Comments on: Clicklist: Bike monsters, Blog journalists, and BPA

By: Siel

Siel — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:53:03 +0000

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.

By: Ele Munjeli

Ele Munjeli — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:42:43 +0000

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.

By: Siel

Siel — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:25:55 +0000

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.

By: Ele Munjeli

Ele Munjeli — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:14:46 +0000

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.

By: Siel

Siel — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:07:43 +0000

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 –

By: Ele Munjeli

Ele Munjeli — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:25:10 +0000

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.

By: Siel

Siel — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:50:51 +0000

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.

By: Ele Munjeli

Ele Munjeli — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:07:28 +0000

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.

By: Siel

Siel — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:47:34 +0000

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.

By: Will Campbell

Will Campbell — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:34:55 +0000

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.