Philebrity.com likes to rail about Stu Bykofsky and anti-bicycle columns, but it appears they are intent on becoming the hipster version of Stu. Their most recent column, Reasonable Humans Draw Up Pedestrian–Cyclist Armistice That Will Be Followed Everywhere But Here Because Of, Well, You Know.
They allude that an article in Slate Magazine which promoted a simple solution of mutual respect between cyclists and pedestrians to end common misperceptions of each other. Philebrity’s response was, it won't work here because “you know”. The problem is, we don't know. Is Philebrity inferring that there is something unique about Philadelphia cyclists and pedestrians that won't make this work? Do they have to keep perpetuating the myth that all cyclists are bunch lawless renegades. Terrifying little old ladies as they ride on the sidewalks and running stop signs at will. Or a group of individuals on the fringe who ride because they have no choice because of DWI/DUI or a environmental extremist.
Why does Philebrity need to engage in the same type of pot stirring that Stu Bykofsky does? Is this a ploy to increase the number of hits on their website or do they truly feel that Philadelphia cyclists are a bunch of renegades? It would be nice if Philebrity could explain why this won't work, but only they know.