at least he replied to you, heh. Are we that far along in our evolution that we're this thick-headed? srsly?

I need some of this to ease my blood pressure:

I confess that I sent him an email, too, even though he doesn't deserve my insights (or any of those given here), but I enjoyed it. It isn't as good as some of the others here, but I like my concluding thought. This is what I sent him:

Here’s a contrasting article to yours:
https://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20090407/cm_csm/yboelte

This has vision, thought, and feeling. I guess you were attempting satire, which can be good, but when you say that you “might run us over,” do you know that you would likely kill one of us if you did so? That’s not funny.

When you say that with all the things you do while you drive, like texting, don’t you realize that you can’t do those things and drive safely? You’ve admitted that you plan to drive unsafe and that we (bicyclists) need to get off the road, but the truth of the matter is that you need to get off the road.

Then you go on to say how you were forced, evidently by a bicyclist, to speed up and veer quickly back into your lane to avoid hitting a speeding car. What an idiot.

Not many people like to read articles written by idiots.

I was not all that offended by this guy's article. Granted it was written like crap, his rather weak attempt at comedy was lame, and he made it pretty clear that he does not quite get that bicylcles have a legal right to the lane, thus it was poor journalism, but I see it as yet another warning. His rant reminds me, once again, that many of those who drive in cars consider us nothing more than a nuisance.

This idiot is not alone. The article reiterates the need for us to operate our bikes as defensively as possible. For me, I act as though everybody thinks and drives like him.

FYI - Zack Colman is a Michigan State University student, just letting the east lansing riders know.

Anyone else write the GM for the site? I did.

This reminds me of the magazine cover of the Obamas. The satire was completely obscured by perceptions of reality. I shall give it no further thought.

My take: The Obama cover was effective satire in that a lot of people really did have visions the couple as an "anti-American terrorist meets 60's revolutionary" running through their heads. It was a witty biting piece that demonstrated the lunacy in having that view.

I saw nothing of that nature in the piece written above. He started out with what I at first thought might have been a satirical warning to cyclists, reminding them that car drivers on campus do most everything in their cars except take showers, and paying attention to the road was not one of them.

Had he continued in that direction, he might have been OK. But, then he goes off on bikes getting in the way because they hog the lane.

Are you saying you think the author was just trying to ridicule car drivers, portraying them as uncaring spoiled brats that would just assume run down a cyclist for taking the lane then be late for class -- err, the gym?

So true. I had a guy honk at me in a harrassing manner everyday on my commute until he did it just around the corner from where he worked. I caught up w/him as he was exiting his car. Needless to say the confrontation was profanity laced, loud and uniquely 'southern' in it's mano y mano manifestation. For some reason southern men respect a good, even 'knuckle-up' and wont interfere. We developed a crowd of onlookers in a hurry. In the middle of the requisite preliminary 'wolfin' he took a good solid look at the resolution in my eyes and decided on negotiation as an honorable resolution. He NEVER has blown his horn at me again. Sometimes, ya just gotta 'take up fer yerself'.

hey, at least the kid now has a record of his bad attitude toward other road users that will be used against him when he gets in a wreck with a cyclist or willfully tries to run one down.

no one will consider him a "good driver" again after reading that little rant.

The Obama cover was provoking because of the numbers who agreed with the depiction, rather than for the numbers who felt intellectually superior by understanding the satire. Trust me, those that agreed with the depiction did not feel belittled, or in any way chastised by the cover.

I feel the same way about the article's author. His description that HE WAS REQUIRED to speed up, cut off the cyclist to get in front, then have to suddenly swerve to avoid a collision, is ineffective because of the number of people who do behave that way. His analysis of TDF average speeds being 0.1 mph below the speed limit on campus as being an intolerable obstruction to traffic flow fails to be appreciated because of the number of speeders and people who actually are upset by a few seconds delay. The distracted drivers and beliefs that you don't belong on the road are satires of stereotypes that fail because of the huge numbers who fit those stereotypes. And finally, not enough of the target audience understood the message, in fact, they got upset and took it literally.

It is possible that he was practicing a form of self-satire, in which case he deserves to be misunderstood.

edit: crap. you succeeded in making me give it further thought. dang. And also, I regret the analogy because the young author does not deserve to be put in the same category, nor get the same accolades, as the others.

I'm voting for d-bag.