c.w. nevius brings some more hate

(scan of sfbc bike map by richardmasoner)

c.w. nevius has a new column out this morning. what's he hating on this time? bikes! first he attacks the idea of bike sharing in san francisco. proponents are naïve, he argues, and the bikes would be stolen and/or underused. i think he's wrong, at least about it being underused (look at how successful blazing saddles is), but perhaps it's a reasonable argument. but then he uses that as the basis for a bizarre pseudo-attack on the stalled bike plan that begins with a clear endorsement of it:

Andy Thornley, the eminently reasonable San Francisco Bicycle Coalition program director, says the city has spent years making itself car friendly, and "now we should shape the city back to make it more convenient to walk or ride a bike."

Not a bad idea. New bike lanes, safe routes and more places to lock up a bike would all be welcome improvements.

wait a minute, c.w. nevius is on board? something isn't right here . . . nevius goes on to moan about how second street residents weren't given any input on the bike plan (which isn't true, and the second street bike lanes are not currently part of the bike plan), and how local villain rob anderson was 'vilified in bike chat groups' for holding up any and all bike improvements for three years (what do you expect?). so nevius wants new bike lanes, unless there is any opposition to them whatsoever, even from one neighborhood crazy. but don't worry, bicyclists, nevius has a solution:

Want a cheap, easy way to get to the office? We have one. It is called a bus.

wow. that's not easy. and it's not too cheap anymore, either. and what is he saying exactly, people shouldn't bicycle because we have buses?

Thornley likes to envision the day when bike travel in the city is not just "for young, athletic, thrill-seeking me." He insists he's seeing more moms in dresses and businessmen in suits pedaling to work. So far I've missed them.

really? there's a huge increase in the number of bicyclists in the city, especially commuters and casual riders. it's hard not to notice. i just started biking around the city a couple months ago. i don't wear a suit or a dress, but i see plenty of people that do. not to mention, it's kind of a no brainer that more bike lanes and safer routes will get more people onto bikes, which will ease traffic and parking concerns, and help mitigate a whole array of other problems (environmental, health, social, safety, et cetera). if we want more people to bike (and i'm not sure anyone is really against that), all we need to do is build the infrastructure. anyway, i guess nevius somehow doesn't see all the bicyclists riding to work in the morning, especially on market street.

What I do see are a lot of bicyclists riding to work in the mornings, even on the demolition derby run that is Market Street.

oh.

Great, and I'd definitely support more places to lock up their bikes. But the idea of significantly reconfiguring the city isn't realistic.

i thought you were just saying you didn't see them. i don't get it. also, what does 'significantly reconfiguring the city' mean? are you talking about bike lanes? that's all you mention in your column, that's all that's on the table right now, and you said you were for them! what is going on c.w.? please explain!

update: i try to avoid the murky depths of the sfgate comment section, but their pages automatically show the most voted-up replies. currently, the most recommended bit of public input includes this gem:

Ive never seen a bicyclist obey the law.

what does that even mean? i know people get very worked up about how (supposedly) often bicyclists run lights and stop signs and (almost) hit pedestrians or inconvenience drivers, but how can this person never see a cyclist obey the law? perhaps they are under the impression bicycling is illegal?