I haven't read this yet but I wanted to be the first to post it. Pretty interesting that the economist is reporting on this. Okay off to read it.

https://www.economist.com/world/unite...ry_id=11848985

Okay I read it. I don't know the facts about the Seattle incident bu it looks like they are pretty on point about the New York cop. I think the economist is correct that we need a revolution in manners but honestly I would be pretty content is drivers realized that I was in fact legally obligated to use the road and not the sidewalk.

This article describes a very inefficient use of your bicycle... using it to pound on a car. A U-lock has a great size-to-weight ratio and works much better.

It's a brief factual article, but I'm not sure it conveys any useful information.

True but there sure is a juicy comment section.

Nice article. But a couple of negative isolated incidents dont equate a downside for cycling’s popularity. For the many years I've been comuting I have had far more positive encounters with motorists than negative ones. However, I do agree that, "It looks as though there is a need, on both sides, for a revolution in manners." That could do everyone some good.

The problem is that too many of those rushing to become bike commuters ride the same way they drive...impatient, rude and clueless. It's good that they get a taste of their own medicine on a bike, maybe when they give up the fad and go back to their cars they'll have a bit more appreciation of the cyclists they encounter.

See, now there's an insightful comment. You should have written the article - that's better than what the economist came up with.

I think the biggest problem is people are afraid of hitting someone on a bicycle because of the consequences that follow. When people are afraid, they get angry.

Yoda says: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side"

The two things that need to happen:

education for Drivers AND cyclists. - This is hard because Cyclists don't need to get "licensed" To ride. So there is no "Cyclists education" courses required. Personally, I am not in favor of Licensing. This will lead to registration, taxing and requirement of insurance. For me, a big attraction to the bicycle is the freedom it represents from these systems. But a solution needs to come into place for education of both. A good start would be improve drivers ed curriculum and include chapters on handling different vehicle traffic.

secondly, Facilitation for alternative modes of transport.
Because of the difference in vehicle class, It is in everyone's interest to have bike lanes. For safety and awareness, a Bike lane makes sense. A lot of people want different rules drafted for bikes and cars, but I think that's silly. It's bad enough people don't know the current laws, adding a separate set is just going to confuse people, and further distance the sides. Adding a lane changes no laws, and simply follow the traffic laws, Bicycle or Car. If you're going to change the rules, make them universal, not just for cars or bikes.

The article mentions that bicycle deaths are up sharply. I imagine that this must be true, given the fact that more people are cycling, and that a lot of those new cyclists have little or no experience riding in traffic, but are there any hard statistics to back this up? Here in Seattle, I don't get the impression that tons of cyclists are getting run down on a regular basis; in fact, I'd venture to say that the increase in ridership has possibly even made things safer, because drivers encounter bicyclists often enough now to know how to deal with them.

I love the comments!

details on the seattle incident if you're interested in what happened:

https://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...ves/144527.asp

I'm not a big fan of critical mass. But I'm less of a fan of impatient drivers.