Courtland is Back – Surprise, Bicycles Shouldn’t Be On Roads

[sjclaeys]

We should either ride in the “woods” or in completely separate bicycle “roads”. Changing driver habits to operate cars in a safe manner is obviously a non-starter: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/give-bicyclists-their-own-roads/2015/01/06/d814428a-95e8-11e4-927a-4fa2638cd1b0_story.html?hpid=z3

Topic

[ebubar]

When I first read the headline I started brainstorming all the roads that I wanted to reserve for cyclists. I could think of a few roads to claim! Sadly disappointed that the intention was for us to only ride in magical cycling forests.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jrenaut]

Trolls gonna troll. I miss when the Post did journalism.

[rcannon100]

Aw come on! We still find the Washington Post to be a very valuable newspaper in our household.

[Orestes Munn]

Oh, the Post is pretty bad, but even the Times has published some egregious shite about cycling in the last few years.

[PotomacCyclist]

Correction: Courtlandus milloyus should not be on the roads.

[Bruno Moore]

Must…not…read…comments…

Must…not…respond…to comments…

[bobco85]

Another classic from Courtland Milloy! I must say, I like that the WaPo is obviously having guest writers from The Onion.
/sarcasm

On another note, it’s interesting that Milloy thinks separation is needed for cyclists’ safety (thanks for the condescention, concern troll) yet ignores the fact that pedestrians who already have separated infrastructure (sidewalks) do not seem to fare any better. Of course, separated infrastructure isn’t completely separated because trails/lanes/sidewalks still cross streets and have to interact with vehicles, so maybe it should just be called “mostly” separated infrastructure.

I do look forward to the magical wooded areas popping up for cyclists to use in downtown DC :p

[jrenaut]

@bobco85 104079 wrote:

Another classic from Courtland Milloy! I must say, I like that the WaPo is obviously having guest writers from The Onion.
/sarcasm

That can’t be it, writers from The Onion are smart and funny.

[jabberwocky]

@jrenaut 104032 wrote:

Trolls gonna troll. I miss when the Post did journalism.

This. At this point he’s just deliberately trolling cyclists for pageviews, and the last thing we should do is pay attention to him. He’s not misinformed, he’s not interested in debate, he’s just an asshole.

[mstone]

@bobco85 104079 wrote:

On another note, it’s interesting that Milloy thinks separation is needed for cyclists’ safety (thanks for the condescention, concern troll) yet ignores the fact that pedestrians who already have separated infrastructure (sidewalks) do not seem to fare any better

Yes, it’s amazing how many pedestrians are killed on sidewalks. None of these “rules” are going to work as long as drivers have trouble coloring inside the lines.

@Brünø Moore 104064 wrote:

Must…not…read…Courtland…

Fixed that for you.

[PotomacCyclist]

Rock Creek Park and the GW Parkway are wooded areas. I won’t complain if The Courtster wants to turn the Rock Creek Parkway and the GW Parkway over to bike and pedestrian traffic exclusively. (I do complain about his other proposals.) Why is there a high-speed thruway in the middle of a national park anyway?

[Bruno Moore]

@PotomacCyclist 104091 wrote:

Why is there a high-speed thruway in the middle of a national park anyway?

Probably for the same reason that part of 295 is a national park.

[dasgeh]

Eh, I don’t mind taking things from this article that benefit my arguments, and leaving the rest for rcannon’s dogs. I think it’s great that he recognizes there is a problem with driver behavior. Let’s talk about what the problem is. For example, some drivers are frustrated that the only realistic option for them is to drive all the way from home to work — biking isn’t safe, Metro parking lots fill up, Metro is too expensive, they don’t know of parking on the edge of an area they’d consider reasonable to walk/bike/take Metro that works with their budget. These might be solvable problems to get cars off road (and people onto bikes, esp CaBi

I think it’s great that he supports having paths through wooded areas — we have some of those paths and they need to be treated like real transportation corridors with maintenance and maintenance (be forewarned, ArlCo, first we came for the snow removal, next we’re coming for pot-holes and moguls!). We have some more wooded areas that could use paths (Trolly trail, the rail extension in VA, more of the MBT system, IIRC).

I look forward to using the line “even Courtland Milloy supports separate bike infrastructure”.

[thucydides]

@jrenaut 104032 wrote:

Trolls gonna troll. I miss when the Post did journalism.

I think it’s telling that Milloy is one of the few remaining really senior people at the Post. My interpretation is that it’s because he’s a natural at the only thing that really matters at that “newspaper” anymore: producing clickbait.

[cyclingfool]

@Brünø Moore 104094 wrote:

Probably for the same reason that part of 295 is a national park.

We better start charging admission then!

[Author]

Replies