This Slate article is an example of arrogance and self-absorption that I suspect belongs to a liberal. It also illustrates the liberals’ tactic of labeling as crazy anyone with whom they disagree. The tactic is especially odd in this instance because, more than once, the writer essentially boasts about being a jerk or an a**hole. On the basis of such boasting, one might conclude that it is the writer who perhaps has one or more psychological issues.

Anyway, the most likely reason that motorists aren’t cheering at the sight of cyclists is that there isn’t enough room on the roads for both groups. We’re not exactly living in Saigon in the 1940s. The roads have become crowded to the point where cyclists are on the verge of shutting down entire lanes of traffic. The result is greater congestion:  people spending more time in cars and wasting more gas, which is another way of saying that cyclists (a sliver of a fraction of the population) in many cities are lowering the quality of life for the vast majority (i.e., over 99%).

How is this possible? Why are those who govern crowded municipalities promoting cycling? It doesn’t help the environment because the number of people turning to cycling is too small to make a difference (not to mention the gas that the additional congestion wastes). And it obviously can’t be due to health reasons because people who are likely to take up cycling are those who are already physically fit.

City managers and bureaucrats (mostly liberal) undoubtedly sympathize with the OWS crowd and join in the mockery of the so-called 1%. But they trip over themselves rushing to provide special treatment to the commuting version of the 1%. The liberals’ push for even more cycling on the crowded streets has to be one of the most anti-democratic and incoherent policies devised by them.