"In Denmark, the government spends millions (billions?) on non-car transportation infrastructure.
Here, irate citizens sue San Francisco, "upset at what they view as the city's willingness to appease cyclists at the expense of motorists."
Amazing that people who are so pissed off over traffic, see bikes only as nuisance and competition instead of as a potential solution."
Indeed. What I always find counter-productive is the usage of the word "cyclists". As though it's a group completely separated from the rest of society, instead of just being citizens who merely choose a different transport form.
It should read the City's - any city's - willingness to increase quality of life, lower emission levels, noise pollution and further develop liveable urban areas. Or a city's willingness to reduce wear and tear on roads, to benefit motorists, by shifting large numbers of citizens to two-wheeled transport. Or a city's willingness to work positively towards better public health by battling lifestyle illnesses and obesity.
This positive message is included in the article in a statement from a bike advocate, but it will be great when this angle is the norm, not the exception.
Full article at SF Gate here.