Hey, there! Log in / Register
Election roundup: Of transportation and illegal chickens
By adamg on Thu, 09/19/2013 - 9:57am
The Globe reports on a transportation forum, in which Marty Walsh said 30 m.p.h. is too fast for most Boston streets, John Barros blasted Walsh and Menino for not doing more to get more T funding and John Connolly and Felix Arroyo praised true dedicated bike lanes.
Connolly, Walsh and Charlotte Golar Richie are the leaders in a WBUR poll.
Golar Richie fan Margery Eagan writes Rob Consalvo and Arroyo just lost the election by taking the endorsement of a bunch of "teenage thugs," i.e., the Boston Teachers Union.
Candidates participated in a forum at Boston Latin School the other day. Among the many issues: Chickens being kept illegally in Boston. Golar Richie declared herself against illegal chickens, but said she wouldn't send police out after them. Instead, she called for beefed up animal control services to pluck them out.
The city council yesterday approved a measure by Arroyo to limit city funds to banks that can prove they are investing money in Boston neighborhoods. The proposed ordinance now goes to Menino.
The South End News endorsed Connolly:
His much publicized exposure of the waste in the school lunch program, his clashes with Menino, the Boston public school administration, and the Teachers Union prove that he is an elected official not afraid to shake up the status quo to get things done. And that's exactly the type of leadership Boston needs, and deserves.
The Walsh campaign has gone to the dogs.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
As a car owner in Boston
"most said they would consider instituting a modest fee for resident permit parking passes."
As a car owner in Boston I would happily pay a fee for a resident sticker if the MBTA improved service equivalent to the loss in functionality of a car. Actually I would probably sell my car if that was the case. Not expanding MBTA service while instituting a sticker fee is a money grab, and it isn't progressive. Poor MBTA service coupled with a fee (amongst other things) like this is what drives people out of the city (poor service+expensive). How often do you see a family living in Boston that isn't wealthy, destitute, or tourists?
Please
Most cities charge money for a resident sticker. Even ones with worse public transit than Boston. It's usually a nominal fee.
What makes you think that you are entitled to monopolize public space without having to pay for a permit?
Plus, moving beyond nominal fee, if they actually charged real market-clearing prices for curb space, then the parking "shortage" would be solved overnight. Right now people have no incentive to avoid wasting a limited resource. They occupy as much curb space as they feel like and pay nothing for it. Classic tragedy of the commons. The solution is to create a market for parking at the curb, and that will work independently of the quality of public transit.
If you want to talk about money grabs... car owners in this city essentially steal money and resources from the rest of us through their "free parking" entitlement. Let's see drivers actually pay for the space in which they store their cars. In no case else do you expect 200 sq ft of land to be given to you for free. You are not a special snowflake entitled to free land just because you happen to own a car. Pay your own way, stop leeching off the rest of us, and then you'll get more respect from me.
"free parking" entitlement
I wonder how you would feel about taxing and registering bicycles, they use the same streets and park their bike at city provided racks.
I'm open to the idea
There's a few issues:
Bikes are tiny, relatively speaking. They take up little space, they are easy to carry around by hand, and store in the oddest locations. I'm not sure registering them is practical. I'm also worried about the unintended consequences of trying to enforce registration.
Again, with taxing, although bikes are technically road users, they are so lightweight that they cause negligible damage to roads. Much like pedestrians. Furthermore, most streets are paid for through property taxes, not automobile-related taxes. So bicyclists are already paying for much of the infrastructure through renting or owning property. The vast majority of that money goes to accommodating automobiles. Bike infrastructure gets a tiny sliver, and pedestrians a little bit more, maybe.
I think the strongest argument might be towards bike parking, which does take up a bit more room than a person, and is limited. The problem is, how do you enforce it? I have seen an example of one kind of paid bike parking, but it was basically an off-street cage with a gate. For on-street bike parking, you have to compete with the fact that bikes can be locked to all kinds of objects. So if you make paid bike parking, you are competing with light poles, benches, and fences. Maybe an aggressive campaign of cutting locks could do it, but that would be pretty expensive to do, for what is basically a non-problem right now.
