Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Eileen Quigley and Barbara Whorton some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Seattle's bike-lane bigotry: Master planned?

Seattle's Biking Master Plan has focused most of its efforts on North Seattle, leaving the just-as-needy-but-less-wealthy neighborhoods down south to fend for themselves.
A bike wayfinding marking on a Seattle street.

A bike wayfinding marking on a Seattle street. Photo: SDOT

One way to claim space in the roadway (and make motorist enemies).

One way to claim space in the roadway (and make motorist enemies).

In 2007, with a fanfare, the Nickels administration proposed “within 10 years, to make Seattle the best community for bicycling in the United States.” The roadmap to this goal was supposed to be a Bicycle Master Plan, self-described as “visionary.” Six years on, how’s that vision working out?

The results can at best be described as mixed. If you take the crudest measure, the number of miles of “bicycle facilities” — dedicated or designated bicycle routes — laid down, the city's doing fairly well. It proposed to expand its “bicycle network” from just 68 miles in 2007 to 450 in 2017. As of 2012, it had built or — more often — painted 158 new miles, for a total of 226.

But it’s done that via a heavy reliance on the most confusing and unsafe but — whaddaya know — cheapest facility of all, the dreaded sharrow. You may know the sharrow as bicycle icons painted on otherwise ordinary traffic lanes to remind motorists to share the lane with bicyclists, as they're supposed to do anyway. Depending on whom you talk to or how the traffic is, sharrows are (a) instructive and mildly effective, (b) irrelevant, (c) confusing, and/or (d) a diabolical hoax, giving cyclists false confidence while suggesting to motorists that they have exclusive rights to streets that aren’t painted with them. (They don't.)

Ninety-two of those new miles were sharrows; the city fulfilled a whopping 83 percent of its intended sharrow miles. But it lags much further behind at implementing most other types of bicycle facilities; the kinds that require actually building new infrastructure or taking space from motorized traffic, such as bike lanes and neighborhood greenways (streets reconfigured to slow traffic and favor pedestrians and cyclists).

The sharrow strategy "may have helped to grow bicycling in the city,” the Cascade Bicycle Club concluded in its midterm “Seattle Bicycle Report Card” last year, but it “has likely excluded a significant percentage of potential new riders.” And it hasn’t fooled anyone into thinking that Seattle has built enough real bikeways ­­­— not even the folks who assemble national lists of bike-friendly cities.

Twenty-plus years ago, when today’s so-called Mayor McSchwinn was fresh out of law school, Seattle could make a fair claim to being the bike-friendliest city in the country. The Burke-Gilman Trail was a visionary model of rail-line repurposing, on a scale advocates in other regions could only dream of. By 2007, Seattle could only aspire to becoming best, but Bicycling magazine still rated it among America’s five top bicycling cities. (These ratings, based in large part on data assembled by the League of American Bicyclists, are supposed to reflect the “5 Es”: engineering, encouragement, evaluation and planning, education and enforcement.)

Last year, Seattle dropped to tenth on Bicycling’s list, behind not only Portland, Minneapolis, Boulder and Eugene, but San Francisco, Chicago and (horrors!) New York. It’s fallen most conspicuously behind Portland, which doesn’t bother with sharrows but instead, as of last year, had installed 318 miles of greenways and dedicated bike lanes and trails. Portland offers cyclists enough safety and service amenities — from bike sharing to dedicated traffic signals and wayfinding signs — to make Seattle’s efforts seem positively 20th century. More than 6 percent of Portland’s commuters go by bike; just 3.6 percent of Seattle’s do. Memo to Seattle’s anti-bike backlashers: Stop grousing. You could be in Portland.

Adding insult, even as two-wheeled Seattle fell in the ratings, the bicyclist’s league recognized Washington as the most bike-friendly state. Worse yet, the actual achievements Bicycling lauded Seattle for were more political than practical: “growing political support,” the PAC launched by the Cascade Bicycle Club (perhaps the largest such organization in the nation), the successful candidates it’s backed, such as Mayor Mike McGinn and City Councilmember Mike O’Brien.

The substantive story is very different. The 2007 Bicycle Master Plan, as conceived and especially as implemented, hasn’t just excluded novice, slow and cautious riders who can’t or won’t use the same lanes as cars. It has perpetuated an even more grievous form of exclusion ­­­— economic, geographic and racial.


