250ghost-190.jpgAlthough reporters are by nature some of the most cynical people alive, what in the Sam-fuck is W.M. Ferguson talking about in this past weekend’s not so green New York Times Magazine piece: “GHOST BIKES: To judge from ad campaigns and civic initiatives, the solution to climate change is simple: ride a bike, save the earth. The hundreds of ghost bikes throughout the world, however, silently testify to a darker truth. A memorial to a cyclist killed in traffic, a ghost bike springs up in the days after the crash — never, in the parlance of the cycling activists responsible for the ghost bikes, an “accident.” Really, a darker truth? Like what, bikes aren’t a great way to go green? Riding your bike instead of driving a car is not good for the environment? No it’s this, “[H]owever free and healthy and green our bicycles make us, the green revolution might actually be a revolution, and revolution can be dangerous.”


There’s so many problems with this small collection of 145 words it’s hard to even find a starting point. Besides the outright outrageous claim that it’s bike activists that are responsible for their own deaths and not the negligent drivers, the entire premise of this piece is off. If the alleged green revolution does take place, doesn’t Ferguson assume that will mean more dedicated and safer bike lanes instead of the current death trap of potholed city streets and swerving cabbies? Wouldn’t that revolution also include less cars and better improvements in mass transit, maybe even light rails, thereby reducing the amount of cars on a whole? |NYT Magazine|