Some of you will want me dead….but I have been looking forward to gas prices rising this high for a long time. The reason is that, while it will hurt now, it will force us to do something that will preempt much more pain in the future. It’s a risky moment because we can choose some things over others, and certain things won’t benefit us very much in any long term way and will create an opportunity cost because a workable solution was not pursued (again and again). A lot of people will want to see the US increase drilling for oil, as if our demand could be satisfied this way. It can’t, it would only help some and for a while, and it would force us to do things we thought were a bit unsavory in the past: more offshore drilling, drilling in wildlife refuges, seismic explorers next to national parks…that sort of thing. The simple facts are: we’ve always known oil is finite, but we still bought a less than efficient car, we still chose to live far from work, we still had 2 or more cars per family, etc. Now we’re screwed. The only president that ever told the truth about this was Jimmy Carter, and he’s been retrogressively vilified for it…basically he said “we’re going to have to use less oil”. The only true thing Bush ever said was “America is addicted to oil”, then he proceeded to do nothing about it.
So what do we have to do? Lots of things will be a piece of the solution which maybe I’ll write about another time. But number one is: find a way to live our lives while using less oil. I’ve been happy to read recently that a lot of people are actually doing it…by riding bikes. I’ve read stories from many different cities about this radical change in behavior and attitude. And then I open MSN and see this link “Increase in bike riders fuels new road rage in Oregon”. It links to a short newsweek article by Winston Ross, and talks about a series of incidents I’ve been reading about on bike blogs for a couple weeks. First, thanks Winston for throwing gasoline on the fire. The article talks about some drunken douche that beat a man with his bike, then a drunk driver who tried to run down a cyclist on purpose supposedly to kill or at least maim him. Both road rage incidents. Then a cyclist ran a red light and had a crash, nothing to do with road rage (furthermore, how many cars ran red lights and got into crashes that same day? i reckon more than this one cyclist that is so important to talk about). Then a cyclist and a guy in a car got in a fistfight because the guy in the car said something about the cyclist not wearing a helmet. Ok, sort of road rage but more like a regular argument turned fight, unclear who the actual first puncher was. Not mentioned, was a recent incident in a Seattle critical mass ride where the news reported a man and his family were cornered in their car, tried to escape, and then were attacked by an angry mob of cyclists. Later eyewitness reports indicated the man gunned his car directly at a cyclist and dragged him, then hit another, and then…the cyclists beat the shit out of his car (The sequence seems pretty important here). I’m really annoyed by this article: why?
1) Right off the bat, look at the link…there is road rage because there is more bike riders is what the link is actually saying. In other words bike riders caused this. Nowhere does the article indicate that anyone involved in anything was a new rider, thus the link between these things and new ridership is unclear in the article. Furthermore, why doesn’t it say “Idiots with cars talking shit, threatening or assaulting cyclists fuel new road rage in Oregon”. Obviously that’s a loaded title, but about as accurate as the real one. There are incidences where both cyclists and drivers are being total idiots, and incidences where its unclear who the idiot is. This journalist is turning all of these events into “a pattern” and the result is that he makes the new trend of increased bike use as a car replacement into a bad thing.
2) After setting the scene of this media-accelerated pattern, he goes on to ponder why. We are told in one sentence that most cyclists say drivers act as if they don’t exist, that’s it…the cyclist take on things. It says that motorists are pissed that cyclists run red lights, but some cyclists defend running red lights because it’s a pain to hop off their bikes. Nobody hops off their bike at intersections, that’s just silly. And its not about it being a “pain”…I think the argument is more along the lines of this: traffic laws are written by and for people that drive cars. Most of the time they make good sense for regulating bike traffic too. Occasionally some of these rules aren’t the best for bikes because bikes are a different type of vehicle. Because a bike can stop in a much shorter distance and enjoys a completely unobstructed forward and sideways view, some people would like to see laws that permit bicycles to treat stop signs like yield signs. Cyclists lose kinetic energy that they have created using their own power when coming to a complete stop, and must slowly restart after the stop. Any bike commuter will tell you how they feel when they need to make a left turn from a complete stop, with 10 cars waiting behind them. Like a fucking rodeo clown without a barrel. You can breakaway must faster from a slow roll. The faster you can ride the safer you are. People in cars often misunderstand this slow-roll-instead-of-complete-stop behavior as “Oh my fucking god that maniac is just going to dart out in front of me!” and then they slam on their brakes, which causes the real hazard because the cyclist has already fired the synapses to move his legs and dart through the hole that would have opened had the car not slammed on the brakes. I’m not saying that idiots that just blow full speed through stop signs are in the right (they are dumb and at least endangering themselves, and they are probably riding brakeless track bikes in the city), I just want to point out that that the above explanation is at least a little different than “I don’t stop at lights because it’s a pain”. That’s just shit journalism. It’s kind of like when they show some protest or something on TV, then have invite some random stoner over for a sound bite to explain the whole thing: “We’re here because stop signs are a pain! The world is watching, fascist pigs!”
3) The article devotes a paragraph to some guy (why him? Of all the people to devote a paragraph to, such as ….I don’t know…the people involved in some of the road rage incidents?) who is angered by cyclists not wearing lights and wearing helmets. What does this have to do with the central theme of the article? Nothing, it’s a total red herring. And what is the helmet obsession? Yeah, if you are in a wreck a helmet will reduce the probability of a major head trauma, no arguments here. But here’s the thing: automobile accidents are the most common killer of people under 40, and despite seat belts and airbags, head injuries are still common, and over two thirds of the people reporting to a hospital after a car wreck are there for head injuries. So, lives would be saved and injuries prevented, if people driving cars wore helmets too, its not just a cycling thing. Furthermore, there are many things that people do or don’t do that make them less safe, like not using turn signals or traveling too fast. Almost every driver speeds at least once a day. So why is everyone going on about helmets in this article…because they are a device to portray cyclists as lawless and too lazy to ensure their own safety. If a drunk driver ran two red lights dragging nuns on the hood and hit an unhelmeted cyclist, the ensuing news article would find a way to blame the cyclist because he wasn’t wearing a helmet. That’s the state of the media. The guy wonders why the cycling community doesn’t insist everyone wear helmets and lights…first off there’s not a central command station for the cyclists. And most bicycling organizations do in fact advocate the use of helmets and lights. If I was “the guy” who had nothing to do with anything but got picked to be interviewed in the article, I might have said “Why doesn’t the automobile community insist that every driver be tested on sharing the road with cyclists?” I’ll bet none of you reading this had a single question on your driver’s license exam about the bicycle statute for your state. Get this…in Copenhagen and Amsterdam there’s literally millions of cyclists. Almost none of them wear helmets, in fact they think they are ridiculous. I’m sure accidents occur, but cycling is quite safe. What’s the difference: I think it’s because there’s better bike infrastructure, and even though there’s still a lot of cars there, drivers are much better educated about how to share space with riders. It’s a good thing to avoid a head injury if you get hit, but it’s 1000000000 times better to not get hit because people on bikes and in cars know how to coexist.
So more people are riding bikes now. This is undoubtedly a good thing, because it means we are using less oil which is the root of our most pressing problems today. Don’t listen to dipshits like Winston, who want to make you afraid to ride a bike, or rile up your indignation at the lawless bike pirates. YYAAAAAARRRR!!!! I propose we all just get along and stop acting like assholes.
No comments:
Post a Comment