As a cyclist and a driver, I agree that there are far too many jerks who think it's fine to run red lights if it saves them a little pedaling...

but the ones that really get me are people in dark clothing after dark with no lights or helmet pedaling up the sidewalk on the left side of the street behind a row of parked cars and out across an intersection at 15mph... who, when faced with a near-accident, rant about how they had the "right of way".

Even if you're right, the right of way doesn't matter when you're dead, buddy.

Don't forget the headphones. As a very safety-conscius cyclist, I cringe at other cyclists who wear headphones or anything that artificially reduces hearing.

Conversely, I've decided that automobile drivers just don't belong on the roads. It truly is worse for everyone involved--health of the driver, safety of everyone around them, health of the community, etc. The economic growth issues are also murky.

So what does belong on the roads, oh paragon of wisdom?

I think the point is that msellout feels (please correct), and I'm inclined to agree, that the assumption that cars are entitled on highways but cyclists are not is wrong.

There is probably more benefit in having less cars and more cycles than the converse.

It rather sounds to me like he just wants all cars off the road, and I'm not sure how you could arrive at a different conclusion without applying liberal amounts of conjecture.

>he just wants all cars off the road

Personally I think he was using hyperbole; countering the suggestion that cyclists shouldn't be allowed on the road and questioning the assumption that the solution to cycle-auto conflict had to fall in favour of the car.

Conjecture? Indeed.

A new breakthrough vehicle that runs on facetiousness, maybe.