Yesterday I mentioned Australia, and the algorithm clearly noticed, because it placed this video in my path:I really hoped that this was a story completely unrelated to bikes in which a reporter just happened to get nearly hit by one, which would have been entertaining, but in fact its a story about bike lanes in which they claim the reporter was nearly hit when in fact the cyclist basically just rides around him and the reporter doesnt even have to break stride, which is just derivative:We then hear from the bike lanes opponents:Who bear an uncanny resemblance to the couple in American Gothic:Except the glasses are reversed, because its the southern hemisphere.While objection to the bike lane in this case is ostensibly because its ableist, the real issue seems to be that the street reconfiguration has reduced four lanes of car traffic to just two:Ironically, the reporter makes a big deal about how he almost got hit by a bike, but doesnt seem to notice that he and his camera crew can now shoot an entire news segment in a spot where he once would have been run over immediately.Nevertheless, as cyclists we should concede that the Antipodean Gothic couple and the guy who recently graduated from a university with a major in communications (or whatever the Australian equivalent is) do have a point, which is that we suck at yielding to pedestrians. A little over a year ago now, I became a regular bicycle commuter again, and my route consisted mainly of the Hudson River Greenway, which runs the length of the entire island of Manhattan:The further downtown you get, the more pedestrian crosswalks there are, and I was aghast at the complete and total lack of consideration on the part of virtually all cyclists towards pedestrians in the crosswalk with the right-of-way. To yield to someone on foot means to risk being rear-ended by some doofus on an e-Citi Bike, and its so bad that when you slow to allow people to cross they often thank you profuselyeither that, or they talk loudly amongst themselves about how these cyclists never stop, which they do on purpose so you can hear it, which is ironic, since youre the one cyclist who actually stops for pedestrians.Even in the case of the Australian reporter, while he was probably at little to no risk of being hit, and in fact probably didnt even notice the cyclist until his cameraperson pointed him out, its important to understand that riding past someone without slowing, or swerving instead of yielding, is still inconsiderate:Sure, you may have seen them in plenty of time and adjusted your path accordingly, but they dont know that, and given the overall ineptitude of urban cyclists theres no reason for any pedestrian to assume anyone on a bike has anything resembling good judgement or bike-handling skills.As for my own bicycle commute, I must confess Ive largely abandoned it these daysnot because of cars or anything like that (my route was almost entirely car-free and therefore very low-stress), but simply because of time. At 17 miles each way I cannot compete with the subway unless I put in a massive physical effort, and while I enjoy a spirited bike ride, thats not what Im looking for when Im riding a bike for transportation:As for getting an e-bike or something like that to close the gap, why would I get a type of bike Im not personally interested in owning just to keep commuting by bike?For e-bike money Id rather have an old motorcycle. Once upon a time I did commute by motorcycle and I do miss owning oneand yes, Ive always got at least one eye on the classifieds:[Dear Moto Freds: I just pulled what seemed like a cheap bike at random, but Im totally out of the loop on stuff and have no idea if this is a good deal or not, so dont overthink it.]But old-fashioned unassisted bicycles remain my first love, and I try to remind myself a motorcycle would merely divert time and resources from them at a time in my life when even being able to fritter away time and resources on bicycles is a luxury.No, for now the subway nets me about an hour of time savings per commuting day, and as a bonus I can also do something Ive barely done since becoming a semi-professional bike blogger, which is read books. Since starting this blog Ive probably written more books than Ive read, but now that Im taking the train Ive read multiple books, including Moby-Dick, which has many analogues to cycling despite predating the safety bicycle by like half a century. Consider:To make them run easily and swiftly, the axles of carriages areanointed;and for much the same purpose, some whalers perform an analogous operation upon their boat; they grease the bottom. Nor is it to be doubted that as such a procedure can do no harm, it may possibly be of no contemptible advantage; considering that oil and water are hostile; that oil is a sliding thing, and that the object in view is to make the boat slide bravely.Now tell me that doesnt evoke the greasing-the-tapers debate. No doubt people became whalers back in those days because they didnt have bicycles to distract them. Most people assume we stopped commercial whaling because petroleum made it both unnecessary and impractical, but I believe it ended because the bicycle was invented and eventually men with weenie-ish tendencies realized they no longer had to ship out to sea for three years in order to experience a sense of adventure or bicker over the application of lube.Of course riding the subway isnt as much fun as riding a bicycle, but I doubt too many people in New York City are enjoying their bicycle commutes anyway:Screaming at cars is not saving your life, its making you depressed and miserable:This is a textbook case of Pathological Bike Lane Obstruction Fixation Disorder (PBLOFD), and riding around screaming is no way to go through the city or through life.