about Walker wanting “better” transportation and more about political retaliation against Milwaukee.



    I think one of the biggest failures among environmental advocates is that they simply don’t understand the way the minds of the other side work. You think these people can be shamed (which is all the rage on the internet these days), but what you consider shaming they see as success. Pictures posted of kids and cyclists being affected by air pollution to them is a job well-done.



    Evidently these mutants don’t breathe air.


    Marven Norman

    Since we’re in abstract, why set sights so low? Even if Amsterdam isn’t the end goal, I’m confused as to why people continue point out how it took Amsterdam 40 years to become Amsterdam and say we’ll get there “eventually”. There’s no reason to start out by ignoring what has been discovered there (and elsewhere) in the past 40 years and continue to focus reinventing the wheel. Airbus didn’t start with Wright Flyers, Elon Musk didn’t build Model As before starting his Teslas. America might be the land of progress and innovation, but apparently can’t do so for bicycling infrastructure.

    A necessary start would be to mandate that all new construction include adequate bike infrastructure. (For example, BIK LANs don’t belong on arterials ever.) That would include cracking open the CROW Design manual for bicycle traffic and taking the recommendations for separation to heart which are based on speed/volume of the traffic, not bike counts. That means we won’t be perpetually one step behind of projects to fix and will drastically lower the cost per head as well when included as part of the road right-of-way from the start. (Which this project [PDF] has attempted to do, though they’re somewhat thwarted by CA’s Class I/II/III shenanigans [PDF].)

    At the same time, there’s also no need to dig up perfectly good legacy roads tomorrow. Paint and bollards would have the desired effect to start, then real improvements can be incorporated with more comprehensive rebuilds/realignments/etc. The paint and bollards should definitely not be seen as a final solution, but they will get more people riding. That’ll add to the safety in numbers as well as more people clamoring for improvements too because they’ll directly benefit. All of this should work out to even less than $100/person. Bike infrastructure is cheap and saves money by reducing need for car infrastructure. It’s high time we stop letting the powers that be relegate it to second-class status and take matters into our own pedals if they can’t get it done. Stuff can be done today.



    Um, it seems you only read the “bullet points” and have a low reading comprehension level. Elly DID refer to the WELL-DOCUMENTED report, based on before/after statistics submitted by the Federal Highway Administration with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. So…. this article is NOT based on “empty pieces that don’t rely on verifiable data at all, using just some randomly picked numbers”



    Not what I had in mind at all. How about posting pictures of kids and cyclists being affected by the air pollution.



    Nothing more than trolls in trucks. As soon as they see the amount of money they wasted then this will end.


    Steven Vance

    Sometimes the concept is taken too seriously, whereas there are plenty of examples of seemingly unintentionally created shared spaces. The key is to somehow dramatically reduce the desirability to drive through the space.

    However, even the Dutch aren’t sold on it.

    It’s not all anti-shared space in the Netherlands, though. There’s an entire research lab devoted to it at NHL Hogeschool in Leeuwarden, where I visited this year. I met with one of the researchers and he took me on a tour of three sites in the city center, not all of which were deliberately created as “shared spaces”.


    Ryan Brenizer

    They have already broken the harm principle, so I see no moral problem with physically disabling these cars’ engines in a very hard-to-fix way.



    So instead, lets all shake our fists at them from afar while we make them famous by posting pictures of what they probably see as their brave act of defiance all over the internet. That’ll show ‘em.



    These people are bullies, who get their fun out of pissing off someone else. you’d think, if you ignore them then they will stop, but instead what typically happens is bullies escalate.



    Its funny how destroying the environment and poisoning our air became a social issue.



    Friend don’t let friends read mainstream newspapers in the Internet age. Luckily their reader base is dying off, literally.



    And the funniest part is, they don’t know that the whole fad is a conspiracy perpetrated by al Qaeda and Iran so they can sell more oil… (let’s start this rumor…)


    Keith Williams

    It might be the greatest economic stimulus Buttstump Holler has ever seen.


    Jym Dyer

    The volcano factoid came from Rush Limbaugh and has been debunked many times.


    Jym Dyer

    @davistrain – Yeah, but those engineers were all a bunch of tree-hugging socialists.



    GW Bush was actually better on environmental issues than Obama. Worse on everything else, but Obama’s really not a good environmental president.



    Mockery really is the best way to deal with this behavior.


    Kenny Easwaran

    In many cities, a 30 minute bike ride covers lots of distances that people would otherwise drive for. (At rush hour in the central areas, you can easily cover substantially more ground in a 30 minute bike ride than a 30 minute drive.) And when I’m just touring around a city with a bike share, I often ride for several hours, but just swap out the bike every 30 minutes. So I don’t think you can estimate how much people are substituting biking for driving just on the basis of them not overstaying the 30 minute free period.


    Kenny Easwaran

    I’m not sure – it might. If we got bike share here in Los Angeles, I would certainly do some riding on a bike share bike that I currently do by lugging my own bike on a bus or subway to the area that I’m going to navigate by bike. If the only effect of bike share is to bring in some new cyclists on share bikes, and to replace some existing cycling with cycling on share bikes, and if riding a share bike is sufficiently safer than riding a private bike, then you could conceivably get an overall reduction in injury this way.

