Congratulations. You got me. Transportation Alternatives put this on and StreetFilms simply covered it.

What relevance does that have to any of the critique of the race? This isn’t meant to be a history lesson. It’s meant to be a critique of the lack of thoughtful dialogue on Streetsblog.

You managed to point out one wrong fact. I count 7 different assertions of fact in that short segment on the bike race. Where are the other 13 things I got wrong?

Streetsblog did NOT organize the Commuter Challenge at all. Had NOTHING to do with it. They did cover it thru, I believe, Streetfilms.

The organizers were Transportation Alternatives. it is no wonder no one can trust you guys, for every fact you get right, there are two that are not.

One more thing, in the spirit of your “get into the groove of it” around here comment, I’m going to recommend to Judd that we add “Into the Groove” by Madonna to our Traffic Jams section.

Judd -

What do you think? In Sam’s honor - shall we?

Welcome to the site.

To address your concerns - my caffeine intake allows me to whip off these rants faster than I can think them up, as Sam pointed out.

As to the length, I appreciate the comment, but I disagree with you. If someone isn’t willing to invest the time and hear me out, I don’t want them to read the post.

People can go plenty of places on the internet and see a four sentence rehash of an article and a couple of bumper sticker talking points - but what does that do to advance the debate?

Transportation is an issue that touches every single person in this country. Can you name anyone who hasn’t been pissed off at some point about something transportation related?

I recognize that most people have about a ten second attention span, but this ties into your second point, you have to catch their attention.

In my posts, I make valid points. But, I make them in a very abrasive, mocking, sarcastic and crude way. Let’s be honest, if I was sitting here reciting from the DoT manual on highways, people would fall asleep before they finished the first sentence.

We’re trying to get more of the average people in this country - the ones who don’t necessarily care about the minute details, but still feel the pain - interested and involved. So sometimes that means that I have to respect that if the average guy appreciates fart jokes, you pander to him.

I would also point out that the name of the site is “Commuter OUTRAGE” (not meant in a condescending way toward you, meant as an expression of emotion) - you have to embrace it. This isn’t a place for stylized talking points, this is a place for Judd and I to vent about problems we see every day around us, and hopefully for others to do the same.

This is the way it works - I see a story and have a gut reaction to it - I know instantly whether I like it or not and whether I think it is crap or not. I write a sarcastic, mocking, angry, etc… rant about it and let people tell me what an idiot I am, then I respond with thoughtful comments.

We feel that’s a formula for success - but you have to capture their attention first. If they read the whole post, they’re rewarded with everything from crude humor, to what we consider sly wit (StreetsBloggers may disagree on that point), but look, if you stick with it, you’re rewarded. Even if you think I’m a moron, at least you get a laugh out of my idiocy, and then you feel that you have to say something and so the debate begins.

But it’s a way to get people interested in something that honestly probably doesn’t interest them. It’s also a forum for honest debate - we pick on StreetsBlog, but there are blogs on the other side that are just as bad and probably worse, and we’ll find them and mock them too. It’s not that StreetsBlog’s ideas are all bad, it’s just that there isn’t an open and honest debate on a lot of the issues, and there isn’t a lot of intellectual rigor to most of the posts. Everyone there seems to believe the same thing - so who are you convincing?

StreetBloggers will probably never see eye-to-eye with Me and Judd, so we’re not trying to convert them. But having a forum for honest and blunt conversation is good for everyone. It’s good for both sides, us and them, because it helps both sides ID the weaknesses in their arguments and mitigate them - after all StreetsBlog is trying to convert people - how do you do that if you can’t answer basic questions that I can come up with in a 5-second knee-jerk reaction?

And the people on the fence benefit because they get to hear both sides of the argument out, and even better - they don’t just hear bumper sticker talking points here. You won’t just hear that the “US government subsidizes the automobile” you’ll see us challenge people on that and take them to task to explain what they mean. We’ll explain our side too, and you can follow the REASONING behind it so it’s not just some watered down factoid that fits nicely on a t-shirt - there’s some substance to it.

Look, you might be right, it may not work. But, we don’t care, we do this because it’s fun. We don’t make any money off of it currently, unless Judd is holding out on me. It’s a good way for us to blow off some steam, and hopefully engage some people on an issue that they don’t devote a lot of thought to beyond their frustration while they sit in traffic.

If more people think about it, changes will start to come a lot faster. If there’s one things the clowns on capitol hill understand it’s “don’t get yourself voted out of office”.