These may be issues we have to think about in the future, but right now, anytime someone chooses to ride a bike instead of drive a car, it is saving the city money.
math on metered bike parking
you can fit 14 bikes in one car space - so therefore, if we charge for bike parking, it should be 1/14th the amount we charge for cars. in the back bay, that would be roughly 15 cents an hour. I'm sure a lot of cyclists would gladly pay that amount to have a chance for a space on newbury street (have you tried finding a spot for a bike there? it's really difficult).
BS
You're charged the same if you own a Smart Car or an Escalade. A bike should be no different, but thanks for playing.
Clueless
In one car spot you can fit a Smart Car, or an Escalade, or a rack that provides 14 bike spaces.
But thanks for playing.
Or
4 motorcycles, take you bike out for a lap Swirly!
Exactly
Good with that, too. Boston has very poor accommodations for motorcycles - $0.50 an hour would work out great.
In congested areas, we should push the city to take two spots per block for up to 9 motorcycles and one spot for 14 bicycles. I'd happily even buy a sticker to pay for a year's subscription.
More Motorcycle Parking needed
Do parking space racks actually fit 14 bicycles? Perhaps if they are piled up and crushed.
The city has a few motorcycle parking spaces, but not nearly as many as bicycle parking spaces. Allowing motorcycles to use bicycle racks would help greatly. Motorcycles take up much less room than cars also while being practical for longer trips.
I did not notice the fees on motorcycle parking meters. Are they, say, 1/4 the amount of car parking?
Go look for yourself
Bike on down to Davis Square and check out the one in front of the Diesel Cafe on a Friday evening or even during a typical afternoon. 16 bikes if you count the outer edges of the thing - and somebody hasn't tucked a scooter in there. Never had a problem getting my bike in or out of one, either.
I don't disagree that more motorcycle parking is desperately needed - but your pathetic attempt at dichotomy "its either this or that" is nonsense. Both cycle and motorcycle parking are far better use of space than car parking, and should both be considered a priority for moving people into and around the city.
Bicyclists doing the dichotomy
Bicyclists are the ones making it cars vs. bicycles. I keep suggesting the better middle ground of motorcycles.
People make this argument sometimes...
Bikes should pay for the road as much as cars!!! Yes, true. Much (not all) of the road upkeep comes from gas taxes. If the average person drives 10,000 miles a year at 25 mpg, that's 400 gallons with about 26c a gallon tax. So, that is $104 a year each driver is paying.
Now, if we assume the damage to the road is commeasurate with the vehicle's weight and how many miles travelled, my 25 lb bike travels about 1000 miles a year as a high estimate. A driver's 4000 lb car travels about 10,000 miles a year. So that means a high-use biker should owe about 1/1600th as much as the average driver, per year.
So yes, you're right. Let me know where I should send my check for 6.5 cents per year.
Stupid
I hate to break it to you but most adults who ride bikes also drive cars. They aren't two separate groups despite what most people making this argument assume.
And not to shock you but you might be surprised to learn that the heavier a vehicle, the more damage it does to the road. That's why bike paths don't get potholes and don't need much maintenance. The fuel taxes don't cover the wear and tear on the streets by cars and trucks.
Edit: Responded to the wrong parent post but the point remains.
So why the excise taxes on motorcycles?
They are far lighter than cars and do little damage. Let them park at bike racks. BTW, many scooters are classified as motorcycles since they have engines over 50cc. Scooters are more popular in some European cities than even bicycles!
Excise taxes on motor cycles?
Because they're motor vehicles too, that's why.
Thank you for playing
Sigh. We've been over this and over this and over this. 45% of road costs are paid out of general funds in Massachusetts. Fuel taxes only pay 22%.
22% is not a small number.
That is a lot of money right there.
Just because something, somewhere is worse
Just because something, somewhere is worse, doesn't mean we should settle with poor service.
I am hardly "monopolizing" a public street where residents (I) live. I am 1 person (household of 2) with 1 car.
Lots of things are subsidized by many different people, often in convoluted ways. The MBTA is subsidized by a state-wide sales tax, why exactly? I would never say MBTA riders should bear the "true" cost of a ride, but could you see where that argument isn't a very good one? Personally I'd like to see the T fare removed entirely in favor of other funding sources but that's another argument.
Having a "nominal fee" (as opposed to market rate) for resident stickers will not curb the problem of parking being a limited resource. Car owners already have a bunch of little fees (license, inspection, registration, excise, tolls, etc.) and it doesn't deter. It would not change anything in terms of alleviating parking congestion. It is a feel-good measure.
