baltimorespokes

Continue reading “May is Bike Month!”

By Bob Mionske
…
But what if the character’s wrath is directed at a group that has historically been the target of violence? Suppose, for example, that the character expresses his dislike of …
Reasonable people would rightly be appalled by such offensive and dangerous hate speech masquerading as entertainment, and would expect that the personality be removed from the air, and even that the station be disciplined by the FCC—particularly if the station had done nothing to prevent the foray into this type of humor, or winked at the jokes afterward.
And yet, as we all know, every now and then, some radio personality goes on a tear about cyclists, and inevitably, tells listeners to lob drinks at them, door them, and of course, run them down. Now, if the radio personality was ranting about Little Leaguers, the incongruity of the rant might seem humorous to some. But Little Leaguers aren’t subjected to threatened or actual acts of violence every day; cyclists are.
Daily, cyclists have drinks lobbed at them, have doors maliciously opened by passing motorists, are run off the road, and even run down, simply because they are on a bike. Sometimes, they’re even “just tapped,” as ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser recently urged . Perhaps the most common threat of violence against cyclists is one we’re all too familiar with—the buzz, where the driver passes within inches of us at high speed. Occasionally, a driver may truly have miscalculated the distance, or just plain didn’t see the cyclist. More often, I believe, the driver is intentionally threatening the cyclist. You can be sure it’s intentional when the driver checks his rear-view mirror for your reaction. In fact, I’m convinced that some “accidents” are buzzes gone awry—the driver intended to scare the cyclist, but didn’t expect that the close pass would result in a collision. And New Zealand police say that drivers are intentionally targeting cyclists. I’m convinced that’s a problem that’s not just limited to New Zealand (or Australia). It happens here too.
So the violence is real, and virtually every cyclist has experienced some aspect of it. This is why entertainment stirring anti-cyclist hatred and urging violence against cyclists is akin to hate speech urging violence against groups that are actually subject to real violence, rather than humor that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.
…
So what was it that triggered Kornheiser’s murderous rant?(( A bicycle lane.
Yes, a bicycle lane. Recently, Washington D.C. announced a plan to extend bicycle lanes currently existing on 15th Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, and along Pennsylvania Avenue, from the White House to the Capitol. Because of this, Kornheiser urged ESPN listeners to go out and murder cyclists at random. Or at least, give them “a tap.”
Never mind that the physically separated lanes that Washington is installing keep cyclists out of the way of drivers, and vice versa. Never mind that the random cyclists who would be the victims of the violence Kornheiser was advocating had nothing to do with the bicycle lanes in the first place. Never mind the fact that cyclists are just people—friends, neighbors, family—trying to get somewhere safely, just like everybody else. Facts and logic have never dissuaded the irrational rageaholics who attack cyclists, and they had no place in Kornheiser’s reasoning either.
…
Continue reading “Road Rights- Kornheiser”

from How We Drive, the Blog of Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt
…
I noticed a few people responded to an offhand comment I made in the Streetfilms interview: “It’s too easy to get a license in this country, too hard to lose one.”
By this I mean our driver’s education and licensing system is in need of a number of reforms — we treat driving like a right, as in voting — and the newspapers (and courts) are filled with recidivist drivers. Read a random article about a fatal crash, and I’ll be you, that by about the sixth or seventh paragraph, you’ll begin to see examples of previous incidents or some underlying pattern of behavior that seriously undermines the “accidental” nature of any crash (e.g., the driver in the Taconic minivan crash). And yes, I am aware that many people with suspended licenses simply drive without a license, and yes, we need to look in many cases at the behavioral questions, yadda, yadda, yadda, but why we should continue to legally pander to people with a reckless disregard for human life is beyond me.
I was thinking of this again while watching, in Edmonton, a poignant talk by Melissa Wandall, whose husband was killed by a (repeat) red-light runner (the red-light law she’s worked for has just cleared the Florida senate; and despite what you often hear from the fringes of the right, most people, when polled, actually support such devices, when used judiciously). The offending driver already had 10 points on her license, a number of which kept getting bumped down by visits to traffic schools (the efficacy of which has been seriously called into question by several studies). Shockingly, she’s back on the road today.
Let’s go back to John Stuart Mill: “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
It’s that ‘civilized’ bit I sometimes wonder about these days.
Continue reading “2 Easy to Get, 2 Hard to Lose”