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

Comments:

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate

Looking at the least-we-can-do-to-comply dimensions of most new bike lanes in Seattle, I'm glad my own commute route has sharrows.

Door zone bike lanes are more dangerous than no bicycle infrastructure at all. They encourage inexperienced cyclists to ride much too close to parked cars, and they increase harassment of cyclists who avoid the door zone.

As long Seattle's standard bike lane layout remains a substandard-width bike lane next to a parking strip too narrow for many SUVs and pickups, it's bike lanes that are a "cruel hoax", producing an illusion of safety while actually increasing the risk to cyclists.

jputnam

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:47 a.m. Inappropriate

I did not realize that South Seattle had been so neglected wrt bike infrastructure. I do hope that, as Sally Bagshaw has suggested, equity will have a more prominent position in the list of priorities in the Bicycle Master Plan update.

nwcitizen

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:57 a.m. Inappropriate

The single most effective thing Seattle could do to make transportation more effective - both for cyclist and drivers - is to enhance restrictions to on-street parking, if not completely eliminating it then at least expanding the rush-hours when parking isn't allowed on major arterials.

I'm sure drivers will complain that "there already isn't enough parking" - but think about how much time those same drivers waste sitting in traffic whenever the right-hand lane of a major arterial is backed up because someone is trying to parallel park.

Add in the factor that getting 'doored' is probably the most under-reported accident mode for cyclists, and it's difficult to avoid recognizing that on-street parking on arterials is both a public nuisance and major safety hazard.

As for businesses that complain they'll lose customers if parking is restricted: 1) they're wrong, as demonstrated by a recent study (http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2013/08/12/seattle-transit-blog-business-on-ne-65th-dramatically-increased-after-bike-lane-was-installed/#comment-618119) and 2) Why should the public pay to pave a road, only to see the efficiency of that transportation investment compromised?

Roads are for travelling - not parking. The sooner SDOT recognizes this, the sooner they'll be able to execute an easy and cost-effective fix to both cycling and driving on major arterials - including Rainier Avenue.

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:20 p.m. Inappropriate

I don't see SDOT ever giving up parking spaces to build safe bike lanes. I do see SDOT giving up parking spaces to build street car tracks. After all--streetcars have the coolness factor, and as far as SDOT is concerned, bike lanes just don't.

Mud Baby

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 8:39 a.m. Inappropriate

Not only is SDOT planning on giving up parking spaces for bike lanes, they are planning on giving them up for bike racks and parklets.

talisker

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 11:57 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for the article!

One sour note is the reference to "so-called Mayor McSchwinn" in place of his actual name. Did the author really write that, or was it added by some trolling editor?

Let me put this to you: can you think of any other politician whose name you would rhetorically mangle in an article? Or is this just to be done for McGinn?

spock

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:25 p.m. Inappropriate

I wrote that; Crosscut editors, bless 'em, don't tend to insert that sort of thing. But I didn't coin "Mayor McSchwinn." A conservative blogger claims first use on the Sound Politics site, but it seems like I heard it batted around, as a pejorative, even before, and that's how it's been used since. I added "so-called" and quote marks to acknowledge that usage, and to suggest it's not entirely deserved.

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 10:08 p.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for the reply!

One correction, there are no quote marks.

But you didn't answer my question: can you think of any other politician who would be referred to in Crosscut using a mangled version of their name? I expect not; no one does this because it is below the standards of respectful, constructive discourse. Is it proper to use in this article because you heard it batted around as a pejorative? I don't see your point about why you think this is OK.

spock

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 8:38 a.m. Inappropriate

Hi spock, I wasn't the final editor but I think that Eric's phrasing worked well there and was nuanced -- acknowledging the nickname without endorsing it and using it in a way that got at a larger point about lack of overall progress. In fact, to my mind his usage actually questions the griping that led to the nickname. I don't think it's insulting and I doubt the mayor does, but who knows? It's hard to say whether media would play with other local nicknames because few come to mind. I can tell you that after some internal debate we decided to let writers use "Obamacare" even though some folks felt it was an improper, ideologically charged coinage. I don't tend to use it myself but as best I can recall I've seen writers who happen to like the Affordable Care Act do use it. Anyway, not sure there's a right or wrong here. But we do like to give talented writers a bit of freedom.

