Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Alan Painter and Andrew Barker some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

New York's bike lanes put Seattle 'sharrows' to shame

Dedicated 'cycle tracks' are coming to a few streets in Seattle, but this city would do well to emulate Manhattan, not just Portland and Eugene.
New York's bike lanes put Seattle 'sharrows' to shame, but they aren't universally loved.

New York's bike lanes put Seattle 'sharrows' to shame, but they aren't universally loved. Hugo Kugiya

Copenhagen, Denmark, is often cited as a bicyclist’s Xanadu, a place where more than a third of the population (according to the city) commutes to work by bicycle, a city with hundreds of miles of protected bicycle lanes, keeping with its image as a global center of forward, environmental thinking.

It is a city, in other words, that Seattle would be safe to emulate. In other faraway cities like Amsterdam, bicyclists prevail if only by sheer numbers. They feel so safe, many do not even bother with bicycle helmets. They ride their bicycles around town in suits and skirts as if riding a bike was as heroic as walking. (Now picture instead the Seattle cyclist decked out like some kind of a fringe crusader.)

Montreal, perhaps the most culturally European city in North America, also boast hundreds of miles of dedicated, protected bike lanes, generically called cycle tracks. More than a painted line, a cycle track is a dedicated lane that is protected from vehicle traffic by some kind of physical barrier, be it trees, a concrete wall or a row of parked cars.

Closer to home, in Eugene, Ore., bicyclists for more than a decade have enjoyed the convenience and safety of riding in cycle tracks, said Barbara Culp, executive director of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington.

“They had cycle tracks 15 years ago and it was just an enormous difference,” said Culp, whose daughter attended college in Eugene. “There’s an ongoing cycling culture in Oregon that dates back to the 1970s…we’ve always been playing catch-up.”

Seattle’s Department of Transportation (SDOT) has only recently moved to add cycle tracks to its Bicycle Master Plan. (Its current plan does not mention cycle tracks, although technically one exists along Alki Beach in West Seattle.)

In a small step forward, Seattle has planned the construction of cycle tracks in two locations, along Broadway on Capitol Hill, and along a one-mile stretch of Linden Avenue North from North 128th Street to North 145th Street. (Plans for a Dexter Avenue cycle track were abandoned, in part, because of the steep grade of that street.) Richard Sheridan, spokesman for SDOT, said the Linden Avenue track could be completed in 2012, the Broadway track by 2013. To some, this is progress, to others a relatively small gesture that does not represent a meaningful improvement in the lives of bicycle commuters.

“It (Linden Avenue) is an easy way to say, ‘We have a cycle track,’ ” Culp said. “Broadway would be more significant. What I would say is put one downtown on Fourth or Second avenue. That would definitely get my vote.”

The city, for now, is not considering cycle tracks downtown, Sheridan said.

Playing catch-up to Copenhagen or Amsterdam — flat, compact cities where bicycling is rooted in the culture — is perhaps no dishonor. Nor is it necessarily a disgrace to play catch-up to Eugene, a relatively small, homogeneous city where there is more unanimity than plurality of thought, and a less complex transportation infrastructure to amend and accommodate.

But in the last few years, Seattle has been overtaken by another bicycle-progressive city, and it's not Portland, which also is consistently rated a better city for bicyclists than Seattle. This might come as a surprise to many: It's New York, which has neither the mild weather of San Francisco nor the West-Coast and Rocky-Mountain inclination toward wholesome, Earth-loving, nurturing behavior.

Yet, New York City’s Department of Transportation saw fit to install cycle tracks on most of Manhattan’s major avenues and cross streets and on major arterials in the outer boroughs. Between the summers of 2006 and 2009, the city built 200 bike-lane miles, nearly double its pre-2006 total.

The cycle tracks “have proven incredibly effective at improving safety not just for cyclists, but also for pedestrians and motorists,” wrote Monty Dean, spokesman for the New York DOT, in an e-mail to Crosscut.com. “A protected path was installed on a section of Ninth Avenue in 2007 and injuries to all street users there have declined by more than 50 percent and we’ve seen similar improvements at other locations.”

