Grant Writing

Cyclists is every city are constantly being threatened by motorists that follow too closely, pass unsafely, or blatantly disregard a bike riders existence whether intentionally or on accident. In order to make the city of Seattle a safer place for cyclists we need to encourage people to get out of their cars and ride bikes. Not only would less decongest the city streets, but it would also provide a cleaner environment for residence after drastically cutting down exhaust levels created by vehicles. 

The implementing of more bike lanes would provide cyclists with safer routes and could then encourage others to give up the car for a bike. right now, there are bike riders in Seattle that still do not commute to work because they feel unsafe on the roads because of reckless drivers. By creating a environment that first makes all cyclists confident enough to ride, then motorists will see the advantages of bike riding. It will become apparent to them that cycling is more healthy, fast, and pretty darn fun. 

Dear Mr. and Mrs. CLIF BAR,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Neverland Ranch Bike Coalition. We are a community of cyclists in the north Seattle area that commute to work and/or school everyday, rain, shine, and this winter, even snow. We've found in our daily bike rides that Seattle's roads are unsafe for cyclists and every day we commute with fear.

We are attempting to implement putting a bike lane beginning at 15ave Nw and Holman Rd at the northend of Ballard, all the way down south, across the Ballard Bridge and then continued into Downtown Seattle. A project like this would take several weeks to accomplish but would be most beneficial to the cycling community and the environment.

We are seeking a grant of $40,000 to help advance this project. Our coalition would be willing to submit a proposal for this project for your foundation and we will be sure to follow up with a phone call within the upcoming weeks.

Thank you for your time and attention.

=Nick= 

NLRBC

District 5 Diary Blog

In order to establish that I have good sense concerning the issue of cyclists v. motorists, I would have to demonstrate to the audience that I am well informed about the issue to the point in which I would easily be able to answer any possible questions they may have about the topic. In particular, I would need to take special care in making sure that after explaining the issues to them, that they are informed while at the same time are not overwhelmed with details. Lucky for me, the topic is pretty basic, so while there are many facets of the issue, the basic idea that cyclists and motorists are struggling to get along and are constantly bickering online and in the streets about right of ways and illegal moves can be understood fairly simply.

Also, within this debate it is easy to get lost in very trivial arguments, like the thousands that take place on blogs and forums. A vast amount of those arguments are irrelevant and often incoherent, it would be very important for me to only touch on the disputes that have actual material influence on the subject and avoid juvenile refuting juvenile squabbling.

A very advantageous aspect of my character regarding this topic would be to discuss openly how I am both a cyclist and a motorist. By doing so I provide the audience with personal information about myself that helps portray a balanced position on the issue. Examining further, I can also speak of my driving record which is free of any moving violations both on a bicycle and a motor vehicle. Generally speaking, I demonstrate to the audience that I am a credible individual that can see both sides of the issue clearly, which hopefully reveals that I have personal experience regarding the ongoing circumstances of the concern.

Presenting the importance of the argument would be the most concrete way for me to reveal my goodwill for the debate. If the audience becomes aware of the dangers that revolve around the issue and can then deduct the benefits that will accrue from understanding the problem, it will be quite comprehensible to people that I only hope to better the situation for the safety of the greatest number.



For the past couple of years the San Francisco bay area has faced endless arguments concerning bicycle safety. Cyclists in the area have tried to push the city organizers to create more bike lanes, however, motorists have refuted the cyclist advocacy work and one man in particular, Robert Anderson, has spearheaded what appears to be an anti-cyclists campaign. Anderson has been keeping a blog entitled, District 5 Diary, since December of 2004, in which he scribes his personal analysis of San Francisco politics.

The blog site invites users and anonymous guests to comment on his posts, in which Anderson most usually promptly replies. Anderson has a very strong stance against the use of city funding going towards cyclists, suggesting that doing so would actually be even more harmful to the environment than if the city made more room for cars on the roads. However, Anderson lacks credibility. He himself has never conducted any research on traffic congestion in San Francisco roadways, nor does he ever cite outside research when making such statements. It is obvious from his posts that Anderson is trying to engage in pseudo-sophisticated bashing of cyclists and only further persuade those that already agree with his position, not win over people that sit on the fence.