    But you’re right that the effect is not likely to be big enough, unless we’re bad at estimating the size of each of these effects.


    Kevin Love

    That “something else” is called being a social conservative.


    Mike Christensen

    When I’m riding my bike and see a guy driving a huge pickup with smokestacks, it makes want to pedal alongside him, tap on his windows, and ask, “Dude, how small is your penis???!” He’s got to have some kind of a serious lack of something in his life to necessitating that kind of overcompensation! LOL



    The irony of all this is that Obama is not very exceptional on environmental issues. OK, he’s no GW Bush, but c’mon.



    You have to wonder what these “men” are compensating for.



    Pre-bikeshare, “cyclists” included a higher percentage of racey bike riders. Now there are people that maybe rode a shared bike a few times, and are purchasing city/urban bikes (which are more available than before also). So I wouldn’t credit bike share for the reduction directly, but easy going non-racing bike sales in general is probably the big factor here in having slower & safer cycling.


    Ian Turner

    Your hypothesis doesn’t explain the reduction in injuries among non bike-share cyclists.



    Nice: “Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.”



    There is a proven, direct link between an organism’s level of heterosexuality and the number of cylinders one controls. For instance, when I was in high school, I scored a V8 on the Kinsey Scale. As I’ve aged, I’ve fallen to a four on the highway. In the city, I’m all-out gay.



    Note that the safety misdirection did not originate in the Post; it was present in the abstract of the article itself. One of the authors is a repeat helmets-as-panacea offender.

    One additional possibility is that the lights on the bikes are always on (though in my opinion they are wimpy). There’s been at least one study of daytime running lights — the participants weren’t ignorant of their control or test status, but there was a control group and a test group, and they were randomly assigned. The results were good, and for the crashes that we care the most about and that were least likely to suffer participant bias (ER admissions and insurance claims) it looked like about a 50% reduction.

    See Accident Analysis and Prevention 50 (2013) 820–829,

    It’s paywalled, and the most interesting numbers are not in the abstract (and may not reach significance because of relatively small numbers).



    Yeah I got that. But something sets me off that doing this is… Somehow still offensive.



    I think that ubray is assuming anyone who would want to be a “coal roller” would also be a homophobe and would want to avoid the sticker. Difficult to parse, but stereo types conservatives more than gays. Agreed that, at first blush, seems offensive.


    Bike rider but driver too

    I see now this was someone else replying. Well I will still defer to the argument above that the court of law had the facts. As such I still don’t understand how they can give such a massive award to someone they found partially responsible and to your point, yes that absolutely scares me as a driver. No one is perfect behind the wheel and if a bicyclist is partially at fault for causing a crash with a driver and then gets millions that is most definitely cause for concern for all drivers.

    I want everyone to be safe and for no injuries to happen. Period. I just hate the idea of grand sums of money being awarded like this when the person receiving it was legally found to have partial fault. That’s all. The court should just declare it zero percent fault if they are going to make an award like this. It would look so much better.



    I didn’t dispute it, I said I was curious. How can we learn from these things if they are not explained? How does someone obey the law (not get cited, at least) yet still end up 21% responsible? I’d normally imagine a bike rider would be a little curious about that. If this is really about the door zone, this indicates that we should be even more aggressive about staying out of it, lest we be found partly at fault for our own injuries. If it’s not about the door zone, what other things is it that we should not be doing? But the legal document does not say.


    Bike rider but driver too

    Your own comment said a court of law had the facts in front of them and now you’re disputing that court’s assessment of what happened in your argument. Sorry guy, you just blew your own case out of the water. Buh bye!


    Michael Andersen

    But maybe not if the stoplights on the street were timed for 12-14 mph traffic, the street corners were relatively square and the travel lanes were 11 feet wide.



    I don’t know if you meant this to be homophobic. But…. um. It kind of really is.



    Haha the bike pansies. I’d like to start a road bike ballet.

    (I don’t understand why liking bicycles makes men gay in their eyes though. I can’t figure that one out.)



    I think it simply proves that these peole are not really on about “fiscal conservatism” but rather… somethign else. That something being stupid and destructive and generally raccist and sexist and homophobic.

    That’s why when I see my friends who are actual fiscal conservatives voting the same way as these… idiots… who obviously dont understand the platform and want something entirely else… it pains me. Wish there was a better option for moral fiscal conservatives.



    No but maybe you should! :)


    C Monroe

    I say states because I am from Michigan and my state has the unfortunate history inside of regions(Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing) the failure of their localities to work together. Less so with Lansing and Grand Rapids but Metro Detroit is notorious for not working together(Us vs Them). The State has to sometimes come in as a parent to get things done.

    Not all places are like this and yes there are a lot of regions that cover multiple states and ideally local control is the best. But there are some things that should be left to the state otherwise many far off lightly dense areas would be cut off. Other things is transport between regions, if not for the state who would fund transportation links in the rural areas between Columbus and Cincinnati?