New York’s cycle tracks are protected by the sidewalk on one side and a lane of parked cars on the other. From a distance it appears cars are double-parked. To create the protected paths, a lane of traffic for cars had to be eliminated, a sacrifice that prompted complaints of back-ups and of the eyesore created by vehicles parked, seemingly, in the middle of the street. Yet the city continued to paint new cycle tracks.

David Hiller, advocacy director at the Cascade Bicycle Club in Seattle, said that during a trip to New York he observed bicyclists occasionally riding the wrong way and cars occasionally using the paths to pass traffic. He conceded that perhaps there is no such thing as a perfect accommodation for bicycles, but he favors the step New York has taken.

“The best thing to improve bicycle safety,” Hiller said, “is to get more people bicycling. That’s what we know now.”

Whether ultimately successful or not, New York’s cycle tracks are a bold statement — taking a lane away from the car and giving it to the bicycle — that is difficult to imagine here in Seattle, where everyone talks the part (read the city’s “Walk Bike Ride” initiative) and dresses the part (spandex and bicycle slippers are as regular a part of the Seattle uniform as the habit of middle-aged men growing beards), but does not seem willing to pay the true price of becoming a cycling city. A proposed bike lane on Nickerson Street (while not a cycle track, it would eliminate a lane of traffic) has already generated loud protest even though the DOT has deemed the street an under-utilized arterial that would not be adversely affected by the elimination of a lane.

While Seattle seems to have successfully marketed its love-to-pedal image, the reality of life on two wheels seems far different from the fantasy of happily strapping your inflatable kayak and Gore-Tex briefcase onto your bicycle rack as you prepare for your morning commute — with GPS-enabled, titanium coffee mug sitting in its handle-bar mounted cup-holder, and your thought-activated, full-screen genius-phone mounted to your helmet made out of recycled Kevlar.

One possible explanation is that Seattle, for as much as it hates to admit it, loves the car, a crisis of conscience that most of us can probably relate to and one that was fictionally portrayed in the iconic Seattle movie, “Singles,” in which one of the protagonists drives a gas-guzzling American car to the chagrin of her mass-transit-advocate love interest. People tend to resort to car alternatives not out of well-intentioned principle or fashionable cause but out of convenience. Driving a car in Seattle, for all the complaints about traffic, might still be too easy to do. So at present, the outrage and uproar over losing a lane of traffic on Second Avenue would probably outweigh the celebration of the creation of a cycle track on the same street.

Another explanation is the persistent and foggy notion that, in all matters great and small, Seattle possesses a “political culture of dithering and inaction,” said Ted Inkley, former Seattle city attorney and board member of the Bicycle Alliance of Washington. “I’m not blaming (Mayor Mike) McGinn or any particular individual. We used to joke at city hall that it’s something that gets pumped into the air-conditioning ducts.”

Walkers and bicyclists need their own space. I know that’s heresy to some people in the cycling community, but I think separation is key if you want to get bicycling into the mainstream.
—Ted Inkley, board member, Bicycle Alliance of Washington

For whatever reason, Inkley said, Seattle’s planners have a hard time “matching its actions to its stated intentions. … Compromise and discussion and inclusiveness are a good thing, but sometimes you have to act. That’s where this city has fallen down on all kinds of environmental and transportation projects.”

Inkley described the city’s approach to bicycle infrastructure as “nip and tuck” surgery, mostly in the form of shared-lane markings, or "sharrows" — lines painted on streets to designate bicycle traffic.

Paths like the Burke Gilman trail expose pedestrians to bicyclists. Cycle tracks, by contrast, are unique in that pedestrians are not allowed on them. This solves a less-considered side of the bicycling problem (judging by many of the comments left on this website at the end of stories about bicycling), namely that walkers and drivers often find that cyclists are the menace, running red lights, failing to yield to pedestrians, riding the wrong way on a one-way street, claiming the sidewalk when it is convenient, flouting traffic laws that in their minds only marginally pertain to them. The negative sentiment builds into a perception that bicyclists want it both ways: They want the rights and protections of pedestrians without the constraints or obligations required of drivers.

“Cyclists can intimidate too,” Inkley said. “Walkers and bicyclists need their own space. I know that’s heresy to some people in the cycling community, but I think separation is key if you want to get bicycling into the mainstream. You have to have separation.”

