Among the tiresome retellings, the windbag me-first automotive champions and the bloated bikes-first blog'o'screeds, few recognize the nature of the solutions necessary if bikes and cars are to stand at least somewhat equally as a means of safe, personal transport.
And while I nod approvingly when I read about the "tyranny of the car" and that, indeed, "asphalt is forever," even these sentiments don't scratch the solutions' surface and that's to say nothing of the moving protests.
First, Seattle must fundamentally rethink the basis of its biking laws starting with the flawed premise from which much of our current dilemma springs: that bikes and cars are alike enough to treat as one and the same.
Second, contrary to The Stranger's recent cover story on city parking, Seattle needs to dispense with its love of the public parking space.
And third, Critical Mass needs to reorient its focus not to asserting the rights of bikers "just because" but rather point to the economic effects of neo-liberal, new-Urbanism which makes biking not a choice but, instead, a need for people who cannot afford to live near or commute to the very urban centers where they work.
Acknowledge the difference
It goes or it should go without saying that bikes and cars are different.
So to apply the same rules of the road to bikers and cars alike makes about as much sense as applying the rules of baseball to cricket. They both use roughly the same sized ball and include swinging pieces of wood, but they hardly share the same rules.
The maneuverability of bikes, the vulnerability of bicyclists and a bike's damage-potential are but three of the many differences that should, in turn, affect different laws.
I make no argument as to how those rules might vary, but nonetheless the place to begin is to scrap the very premise that energizes this conflict - that bikes and cars are sufficiently the same as to apply the same laws to both.
Sacred street parking
One thing that always impressed me during my time in Boston is the city's prioritization of street parking. Simply, it doesn't.
Seattle seems to have taken the opposite tact, as any trip down Madison Street will demonstrate. What exactly is the rationale of maintaining a measly few blocks of parking that, if removed, would make it a completely two-lane road? Is there not enough traffic?
Deemphasizing street parking promotes inventive solutions. For instance, we could remove parking on one side of strategically chosen one-ways and dedicate that new lane strictly to bikers. Then, choose an adjacent street that moves in the opposite direction and do the same thing.
What if we were to ban parking on certain streets entirely, devote the new lanes to bike-only traffic and even go so far as to devote the middle-turn lane to single-direction bus service?
Or why not devote certain streets solely to bike, bus and local-only car traffic? Twelth and 19th avenues seem especially well suited to such an experiment. But to even consider it, the city needs to recall what streets are actually designed for: transportation.
The right
protest
Intentioned or not, the manner in which Critical Mass protests and the philosophy upon which some predicate that protest strikes me as critically flawed.
Too often, the group's position feels like one of entitlement. "We bike because we can and we have the same rights as car-drivers, so there." While legally true, there's something utterly uncompelling about such a stance. Pedestrians have right-of-way privileges, but people usually don't wander into moving traffic merely to exercise that right, let alone do so en masse.
More to the point, pedestrians don't congregate in clumps in what's essentially a false dare to assert their rights. Corking is one such example. By choking off traffic, corking challenges drivers to break the cork, if you will. But such a dare is ultimately a false dare because no driver in his or her right mind will do so.
Just like people who force you to stop while they jay-walk and stare you down in the process, Critical Mass engages in what's ultimately an empty challenge.
And the claim that corking is engaged in for biker safety only reveals another argument against the protest itself - it's not safe.
Instead, a more resonant, timely and compelling economic argument might convince citizens to find kinship with Critical Mass.
Where are the voices of those who cannot afford to drive? Where is the testimony of those who can only find decent work in the city yet, paradoxically, cannot afford to live inside it let alone drive to it?
These are the voices and stories that will put biking into the frame it belongs. As government and companies provide low-paying jobs that do not permit their workers to live where they work, the rights of those workers to commute safely by bike needs to be clearly understood.
This is where Critical Mass should direct its efforts, for there it will find significant brother and sisterhood among unions, social-service organizations and anti-poverty groups, all of which work for the rights of the under-privileged.
Currently, Critical Mass feels more like it works for the other side.
Mario Paduano's column appears monthly in the Capitol Hill Times. He can be reached at editor@capitol hilltimes.com.[[In-content Ad]]