Thanks for the questions.
-- Joe

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 3:21 p.m. Inappropriate

The best thing that SDOT could do to encourage and support bicycling repave the damned streets! It's downright scary trying to navigate busy streets, dodging potholes and other voids without swerving into motor traffic.

Too many bike lane stripes and sharrows are installed right over failing pavement as if the City never noticed.

But I'm not counting on much wisdom from the current administration. I bet the upcoming renewal of Bridging The Gap will continue to neglect basic needs like pavement, with the Ballard streetcar getting funded instead.

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:27 p.m. Inappropriate

It's also laughable how SDOT paints sharerows, and then lets them fade. Basic maintenance isn't as fun for SDOT as shiny stuff like the grand Euro-style boulevard it's building on six blocks of Mercer Street.

Cost: $240,000,000.

Achieving "the look" for Paul Allen: Priceless.

Mud Baby

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 1:36 p.m. Inappropriate

I agree - except for your characterization of the attempted fix of the "Mercer Mess." There's nothing "Euro" about its (lack of)style.

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 10:59 p.m. Inappropriate

Well, as someone who made his fifth trip to Paree (and not Texas) last spring, I don't think my ol' buddy the Champ del Eye Say has to worry any time soon about the challenge from the World Class Fake City, and its (dare we Frenchies say it?) rather pathetic and laughable attempts to measure up.

NotFan

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 6:31 p.m. Inappropriate

Totally agree about the lack of proper infrastructure.

MLK north of Union is dangerous for all modes. Don't try and cross it, walking, by car or on a bike, is all I can say. Visibility is terrble and drivers seem to always speed up. I am literally unwilling to cross it to my nearest bus stop. My life is worth walking 4 more blocks. People -- take one of the parallel streets where there is usually hardly any auto traffic.

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 8:20 p.m. Inappropriate

Still hoping for sidewalks on the north end (north of your nose, Eric).

I double-dog dare any of you to ride down Meridian from N 145th to N 130th.
It's two lanes, a metro bus route, checkerboard of open rainwater ditches and the occasional strip of blacktop sidewalk, punctuated with a 6-way stop with no sidewalks (where a new housing development is going in against the 1992 neighborhood plans that said it would be "dangerous" to increase density without infrastructure.
I guess that infrastructure was painting the sharrow bike symbols.
That's apparently safer than a few blocks east where the cyclist was killed a couple years ago. (145th and 1st ave N).

Put down the map, get off your ass, and travel wayyyyyyy to the "affluent" north end. You will notice that what is called the "affluent" north end ends a couple miles before the city limits of Seattle do.
Stand at N 145th and Aurora Ave N, look north, you will see a complete street, that's the City of Shoreline. Look South, that's what Seattle pretends doesn't exist.
Ride the oft-entertaining 358 on up, that will scrub the word "affluent" right out of your dictionary.

One day we will have light rail way up north (that's not "Northgate", there's 40 more blocks north that's Seattle) to complain about not being done "right" by cyclists.

Mr Baker

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:30 p.m. Inappropriate

Another thing Shoreline has that we don't: the Interurban Trail. Check it out in Google Earth. Oh well, at least we have sharerows to die for...

Mud Baby

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 8:42 a.m. Inappropriate

We do have the Interurban Trail from about 105th to 145th, part of it grade separated and part of it in a separate cycle track from 130th to 145th.

talisker

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 11:25 p.m. Inappropriate

From the article: "Seattle’s bicycle-route development so far has conspicuously favored prosperous, mostly white central and near-North End neighborhoods at the expense of less affluent neighborhoods with large immigrant and other minority populations in the northeast, southwest and especially southeast corners of the city." I concentrated on Southeast, but there's certainly much to be said about the provision (or lack) of bicycle and other infrastructure up north. And about the new ethnic mixes there.
Seattle annexed the areas north of 85th Street in the late 1940s and early '50s, and folks there are understandably angry at waiting for the sidewalks their grandparents were promised. Then again, it annexed Southeast Seattle, Columbia City, and Rainier Beach (and West Seattle) in 1907, and some blocks there are still waiting for their sidewalks.

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:17 p.m. Inappropriate

Dear SDOT,

Portland calls itself “The City that Works,” and lives up to its tagline by building bike infrastructure that works. You guys, on the other hand, seem content to live lives of quiet respiration, reaching out in public meetings, year in and years out, decade in and decade out, occasionally pausing to produce a new bike plans, and paint a another hundred miles or so of sharerows on Seattle’s streets.

