My formal introduction to guns came
with a few tears and a lot of anxiety. As the lesson began and my teacher
laid the unloaded weapon on the table, I quivered with the fear of deadly
unpredictabilities. But by the end of the hour, I could coexist with an
unloaded handgun. I even touched it.
Lesson number two took me all the
way from touching the unloaded Glock to pulling the trigger on a practice
round. Because I understood the mechanics of the hand gun, felt reassured
that every safety precaution was in place, and knew how to ensure any gun I
picked up was unloaded, lesson number two didn’t provoke my previous fears.
I learned how to load the magazine, use
the proper grip, rack the slide, and check if a round is in the chamber. I learned proper stance and trigger control,
how to aim, and finally, how to breathe when firing. Because these were
practice rounds, I successfully completed all of the steps dry-eyed and
calm.
It isn’t hard to use a gun. It
isn’t complicated or even dangerous when done correctly. If there were
nothing lethal about it, I could easily have mastered it at age 8 or 9.
But add in the fact that a handgun can take the life of another human being,
and everything changes. The process of learning skills historically meant to harm
people creates an inner turmoil in my chest. On the one hand, I can pace
through the mechanics and follow the procedures like any good student. I
am smart and not overly clumsy. On the other hand, it puts my soul
off-kilter to pursue proficiency in a deadly act I will never commit.
I will never kill another
human. First of all, I don’t believe I will ever find myself in a
position where that is a reasonable choice. Second, even if I did, I
would never be able to know, with 100% certainty, beyond even a flicker of a
doubt, that killing someone is the best course of action. I believe that
there is almost always another alternative. To perform an act so final, I
would need nothing less than a direct command from God (if I believed in
God). And even then, I am going to insist it be notarized and
countersigned by at least two other deities.
I just don’t trust myself to know
everything, and that is what I require before I would be willing to take a
life. I would need to weigh every possible factor, from what the
perpetrator had for breakfast to which direction the wind was blowing.
Therein might lie an alternative to killing. I would need to know every
possible outcome of the situation. To be omniscient, to know that killing
this human being now is the best choice, is impossible. It can’t be
undone, the snuffing of a life-force born from the mysterious spark of
nature. I am not god, nor do I want to be.
By the end of lesson number two, I
probably was skilled enough to clumsily fire a bullet into the body of a bad
guy (a slow bad guy), but that doesn’t mean I was any closer to doing it.
This educational undertaking, however, would not be complete without firing a live shot. That is why I decided to accompany my teacher to an indoor firing range and shoot for real. Seeing how smoothly the second lesson went, I thought I was ready.
At the range, I filled out the
paperwork and donned my ear protection and safety glasses. I looked through the
bullet proof glass at a row of mostly middle aged men, each in their own booth,
firing away at paper targets on the range. I started to balk. Those
were real men firing real ammo. Death was only one crazy person
away. But I swallowed the lump in my throat and soldiered on, silently
willing myself to follow my teacher inside the interlocking, soundproof doors
connecting the range to the lobby.
With each step, I noticed my blood
pounding in my temples. My breathing grew shallow and weak. As I
stepped onto the range, the true volume of the firing weapons attacked my ears
like a thunder-strike. The piercing explosions made me flinch over and over.
My body jerked and jumped with every blast. The noise was so loud and so
sudden, I burst into tears.
The deadly banging of the firearms had sent anxiety jolting through me, flipping some kind of regression-switch that made me cry like a baby. My teacher was concerned. He looked at me, but I wouldn’t meet his eyes. I tightened my hearing protection and sat down, twisting my legs and arms into a tight protective pretzel as I waited for my body to get used to this scary new environment of noise and confusion.
The deadly banging of the firearms had sent anxiety jolting through me, flipping some kind of regression-switch that made me cry like a baby. My teacher was concerned. He looked at me, but I wouldn’t meet his eyes. I tightened my hearing protection and sat down, twisting my legs and arms into a tight protective pretzel as I waited for my body to get used to this scary new environment of noise and confusion.
My teacher took care of everything
for me, checking each gun and neatly laying out the weapons and their
corresponding magazines on the shelf in our shooting booth. As he worked,
I dared to look at the row of men shooting from their individual booths.
