You have to admit that John Cassidy’s anti-bike lane screed is beautifully written, but it remains an odd piece of argumentation. Like a lot of transportation rhetoric on both sides, it’s decidedly either/or: Either you’re for bikes, or you’re for cars. But Cassidy’s own case contradicts that approach. He complains of “motor traffic snarled on avenues that, thanks to bike lanes, have been reduced from four lanes to three, or three to two,” which I take as a complaint about congestion. But what is he expecting to do about congestion?

There’s no further room for roads in Manhattan or its environs, but given the city’s comfort with tall buildings, there is room for more people. If each and every one of them decides to buy a car, as Cassidy has, the streets will become essentially impassable. The question, for drivers, is one of survival: How do you persuade the maximum number of New Yorkers not to drive?

The answer seems obvious: You give them other options. Bike lanes are one such option.