I actually agree with you on most of the social engineering comment. See my response to Sam above and see if that clears up my position for you.

So rest easy, I didn’t mock and deride you this time. But if you visit back and wish to engage in debate, which we hope you will, be prepared to back up any ridiculous statements you throw on the table, or you WILL be mocked and derided.

You’re free to mock and deride back - we have never taken down a comment - nor will we, unless it it blatantly rascist, bigoted or uses completely foul language (which most of the time we just BLEEP out.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to scour the news to see what pisses me off today.

I don’t believe that any policy that incentivizes, funds, or encourages mass transit is social engineering.

I use mass transit and would love to see it funded more than it is.

I think that funding or incentivizing DISPROPORTIONATELY to usage patters, or heavily taxing or nickel and diming with fees to discourage use is social engineering.

I think all modes should be funded to the maximum amount that makes sense, but what makes sense is determined by usage patterns - and obviously, this shouldn’t be skewed by the total absence of mass transit with an overabundance of highways - here you could make valid arguments for investment in mass transit.

But you wouldn’t fund disproportionately in an area where both exist if one isn’t used.

In New York, I actually think it makes a lot of sense to fund mass transit more than automobiles, because roughly 55% of the people use it.

But, I still don’t think you can simply not fund the automobile infrastructure in New York.

Is Mad Magazine journalism?

G-d Bless.

SEE YOU AT IHOP.

Mr. Kaag

You’re actually not in the groove yet. I suggest reading the FAQ, and perhaps a few other posts, before you embarrass yourself any further.

We believe in all modes of transportation – cars, buses, subways, light rail, long-distance trains, airplanes, bicycles, walking. We believe that our government should enable all of these modes through infrastructure construction, maintenance, and upgrades, which is why we pay income taxes in the first place. We don’t believe it’s the role of government to socially engineer us through additional taxation and regulation toward attitudes and behaviors it thinks would be best for us (but which we do not prefer). We believe that the government should allow us to decide ourselves how to get from point A to point B. In terms of paying for our infrastructure, we believe the government should shift existing tax dollars from pork-barrel projects, rather than levying new taxes.

I think you’re right. I’ll reclarify: We’re a scholarly journal.

if you can bear to read lewis’s caffeine-addled ranting, you’ll find that he believes any policy that encourages, incentivizes or funds mass transit or bicycling is “social engineering.”

any policy that encourages, incentivizes or funds motor vehicle usage and suburban sprawl is the market be allowed to do its thing and give the american consumer what he or she wants.

it’s a pretty simple set of ideas around here at commuter outrage once you get into the groove of it.

One clarification: Magazines, for the most part, do journalism. You don’t. You guys publish whiny, tossed-off, poorly thought-out ideological rants and commentary on other publications’ stories. This isn’t a magazine.

Thanks for your comments. Lewis and I will take them into consideration.

One clarification: This is not a blog. It’s a magazine.

1) Where do you find the time to write such long screeds? You make some interesting points, but come on…tighten it up a little bit! You lose 90% of readers when they see a long post like this, and that hurts you.

2) While your responses in comments have been thoughtful, the intentionally bratty nature of your posts makes you look angry. Few will sympathize with - or listen to - a caustic rant. Again, that hurts you. Humor is good, sarcasm is fine, but those are entirely different than the bitter tone you put forth.

3) Finally, and most seriously, you seem to like the term “social engineering” to describe the motives and means of “bikeable/walkable” advocates. What a sloppy, debate-debasing phrase that is. What you refer to as “social engineering” is in fact public policy and debate about that policy. By merely existing and continuing the status quo transportation investment balance, the government is engaging in “social engineering” because its policies have an impact on society. By perpetuating the status quo for transportation funding, government is taking a stand by supporting existing policy. “Neutral” does not exist. Those who challenge this policy are not engaging in “social engineering” - or if you like, they are engaging in it as much as you are. Debate over the merits of current policy and changes to that policy is called civic discussion and participation, not social engineering. Please stop carelessly tagging your ideological opponents with this tag; it only serves to further entrench both sides.

As you’ve noted before, you share some goals with the Streetsbloggers - better transit, improved cycling conditions, etc. Why not use this platform as a constructive forum instead of one in which you mock and deride others? I mean, this isn’t Gawker. Right?

You’ll probably mock and deride this comment, but hey - it was worth a shot. Best of luck with the blog - I hope it becomes a constructive place for dialogue about transportation.