Following the publication of this story, the letters to the editors on August 13, 16, and 17 had at least one bicyclist or driver opining on the awfulness of the other.

Sensing blood, the P-G collected anecdotes from frustrated drivers, wrapped some weak reporting around it, and threw it on the front page on August 18 under the headline "When bicyclists break the safety chain, driver complaints mount."

Predictably, this set off another round of furious letter-writing, some of which were published on August 20, 21, 23, and 25. The paper's normally conservative page 2 columnist also spent a column supporting the bicyclists' cause.

There has been ample debate on the topic on the paper's own discussion form as well as on at least one local blog, which has racked up an impressive 100+ comment count on a post that was just trolling for abuse.

I have little to add to this noise, except to say that I think that both sides are yelling past each other, and that no amount of increased law enforcement, or painted bike lanes, or bicycle licensing fees will change how cars and bikes interact on the city's streets, in their current state.

That's not to say things can't get better. What I would like to see is a fundamental rethinking of the function of the city street.

This story of Hans Monderman, a Dutch traffic engineer is a wonderful study in counter-intuitive approaches to better moderate the role of the automobile in the city.

While redesigning a major thoroughfare in a Dutch village after two children were fatally stuck, Monderman employed psychological tricks, not signs and speed bumps, to calm traffic:

Signs were removed, curbs torn out, and the asphalt replaced with red paving brick, with two gray "gutters" on either side that were slightly curved but usable by cars. As Monderman noted, the road looked only five meters wide, "but had all the possibilities of six."

The results were striking. Without bumps or flashing warning signs, drivers slowed, so much so that Monderman's radar gun couldn't even register their speeds. Rather than clarity and segregation, he had created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to them, drivers became more accommodating. Rather than give drivers a simple behavioral mandate -- say, a speed limit sign or a speed bump -- he had, through the new road design, subtly suggested the proper course of action.

Of his approach, Monderman says:

"I don't want traffic behavior, I want social behavior."

Better social behavior is something we should all strive to practice. Perhaps as the oil era cedes center stage, we can once again reclaim our urban spaces and infuse them with a humanity that has been missing for far too long.

I implore American Airlines, as well as the other carriers considering various cost-saving scenarios, to take into account more than profit when they evaluate routes.

Good luck with that.

I'll say it until I'm blue in the face: we need to work on improving other means of long-distance travel. As James Kunstler says, we have a train system that Bulgarians would be ashamed of.

Failing that, we should all just get used to living closer to that which is most important to us, and traveling less to those places that are far away.

• White House asserts executive privilege in EPA dispute
• US asks to rewrite detainee evidence
• Deal Reached in Congress to Rewrite Rules on Wiretapping

Like Dylan said, "when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Who are the hangers-on who still think this joke of an administration is worthy of anything but contempt?

And great job, Democrats, of working on that new agenda. I hear there's some oil off of the coast just waiting to be had.

If one was, say, a presidential candidate, now might be a good time to make note of the unreality of our previous way of life, note the positives that higher gas prices can bring, and propose setting a floor on gas prices.

On second thought, one might be wise to keep this plan hush-hush until after one has obtained the office. Selling this plan while campaigning presupposes an electorate with enough brains to realize the benefits.

But what the government can't, or won't, accomplish, the market will, for better or for worse. I think the ratchet effect is in full swing. $3/gallon gas, we hardly knew you: $4 is here to stay. It's just a shame that we couldn't have realized this earlier, skimmed a bit off the top, and done a better job of preparing ourselves for a different way of life.