Making street parking market based is a logical conclusion, yes. But is "the market" really what you want? Is it what's "best" for a community? Over the past 5+ years I've seen Mission Hill go from being a nice, quiet, family oriented neighborhood to something, at times, out of Animal House. The cause of that was the market demand. I would say overall, whats happening on Mission Hill is a bad thing. I would bet similar things have happened across the city as well in Allston, Southie, etc. over the years.
I don't claim to have all the answers. Because I criticize an idea does not mean I agree with the status quo.
Decoupling the need for an inverse relationship between the automobile and public transit is a bad idea. Who can afford to live in a city, explicitly without using public transportation in favor of an automobile? Not many people. Mostly wealthy people. Last I checked, MBTA buses aren't running in the Back Bay and Beacon Hill for a reason. I, as a car owner, am guilty as sin of this; our household income is nearly 4x the median income. People like myself have dramatically changed the neighborhood in the past 10-15 years.
Hyperbole doesn't help. The land isn't "given for free." And again, telling people to "pay their own way" glosses over a huge reason why we have taxes in the first place, I won't even go into it. Why don't people directly pay for their own education (primary, secondary, etc.)? Their portion of federal and state services used? SS/Medi/EBT/etc.? Because funding things entirely off use-based and/or flat taxes are a bad idea.
The problem is snob zoning
Well you are "monopolizing" 200 sq ft or so of curb space on that street, which is probably worth over a $100/month around where I live. When few people had cars, it wasn't worth fighting about it. But now everyone fights over it. And what's worse, the city makes policy decisions based on the so-called "shortage" of parking.
Minimum parking quotas are supposed to "cure" the problem of spillover parking (they fail at that, a whole other story). Those quotas wind up making it harder to build new housing units, reduce supply of housing units, and the costs get passed on to the rest of us.
Just over a third of Bostonians don't even own a car but are still paying the costs of bad parking policy. And they're paying property taxes which go towards upkeep of the street parking spaces, and running the resident permit program.
I know that a "nominal fee" will not clear the market, but I was just pointing out that plenty of other cities do charge for their resident permits. Not usually enough, though.
I live in Allston and have a front row seat for the antics. But let me say this: this is not a market outcome. This is a direct result of what I would call "Snob Zoning", out of touch regulations which were originally established in the 1950s, updated slightly in the 1990s, and completely at odds with the reality on the ground here.
When zoning prevents the construction of sufficient housing to satisfy demand, which is the case in Allston, then you wind up with overcrowded housing units. There's more to the story. In order to have a proper market, you need a safe baseline for a housing unit. Otherwise, people willing to compromise safety will be able to push out others who are not willing to compromise, like families. ISD has fallen down on the job. But if ISD does its job, then there will be an intense need for more, safe housing units. And that's where the NIMBY obstruction and the zoning laws are at fault.
For the students, there needs to be more dorm construction on campus. But one of the reasons there hasn't been more dorm construction is because, again, of NIMBYs and zoning. They are completely irrational. They aren't happy with the students living on campus, and they aren't happy with the students living off campus. The next mayor needs to put a foot down and break the deadlock.
I say let's get more dorm construction, let's reform zoning and remove the snob-based regulations like parking quotas and setbacks, let's embark on a program of building safe, transit-adjacent housing of a variety of sizes and shapes. We also need to make sure that there's markets with fresh produce, and retail, within walking distance of these homes. In other words, we need to build more city and less sprawl. In those kind of places you'll see that it's easy for people to jump from 2 cars to 1 car. And some will go from 1 car to 0 cars.
There's plenty of available or underutilized land still in the city. The Southwest Corridor is still very underdeveloped even after 30 years. Heck, there's large swathes of Allston just sitting mostly vacant, that are just now starting to attract attention.
I didn't say anything about decoupling. I said that places without transit need parking reform just as much, or even more. Places with transit and walkability can get by even with crummy parking regulations (Exhibit A: Boston). It's a somewhat counterintuitive result that came from Donald Shoup's research. I'll direct you there to read more.
P.S. The Back Bay has buses and the T, and Beacon Hill is pretty close to both too. Not sure what you were getting at there.
If Allston is snob zoned....
then I think that we can all agree that this represents one of the most spectacular failures of government policy in history.
Indeed, snob zoning is a massive failure of gov't
I'm not kidding. Read the zoning code.