OK, I have to admit you are good at some things. You’re currently spending the final spurt of the $240,000,000 we gave you to make over six blocks of Mercer Street. Paul Allen gave you most of the $55,000,000 for the SLUT, and you got ‘er done. Various federal, regional and local sources of public $$ are funding the Jackson to First Hill to Broadway Streetcar, and you’ve got ambitious plans posted here…

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/streetcarnetwork.htm

…to build more lines to extend the SLUT up to the U District, and the new First Avenue line up to
Ballard. Hopefully you won’t get too far ahead of yourselves, because your website is a little sketchy about where the $300,000,000 (at the very least, considering we’re talking about 2 bridge crossings) is coming from to do all this.

I’ll try to break this to you as gently as I can: your track record building bike stuff isn’t all that great. You especially suck at building safe bike trails in Seattle’s poorest neighborhoods, but hey--props for serving folks in affluent, close-in neighborhoods filled with people who have the luxury of driving their cars whenever they feel like it, AND riding their bikes on the meager miles of trails you’ve managed to squeeze out over the years. I know bike trails aren’t as sexy as streetcars and stuff for cars, but could you PLEASE build some safe, dedicated bike trails through south Seattle so that fewer people die on those mean streets? Folks up north are hurting too, and you aren’t even giving them sidewalks either.

Let’s be perfectly honest. You guys wouldn't fail to install street lights over the roads that cars use, so could you please explain why you think it’s OK that most of our bike trails are pitch dark on dark, rainy winter nights? I’m not asking you to help recreational users—I’m talking about helping people commute to and from work in the winter. Did you know that a lot of people come to work in the dark and go home in the dark? Tiny little Anchorage has an even worse problem than we do, but they somehow manage to light up their cross country ski trails for crying out loud!!! I get that you’re too broke to put in lights, but how about at least painting trail center lines and edges with reflective paint. Would that be too much of a concept? And while you’re at it, how about posting some cheap signage that asks pedestrians to stay on their own trails, and urges all users of mixed use trails to stay to the right.

If you continue to be unable to build dedicated bike trails, could you at least stop creating large pavement seams right in the exact spot most cyclists use to travel along edges of busy arterials such as Alaskan Way? It’s such a bummer to have to dodge getting doored, while keeping one’s eyes peeled to make sure our front bike tires don’t get entrained in these seams. You’ve probably never experienced this yourself, but it’s freaky to get stuck in the seam and start wobbling at the exact moment a big old delivery truck is squeezing in from the left.

Please also bring your brain to work and stop allowing developers to erect massive, ornamental curb bulbs in spaces that could have been places for safer bike lanes. Prime example: 6th Avenue South has “The Mothers of All Curb Bulbs” on both sides of the street in front of the Metro bus barn on the north side, and the Metro employee parking lot on the south side. This speaks volumes about what Metro thinks of people on bikes. You could have disapproved these hazards, nooooooooo, that isn’t how you roll, is it?

Not to belabor the safety topic, but your “track” record installing trolley tracks in the right lanes of busy roads is kind of hit and miss. I thought you learned a lesson after some cyclists got hurt on the egregious tracks you built next to the curb on Westlake, but nope: you’re doing it AGAIN on parts of Jackson St. Your lackadaisical attitude about leaving hundreds of hazardous relict tracks all over town while you pave the daylights over streets for your favorite clients, people in cars, also isn’t helpful.

Please do something about the hazardous bike lanes you designated along the east side of 2nd Avenue downtown, and the ill placed lanes on Dexter Avenue where people have died. I will never understand why you didn't convert a segment of the much flatter series of parking lots you maintain along Westlake Avenue in the former Interurban trolley right-of-way into bike lanes. Oh, I forgot. That area is one of your favorite parking meter money makers…

I appreciate the new trail along the south side of the Ship Canal, but I don't understand why it took decades to get it built, or why it much of has to be so scarily dark at night. I don't expect to live long enough to see the Missing Link of the BGT completed in Ballard, but could you guys at least pave the gravel road shoulders there to make them a tiny bit safer? Oh, sorry to bring up this topic. I know how you hate ruffling the feathers of the industrial landowners along the Ship Canal.

I could go on and on, but instead, I’m going to put my bike on my car and drive down to Portland to “vive la différence” in a place that isn’t a hick town at the end of the road.

