No, but in the aggregate the loss of efficiency + wasted fuel has a real social cost, which shouldn't be dismissed so glibly.

Cyclists significantly slowing traffic on major arterials IS a problem and sanctimonious truisms are not the solution. The solution is bike lanes or entire separate "bike arterials" which run parallel to "car arterials" so the two wildly different transportation mechanisms don't get in each others way too much.

The solution is for all road-users to continuously adapt to what's happening around them. Folk who aren't capable of that shouldn't be allowed on the road.

Cyclists are not a problem. They are a group of road-users. Equally entitled to use the roads as every other legal road-user.

Please explain how you think cyclists are equally entitled to use a road that was built solely for motor vehicles.

I got down-voted for this!

After n years. Time to sign out from HN.

Random stuff gets downvoted sometimes. It might not even have been intentional, what with no way to correct it. Obviously some people disagree with your statement, though, so who knows.

"Share the road? Then share the rules!"(tm)

Slowing down is a social cost, but killing people isn't?

Which part of my post implied that I think that? Was it the part where I specifically suggested a solution that would keep cyclists safe and speed up traffic?