I took offense to the title ("Holy Rollers") since I ride in a most unholy fashion. But, the article was great.

first off, i have to say that i think it was a terribly written article. it had no organization or message at all and wasn't even interestingly written. it seemed like an article written by someone who really didn't want to write an article, who was just putting words on paper without really thinking about what any of it amounted to. he starts off more-or-less focusing on the issue of the critical mass controversy, but then meanders off into a sort of random character study of a cranky, insane person who likes his sidewalk clear. the writer is just reporting things in the manner of a dry objective account and yet it's clear - as you said - that he's not at all particularly sympathetic to cyclists. at the same time he doesn't seem sympathetic to anyone at all. and that's why the article just seems to fall flat. it touches upon huge shocking facts (the # of cyclists killed over the past few years - 120) and yet reports them in the most bland boring manner, seeming to prefer petty meaningless details over substance.

what the article did manage to communicate to me was one indisputable fact: people DON'T like cyclists. and it's good for me to remember this, because when i was mostly a pedestrian, i was also annoyed by them - the rude, in-your-face cyclists who lunge in front of you or bolt out of nowhere at 40 mph. there is definitely a bad vibe between cyclists and pedestrians in NYC, understandably so.

it's interesting though that the rudeness of the cyclists should be more salient than the rudeness and irresponsibility of motorists. i would argue that cyclists come off as "renegade" because they are visible people that you can point a figure at, whereas drivers tend to be more invisible, shielded as they are behind the protection of their windshield and the enormous armor of their car. it's that "might equals right" notion again. the car is bigger and more manufactured and seems to dwarf the specifity of a human, so it somehow comes off as more authorized to the road. the car can get away with doing dangerous things because "it's the car!" not any person you can pinpoint.

however, i will say that there are a lot of really obnoxious cyclists who do show a lack of courtesy for pedestrians. it's been interesting for me to see these different perspectives. now that i ride a bike, i see how nervous people are when they see me as they approach the crosswalk -- how they stop short, assuming i'm going to shoot past them. i feel like i'm a one-woman brigade trying to correct the failures of others by actually attempting to do the right thing, to reassure them and offer them the right-of-way. though, believe me, i do need to remind myself to do this at times.

the bottom line is this: everyone should yield to pedestrians first and foremost. but the natural order should go like this: cars should yield to cyclists and cyclists should yield to pedestrians. this is how it works successfully in other more civilized cities like copenhagen and paris and london. those are places where they have managed to calm the traffic successfully to restore the streets as livable.

ok, so that's my take on the article.