http://www.kare11.com/news/article/9762 ... e-the-road

*cough* I'm calling bullshit on that

I like seeing a write-up like this, but I wish they had city officials and officers on record being a bit more forceful towards drivers regarding "you are driving a 2000-3000 pound killing machine, be very careful with every movement you make"

And that's in a nutshell what I don't like about the bike boulevard concept. Life is "a share[d] space now." Telling drivers that they have to share on bike boulevards implies that they don't have to elsewhere, which is contrary to state law and an affront to humanity.

As to the previous post, I've pretty much given up on cops citing motorists for just about any offense to cyclists. The 50 percent figure is, I would imagine, a blind-ass guess. However, given the epidemic prevalence of texting, web browsing, and cell phone obsessed drivers, they've certainly going to have their fair share of the fault for accidents even if you accept the stereotypical profile of the scofflaw cyclist.

Sargeant said "Nothing against bicyclists but I don't see most of them driving devensively. Most of them have the bicycle lane, they believe the bicycle lane is theirs."

*foreheadslap*

That's just nonsensical all around, but I'd love to know what he was even trying to suggest. Are we supposed to exercise extreme timidity whenever a motor vehicle is in the vicinity even if we're in a bike lane? Arm ourselves with hand grenades? What what?

Also, it's my observation that sentences that begin with "nothing against" are usually the opposite of what they state. Like "no offense intended, but..." or "not to suggest <whatever>, but..." This sounds an awful lot like "nothing against black people, but..." to me in tone and insinuation.

Hilarious.

Oh wait, it's not. Because this guy is a police sergeant and head of "the city's traffic investigation's unit." Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was misquoted - and not just uninformed, incoherent or hopelessly biased against cyclists. Because otherwise, like stoller said, I don't understand what he was trying to say. Wouldn't it have been great if the reporter had pressed him for a clarification?