So while Seattle bicyclists might soon have a few stretches of pleasant if not entirely useful roadway to call their own, that divorce between bicyclists and everyone else appears a long way off.

A former national correspondent for The Associated Press and Newsday, freelance writer Hugo Kugiya has written about the Northwest for the Puget Sound Business Journal, The Seattle Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. His book, 58 Degrees North, about the sinking of the Arctic Rose fishing vessel, was a finalist for the 2006 Washington State Book Award. You can reach him at hugo.kugiya@gmail.com.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 7:05 a.m. Inappropriate

Readers should note that the Broadway cycle track means that there will be one lane in each direction that is shared by cars, trucks, buses AND the new streetcar. In other words, the northbound streetcar will have to wait for any cars taking a right turn across the bike track and pedestrian crosswalk. The southbound streetcar will also have to wait for any vehicles taking right turns. Traffic on Broadway is already bad with four lanes and two-way left turn lanes. This is just going to make it worse.

sean98125

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 8:46 a.m. Inappropriate

I've been a daily bicycle commuter between Ballard, downtown, and the U District for more than 30 years.

Sharrows seem like a dangerous waste of paint to me -- false advertising regarding bicycle safety and bicycle friendliness. My test is "Would I have been willing to ride there with my kids when they were young?" The answer is "not a chance." Bike lanes are the minimum. And, in related news, the decades-old deadlock regarding the "missing link" of the Burke-Gilman Trail through Ballard is shameful.

lazowska

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 10:04 a.m. Inappropriate

I'm a daily commuter from the EastSide to Seattle. (off and on for the last 30 years depending on where I am working/living) So far all sharrows have given me are more honking cars as they try to push me farther into the "door zone."

The cycle track on Broadway is horrible in that there needs to be two of them, one each direction. Also the intermix with street cars also will suck badly. I almost wish they put bicycles one street over to the East and leave Broadway to pedestrians, cars & the street car. With bicycles able to ride the short distance between blocks to access the stores on the sidewalks but generally through traffic moved one block East.

Still I hear at work numerous complaints about trying to bicycle through the city and how bad the cycle lane on 2nd is. Better to give us a lane going North on 4th and South on 2nd or 1st.

GaryP

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 10:08 a.m. Inappropriate

These bicycle-promoter articles are all the same: they are written from the assumption that bike-riding is "good", and car-driving is "bad." From the perspective of getting where you want to go in as quicklly as possible in as much comfort as possible, with all the things you want to take with you, there is no comparison: driving a car is far "better" than driving a bicycle. And the vast majority of people in Seattle feel this way, as evidenced by the very small number of people who ride bikes compared to those who drive cars or ride buses.

It's one thing to make bike riding more convenient and safer. It's another thing to do that by making driving or taking a bus less convenient. For example, allowing bicycles to use the bus-only lanes on Elliot and 15th Ave.s W. is just stupid, since one self-important bicyclist riding 10 mph in the bus-only lane can slow the trips of dozens of bus riders.

Taking lanes away from cars and buses is a very bad idea. This is not going to force people to ride bikes. Many of us are physically unable to ride bikes, and most of us don't have the time to waste taking trips by bicycle. If the city insists on making driving more and more difficult, there is going to be a stronger and stronger backlash against bicyclists and "road diets". We are just beginning to see this backlash. It is going to get much stronger.

Most people are not aware of the city's unstated strategy of making driving more difficult. But, they are beginning to catch on. And when people begin to understand what is going on, most are not happy about it.

Lincoln

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate

KUOW 'Weekday' had an interesting discussion on cycling in Seattle a few weeks back. As Hugo notes, discussion touched on our how cycling culture here is still young and evolving. Yes, we have the hardcores who will commute by bike rain or shine (I used to be one of them), but the hills and rain are discouraging for those of us who need to wear business clothes during the week, or don't want to show up sweaty to a social engagement somewhere. These are basic impediments that keep people off bikes for certain trips, regardless of the friendliness of the streets.