They were all men. Some in their 50s, others in the 20s. Most wore
jeans and plaid flannel. Many had pot bellies. All of them were
intensely focused on their activity. I felt completely out of my element:
insecure, weepy, sensitive…female.
On most occasions, I do not pay attention to my gender. I assume I am just as qualified to do whatever it is I am doing as the guy next to me. Sometimes I am better than the man to my right, sometimes worse than the one to my left. I compare my performance only against my own expectations. But how many men cry upon entering a firing range? If these guys weren’t so focused on destroying the paper targets in front of them, they might have looked at me and rolled their eyes.
I saw, in my somewhat hysterical state, people pretending to conquer other human beings with the power-hungry twitch of a finger. In this activity there seemed to be something inherently male. These men were enthusiastic, dedicated, focused, set on killing that paper outline of a perpetrator. I felt at a disadvantage because destroying things is not in my nature. I did not bring to this endeavor a desire strong enough to blanket the fear of so many flying projectiles so close, such loud explosions, over and over.
Red flames flashed from the muzzles of every gun fired! I was astounded: I had thought that just happened in the movies. It certainly added to the seriousness that this experiment was about to become. I myself was about to send flames flying, create deafening explosions and destroy things.
My teacher approached me and asked if I was ready. A little wobbly and unsure, I stood and stepped up to the shooting booth where an arsenal was laid out in front of me like a metal buffet. From left to right, there was a Ruger 22/45, a Glock 19, a Smith & Wesson M&P Compact .40 and a Bersa Thunder .380, each grouped with 2 or 3 loaded magazines at the ready. He suggested I start with the .22 caliber because it had the least recoil.
I looked at it; I touched it; I got used to it. I picked it up and slowly went through the steps I had learned in my lessons. I placed the magazine in the grip and tapped it, then pulled lightly on it to see if it had seated properly. I chambered a round by racking the slide. I wrapped my right hand around the grip with my index finger straight, below the barrel of the gun and well above the trigger. I wrapped my left hand below the right and created a tension between the two to hold the gun firmly in place. I squared my hips and set my feet shoulder width apart, then leaned forward with both arms straight and rigid in front of me.
The target paper was 5 yards away. There were five black target faces on it with red bull’s eyes. I lined the sights up on the center one, closed my left eye and brought the front sight slightly below the red circle in front of me. I held my breath, wondering if the noise and the force of the explosion would jolt me as badly as the noise had when I walked into the room. I decided there was only one way to find out.
I moved my trigger finger down onto the trigger and lined up my sights again. I squeezed.
The trigger moved, but nothing happened. I squeezed harder, thinking I was doing something wrong. Nothing happened. I immediately laid the gun down on the shelf, afraid that it might explode belatedly. My teacher tested the gun and concluded that it was malfunctioning. This sent a trickle of “I told you so” creeping into my mind. “Even if you are super vigilant, you can never be 100% sure!” I told myself, a concept I sometimes take to the extreme. This is what scares me about handguns: there is no guarantee of perfect safety.
But I looked around me. There on the firing range, with a barrage of used shell casings flying like popping corn, muzzles spat red flames and serious, focused men sweated. The sheer certitude that permeated the room wore away at my impossibly high standard. These guys were willing to accept slightly less than 100%, and so, I decided, I was too. This change allowed me to move a little more freely. I no longer jumped at every shot. I had grown acclimatized to the environment, surrendering to the general consensus of every other sane person that this place, this activity, was pretty safe – as safe as you can get with 24 loaded guns in action.
I moved to the Glock 19. This is the gun I had practiced with. I popped the mag into the grip and racked the slide, going through the same steps as before. Except this time, when I was finally ready to see if I could make a bullet exit the barrel and hit the piece of paper in front of me, I did. My squeeze was met with a noise - not as loud as the other guys' guns - and a small black circle appeared on the white paper. It was the only evidence that anything had happened at all.
That worried me. I put the gun
down to think. I had just shot my first bullet and the only result was a
small hole in a thin piece of paper. No one screamed. No one
bled. The gun didn’t jump out of my hands. The force didn’t knock
me backwards. It was way too easy. So easy that one could get
complacent. I took a deep breath, conferred with my teacher and reached
down to continue.