Allston/Brighton: Map 1, Map 2, and Map 3. And Article 51: Allston/Brighton Neighborhood District.
The maps show some of the insanity pretty clearly. Notice how Comm Ave is mostly zoned MFR-1, and the western-most portion is MFR-2. It's Multi-Family Resident, and the number is the maximum FAR allowed under zoning. That's the ratio of floor area to lot area. I'm not sure if everyone understands FAR so I'll just explain quickly.
An FAR of 1.0 means that you can have a single story building that spans the entire lot. Or a two story building that uses up only half the lot. Or a three story building that only uses one-third of the lot. Etc.
You know what Comm Ave looks like. Does it look like small buildings of that sort, 1 or 2 stories, or with a lot of empty space all around them? No, of course not. That's because those buildings were constructed prior to the establishment of snob zoning and grandfathered in. And the snob zoning rules make it illegal to build what already exists!
Let's move on: most of Allston is covered by rules that look like this: 2F-5000. Here's what the code has to say:
That's right. It explicitly states that tremendous amounts of Allston are zoned to PROMOTE low density residential neighborhoods. No wonder it's overcrowded.
The number is worse: it means minimum lot size, which is a well-known snob zoning tool. So in a 2F-5000, you may only construct as-of-right a 2 family house, and the lot must be at least 5000 sf. Can't afford to buy that much land? Too bad. You're going to be fighting with NIMBYs.
But suppose you do assemble a 5000 sf lot. You're not done. Now you must contend with the myriad of other requirements that also have NOTHING to do with safety. Your lot must be 50' wide. Max FAR is 0.6! You must have a 20' front yard, 10' side yards, and a 30' back yard. That means you have to waste over half your lot on empty space. And you must build 1.5 (rounded UP to 2.0) parking spaces.
If you fail to comply with these (and some other) requirements then you will be faced with a shouting match from the orniest, crankiest NIMBYs with nothing else better to do, at your Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. Enjoy.
You wanted to build nice townhouses like the kind you find in the Back Bay or the South End? Some of the most beautiful housing in the city? Too bad! Zoning won't let you. So much for "land of the free?"
You want to build a four-unit building so that you can live on the first floor and pay for it by leasing out the rest? Too bad! Some self-anointed "lords of this neighborhood" don't want your investment and hard work. The NIMBYs shall emerge from their caves and lambaste you until you wish you never tried!
These stupid NIMBYs think that they are "defending" their neighborhood from students and slumlords. Somehow, decades of complete FAILURE have not changed their mind. We need regular people to sit down, understand this issue, and kick the NIMBYs out of their smug perches, if anything is ever to improve around here.
Unfortunately, the NIMBYs have a good defense: impenetrable zoning codes that people don't really want to deal with even though it affects so many aspects of their lives, and self-serving relationships with enough officials to ensure that their will overrides the needs of the majority of the actual residents of the neighborhood.
Lest you think developers might help: the big fish profit from these insane zoning laws. Why? Because they have the resources to buy out the politicians and get the variances. The little guy gets screwed and goes bankrupt or leaves. The big guy swoops in and can ride out the NIMBY storms long enough.
It's like a great big cycle of corruption and stupidity. And it's squeezing out the families, the lower income folks, and anyone who doesn't want to be forced into overcrowded conditions.
Setbacks are needed
Setbacks are needed as places for snow from sidewalks and walkways to go. Yards are important greenspaces, and again places to store snow from driveways. You seem to be against private properties contributing to green spaces and trees that are good for the environment and mental health. Why should only public funds go to making green space, via parks? The public also benefits when private properties have green setbacks and frontage.
Beautiful streets
Nope. Some of the most beautiful streets in Boston, and in cities around the world, are ones where there is little to no setback from the street. For example, the most photographed street in the United States:
Yeah that was featured in National Geographic. One time I went to go take some pictures of Acorn Street and there was a newlywed couple posing for a wedding photographer. They didn't want to pose on the grass in front of some generic white picket fence house. They wanted something interesting, so they came here.
Lawns are boring. There's so many more interesting ways to create beautiful green streets without wasting so much space. Grass is the worst way to do it. Pure suburban bias. We're in a city, we can do better than that. Heck, even suburbs can do better, e.g. Alexandria, VA (although I think this roadway could stand to be narrowed):
Zoning rules which make nice streets illegal are screwed up.