Anderson lack goodwill in his writings. He jumps at every opportunity to take a stab at the bicycle community, and he shows it right of the bat in the sarcastic titles of his articles, such as, The push to “fix” Masonic Ave, and Implementing Bicycle Plan “Improvements.” He elects to quote terms used by the cycling community just to poke fun from his perspective. There is no concern for the well being of cyclists or even motorists for that matter. He comes off as incompetent in argument by bullying opposition, and to top it off the guy truly thinks he’s better than everyone else. Rob Anderson does not come off as a person that wants to share information for the better good, but instead acts like he’s on a personal crusade to restrain the biking community by getting legislation passed that delays (not cancels) road work. So in result, he’s just buying time and wasting the state of California’s money, which they have none of already.

School Closings

Dear Superintendent,

In regards to the closing of 5 schools in the Seattle school district I have to ask, how on earth did the school district acquire a $25,000,000 deficit? Despite the current economy, someone must have seen this coming a long time ago, so why did no one pull on the reigns to stop spending and appropriately allocate funds? Closing schools is not going to fix this issue, it is only going to put a burden on parents and their children, not remedy the problem.

The city of Seattle is contemplating saving the Post-Intelligencer, but schools? Forget about it. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Or should we just pretend it never existed in the first place? We need to focus on saving our children’s education and there are thousands of voices standing up and saying the same. The opinions and needs of the people should be worth something, so please, save these schools.

Sincerly,
Nick Kirschner

College Humor- Make it Viral!

With ADHD technology rubbing off on consumers and the day to day web/media addicts, collegehumor.com is an unconstrained onslaught of witty and crude short-form comedic videos that has sunk its teeth into the viral video market. 

While not having to abide by network rules and regulations, and with the freedom to make segments as short (or as long) as possible, collegehumor.com has taken random skits to a different playing field with damn near anything they want to do. The unique and random story lines that feature relatively low budget camera work and unprofessional acting always deliver a punch in the face of hilarity mostly due to the timing of the videos. It's rare that the segments last too long, and because of that, the in your face mentality of the pieces hold clout. It never gets old, and individuals can just keep on watching.

I foresee a problem however now that the creators are debuting a television series of the program on MTV.  With network guidelines and timing slots needing to be filled, the creators are going to have to adapt while still keeping up what people are used to. I predict that the show will never be as humorous or successful as the site, with people always commenting, "Their website is/was way better."

Rob Anderson

Rob Anderson's claims that the implementing of more bike lanes would lead to more pollution is unsubstantiated and preposterous. It is true that by decreasing the number of car lanes on the streets of San Francisco there could be more congestion as a result, but only at first. In time motorist will learn that different modes of transportation can be much quicker at rush hour times, and therefore individuals will opt to no longer drive in the city. Large cities are designed for business, not auto-motives. By putting in more bike lanes the city is encouraging people to ride bikes instead of drive their cars so that traffic will decrease over time. Delaying and/or stopping the construction of bike lanes is detrimental to the safety of cyclists and the environment.

Viaduct Debate

this debate was quite similar to a case study I used for my paper regarding the implementing of bike lanes in San Francisco and the debate that arose amongst motorists and cyclists. I think that it is obvious that alternate modes of transportation need to be at the forefront of public conversation and construction. The tunnel would be an unfortunate addition to the city. the argument that Seattle was built for automobiles and that cars will always be around is bogus and circular. Traffic exists because of cars, without them there would be no traffic and far less pollution. 

Ride a bike! Save the world!