I shot 10 to 12 rounds before I grew a little shaky from the concentration of focusing so intently. I took a break, placed my gun on the firing shelf, and we flipped the switch to bring the target back to us where we could see it better. My shots, all except the first one, were relatively close together, most of them in the outer black circles of the target. One was in the red.
My teacher took his turn while I
rested my brain. We shot a few magazines worth, and my tension steadily dissipated. Then, my teacher unzipped his rifle case and
placed a beanbag support on the firing shelf. He loaded XX cartridges
into his Smith and Wesson M&P 15-22.
They were much smaller than the handgun rounds. He sent the target out to 25 yards and emptied
a mag into it. When the paper came back,
the shots were uniformly high, so he adjusted the sight. After a while,
he invited me to try it.
The rifle was configured like an AR-15, with a red dot sight. It was a little longer than my arm, made from plastic and steel like the others, but with numerous unfamiliar parts and switches that I made sure not to touch. I sat down, placed the handguard of the rifle on the support and I sighted the target at 15 yards. I pressed the butt into my shoulder, lined up my hands and set the little red dot in the sight on the bull’s eye of the lower right hand target.
I squeezed. There was no recoil. The rifle was even easier than the handguns. My teacher said, “Wow!”
The rifle was configured like an AR-15, with a red dot sight. It was a little longer than my arm, made from plastic and steel like the others, but with numerous unfamiliar parts and switches that I made sure not to touch. I sat down, placed the handguard of the rifle on the support and I sighted the target at 15 yards. I pressed the butt into my shoulder, lined up my hands and set the little red dot in the sight on the bull’s eye of the lower right hand target.
I squeezed. There was no recoil. The rifle was even easier than the handguns. My teacher said, “Wow!”
I kept firing and got in about 10
shots before I wanted to rest again. We brought the target back in close
and he pointed to the hole in the red.
“That was your first shot,” he said
proudly.
I have to admit, even though it was probably luck, I was proud too.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Damn. You got me.
Recommended
In my opinion, this site is (among other things) a place for people to share what they think about bikes, and read what other people think about them. Neither Jonathan or I would have written this column, but that's the whole point of having Cathy on the team. We didn't publish this to provoke. We did it because these ideas are worth talking about.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
If Cathy doesn't already agree with you or I, who will?
I don't think the problem is that Cathy is dumb or unobservant, because I know she's not. I think the problem is that your perspectives and mine are, unfortunately, held by a pretty small minority of people in the United States. Without forthright discussion of this and efforts to understand the perspectives and causes of this, it will never, ever change.
The point here isn't to change Cathy's mind personally; she can and should continue to say what she thinks (and if she's comfortable weighing in here in the comments, I hope she will). And Cathy's enjoyment of bikes doesn't mean that anyone's wrong to disagree with a bunch of the things she says (and obviously I and Jonathan and lots of people here do disagree with a bunch of things she says). Similarly, our own enjoyment of bikes doesn't mean that we're right. What it means is that there's a huge gulf of misunderstanding and poor communication that, in my opinion, isn't improved if we were to create a sort of internet terrarium where differences of opinion on these things don't exist.
Recommended
Recommended
"telling various types of cyclists and all cyclists in general that we are a bunch of arrogant jerks and every deviation of our riding behavior, our gear, and our opinion from Cathy's own moderate ideal is a sign of our selfishness and arrogance is could possibly lead to any improvement in communication."
Paul, maybe I am just being thick, but I don't think Cathy's criticisms were in earnest. I think she was just pointing out the grain of truth that lies at the base of the stereotype of the arrogant cyclist. I can't speak for everybody, but I have to admit, while I try to keep in it check, to a little bit of smugness about the moral superiority of my chosen mode of travel. Again, while I try to contain such base impulses, I have also not been above judging other cyclists as being arrogant or rude because they ride differently than me.
I think Cathy would agree with most of us that the stereotype is way overblown, particularly in mainstream media, but she is also, not so subtly pointing out many of us exhibit arrogance to some degree on some occasions and are also not above finding it in others. I read the piece as a humorous attempt to inspire reflection on our own motivations and behavior while at the same time pointing out the ridiculousness of the stereotype used by bike haters to justify their vitriol.
Recommended
Recommended
Seriously, every point Hastie made has been covered and hashed out many times over many years on BikePortland. The easy, obvious issues already have widespread concensus (and, in some cases, well argued dissent) and the divisive issues have legitimate arguments on more than one side. Just what is Hastie adding to the dialogue that's going to in any way enlighten those discussions or otherwise lead to peace and harmony on the streets of Portland?
