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.