In a country where cycling has a negative image, bike share programs can be very controversial. This is particularly true in the U.S. where urban areas are densely populated and jammed up with virtually non-stop traffic.
A small number of U.S cities have implemented bike share programs. In most cases, these programs are located in cities where bike ridership is higher than the national average. Demand for transportation alternatives is also higher, and acceptance of modern ideas about creating livable streets is commonplace.
This doesn’t mean that these programs exist without controversy. An example of this type of controversy was seen recently when New York City (NYC) launched a new bike share program, which they call Citi Bike.
Anyone who has ever been to New York City knows that it is one of the most congested cities on the planet. Traffic is horrendous. Drivers there are as aggressive as they come, and the taxi drivers are unparalleled when it comes to making illegal maneuvers in a car.
New York seems like a perfect place to look for ways to reduce congestion. Something like a bike share would help to reduce the number of cars on the road, and might make a dent in the bumper to bumper traffic. So, it seems like a no brainer to implement such a program there.
As with everything else they do, NYC went about creating a bike share program in a big way. The system they designed boasts of being the largest in the country, with 6,000 bikes and 330 bike-sharing stations. You would think that the possibility of taking 6,000 cars off of the road, at any given time, would make New Yorkers rejoice.
Some probably did. But, then there was The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board member, Dorothy Rabinowitz, who used her position as a prominent member of the media to turn a positive step in the right direction into a political commentary.
If she had simply expressed disagreement with the city’s decision to create a bike share program, no one would have paid any attention to her. Perhaps that’s what she thought when she was interviewed about this program, which she clearly objects to.
Her objections were not just personal bias. She attacked the political views of NYC’s mayor, as well as his actions. Much of what she said was a personal attack, such as alluding to his many homes (he’s immensely wealthy) and resulting ignorance of things like public transportation and bike sharing.
Her comments were so vitriolic that they created an immense backlash from the bicycle lobby and the blogosphere. When the video of her self-serving, vicious comments was brought to my attention, I couldn’t believe my ears.
She started off by blaming the existence of the program on “totalitarians running the government of the city.” The generally accepted definition of totalitarianism is: “characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control.” No U.S. city is run this way. This reference to totalitarianism was punctuated by her insistence that NYC was ”run by an autocratic mayor.” Again, her words were a direct political attack on the mayor.
Ms. Rabinowitz drew this conclusion from the fact that a bike share program was implemented when she believes that the majority of New Yorkers are against it. She claimed to speak for the majority. Yet, it’s unclear how she determined what the majority believed or why she thought they wanted her to speak for them.
Certainly, in her circle of conservative citizens, the idea of doing anything for the common good probably doesn’t sit well. Such people interpret anything done to improve the average citizen’s life as something done for a special interest group. Apparently, anyone who does not share her views is a member of a special interest group.
In a very snobbish way, she described how the bike share affected what she saw as desirable neighborhoods by saying they had been “begrimed by blazing blue Citibank bikes.” In case any modern readers are unfamiliar with the word “begrimed,” it means “to make dirty or cover with filth.” (As an aside, the origin of this word places it circa 1553, so the speaker clearly needs to get in step with the times.)
This woman sees bicycles as “filth.” What more needs to be said?
One would think that she would end her anti-bicycle screed at this point, but she continued. According to her, NYC “sneaked the bike share in under the radar for the sake of environmentalism.” This doesn’t really make any sense, since she had just finished describing bikes as “filth.” Environmentalism is about cleaning up the planet, not littering it with filth. Logic is not this woman’s forte.
I knew this woman was really out of touch with reality when she declared: “The bike lobby is an all-powerful enterprise.” If that were true, we’d already have bicycle accommodations throughout the U.S. Where has this woman been that she doesn’t know how far behind many other countries the U.S. is when it comes to addressing the needs of cyclists?
Most of my readers and I wish that her words were true, but it will be a long time before the bike lobby has enough sway to make sweeping changes in this country. We can only hope for such words to presage change in the favor of cyclists.
Her final attack on the mayor, bike lobby and everyone else in favor of the bike share was to complain about the street signs warning drivers to look in their rear view mirrors for approaching bicycles before opening their car doors. She demanded to know where the parallel warning was for cyclists to obey the traffic laws.
While I’m in favor of having cyclists obey the traffic laws, and do so myself, signs reminding cyclists to do this aren’t warranted because when they don’t, if any harm comes from it, it’s usually harm to themselves. Opening a car door on a passing cyclist, on the other hand, often results in serious injury or death for the cyclist.
Killing someone else is not a good thing. That’s why NYC posted signs to prevent motorists from inadvertently killing another human being by not looking before opening their car doors.
This member of a major publication’s editorial board was speaking without knowledge or facts. Her words were nothing more than anti-bicycle rhetoric couched in the guise of a legitimate political point of view.
People like her don’t want to share the roads, or their city, with bicycles. So, they politicize something that isn’t political at all, in order to gain support from people who share their political mindset.
The backlash from the bicycle lobby and bike share supporters was swift and fierce. But, this will probably not deter Ms. Rabinowitz’s kind because people with such narrow views can only see their own self-interest and, consequently, only react with ad hominem attacks on their foes for personal gain.