I certainly understand why you and Jonathan hesitated to post that piece. What I don't understand is why you overrode your hesitations.
Recommended
Negatively stereotyping, in general...people that drive, seems to be one of the favorite practices of many people posting comments to bikeportland stories. When the tables are turned, in the form of a bikeportland lifestyle column, criticizing ways some people bike, the stereotyping doesn't seem to be received so well. In other words: 'they can dish it out, but they can't take it'.
It's very common in comments to bikeportland stories, for people to effectively deny that anyone riding a bike can do anything wrong...or if they do concede that 'yes, sometimes cyclists do things wrong.'...it's somehow justified by the actions of people driving, the people it would seem they generally deplore.
There's lots wrong with the way many people ride as they use the roads, in Portland and elsewhere. People that aren't prepared to be more actively self-critical of their riding practices, in positive ways, with the objective of improving them so as to be safer, more effective road users, are not helping to promote significant increases in biking as practical transportation.
Cathy Hastie's lifestyle column is interesting to me. The writing style is kind of quaint, humorous. Plenty of good, constructive points made in it for people not trying their best to misconstrue it as invasion into a bikeportland they seem to think should be their personal, protected womb.
Recommended
Can you elaborate on which points you think are good and constructive to an active transportation conversation that is the basis for this blog?
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
"Should CARS have to pay road tax?"
Think of all the O traffic that would be funneled here! A page view is a page view. If we got all the angry O commenters here the post comment count could top 1,000!
Recommended
Recommended
I accept what you say as true.
In the absence of that disclaimer this type of article specifically written to inflame opinions and readers would seem to be tailor made to increase advertising revenue; it could reasonably be argued that this sort of article serves no other purpose.
Recommended
I mean really, I am sorry you published it...
Recommended
Recommended
I disagree completely. This is a diatribe. Something spewed forth. Thought is not included. Only emotion based on her perception of her own superiority is used to caste shame and fault at those she finds different or other.
Absolute crap.
Recommended
Cathy,
Please refine and clarify your thesis. Is you point that we are all arrogant in our own way? That there is a line between acceptable and unacceptable amounts of arrogance? If so, where is that line? More importantly, what do you suggest should be done? Should we all mimic your level of arrogance? To what end?
I think you present some worthwhile ideas to explore. But as written this "lifestyle" column/editorial muddies the waters, fails to have a clear point, and, as a result, appears to just repeat various stereotypes without a meaningful purpose.
I have to agree with the others who have said they expect and hope for better in the future.
Recommended
http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/16/reader-comment-opposition-to-urban-cycling-is-class-based-52930
Personally I think looking at misunderstandings about bicycling, resentment of others who bike through the lens of social class, paying special attention to MIDDLE CLASS anxieties about status, is more interesting.
Recommended
Lifestyle? So, that old saw about "people riding bikes" got thrown out with the trash? Now, because I've occasionally enjoyed riding a bike for the past 50+ years, and because I think they're a tool towards a good end, I'm suddenly a subject of fashion whims, bad science and apologists? Are we all bicyclists in a closed community?
You can (and normally do) do better, BikePortland.
Recommended
This would be more of a patriarchal repression / male privilege issue.
But as I repeat from a long stolen quote "the problem with nude beaches is quality control"; be careful what you ask for.
Recommended
Recommended
drivers are already pissed!
Recommended
I was with you most of the way until the helmet point. Choosing to not to wear a helmet is not inherently arrogant. Sure, If you happen to be racing, or mountain biking or aggressively weaving through traffic, then not wearing a helmet may be arrogant. But if you ride a moderate speed, on quiet greenways, or along waterfront park, there's nothing arrogant about skipping the helmet.
Recommended
"But if you drive a moderate speed, on quiet streets, or down Naito Parkway, there's nothing arrogant about skipping the seat belt."
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Cars have a lot of safety features and a steel cage. It is their ability to operate at high speed that makes them dangerous. Bikes are inherently dangerous: they require balance, enable high speed and have very few safety features. It is easy for even experienced cyclists to take a fall due to tracks, leaves, gravel, broken axel/flat tire, missing a curb, etc. Unexpected stuff can easily happen on a bike, and while a helmet will not do much to protect you if a semi overturns on to you, it will protect from head injury from the most common bike crashes.
