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
No comments:
Post a Comment