Cassidy goes another round against the rest of the Internet:

In arguing that the concerns of cyclists should be balanced with those of motorists, I am merely suggesting that any further bike lanes be subjected to some sort of efficiency test beyond the rule of two wheels good, four wheels bad. Do the putative gains in convenience, safety, and fuel-economy from a particular bike lane outweigh the costs to motorists (and other parties, such as taxpayers and local businesses)?

Felix Salmon fires back:

At this point it’s clear that Cassidy has no idea what this kind of analysis which actually does get done is involved in these things. He gets the benefits largely right, although I think that he massively underestimates the value and importance of safety gains. If you significantly reduce pedestrian fatalities, as the Prospect Park West bike lane has done, that in and of itself is reason to build it. As for the costs, there’s really very little evidence that motorists and taxpayers and local businesses bear any costs at all.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.