Cyclists v. Motorists

In the battle of who owns the roads, it would appear that cyclists and motorists are frequently at each others' throats. Friction between the two has skyrocketed according to media coverage in periodicals such as the Oregonian, The Wall Street Journal and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are frequently stories covering current controversy at the monthly bike event, Critical Mass, or tales of bike v. car collisions that stem as a discussion point for safer biking roads and lanes throughout the country.
Such articles have created an ongoing argument not only on the streets of nearly every major city, but online on message boards where the bickering of who is to blame has taken form. Whenever there is a bike related article posted on an online newspaper site, an onslaught of comments follow. At times when users on the websites contribute personal safety tips for cyclists, or leave balanced comments defending motorists, the responses can be very helpful and informative. However, the majority of rhetoric between cyclists and motorists often quickly resorts to caustic squabbling of lopsided points of view and misinformation that generates an incredibly angry discussion.

According to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, in 2007 over 700 cyclists died on U.S., roads and over 90% of the deaths were collisions with motor vehicles. Anyone who drives a car, rides a bike, or walks on the sidewalk is effected by this controversy because we as individuals can quickly find ourselves mixed into the argument. For a driver, all it takes is some cyclist cutting them off by running a stop sign and then flipping them the finger. For a bike rider, all it takes is a car pulling out of a driveway without looking both ways first. And for pedestrians, two words, collateral damage.

There is undoubtedly a lot of passion involved in this topic because both groups feel so adamant about their stances and will argue with each other on blogs and miscellaneous forums to no end. Neither side wants to listen to the other, especially since the majority of arguments take the form of personal criticism against each other before any kind of productivity can take place, and to that end discussions between cyclists and motorists are lacking.

The advocates on each side of this issue are incredibly diverse, and that is one of the most unique aspects of this subject because it is hard to name names and point fingers. Some of the speakers and authors analyzed are somewhat public figures while some others are completely anonymous private individuals. The range of personalities and ethos are all over the place, which is possibly why in some instances there tends to be some much bickering among the argument. At times, in the comments section of online articles when debate gets underway it turns scathing because one individual speaking may be well informed about the issue while the other is not, so for the sake of their position and the argument, they quickly resort to internet wrangling. This is a common trend for all online media, and concerning the bike v. motorist phenomenon, it is shaping the entirety of the debate.

When articles are posted online that has either reference to bicycle advocacy or simply just involves cycling, both cyclists and motorists alike cannot stay away from the opportunity to have a go at open public form opinion politics. Even when the stories are tragic, people still have something to say. On February 4th, 2009, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote a story that was available online reporting the death of 39-year-old, Kevin Black, who was commuting to work on his bicycle when he collided with a van at an intersection. According to the Seattle-PI, at the time of publishing the story investigators were still piecing together the accident and could not specify who was to blame. Seattle Police Detective Mark Jamieson could only release that the cyclists was on the left side of the van and was possibly attempting to pass it when the driver turned.

It’s a very sad story. A relatively young father of two girls dies on his way to work, and it’s unclear who is to blame for it. The posting on the newspaper’s website garnered an incredible amount of attention and provided yet again, another occasion for people to sound off in the comments section, which the Seattle PI has appropriately titled, “sound off.”

Quickly, the posters take sides. One author, screen name, Sean98125, wrote, “There is a bike lane on 24th, but the bicyclist chose to pass a line of cars on the left and also decided to pass a vehicle in a left turn lane on the left. There's no way the van driver would expect that someone would be passing her on the left hand side when she was already in the left turn lane.” He finished his post writing, “For your family's sake, cyclists, please follow and obey traffic laws.” Despite the tragic circumstances, the topic could not be left alone, and blame had to be attributed and the bike s. cars scenario had to come out.