Sincerely yours,

Mud Baby

Posted Thu, Aug 15, 9:32 p.m. Inappropriate

Totally with you. Calling the current mayor a bike name is a cruel joke.

louploup

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 8:44 a.m. Inappropriate

Head over to the SDOT website and look at the proposed Bicycle Master Plan, and I think you'd be pleased if that all comes to fruition. Everything you address is in there.

talisker

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 11:25 a.m. Inappropriate

it only will take 22 years....

Posted Thu, Aug 22, 9:25 a.m. Inappropriate

...and it's just another "plan." Now if you need another half $billion sports palace, we can get that done for you in a New York minute.

Mud Baby

Posted Fri, Aug 16, 1:49 p.m. Inappropriate

in my neighborhood, Ravenna, we have four different bikeways proposed in a 15 block distance. NE 75th will get bike lanes on either side of the street and the road will be 'calmed'. NE68th and NE 60th are on the bicycle master plan as a greenway. NE65th for five miles from greenlake to sandpoint way is designated as a Cycle Track on the bicycle master plan, even though the road is very narrow through Ravenna and all parking will be taken off the street as a result. I would gladly send the cycle track to my neighbors to the south, and help to build the safer greenways in our neighborhood...

katzjamr

Posted Tue, Aug 20, 8:55 a.m. Inappropriate

I bike thru this area daily. Would agree that this plan is overkill and will lead to just more congestion - especially at 65th and Roosevelt, which had it's neeighborhood density increased for the light rail station there, which is a good idea. I just think the traffic is going to amp up there significantly and eliminating a lane of traffic both ways will make it a cluster. Drive east thru Roosevelt at 5:00 p.m. now - and then imagine one lane of traffic. I'm a bike commuter and I think this is a bad idea.

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 9:44 p.m. Inappropriate

Please do us a favor and run a red light in traffic.

NotFan

Posted Tue, Aug 20, 4:31 p.m. Inappropriate

This article is so typical of the arrogance and smugness of the goddamned "progressives" who run Seattle. There isn't a single word about motorists here, and not even any recognition that "McSchwinn" will be tossed out of office in November in large part because he became McSchwinn.

Okay, fine, keep talking to yourselves, and only to yourselves, but don't be surprised at the consequences. I'm not the only Seattle voter who once was quite friendly to bicyclists and their interests, but who now utterly despises them.

NotFan

Posted Sun, Aug 25, 7:12 p.m. Inappropriate

Yup, as you can see from Treker's (and others') comments, all us bikers are just the same--we all vote for McGinn, we all despise cars, and we all think whatever plans for bike routes comes out of SDOT is the best! Hopefully you are the only Seattle voter so utterly lacking in nuance or ability to distinguish people from their various "interests."

louploup

Posted Wed, Aug 28, 12:54 p.m. Inappropriate

You're a bunch of "progressive" suckers who deserve the corruption and underperformance you constantly vote for. Seattle's city government is a joke, and that's because most of the people who live here are lazy slugs who are every last bit as stupid as the rednecks who they think are so awful.

Remember, every time a bicyclist buys the farm after running a red light and smacking into a truck, an angel gets its wings.

NotFan

Posted Tue, Aug 20, 10:01 p.m. Inappropriate

Thank you for another well-reasoned and logic filled response!

Treker

Posted Sat, Aug 24, 1:15 a.m. Inappropriate

Honestly, treker thank you for commenting that the cycle track for ne 65th will cause gridlock, it means more coming from someone who is a cyclist. I told the mayor at our town meeting I would raise money for the greenways proposed if he would compromise on the cycle track.

katzjamr

Posted Sat, Aug 24, 3:42 p.m. Inappropriate

FYI - I noticed that today SDOT is putting in bike lanes and one lane car traffic lanes (with left hand turn lanes) on NE 75th street . So now two major arterials, 10 blocks apart, will be restricted to one lane of car traffic with no street parking. Both are busy roads - 65th has commercial and residential and will be getting denser.

Odd choice IMO. The Burke-Gillman wraps to the south and then east of north side neighborhoods and from this you can easily access neighborhoods via side streets or arterials such as 35th Ave NE. I do that as do numerous other cyclists. Just lettin' ya know - not my choice, so don't run me over.