After two weeks cycling through Holland recently (flat as a Dutch pancake!), I came to love the practical, bicycle-friendly ways there. I assume that, over time, Seattle will find ways to help bike-trips replace some car-trips, but I'm not sure we have the natural ingredients to make cycling as prevalent as the cities Hugo mentions. Sure would be nice, but I'm not sure it's realistic. -joe

jsperry

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate

For pictures and maps of New York's cycle tracks, and how they fit into the city, check out this issue of Price Tags - http://www.sightline.org/publications/enewsletters/price_tags/pricetags108.pdf
Vancouver has just built its first cycle track on Dunsmuir Street (a two-way, thereby avoiding the 'bike salmon' problem), with plans for a connecting route on Hornby Street.

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 1:23 p.m. Inappropriate

Streets are for automobiles, trucks, and bus traffic. Trails are for bikes; sharrows and cycle tracks are AUTOPHOBIC.

animalal

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2:11 p.m. Inappropriate

Interesting that the anti-bike arguments contain logical fallacies, claims unsupported by evidence, outright lies, and basic fear mongering. Whether you agree with it or not, the article itself seems pretty well reasoned.

If the anti-bike crowd would make more reasoned, truth-based arguments, you would be taken more seriously.

andy

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2:15 p.m. Inappropriate

Great article! Yes, sharrows are meaningless, dangerous, and a waste of money. After all candidates pledged to "support war on cars" at the WaBus Survivor political event, one would have thought that we might have seen some political leadership. Instead, we have the same dated policies and no movement beyond more PR. I penned a few thoughts on how to really change things for pedestrians and cyclists, many of which don't require a lot of money: http://lightandair.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/pedestrian-primacy/

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2:21 p.m. Inappropriate

inplainair: #7 in your article is fantastic!

7. Eliminate Walk Buttons at Traffic Signals

Except for buttons that stop traffic immediately, walk buttons at traffic signals should be removed. A walk button that ‘allows’ pedestrians to cross at the next green light is an insulting example of current auto primacy. Why should every pedestrians be required to wait? Where installed, walk signs should operate at every signal change.

andy

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2:23 p.m. Inappropriate

Seattle's hills: obstacle to opportunity. What if give cyclists and their bikes a quick easy, free lift to the top of our steep hills: Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, First Hill & Beacon Hill? Many long tiresome rides beyond the capability of all but athletic cyclists would suddenly become a downhill breeze. Metro could use small buses with cycle trailers attached. Dexter is not a steep grade for geared bikes - there must be other reasons why bike lanes were axed. And, if Dexter is too steep, why wasn't the route relocated to Westlake rather than eliminated entirely?

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 2:40 p.m. Inappropriate

The hill thing is not a problem. I don't know who made that up--not a bike rider. People can always walk their bikes up hills if need be. The bike shuttle thing up hills sounds nice, but it ends up taking too much time to wait for the shuttle.

The main obstacle to bike riding is the safety issue. If we can solve that, many more people will ride.

Also, every one does not need to ride bikes, just a higher percentage of the population. This will also reduce congestion for autos.

One more point: lack of bike infrastructure is a tax fairness problem. City streets are paid for mostly from property and sales tax--not gas tax. Why should all this be spent on auto infrastructure?

andy

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 4:05 p.m. Inappropriate

Funny how the "we fear change" car enthusiasts get het up at any hint of making things easier or safer for cyclists when our culture/space allocation/revenue stream has to work so hard to make the act of moving 200 pounds of person a few miles using 2,000 pounds of metal make any practical or financial sense.

Yes there are hills and drizzle in Seattle. No it's not that hard to get around on a bike. Many neighborhoods are flat enough for local errands and such, and there are flatter routes between neighborhoods if you know them. Or ride slowly/walk up a hill.

Seattle's bike infrastructure needs to focus more on well-marked traffic-calmed bike boulevards on non-arterials for convenient intra-neighborhood travel, and faster, separated infrastructure for inter-neighborhood travel and commutes.

Bike boulevards are cheap, safe, and win-win. They slow traffic on residential streets, increase property values, and draw bikes to flow-prioritized non-arterials. No-one but the hardcore (vocal) 1-2% wants to ride on arterials, bike lanes or not. And cagers like animalal don't want them there either (luckily it's not up to them).

As for sharrows, I used to be a hater, but I find them preferable to Seattle's latest crop of narrow door zone bike lanes. At least the sharrows usually indicate proper lane positioning. But again, all the recent emphasis on arterials (road diets, etc) may be good for overall safety, but I wish SDOT would draw from Portland for the bike boulevard network, and NYC et al for the grade-separated infrastructure between neighborhoods.