Another poster, screen name, pwn_democrat responded saying, “Sean98125. I don't see how the cyclist was breaking the law. If cars are allowed to pass bikes, then why aren't bikes allowed to pass cars? If you are passing a bike in your car and the bike turns left in front of you, would you blame the bike? Most would say yes.” From this point, the argument absolutely takes off. Posters claiming that the driver of the van was at fault begin to make statements asserting that the Seattle Police always find a way to attribute fault to cyclists, while their opponents try and dig into cyclists themselves. One poster attacked pwn_democrat saying that he was “The type of rider who pushes his "right" to be in the same space as cars at the risk of safety, just to prove a point. You ride with a chip on your shoulder and are the exact type of rider who is the absolute worst ambassador for all riders.”

What had once been a tragic and balanced story about an untimely death, transformed into a dispute of unfounded assumptions attacking the characters of individuals that had never met. All of this was done so that those who support cyclist, or are cyclists themselves, and those who are fed up with bike riders, could vent about their distaste for each other, all the while not generating actual discussion about the honest dangers the two pose for each other.

Even reputable websites, like bicyclesafe.com, which provides tips to cyclists on ways to preemptively avoid crashes can’t help but take jabs at motorists. In describing the scenario of a cyclist being hit by the opening of a car door, or the “Door Prize” as titled on the website, the author, Michael Bluejay writes that if you can’t stop in time and “If you're lucky, the motorist will exit the car before you hit the door, so you'll at least have the pleasure of smashing them too when you crash, and their soft flesh will cushion your impact.”

Statements like this on websites that receive a high number of visits from cyclists (especially after the website had a write-up in Portland’s Oregonian) perpetuates the creation of factions between the cycling community and motorists. The website, though clearly designed for bike riders’ safety, is uninviting for car drivers because it bashes on them. The values of the author, Bluejay, rests among cyclists and though his website could be used both for the benefit of cyclists as well as motorists, the content he chooses deviates away from getting knowledge out to both sides, and only increases the rivalry between parties.

In San Francisco, cyclists and motorists have been duking it out since 2006 over the installation of new biking roadways that were supposed to be implemented but were delayed because one man, Rob Anderson, argued that urban bicycle boosting could actually be bad for the environment. The city postponed putting in new bike lanes and bike racks until the city completed an environmental-impact report. Anderson argues that cars will always vastly outnumber bikes and that allotting more street space to cyclists could cause more traffic jams, more idling and more pollution. He claims that the attempt of enlarging bike lines is an "attempt by the anti-car fanatics to screw up our traffic on behalf of the bicycle fantasy," he wrote in his blog back in August of 2008. The backlash by the cycling community in San Francisco has been fervent, and the arguments has taken to his blog where the exchange of insults and combatant disputes won’t rest.

Individuals respond to Anderson’s postings with lewd remarks, calling him a “fag,” a “poor, small, ignorant SOB,” and a “pathetic blight on Humanity” just to list a few, and conversely, Anderson rockets back his own sarcastic offense, that usually loks something like this when responding to a cyclist: “Like a lot of bike people, you have a reading and comprehension problem, possibly from inhaling too much carbon monoxide while riding your bike.”
The outbursts attacking Anderson, as well as Anderson’s rude comments are obviously not helpful to the necessary discussion, and more importantly, opponents of Anderson should focus on the discussion of his claims, and not just be bitter because he successfully suspended the bicyclist road plan. If they could focus on the issue more attentively instead of making uncouth remarks they could see that there is a fallacy within Anderson’s claim that bikes will cause more pollution because that argument is circular. The fact of the matter is that a traffic jam is the result of their being too many cars congested on the road. The keyword is cars. The lessening of cars, not bicycles or bike lanes would lighten traffic. If cyclists could usefully deconstruct his argument, then their perspective would have a much greater influence.

Looking at all the fighting, name calling and unsubstantianted criticisms it would be hard for any outside observer to see what the real point of the discussion going on is. The two groups are incredibly biased to their cause, and without logic or reason they try and persue their fantasy of either a world free of cars, or a world free of bikes. The emotions take control of the debate and no one listens to each other.

