When Mike Strobel of the Toronto Sun went on a rant about the evils of bicycles earlier this week, I couldn't decide whether to devote the pixels or the energy to respond to it. I wondered on Facebook and Twitter and the consensus was, don't feed the trolls, As Jamie Bradburn put it in a tweet, paraphrasing the classic movie line: "Forget it Jake, it's the Toronto Sun."
Over in London, however, Oliver Burkeman of the Guardian has no such compunctions and makes Strobel's day, delivering a feast to the troll, but at the same time pointing out that in most places, the cyclists have won.
Strobel's rant against what he calls the "bicycult" is almost entirely devoid of argument. This is as close as he gets:
"The nitty-gritty: Streets are designed for cars, not bikes. Especially in winter, which is most of the time … Cars are common sense. They are our era's horses. They're also vastly greener and safer than your dad's Buick. They will never go dinosaur, despite the bike cult's best efforts."
Still, you've got to sympathise with Strobel's predicament. All the major cycling-related arguments have been won: bike lanes are popular; they don't hurt local businesses; more biking doesn't lead to more accidents; bike lanes make pedestrians safer and don't impede the flow of car traffic.
Burkeman then goes on to provide Strobel, Ford Nation and the rest of their ilk of #bikelash commentators with five new arguments they can use to fight the bicycult's war on the car, including "If you support gun control, you should support bike control." Read them all at the Guardian: Pedalling myths: the anti-bike lobby is flat out of plausible arguments