Only problem with that idea - MBTA is not city-run
I agree with your desire for better public transportation, but you do understand that the T is not run, and is not much cowed by, the city government, right? Not much a mayor can do about T service/costs other than lobby the legislature.
Also, I agree to a degree that transportation issues make living in the urban center less attractive for many. But this statement:
is, quite frankly, assinine. The city is primarily filled with middle class, working families. Hyperbole may feel satisfing as you type it but it doesn't do much to further debate.
The mayor can do much more to
The mayor can do much more to improve the T than I can.
I do understand
I do understand the T is not run by the city, yes, and that causes a lot of serious issues we see today. I might bitch about how the T sucks sometimes, but that's because it SHOULD be so much more than it is. Anything less is a disservice to the citizens of Boston (Unions are not the problem).
I may be suffering from selection bias, but that statement was based off where I've lived in the city and my time working for the 2010 Census. The overwhelming majority of people in my current neighborhood are students, low income individuals/families, or high earning individuals ($100k+).
When I lived in Allston it was mainly students and young working professionals. Rarely did I see your typical suburban family.
The area in Dorchester I occasional attend is packed with families, but again, from my anecdotal experience, many of them could be considered "low-income" and nearly all of them are on some form of government assistance. Dorchester is pretty big though, and I've never actually been east of Dot Ave.
Also destitute probably wasn't the best word to use on my part.
Why go to the Globe?
There's a website for the Transportation Forum with filled-out questionnaires from the candidates, and video of the event.
“I have biked it, and it was a very enjoyable 45 seconds."
Exactly the issue with much of the bike infrastructure thats referenced, it ends up being short and sweet and doesn't connect with or interact well with the existing infrastructure. In this case of the Western Ave. cycle track, its quite short but I think the bigger issue is that it just ends at the intersection of a very car-centric and congested area at Soldiers Field Road. At that point, fend for yourself and swim with the sharks.
That being said, the infrastructure in Boston is getting better. The issue, especially with these cycle-tracks, is the space they demand in a city very short on road space. I still think education and enforcement of road laws, coupled with bike lanes on major routes and sharrows for connecting secondary streets makes the most sense for this city.
Also it seems that a much more glaring issue is often overlooked in terms of cyclist safety. Potholes. Many of the shoulders and lanes of our roads are ripped up by road users and seriously impact how far to the right cyclist feel safe riding. I know personally that I often have to pull out to the center of the lane for some stretches of my commute.
" much more glaring issue is
" much more glaring issue is often overlooked in terms of cyclist safety. Potholes."
Absolutely. The most important thing for a safe and convenient bike route is smooth pavement. And I wouldn't blame road users for causing rough road conditions, as much as sloppy repair jobs after utility work or winter freeze damage.
Number two is not having a lot of mistimed traffic lights and unnecessary stop signs.
After that comes road width, which can take the form of a bike lane, shoulder, or wide lane.
Was someone really complaining about illegal chickens?
Is this...like...a problem?
Aside from the several sacrificed chickens I've seen on makeshift altars in Franklin Park over the years, I didn't think that chickens are impacting anyone's way of life in Boston. Of course I'm one of those folks who'd be tickled to see legal chickens in the city (or hens anyway...)
Sacrificed chickens
My poor fellow cluckers... and the police do nothing! Instead they come for me! I am not an illegal chicken! I was born and raised here.
Yes, and a confession
The city is looking at agricultural zoning that would make it easier in certain circumstances to keep chickens (you'd still have to go before the zoning board, though).
But we're talking hens here. In the meantime, somebody in Roslindale (somewhere on Metropolitan, I think) has a rooster, which you can sometimes hear continuously from first light until well into the afternoon.
We're far enough away from Leghorn that it's more of an oddity that you really only hear if you're listening for it (at first, you go "Is that a rooster? In Boston?") than something that drives you stark raving mad, but ...
A few weeks ago, the kidlet says it was loud enough to wake her up before she was ready, and so, ever since, she's been on a tear about illegal chickens. She asked several candidates about illegal chickens at a District 5 candidate's night a couple weeks ago and she asked at least two people running for mayor at BLS the other day about it (Consalvo, she reports, was more non-committal, although he did give her the Mayor's Hotline number to complain).
two word
Wrist Rocket!
On Metropolitan? Must be on the other side of the hill...
