Anti Cycling but pretty Funny

[Lifelover]

There is an article in the WSJ that I suspect express the felling many people are having.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218600999993800.html

Leaves me feeling that there are many places where people should not be riding bikes. Busy city streets and sidewalks are one of them.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . was funny. No longer. But not just because of this story. He just sounds snide. Like William F. Buckley without the veneer of big word vocabulary.

He sounds somewhat reasonable in this story, but he also sounds exactly like the driver in the Escalade who's attitude is "As a matter of fact, I DO own the road!" and will deliberately brush you with his mirror to "teach you a lesson."

BBD

[Tommasini53]

...not really funny, not very accurate, and not entertaining. its interesting that mr. o'rouke believes cyclists should pay fees to fund their own infrastructure...how about the same for cars and the interstate highway system?

[JeffS]

No, it's not funny.

[firerescuefin]

"But my main comment about this article is that it's just not funny. Unfortunately it sounds like someone trying to be funny and, well, just not hitting the mark." - Ed. Reply

Don't you have to be able to write to get a piece like this published in the WSJ. At least one high ranking editor there must feel a little uncomfortable/self conscious/homophobe/have an anti cycling agenda when he sees dudes in bike shorts riding around the city because this article is neither subjectively funny nor objectively accurate. You would think it would have to be one or the other.

[zap]

...not really funny, not very accurate, and not entertaining. its interesting that mr. o'rouke believes cyclists should pay fees to fund their own infrastructure...how about the same for cars and the interstate highway system?

Registration fees, tax on gasoline, police officers fining drivers that drive and ever increasing number of toll roads.

But.........I just read the piece this morning. I like O'Rourke but this editorial left me cold.

Anyhow, back to the tax thing. Considering the amount of total taxes paid, I expect prestine roads with bike lanes striped with gold paint.

I'm more than happy to take O'Rourke out for a spin on bicycles and talk politics and taxes and.........

[Pyramor]

Agreed, not funny. Not having read other articles by Mr. O'Rourke I cannot say if he intends to be facetious, but this piece reeks of sanctimonious hubris.

[martinrjensen]

I don't ride on the sidewalks but busy city streets all the time. Actually the more traffic, the safer I feel. Less likely someone is going to just whoosh past you. I just assume that every driver is out to personally kill me, and I'm fine.

[JMerring]

just another day at the wsj! pj o'rourke's a turd. not funny at all.

[JohnHemlock]

Since cyclists are generally humorless, I'm not surprised nobody is laughing. I thought it was the usual mildly amusing O'Rourke, who was much funnier before he gave up cocaine.

I agree with his premise of keeping fat people off of bikes, however. Who wants to see that?

[RFC]

Since cyclists are generally humorless, I'm not surprised nobody is laughing. I thought it was the usual mildly amusing O'Rourke, who was much funnier before he gave up cocaine.

I agree with his premise of keeping fat people off of bikes, however. Who wants to see that?

+1
+1
+1

[drewski]

From the article
In fact, bike lanes don't necessarily lessen car travel. A study by the U.K. Department for Transport found that the installation of "cycle facilities" in eight towns and cities resulted in no change in the number of people driving cars. Bike lanes don't even necessarily increase bike riding. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Dutch government spent $945 million on bicycle routes without any discernible effect on how many Dutch rode bicycles

Not only is not that funny but he also makes very specious
arguments.


27% percent of all trips in Netherlans today are done by bicycle.
From
http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS000001.pdf?check=1



NetherlandsBetween 1980 and 2005, cycling increased by 45%, and cyclist fatalities decreased by 58%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers

[rugbysecondrow]

Since cyclists are generally humorless, I'm not surprised nobody is laughing. I thought it was the usual mildly amusing O'Rourke, who was much funnier before he gave up cocaine.

I agree with his premise of keeping fat people off of bikes, however. Who wants to see that?


Agreed.

Lets not forget he is an entertainer, his job is to get readers, clicks, hits etc. He has succeeded.
:beer:

[BumbleBeeDave]

He totally leaves out the safety aspect and I pretty much expected that was what he was doing.

I think Pyramor's "sanctimonious hubris" description really nails it. If O'Rourke is trying to be tongue in cheek he is failing miserably.

The whole story to me also reeks of other totally serious pieces I've seen in the vain of "We have to do something about all these (insert racial or ethnic group names here) *people* or they are going to multiply and take away our birthright!" The authors truly don't realize how bigoted they are being.

BBD

From the article
In fact, bike lanes don't necessarily lessen car travel. A study by the U.K. Department for Transport found that the installation of "cycle facilities" in eight towns and cities resulted in no change in the number of people driving cars. Bike lanes don't even necessarily increase bike riding. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the Dutch government spent $945 million on bicycle routes without any discernible effect on how many Dutch rode bicycles

Not only is not that funny but he also makes very specious
arguments.


27% percent of all trips in Netherlans today are done by bicycle.
From
http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS000001.pdf?check=1



NetherlandsBetween 1980 and 2005, cycling increased by 45%, and cyclist fatalities decreased by 58%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers

[Bobbo]

+1
+1
+1

+2
+2
+2

Geez guys, lighten up. Untwist yer panties. You want sanctimonious? Read some of your own posts.

Signed,
Bill Buckley

[Kirk007]

The authors truly don't realize how bigoted they are being.

BBD

more likely - don't care. I mean when you are right about everything and everyone else is wrong is not up to those in the right to change or give a damn, its incumbent on the uncouth masses to change.

[Elefantino]

Meh.

Not PJ's best. But someone at the WSJ obviously thought it was a knee-slapper.

[benb]

It sounds like they may have asked BSNYC to write a rebuttal. If they're going for comedy they should have posted the snob's reply. As it is, it just seems undignified for a paper that is supposed to be so professional. I am too young to really remember as I've never really been a subscriber, did they print stuff like this before they were bought by newscorp? This strikes me as something I would expect out of Fox News, but not the WSJ.

[christian]

It's this type of nonsense that made me give up my WSJ subscription.