Pulse 360

Thursday, September 24, 2009

The first thing we do,

let's kill all the cyclists. (With apologies to Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2; act iv: scene ii.)

A few days ago I was making a right turn from a quiet side street onto a main through street in my quiet Atlanta suburb. The through street seemed too quiet for the middle of the day. After gratefully making my right I looked in my rearview mirror and saw two cyclists, carefully and deliberately occupying the center of the roadway, followed by a long, long, long line of motorists.

I thought at once of a similar journey along Massachusetts Avenue from Union Station to Dupont Circle in Washington, DC. At the height of the evening rush hour I enjoyed being part of a long line of vehicles slowed to a crawl by a single cyclist who was clearly enjoying the inconvenience and discomfort he was causing dozens of motorists.

These cyclists often claim to be friends of the earth as they employ a mode of transportation said to be friendlier to mother earth than the internal combustion engine. I do wonder how the environment is served by backing up and slowing down dozens of cars for blocks on end. Doesn’t this force them to belch their heinous polluting exhaust into the atmosphere far longer than if they had been able to proceed at a reasonable pace?

“Our bikes have as much right to the road as your cars,” these cyclists whine. Well, no. The reason for which most roads from suburban cul-de-sacs to surface streets to the interstate highway system were built (the doctrine of original intent as Mr. Justice Scalia might have it), was to support automobile and heavy truck traffic (Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2004).

Also no, because bicyclists contribute almost nothing to the maintenance and upkeep of roads at any level. Road and highway maintenance is funded primarily by gasoline taxes so unless there is a cyclist lead movement to heavily tax the sale of inner tubes, I’m not sure that bicycles do have the same right to access public roads as the cars for which they were built and that support their maintenance and upkeep. Perhaps toll bike lanes might be an answer?

Granting for a moment the unsupportable proposition that bicyclists do have the same right to access public roads as automobiles, then I must ask why bicyclists are under no obligation to observe laws governing vehicular traffic. Are bicyclists incapable of grasping what it means when the little light in the sky turns red? Or what the letters S-T-O-P mean? Or what lanes are for?

My observation of cyclists’ behaviors and attitudes lead me to offer, some time back, a modest proposal. Laws should be enacted requiring every licensed motorist to carry a handgun. These will be for use on inconsiderate and belligerent cyclists (redundancies, I’ll grant). Not only should there be no penalty for shooting cyclists, motorists should be offered a bounty for every cyclist skin they bring in.

I have come to realize that my proposal just won’t do. Shooting out the window of a moving vehicle is probably as dangerous and distracting as texting or exfoliating by a driver. I don’t want to endanger motorists or their passengers.

Considering the narcissistic, smug, superior conduct that typifies the cyclist and the benefits to society of their eradication, there is too much risk of distracted drivers missing. So I have revised my proposal (with apologies to my sisters) to require that all those who even own bicycles be smothered in their sleep.

This would not only benefit motorists and the environment. Think of how much less stressful urban streetscapes will be when pedestrians need no longer fear dismemberment by bike messenger. Think of how much more enjoyable weekend walks along shaded paths in bucolic parks will be if one doesn’t have to fear being jostled by bicyclists who are incompetent or overconfident. Will anyone really miss hearing the bellowed “LEFT!” followed by the vision of an adult who is not actually competing in the Tour de France whizzing by in a spandex Italian racing costume?

Let’s look for a moment at the other side of the coin. What benefits do cyclists provide to society? What contributions do they make to the world around them? In what ways would their loss be felt?

I couldn’t think of any either.

I’m sure if he were with us today and driving on urban streets, Shakespeare’s Dick the Butcher would agree that lawyers should most certainly be spared over cyclists.

6 comments:

  1. Well said! UNFORTUNATELY, society is not and likely never will be on your side on this one. Check out this link to the Washington Post:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091003213.html

    Even worse that the heroic status idealist reporters confer on these road pests is the martyrdom to which they are elevated in death. I point no further than the local letters submission, with photo, that appeared just two days after Post editors obviously read your blog and decided it necessary to quash these anti-bike sentiments before the masses are inspired to action.

    DON'T GIVE UP CURMUDGEON! We NEED your voice!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cyclists???really...your solution is guns?...how pedestrian...ha ha...how parochial...Not only is the gripe akin to complaining about a hangnail but the solution is so.....vanilla...come with the thunder....In D.C., even the hoods would be creative and lure cycling pizza-istas into alley ways and clothsline them and then take the pizza and the cash from the stunned rider...Guns though? Sheesh...How far the playwrights have fallen....

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's not really possible for a playwright to fall, is it? How much lower could one go?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course, maybe the solution is no further than the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, there must be some reason why they added a foot/bike path!

    ReplyDelete
  5. They've done it again! Today the Washington Post has a LENGTHY front page STYLE Section story: "Look Ma, No Brakes!" --how stripped down fixes have long been the bike of choice among couriers and now "hip" urbanites have "gotten the message." (ha, ha nice place on words Wash Post) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/27/AR2009092703241.html

    Large photo splashed across the front of the Style section, then another even larger one on page 2 of Style and a third smaller one also.

    "What a profile they cut, slicing through the city: gorgeous, exotic, dangerous. You see them parked like emaciated steeds outside the coolest clubs." Ugh! What crap!!

    Curmudgeon I think you owe it to your faithful followers to fight fire with fire and submit this blog to the Post for publication. Demand equal time!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "gorgeous, exotic, dangerous" What are they, strippers?

    ReplyDelete