Treker

Posted Mon, Aug 26, 7:43 a.m. Inappropriate

One note - SDOT may have completed the NE 75th St revisions as a traffic-slowing measure. This was the area where a drunk speeder killed two and severely injured a mom and her infant about 8 months ago. The area is know for speeders trying to get to and from I-5 on the commute. I've seen folks going 50 mph or more on this residental street. So, other factors may be involved.

Treker

Posted Wed, Aug 28, 12:56 p.m. Inappropriate

Yes, another effort by SDOT to do anything other than its job, which is to pave the streets and try to keep traffic moving.

NotFan

Posted Tue, Aug 27, 8:05 p.m. Inappropriate

As usual I'm way late to the fair, but I want to thank Mr. Scigliano for a damn fine job of reporting -- and for having the 24-karat courage to expose another aspect of how Seattle's sheet-white underbelly of bigotry is the unacknowledged determinant in all its public transport policies.

Once again we witness Seattle's most outrageous hypocrisy – its claim to be the nation's most environmentally enlightened municipality – even as it now restricts bicycling much as it minimizes mass transit.

And what is the common factor in both these efforts? Obviously – as Mr. Scigliano's investigation reveals – it's the (carefully closeted) intent of maximizing the difficulties that confront racial and ethnic minorities and lower-income people in general. That's why, for example, local transit is 44 years behind that of comparable cities including Portland, Oregon.

Too bad Mr. Scigliano's world-class investigative skill and Crosscut's journalistic daring won't change anything; the local One Percent is as unyieldingly powerful as the old antebellum aristocracy.

But stories such as these might at least save people the nightmarish experience of moving to Seattle in expectation of a genuinely progressive city and discovering that behind its politically correct posturing, the real Emeraldville is hardly more than the Pacific Northwest equivalent of some Ku Klux Mississippi town.

Posted Wed, Aug 28, 8:21 a.m. Inappropriate

Absoluetley. In fact, the KKK is gaining more popularity than the Cascade Bicycle Club - how's that for irony? Yea, comparing Mississippi to Seattle is a great analogy for racisim. Lack of bicycle paths is directly proportional to Jim Crow laws, voter suppression, and heck, maybe lynchings. It's outrageous, just outrageous.

Treker

Posted Wed, Aug 28, 1:05 a.m. Inappropriate

I'd like to see motorcycle cops pouring out tickets for cars that ignore bike safety.

BobDobbs

Posted Wed, Aug 28, 1:01 p.m. Inappropriate

I'd like to see cops giving tickets to the entitled bicyclists who wantonly endanger pedestrians on the streets, bridges, and multi-use trails. I'll be happy to let industrial selection take care of those of you who run red lights and hit trucks, but your bicyclist habit of endangering pedestrians needs to be dealt with.

And we won't even talk about your free ride on taxes, because no bicyclist ever wants to be caught paying his way in life.

NotFan

Posted Wed, Aug 28, 9:57 p.m. Inappropriate

Exactly. Given that most bicyclists pay taxes on cars they own is not excuse for not paying taxes on bikes. Even if we have to develop a new government agency that costs more that it collects in taxes it would be worth it to teach those bicycle folks a lesson in, umm, yea!!

And yea. Those 150 lb bicyclists are a constant and extreme threat to car drivers. Can you imagine the mess they would make on a bumper - and all that time to clean it off? Yes, yes the bicycle terrorist is a growing threat we need to deal with severely. Maybe new rules and jail time for going faster that gridlocked cars, taking one more car off the road, and contributing less to greenhouse gases. Who do these privileged pedal-pushers think they are anyway?

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 1:58 p.m. Inappropriate

There is no need to "develop a new government agency" to collect bicycle fees. We have the Dept. of Licensing. It operates a system, in concert with private licensing bureaus, that administers licenses for motor vehicles. It would be simple to add bicycles to the same system. You know it, and so does the Cascade Bicycle Club, and so does Mayor McSchwinn. The fact that they, and you, keep lying about it does not make your lies the truth.

As for the rest: Remember, every time a bicyclist buys the farm after running a red light and smacking into the side of a truck, an angel gets its wings.

NotFan

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 3:22 p.m. Inappropriate

Take back the bike paths, run over cyclists, make it too expensive to ride a bicycle! We demand more cars on the road, more spewing of greenhouse gasses, a less physically active populace. We stand by our ignorance because, well, we do!! Fredum isn't free!!

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 3:27 p.m. Inappropriate

So you're going to have DOL administrators chasing down every kid on a bicycle in Seattle or did you mean the state? Brilliant solution and one that won't cost the taxpayer a dime. Brilliant I say!

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 5:53 p.m. Inappropriate

Every kid? I think they'll obey the law. It's the adult "progressive" Seattle bicyclists who won't want to.

The police could easily stop bikes without license plates just like they stop cars without plates. Oh, and before you trot out the "progressive" lie that there's no such thing as a bicycle license plate and there aren't any manufacturers of them, at least do a Google search, okay?

Yep, the police could enforce it, just as they did when I was growing up elsewhere. You have a plate on the back of the seat, and a matching sticker on the frame. If the numbers don't match, or an adult is riding a bike with a $5 kid's plate, the bike goes into the cop car's trunk, and you can retrieve it after paying $250 plus $10 a day storage.

Believe me, it can be done. But the self-entitled, selfish, parasitical "progressive" bicyclists who break every traffic law in the book think they're too good to pay their way, or follow the law. And then they wonder why that truck swerved their way and honked the horn.

NotFan

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 6:38 p.m. Inappropriate

NotFanofLogic-

Another excellent idea from the bottom drawer. This is amazingly funny. So, let's see. You've been complaining about the law enforcement problem downtown and now want to divert precious funds to what?? Chasing bicycles around downtown. Brilliant!! Keep 'em coming Einstein. This is too funny to be true.

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 6:52 p.m. Inappropriate

The more of you we can get off the streets and out of our way, the better.

NotFan

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate

Sure you don't work for the McSchwinn campaign.? By comparison you're making him look like a brilliant strategist. But by all means, here's a shovel. Continue to dig the NotFanofLogic hole deeper. LOL.

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 9:43 p.m. Inappropriate

See you in November. Of course, by then the bicyclists will have cooked some new lie about why McSpandex was thrown out. Nothing is ever your fault.

NotFan

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 8:55 p.m. Inappropriate

Where, praytell is this place you grew up where they enforce bicyclists' license plates? I would like to hear all about it.

Why is it so difficult to understand, that even if you do not ride a bicycle, even if you hate bicyclists (as evident), that the more people that ride, the easier your life in your precious car becomes?
You should be all for getting people out of their cars for your own self-benefit.

Also, to lump all users of one particular mode of transportation into one group is about as naïve as it gets.

jeffro

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 9:30 p.m. Inappropriate

I despise you. Stop trying to portray yourselves as a benefit to the city, when most people regard you as unmitigated pests. You do nothing whatsoever for us, and we know it. We are going to help throw your arrogant, spandex-clad jerk out of his job in November. And if Murray caters to you like McSpandex has done, we'll get rid of him too. Don't run your next stop sign, because this time I won't slam on the brakes.

NotFan

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 10:17 p.m. Inappropriate

Haters gotta hate I suppose. Whatever the twisted reason

Treker

Posted Thu, Aug 29, 10:19 p.m. Inappropriate

Haters gonna run your mayor out onto the street. Something tells me he won't bicycling home.

NotFan

Posted Fri, Aug 30, 6:31 a.m. Inappropriate

Hey dude. I didn't vote for him and won't this time. But if it makes you happy, continue to chew glass and hate away.

Treker

Posted Fri, Aug 30, 6:45 a.m. Inappropriate

Oh - and guess what? McSchwinn loses and we have - yes - another liberal democrat mayor! That will really change the course of the ship of state, eh! ROFLOL!!!

Well, there's always something to hate about.

Bicycling is a great way to get around the city. You can use bike paths to get to many areas, the streets are pretty bicycle friendly, and I've found most bicyclists and car drivers to be courteous and safe. But there are some folks who just hate the idea that someone can get around gridlock, can physically get themselves around so efficiently, and have fun doing it.

I usually this find this group to be some combination of frustrated with other aspects of their lives, fat and out of shape, general miscontents, and/or losers in life. Smile, wave and go on your way is the best medicine for that. Dosen't cure it but no reason to engage.

Treker

Posted Fri, Aug 30, 11:17 a.m. Inappropriate

Hopefully, the successor will realize why his predecessor got thrown out. If he doesn't, and keeps catering to the a-hole bicyclist lobby, then we'll thrown Murray out too.

NotFan

Posted Fri, Aug 30, 1:32 p.m. Inappropriate

Case in point

Treker

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »