BikeSnob’s BS gets published in Outhouse… again

Outhouse’s advertorial team took a break from their usual circle jerk of reminding outdoors enthusiasts they can’t perform at outdoor sports or enjoy recreating in the outdoors unless one keeps buying the latest and greatest gear and fashion accessories. Don’t forget, last year’s gear isn’t good enough! You need to go full onboard with conspicuous consumerism or go home! Instead of the usual crap, they carved up some space once again for Bike Snob to publish another “grouping of words” (his words, not mine)

Snob, over on his attention-fishing blog insists:

I’m sure it will inspire much “Vehicular Cyclist Exceptionalism” as well as various quasi-libertarian comments about “personal responsibility.

Snob’s rejection of rules-of-the-road cycling is no different than Jenny McCarthy’s rejection of vaccines or Trump’s rejection of climate change, logic and facts simply don’t phase these people. Snob has had the concept of rules of the road cycling and personal responsibility explained to him many times but these concepts seem to go over his head. I guess he’s too busy trying to be a cool and edgy snark. Snob can’t grasp that the vast majority of bicycle riders will need to use standard roads to go where they need to go and even if the USA becomes Amerst

Snob often argues for special costly segregated infrastructure while a small group of cyclists simply wants to be treated as any other driver on the road. Which one is exceptional again? Snob should refrain from using big words he can’t understand.

Snob opens his Outhouse noise with a semi familiar phrase:

Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers.

Which isn’t quite how most say it but it doesn’t matter because he calls it bullshit. It’s bullshit because Snob sets up a straw man argument here laden with misunderstandings that only do more damage to cycling advocacy for all. The is the typical way he sets up any argument regarding vehicular cycling.

Snob argues that this phrase is bullshit in part due to the prohibition of cyclists on many limited access roads, which of course he leaves out also prohibit other forms of non-motorized traffic. He also oddly argues cyclists don’t have the same rights and responsibilities as drivers because they can’t use drive thrus. Snob seems to not understand that private businesses can do what they please. Shockingly enough a shopping center owner is completely within their rights as a property owner to ban bicycles just like they can ban skateboards. Office parks often do the same. The drive thru facilities on private property are not a part of the public road system.

Snob neglects to acknowledge that this bullshit phrase is in some form or another is in the Uniform Vehicle Code and the vehicle codes in all US states and Canadian Provinces. However, Snob, like the majority of people out there, has no clue what the phrase means.

Snob doesn’t seem to understand responsibilities. This big word refers to the duties a cyclist operating on the roadway should obey. These include yielding right of way when appropriate, using the correct lanes for destination, not driving distracted or impaired, and obeying traffic control. Likewise other drivers on the road also have these same duties. That’s it.

Snob time and time again, when it comes to rules-of-the-road cycling, aka bicycle driving, aka vehicular cycling or whatever it’s called these days, doesn’t seem to understand that every time he “disses” it, he’s hurting cycling as a whole. Unlike NYC, most of this nation’s cyclists will never see the “protected” bike lane mecca Snob endorses. Competent rules of the road obeying cyclists will continue to ride where they’re allowed and they’ll continue to fight for the same rights and duties. They’ll also call out others such as bad actors on the road, bad actors in law enforcement and the justice system. Unlike Snob, they actually get things done.

There’s plenty of other junk in this “article” that needs debunking. For example it’s worth taking the time to learn how the legal systems in other countries work, and how worthless it is to the cycling safety discussions to dream about how other countries with completely different legal systems do things. If Snob wished to really make a difference, he’d lobby for repeal of his state’s hardly written and poorly misunderstood FTR and MBL laws. If that’s too much to handle then maybe he could start locally in NYC and demand removal of hazardous door zone bike lanes? That would help cyclists and the non-cycling public understand bicyclists can operate as drivers on the roadway. Until then, I file Snob’s stuff over in the “anti-cyclist” folder.


2 thoughts on “BikeSnob’s BS gets published in Outhouse… again

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s