Every so often groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club will hold open public forums in a town hall setting with public officials like police or district representatives so that discussions about the issue can take place that has mediators. Only in these situations is there actual productive discussion going on because not only do the individuals have a tendency to be more respectful in person rather than online, but there are also ranking individuals there (the mediators) that can be influenced and can help the situation by being proactive in the issue. If all the debates are left in the hands of the people who instinctly want to just bash the opposing side, then no one will ever benefit.


Work Cited

Bluejay, Michael. "How To Not Get Hit By Cars." How To Not Get Hit By Cars. Oct. 2008. 28 Jan. 2009 .

Dvorak, Phred. "San Francisco Ponders: Could Bike Lanes Cause Pollution." Wall Street Journal Online. 20 Aug. 2008. 01 Feb. 2009 .

Rob, Anderson. ""Keep Up The Good Work Mr. Anderson"" Weblog post. District 5 Diary. 20 Aug. 2008. 29 Jan. 2009 .

Rose, Joseph. "For Cyclists, 'how to not get hit by cars' in ten easy lesson." Oregonian 26 Jan. 2009. 29 Jan. 2009 http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/01/for_cyclists_how_to_not_get_hi.html#comments

"Seattle PI Sound Off." Seattle Post Intelligencer. 04 Feb. 2009. 04 Feb. 2009 .

Unknown. "Bicycle Helmet Statistics." Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. 09 Jan. 2009. Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute. 29 Jan. 2009 .

Wong, Brad. "Bike Rider Killed In Ballard." Seattle Post Intelligencer 04 Feb. 2009. 04 Feb. 2009 .

SU-D1

The Seattle University athletic program moving from Division I to Division II is a landmark event for the small Jesuit school. The transitional period has a cloudy future because there is no telling how the first few years of competition are going to go. So far the university’s basketball team has seen relative success in their first season as a D-I team, winning several games in their conference and playing on the same level as every team they have gone head to head with.
However, now the big test is approaching. On March 3rd the team will be playing the University of Washington Huskies, who has a history of always being a competitive team that always rises well to rivalry, and this year is a complete powerhouse against other Pac-10 teams. The outlook for the game suspects that Seattle U will fall miserably in defeat, and if I had money to bet on the game, I would definitely put my money on the Dawgs.
Despite the outcome of March 3rd though, people need to realize that this is a year for the Redhawks to learn. They are being educated on what it takes to compete at this level, and now is the time to work all of the kinks out and improve as players. Like philosopher Isocrates said, “The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits.” Ie. This young team has to take a couple beatings in order to grow.

MAP Intro

In the battle of who owns the roads, it would appear that cyclists and motorists are frequently at each others' throats. Friction between the two has skyrocketed according to media coverage in periodicals such as the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are frequently stories covering current controversy at the monthly bike event, Critical Mass, or tales of bike v. car collisions that stem as a discussion point for safer biking roads and lanes throughout the country.

Such articles have created an ongoing argument not only on the streets of nearly every major city, but online on message boards where the bickering of who is to blame has taken form. Whenever there is a bike related article posted on an online newspaper site, an onslaught of comments follow. At times when users on the websites contribute personal safety tips for cyclists, or leave balanced comments defending motorists, the responses can be very helpful and informative. However, the majority of rhetoric between cyclists and motorists often quickly resorts to caustic squabbling of lopsided points of view and misinformation that generates an incredibly angry discussion.

Anyone who drives a car, rides a bike, or walks on the sidewalk is effected by this controversy because we as individuals can quickly find ourselves mixed into the argument. For a driver, all it takes is some cyclist cutting them off by running a stop sign and then flipping them the finger. For a bike rider, all it takes is a car pulling out of a driveway without looking both ways first. And for pedestrians, two words, collateral damage.

There is undoubtedly a lot of emotions involved in this topic because both groups feel so adamant about their stances and will argue with each other on blogs and miscellaneous forums to no end. Neither side wants to listen to the other, especially since the majority of arguments take the form of personal criticism against each other before any kind of productivity can take place, and in result discussions between cyclists and motorists are lacking.