Thanks for an excellent article.

joolian

Posted Mon, Aug 23, 6:49 p.m. Inappropriate

We should have dedicated bicycle lanes throughout the city that are safe enough for children to bicycle to school. We have for too long been deprived of our freedom to travel safely without mechanization.
Fewer cars means that we can bicycle to the store, walk to a restaurant, or ride a bus without breathing fumes from stalled traffic.

Enough worry about the rising temperatures, 4 to 10 oF by 2100, depending on when we stop burning fossil fuels. Enough wondering when the waters of Puget Sound will start lapping at the porches of waterfront condos.

The arrogance of the petroleum industry has trapped us into a lifestyle that is unhealthy for us and for the Earth.
We know how to turn it down - stop burning those fossil fuels. The other benefits will be wonderful. Healthier lifestyles, friendlier neighborhoods, active children, more birds and less smog. We know how to build electric vehicles that store clean energy from wind, solar, geothermal sources.
We know how to be much more energy efficient, we know that more trees makes our city cool and beautiful and that these changes would cost a fraction of what the damage from the warming is going to cost us.

The citizens of the US can turn it around. We can personally use less gasoline and less electricity, and more important , we can press our government to take the need action to stop global warming.

Thanks to all of you who are helping make the difference!!
Have you read Guy Dauncey's Climate Challenge, 101 Solutions to Global Warming? Or Paul Loeb's Soul of a Citizen?
Do you lobby every week? http://greenpeace.org; http://pirg.org; http://nrdc.org http://1sky.org http://sustainableseattle.org/

Posted Tue, Aug 24, 8:43 a.m. Inappropriate

Street Films has done a number of interesting videos on bicycles, sharrows, NYC, Portland and Seattle. Well worth your time to watch if you'd like to be better informed about what other cities are up to. Heck Minneapolis has a dedicated bike commuting community and their winters are clearly worse than Seattle's.

http://www.streetfilms.org/bicycle-boulevards4nyc/

Oh and Norway has these cool bicycle lifts for their hills, it's a foot track in the street than you stand on and it brings you and your bike to the top of the hill.

All solvable problems.

GaryP

Posted Tue, Aug 24, 12:06 p.m. Inappropriate

Note: Not all New Yorker's are thrilled with these "urban terrorists" on two wheels.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/city_must_end_this_cycle_of_violence_ZADtUmzPM7M9Oo6BwxpqsK?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME;=

People hate change, even if it's good for them.

GaryP

Posted Tue, Aug 24, 12:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Actually, it would be a good start if Seattle actually emulated Eugene and Portland. SDOT doesn´t even do that much, let alone do what actual bonafide world class cities do with bike infrastructure. In addition to Manhatten, we should be getting clues from Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Barcelona, but instead all we get is sharerows, which are a waste of paint.

Mud Baby

Posted Tue, Aug 24, 6:01 p.m. Inappropriate

I ride to work almost every day, and all over town all the time. Every time I read a bicycle post, I get the feeling I am surrounded by a bunch of whiners.

And I ride a bike most all the time. Think of what this must sound like to the vast majority of people who don't.

Jan

Posted Wed, Aug 25, 9:06 a.m. Inappropriate

Seattle's hostility to bicycles and bicyclists is of a kind with its hostility to adequate mass transit -- xenophobic, bigoted, institutionalized, cloaked in euphemisms and (above all else), grotesque proof the so-called Emerald City's claim to environmental enlightenment is among the most breathtaking hypocrisies in municipal history.

Posted Thu, Aug 26, 4:53 p.m. Inappropriate

Oh good heavens, bicyclists are getting a bit paranoid. "Hostility, exophobic, bigoted, institutionalized"? Buses are great. We need more of them (however, apparently we're going to get less of them, according to Metro.) But this city was not designed for bikes. It can't be immediately transformed in a bike-safe city. More bikes on the streets won't make it a bike-safe city; that will only mean more accidents between cars and bikes. Don't complain about that to people who can't ride bikes.

