[SDCBC] Pedal Power in the News

[Serge Issakov]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Jamie Ortiz <jamie at baileygardiner.com>wrote:

> This is exactly the type of publicity that biking needs in the U.S. <snip>
> Given that this piece is geared to consumers, not bicycling advocates, we
> have to put ourselves into the shoes of those newcomers who are terrified or
> too lazy to get on their bikes often. This piece showed many positive
> aspects to encourage them to give it a try:
>
> 1) biking classes. even for those who've never been on a bike
>

Actually, it was biking classes *only* for those adults who've never learned
to ride (balance) a bike and nothing about biking classes for those who know
how to ride a bike, but not how to ride safely and comfortably in traffic,
which probably applies to most adults watching the show.


> 2) government responding to accidents to make roads safer (the example in
> Portland)
>

Here the implication is that engineering can fix problems caused by
inappropriate behavior.  In this case the only type of accident addressed by
the bike box is the cyclist who filters forward at a red light on the right
side, and stops to the right of a truck at the intersection's stop line.
When the light turns green, the cyclist proceeds, while the truck driver
turns right and hooks the cyclist.  There have been several fatalities of
this type in Portland recently, and so they're trying this "bike box"
engineering solution, by designating a space for cyclist's to stop in front
of the first vehicle, where they presumably cannot be overlooked.

The implication is that the dangers are inherent in current designs of
roadways, which are currently seen as being neutral or hostile with respect
to cyclists and cycling safety, implying that cyclist-specific changes *have
* to be made BEFORE the roads can be safe for cyclists.  This implication
exaggerates the dangers of cycling in traffic, because the roads and designs
(with a few isolated exceptions here and there, none of which are addressed
by bike boxes) are already bicyclist-friendly, assuming the bicyclist
operates according to the rules of the road (and takes appropriate caution
when stretching those rules).

<snip>

If you've never been on a bike, think biking is too dangerous (a very common
> belief by people who don't ride) or think that your lifestyle doesn't lend
> itself to biking (another common misbelief), you would have seen a dozen
> reasons why those can't be excuses any longer.
>

I agree that many people think biking is too dangerous, but I didn't see in
this piece any reasons for such a person to believe that is no longer the
case.


> I disagree that this piece magnified the dangers of bicycling in traffic.
> I think it approached the subject (as any bicycling story or pamphlet
> would), and the statement was thrown out there that a new biker shouldn't
> jump onto major roadways (which I totally agree with), but it also showed a
> variety of ways that one can still learn to bike commute (see items 1, 2, 3,
> 4, 7 above).
>

I'll concede that showing a variety of riders (#3 in your list) might imply
that it's safer than one may believe, and that was good, but I disagree that
any of the other items did much if anything to alleviate the fears.  For
example. to someone who accepts the premise that re-engineering
intersections with bike boxes makes them safe (#2), the logical implication
is that intersections (the vast, vast majority - virtually all in every
other city in America) that are not so re-engineered remain unsafe for
bicyclists.   The piece did magnify the dangers, even explicitly.  It *
opened* with the Mark Twain quote, "Learn to ride a bicycle.  You will not
regret it* **if you live.*"  If you live.  Ha ha.  That's funny.  Now, I'm
sure Twain was talking about literally learning to ride (balance) a bike,
and was joking about "if you live".   But in the context of this show,
particularly if you're thinking of it as targeting "consumers" who are
riddled with fear of dying while riding in traffic, this quote can do little
but exacerbate those fears.

And again, the quote about needing to be experienced in order to ride in
traffic is fine and reasonable, but implying special facilities are required
* in lieu* of that experience is something else again.  It was pointed out
on the chainguard list this morning that many drivers feel unsafe driving on
freeways, but we don't feel the need to re-engineer freeways to address that
problem of perception.  Why engineering solutions for bicyclists who feel
unsafe riding in traffic?


Promoting biking as a commute option is a multi-prong approach. This piece
> is every effective at reaching one prong, the consumers--one very important
> avenue for growing the percentage of Americans who use bikes to get around
> town. If we don't have more newbies learning to commute by bike, our biking
> population will wane--and then who is left to advocate for?
>

I agree encouraging newbies to take up cycling is a worthy cause.  I just
don't see how this piece would be more effective than counter-effective in
that respect.  From the "if you live" opening quote to the implications of
needing separated facilities and reengineered intersections to make cycling
safe,  to the sense of inevitability (until roads are redesigned) conveyed
in regard to the Portland deaths, it just seems like it would reinforce more
than alleviate the fears a newbie might hold subconsciously.  This might not
be so obvious to someone who has quashed those fears within oneself (or
never had them) and has not focused on looking for these hidden
fear-mongering implications in pieces about bicycling.

Serge
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080728/22bdb4a5/attachment.html