In the week since Alice Swanson was tragically killed riding her bike through Dupont Circle, there has been the usual back-and-forth between aggravated cyclists and aggrieved drivers. Cyclists accuse drivers of being two-ton road menaces, while drivers fire back by relaying long-worn tales of cyclists recklessly flying through red lights.

But in recent days cyclists have started defending their trade, looking to present their selective ignorance of traffic laws as perfectly justifiable. First up was the City Paper’s Mike DeBonis, who wrote of being a “sensible scofflaw”:

The whole fun and profit of riding your bike in the city is breaking the rules when safe and possible. That’s why I can get from my office in Adams Morgan down to city hall in 10 minutes or less during even the worst times of day traffic-wise. It’s what makes riding a bike around this city worthwhile.

And what does he propose a sensible scofflaw can do? Run stop signs and red lights, go the wrong way down a one-way street and slide past cars in intersections.

More recently, The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle penned a more nuanced defense of scofflaw cyclists by citing a difference between “moral” laws and “coordination laws”:

Photo by zenfrisbee