Jan's right: what do your complaints sound like to people who can't ride due to age/medical reasons/children to transport/boxes to transport/clients to meet/etc.? Complaining doesn't change how the city is laid out NOW. Calling non-bikers names certainly doesn't either.

sarah

Posted Thu, Aug 26, 9:33 p.m. Inappropriate

As a pedestrian who has nearly been run over a number of times on the Burke Gilman and other pedestrian/bicycle trails, I have developed a suspicion of and hostility towards bikers. Before we start creating more bike lanes or trails, I'd like to see some civility developed. How about handing out tickets to bikers who run stop signs or red lights, speed on trails, or fail to yield to pedestrians? Perhaps biker behavior would improve and fewer people would be angry at the perceived biker bias by the city.

SilviaC

Posted Fri, Aug 27, 10:31 a.m. Inappropriate

Touting buses as "great" implies denial of terminal climate change, blindness to the finite nature of fossil fuel supplies and rejection of the historical truth of class struggle – specifically our methodical oppression and enslavement by the Big Oil/Big Automotive baronies and the governmental policies so mandated.

Having had the misfortune to live four years in Seattle (the most maliciously unwelcoming people I have ever known), I also experienced the murderous hatred with which Seattle motorists target bicyclists, and I soon abandoned the bicycle lest some automotive Ted Bundy run me into the graveyard – never mind that for years I had comfortably bicycled the length and breadth of Manhattan.

Because I covered public transport not just here but in the NYC/New Jersey metropolis and nationally, I know Puget Sound voters and legislators have rejected six of eight transit measures in 42 years -- a hostility to public transport that apparently has no counterpart in the U.S. or for that matter anywhere on the planet.

This antagonism is of course the real reason local transit is four decades behind that of all comparable urban areas, a now-hopeless deficiency that – given capitalism's theft of government revenue – cannot ever be corrected.

I know too that public opinion research reveals the region's hostility to light rail is motivated almost entirely by xenophobia and bigotry: in general the idiotic notion transit is welfare – undeserved mobility for lower-income “undesirables” – and specifically in Seattle the moronic belief adequate transit will somehow turn Emeraldville into "another Jew York."

Hence I recognize the psycholinguistic bond that unites anti-transit and anti-bike hatefulness – the malevolent solidarity expressed in the expletive “get a car you fucking bum” – and I see all too clearly the (unprecedented) hypocrisy of an electorate that proclaims itself “progressive” and boasts of superior environmental consciousness even as it (predictably) votes in closet-fascist lockstep for the most vindictively reactionary, selfishly anti-environmental outcomes possible.

Posted Fri, Aug 27, 2:32 p.m. Inappropriate

@lorenbliss, perhaps people are against transit because it is not cost-effective in a region like ours which is nicely served by buses at a much lower cost. Bus rapid-transit could have been completed at a fraction of the cost, extended to serve many more neighborhoods, and stop at more stations.

And ask your "undesirables" in south Seattle how much they like light rail, which requires them to take a bus or car to the rail stop since it much further away than were the local bus stops. If no one is taking rail in the current corridor, which is heavily public-transit-oriented already, why do you want to waste billions more on routes without the population density to support decent ridership?

The same sentiment extends to bike lanes. Are many more people going to ride bikes in hilly, wet Seattle if we dump money into a Sound Transit for bicycles? I think not. I sold my bike last year as it was growing cobwebs in my garage (I live on a steep hill).

SilviaC

Posted Wed, Sep 1, 5:51 p.m. Inappropriate

lorenbliss--your analyses are spot on. I recommend reading some Immanuel Wallerstein. Seattle is run by the developers and moneyed interests. They may be socially liberal, but they don't give a rip about the general welfare if it's going to come out of their pockets. It's been a boosters town from the start.

I went to college on Manhattan, and biked everywhere. That was in the late 60s/early 70s, and there was zero accommodation for the few of us. I've been doing the same since coming here in 72. I never felt unsafe in NYC, unlike here where I have to scream at an oblivious driver about once a week. On the other hand, by and large Seattle drivers are not impolite, just, as I say, oblivious. It probably helps that I stop for red lights, etc. In fact, I also yell at bikers when they do outrageous and car provoking moves.

louploup

Posted Wed, Sep 1, 5:53 p.m. Inappropriate

Caveat--a few of the rich do give a rip. Like all generalizations, it is proven by the exceptions, like Bill Gates Sr. and I-1098.

louploup

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »