>> Some bicyclists are monsters. Check out this hilarious comic strip by Kenny Be in Westword to see if you are one of the 6 types of bike monsters. (via Utne) I probably come closest to Pathra simply due to the fact that my bike’s a Townie. My least fave cyclists are the Roidans, especially when they do that weird and dangerous-looking twisty turny thing trying to balance their bikes while stopped at a red light so they don’t have to — omg — put a foot down and wait without making cyclists look like idiots.
>> Bloggers are press, discovers NYC. As part of a proposed lawsuit settlement, NYC’s looking into revising its press pass rules. Gothamist has details on the new rules, including: “To qualify for a press pass, the journalist or journalism organization will need to provide six clips from the last 24 months showing news-gathering activity that would merit a press card— that would include live reportage from police and fire scenes, public assemblies, government press conferences, or similar events.” (via kottke)
>> How dangerous IS BPA? Nina Shen Rastogi, aka Green Lantern, at Slate put together an informative backgrounder on the research. Her recommendation: “Given all this conflicting information, the Lantern isn’t quite ready to panic just yet but feels it’s appropriate to apply the precautionary principle in this case.”
Image via Kenny Be / Westward
I don’t see it quite as hilarious, but that’s because I’m pretty much humorless when it comes to perpetuating the negatives of cyclists. And thankfully I don’t fall into any of those categories.
As to the twisty-turny maneuver that gets ya, it’s called “trackstanding,” and I confess to attempting it on occasion (especially if a light’s about to turn green). But more often then not I’ll put my foot proudly down on the pavement. Better that than falling over.
Will Campbell’s last blog post..Morning Snap: Microcosmos
Comment by Will Campbell — July 21, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
Ha ha. Speaking of greenwashing, thanks for posting a hateful, stupid cartoon that further makes cars think they have the right to squash me like a bug, just because I ride a bicycle.
Enjoy the Prius, and your Westside.
/unsubscribing from your blog and twitter right now.
Comment by Lindsey — July 21, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
I guess you’re the Distroyer, Lindsey! (most monstrous behavior: generally courteous until criticized, then responds with remarkably personal insults — tho I don’t own a Prius) There are some oversensitive commenters on the cartoon post itself you can commiserate with — bye bye.
Why are so many cyclists so thinskinned to the point that they cannot admit to any sort of faux pas committed on the road? Is there no way to laugh at bike culture and selfish cyclists? Must cyclists always be portrayed as saints?
I think the key to actually getting along on the road is by owning up to mistakes and potentials for improvement and educating both sides — though of course drivers are usually the abrasive ones, even if Lindsey’s trying to take that title for herself.
Comment by Siel — July 21, 2009 @ 11:21 pm
Point of order: Lindsey’s a fella. Nice guy, too. Works for the LA County Bike Coalition.
Speaking for myself, it’s not that I’m so thin-skinned I can’t admit or recognize the wrongdoings done. I just get worn out at the cliché it’s become.
I also don’t divide it so starkly as you do, but perhaps that’s because I can sit comfortably in the middle between laughter and sainthood.
Comment by Will Campbell — July 22, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Yeah — I’m sure he’s a nice guy — the hypersensitive kind with a penchant for hyperbole, stereotyping, rude dismissals, and silly e-revenge (“just wait till I remove you from my Myspace top 8!!) :P
Sorry ’bout assuming Lindsay’s a female name — I should be more sensitive to that, since I occasionally get letters addressed to Mr. Siel.
Comment by Siel — July 22, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
I wouldn’t claim we’re saints, but put the shoe on the other foot. By far and away the greater risk to any driver is other drivers in automobiles. When was the last time you heard of a bike-car collision that killed or injured a car driver? The fact that so many drivers are monsters (how many people were killed in auto accidents last year?) makes the criticism of cyclists seem absurd, even blind. The only reason people are watching us is because we’re rarities of the road, but scrutiny of the street reveals far more dangerous behavior from automobile drivers. For some reason, they don’t watch each other, or write witty cartoons stereotyping the experience. Statistically, a cyclist is much less likely to be in an accident than an automobile driver. Complaining about a handful of reckless cyclists does nothing to address the seriously dangerous conditions of our streets.
Comment by Ele Munjeli — October 23, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Really? I think there are lots of cartoons, stories, etc. about road rage and dangerous drivers in general. In any case, the cartoon’s not a complaint about reckless cyclists. It’s drawn by a cyclist, mostly for lulz from other cyclists.
Comment by Siel — November 2, 2009 @ 6:50 pm
Maybe, but when was the last time you saw a national magazine like Slate run an article with the mundane subject ‘How can we get automobile drivers to not run red lights, and make responsible lane changes?’. Would that be news? Probably not; but it’s still more of a problem than cyclist misbehavior. I doubt we are worse drivers than those in automobiles (and I suspect, given our vulnerabilities yet lower fatalities, we are better) but for some reason, cyclists are generalized as reckless. Show me a cartoon about a driver crossing the crosswalk to make a right on red with pedestrians present. Most of the population doesn’t even regard that as dangerous, or illegal.
Comment by Ele Munjeli — November 2, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
I don’t know what you’re reading, but traffic-related dangers and woes are actually in mainstream news all the time. Case in point: Today in NYT’s Freakonomics is this: “Why Does Driving Bring Out the Worst in People?” News everywhere’s reporting the Mandeville Canyon thing today too, of course, but that’s not a usual thing.
On the other side, somewhat relatedly in Slate is a defense of jaywalking. Plus — I don’t know if you actually read the original Salon piece I linked to, but that’s written by a self-described law-breaking cyclist about making cycling safer for all.
I do remember from the Bike Summit that you said you believed that even when a bicyclist gets into an accident while smoking crack (literally), that accident’s still the driver’s fault. Suffice to say I strongly disagree with this — The fact that drivers in general create more problems doesn’t automatically absolve cyclists of wrongdoing.
In any case — You’ll find in the comments on the cartoon that some cyclists there agree with you and also didn’t find the cartoon funny — so I hope you’ll go there for commiseration as this is getting repetitive –
Comment by Siel — November 3, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
I’ve been there, thanks. I agree to disagree, but, a cyclist on crack still has some rights: the laws governing the rights of cyclists need to cover people without good judgement (more accurately, children, or people without drivers’ education). I put drivers at fault to protect the right of all people to cycle safely, regardless of whether or not they have the legal capacity to drive.
Comment by Ele Munjeli — November 3, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
Well of course everyone has their miranda rights. But if a cracked out cyclist careens into a car obeying all laws and watching out for law-abiding pedestrians and cyclists, that’s the crackhead’s fault.
Comment by Siel — November 24, 2009 @ 6:25 pm
Yeah. Except. If a kid careens into a car obeying all laws and watching out for law-abiding pedestrians and cyclists, and is still just eight years old, we need a law to protect him: everyone has a right to ride a bike, whether or not they have the right to drive a car. The cycling community is inclusive, and democratic. One third of all pedestrians killed have a blood alcohol content demonstrating they are legally drunk: but do they deserve to be killed for that? and is it against the law to walk home when you’re drunk? And when was the last time there was a collision between a drunk pedestrian and a car and the driver was killed? The driver of an automobile has greater liability and responsibility because they have greater potential to kill. However, an individual driving a car has no more right to the road than a pedestrian or cyclist, each of whom makes an equal contribution to the expense of the creation and maintenance of roadways as an individual driver. Modal equity in transportation.
Comment by Ele Munjeli — November 24, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
Yeah — So supporting modal equity in transportation’s pretty different from insisting a law abiding driver’s at fault if a crackhead cyclist careens into their car. Suffice to say I’m glad most cyclists understand that difference.
Comment by Siel — November 25, 2009 @ 1:53 pm