...I've never heard a rooster crowing around here, on the Kittredge side.
Your kid is miffed about being woken by a rooster a few weeks ago, but isn't bothered by other disruptive city noise (car alarms, fireworks, barking dogs, ad nauseum)? I love ya, adam - and therefore by extension am at least moderately fond of your immediate family as well - but perhaps that child needs to suck it up/get over it.
Having said that - as a country boy, I can tell you that roosters rarely crow when inside/in the dark. So if you can locate the neighbor with the noisy little banty, you might ask them to make sure he coops all his birds until a decent hour of the morning. (Roosters are sometimes reluctant to be sheparded in with the hens - but figuring out how to trick/entice him in is part of being a responsible owner).
Disruptive city noise in the morning?
Heh, we live in the country end of Roslindale, overlooking the scenic golf course, where it can get scary quiet for people used to the normal rhythms of a big city (sometimes at night, if things are really still, you can hear the roar of traffic from 128).
Yep, we have barking dogs (well, more specifically, one tiny little yipping thing that doesn't realize it only weighs about 8 ounces and so barks at every one and everything that goes by), etc., but not in the morning, when you can hear the rooster.
Interesting you haven't heard it. You're north of us, which is where the rooster seems to be. Maybe we're getting some ionospheric skip from JP :-). Or maybe it's closer to us (or more to the west) than I thought.
As for the kidlet, no, don't worry, she's not getting an ulcer over this.
Too funny!
I never woulda thunk it. I have to admit, I only wish that crowing roosters were my biggest noise issue. But yeah--I'm only pro-hen.
Anti-cock bias
Please, folks, let's not let anyone develop an anti-cock bias.
Y'all gotta problem, I say,
Y'all gotta problem, I say, y'all gotta problem with my crowin', son - I mean, kidlet?
a touch
of the Haitian VoDo
And I love the Globe lede
"Who knew...?"
Obviously she doesn't read Universal Hub where we know that the fastest way to get folks to come running is to mutter softly "bike lane."
A resident parking program
A resident parking program costs money to run. And if stickers are free, there's very little disincentive for residents to ask for it to expand all over the place, to the detriment of nonresidents who also have reasons to park in the area.
There's also the issue of
There's also the issue of Brookline residents that own investment apartments/buildings in Boston getting their mitts on resident parking stickers to store their cars on our streets overnight or during sports/concerts/events.
Some suburban commuters do the same thing. They get parking permits with an address from an investment property they own and then use resident parking to park all day while they are at the office.
Resident parking stickers should require not only a Boston address but proof a car is registered in the city of Boston.
"Resident parking stickers
"Resident parking stickers should require not only a Boston address but proof a car is registered in the city of Boston."
That would do a lot to cut down on the number of out-of-state license plates I see in locations that have rental units taken by students.
But...they do already
From the city's parking web page on what to bring to get a permit:
And when you go to the parking office in City Hall, they ask for the registration to check it.
Are you sure the out of state cars are parking on residents only streets? Sometimes streets look like they should be residents only, and they turn out to not be (two hour visitor parking, maybe?). Or you find a street that the city has forgotten exists and parking is a free for all.
Chickens and Bikes? So JP.
A few years ago I would hear the cockle-doodle-doo of a rooster when walking through the pond side of JP. Maybe that rooster decided the grass is greener in Roslindale?
Noises affect people differently. I hate car horns and beeps when a person locks up their car (always wonder if that makes them a target for a vehicular B&E or worse). But normal city noises of a lower pitch are background. So Adam's kid could easily be annoyed by the rooster but not other sounds. But some folks think they know everything.
Would anon with the formula about what a high-use biker would owe explain how he/she got to the number. Not to dispute though, I'm just curious about how the numbers were calculated.
Finally, BostonDog - you raise a good question. How many non-car owning bikers are there? I bet a lot more than you guess.
What I don't get is that every bike on the road = one less car on the road or one less body packed into a sardine can subway car at rush hour. The complaint that there are bikers who are poor at their road skills is empty when compared to drivers who are equally adept in driving, such as the kid who drove at 80 MPH with the result life altering damage to a person.
Sometimes I think the argument between non-bikers and bikers is more about the satisfaction of putting one group of people or another down rather than making things better for everyone. Now that racism, sexism, homophobia and all the other usual targets of bigotry are off limits there has to be somebody to hate doesn't there?