Recommended
Recommended
I agree that cars are the most dangerous things on the road for everyone else on the road (including other car drivers) People on bikes typically only get hurt by cars, poor conditions, or hurt themselves. Helmets can help protect the rider when the unexpected happens
Recommended
I say: walk, bike or drive for transport without a helmet. They are not that dangerous, but bad things can happen while walking (4000 deaths a year), biking (600 deaths a year) or driving (35,000 deaths per year). Some of the deaths and head injuries from walking, biking or driving could be prevented by wearing a helmet, but we just can't bother every time we walk, bike or drive for transportation! All three should be common and fairly safe.
Now,
If you go over 35 mph, consider a helmet.
If you ride in the drops, consider a helmet.
If you race, consider a helmet.
If you are on a the same road as cars going over 35 mph, consider a helmet.
But for NORMAL, every day walking, biking and driving, I am not convinced that helmets are necessary.
I sometimes wear one in the conditions listed above,
Edwin
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
That stated, I still wear a helmet riding. There have been two falls in 25 years that if I would have NOT been wearing one I would have been brain splattered all over the pavement. In one case it would have been NO fault of my own...poor infrastructure on Barbur... but I digress. Instead, I had a sore neck and back for a few days.
Life is all about risk taking...some are worth taking, others are not.
Recommended
Recommended
So too with cars: IF everyone was trained to NASCAR & Formula 1 levels of driving skill AND no one ever became distracted THEN cars would not be dangerous. Because there is no formal training, barely any standard and imperfect humans everywhere with access to cars autos are by default dangerous.
An open can of gasoline and a campfire are both negligible risks apart, doomed to firey failure together. This is our automotive ecosystem: an imbalanced equation programmed to be unsafe st any speed.
Recommended
Not a single man made thing before or after it has caused so much damage in it's use, manufacture, maintience, or supportive infrastucture to people or the environment.....ever. And it's only getting worse since we're well past peek oil.
Recommended
Absolute Laissez Faire Capitalism (the concept that greed is our friend, just stop worrying and let the corporate interests do anything they want)
Planned obsolescence (the intentional design of products to fail when equal manufacturing resources could make the product function for orders of magnitude longer)
Militant fundamentalism (ideological, religious, political, economic, others) and its push to nearly every war in the history books.
These are all things with a higher body count than the automobile.
Besides, I wasn't saying that autos are harmless, only that they are capable of not being dangerous.
The problem with automobiles is the self created environment they exist within :
() too many for the available square footage needed to store and operate causing bad interactions
() most drivers are unskilled at their task
() many drivers are incapable of keeping their attention focused on the task of driving
() a gutted and neglected public transit infrastructure that insures that of a person can commit driving infractions but still drive because there is no reasonable alternative.
Recommended
kind of like how a road isn't dangerous? one like Barbur Blvd?
a car could at any time malfunction and easily kill other people...
a bike could at any time malfunction and possibly hurt somebody...
I say that anything that's in most public spaces, easily malfunctions, and those malfunctions easily and often result in death is inherently dangerous...
there just aren't enough safety devices to make cars safe when something goes wrong... yes, it's usually driver error, so probably the self-driving cars will be much safer...
Recommended
Barbur Blvd. is only dangerous when cars are operated badly.
A Barbur Blvd. with no cars, is safe.
In fact with cars operated properly, it is still safe.
So neither cars, nor Barbur Blvd. themselves are directly dangerous.
It is the actions of the operators that are....
Recommended
"Cars are only dangerous when operated badly" No, cars are always a DANGER anytime they are moving at a speed great than a horse and buggy. Roads with cars on them are dangerous places. Obviously. Standing in the middle of Barbur or 82nd or Sandy is dangerous precisely because that is where cars are moving at speed. Standing isn't dangerous. Standing on a smooth paved surface of a roadway isn't dangerous. Moving cars are dangerous. It doesn't matter if they are operated properly. Sure they are less dangerous is operated properly and more dangerous if operated carelessly. However, they are also inherently dangerous.
Now my use of standing is deliberately provocative, and in the middle of the road also, but ... Walking on the sidewalk or crossing the street both involve necessarily being in close proximity and often in front of moving cars which is inherently dangerous because of the cars are for no other reason.
As far as safe operation from the perspective of a vulnerable road use it just doesn't matter that SOME cars may be under safe operation because 1) there will always be some unsafe driving 2) There is no way to predict which cars in which place at which times won't be operated safely
Thus walking along, crossing or just being near any road with car traffic is dangerous. The more traffic and the higher the speeds, the more danger.
Recommended
You missed my point.
The car is not causing the danger. The person putting their foot on the accelerator and hand on steering wheel is. Car not dangerous without driver. 'Cause car can't go without driver. So driver at fault not car.
A bicycle is not dangerous by itself, but a bicycle operator can make it dangerous.This applies to so many items we use.
It is in how things are worded, especially when fingers are being pointed.
Recommended
Would you say a loaded gun is dangerous? I'm guessing given above you would say no. Am I right? A gun sitting on the table just laying there isn't dangerous. It's only become dangerous when someone picks it up. And even then it really only dangerous is someone hold it in there hand and points it at you. I can buy that to a degree. maybe.
But clearly there is a difference between my chess piece, my bicycle, a gun and a car. I suppose it is possible to hurt oneself or other with a chess piece (choking hazard maybe) but if a chess piece sitting on the table next to a gun I say the gun is a hazard - is dangerous. The chess piece is not. Yes, the danger of the gun, as long as it is sitting there is only potential, it isin't actualized, but it is an object that has great destructive power. It is hazardous to anyone who handles it without knowledge and practice of how to handle a gun safely.
Maybe from a strictly philosophical point of view you are correct.
From a practical standpoint I feel comfortable saying guns are dangerous. Similarly, cars are dangerous. Even sitting parked, a car is a dangerous object. Just like a loaded gun. Just sitting there in the driveway.
BTW my younger sister was hit and severely injured as a child when a parked car rolled down a sloped driveway with no one operating it. I will admit however that that example is about as extreme as the examples of how a bicycle can be dangerous.
Thanks for the discussion.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
The fundamental problem with criticism of cyclists in this country is that it utterly fails the "compared-to-what" test. Cyclists are claimed to bne rude/arrogant/errant/inconsiderate, yet for all these alleged faults, almost harmless in practice. Compare to drivers -- kill thousands, noisy, tax-subsidized. "Polite" people don't kill thousands of pedestrians per year. And drivers are a majority -- if drivers felt that there was a problem with killing thousands of pedestrians per year, we live in a democracy, they could vote for change. They don't. Instead we get laws that marginalize formerly legal behavior, like "jaywalking" for the greater convenience of cars.
Recommended
The overall safety that a seatbelt provides hasn't changed much, but the public's perception of them being 'necessary' to operate a car safely has.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
+ a helmet--as we see in the Netherlands where they have seatbelts but for the most part manage without helmets--is a defensive device meant to protect you from a transportation culture that doesn't understand how to interact safely with people on bikes.
Recommended
Recommended
tell that to the kids in the back seat...
Recommended
If I would not have been wearing a helmet I would have been knocked out completely and brain splattered. Not my fault...you can blame the narrow bike lanes or the tree limb, but the point remains. I am here because of a helmet...hence, I always wear one even if it has only saved me once in 30 years of riding. It was a pain though when I had a Mohawk and I wanted to put my hair up.
Recommended
First "moderate speeds" on a bicycle are far lower than what is considered a "moderate speed" in a car. If you drove a car at a maximum of 10-15 mph, I think there would be very little need for seatbelts.
Second, Naito parkway IS NOT the car-equivalent of the waterfront park multi-use path for bicycles.
Recommended
ok, I'm on it!
"But if you ride a moderate speed, on quiet greenways, or along waterfront park, there's nothing arrogant about skipping the seatbelt."
that was easy...
seems that there's still no reason for me to wear my helmet OR my seat belt while riding my bike...
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
To be clear, I don't consider myself any better than anyone else because of my transportation choices, nor do I consider myself any worse because of the gear I do or don't choose to wear. Indeed, the whole notion of an "interested but concerned" population that has guided Portland's bicycle planning for the last decade-plus suggests that there are a great number of people who would love to make the same choices Cathy and I do but cannot for some reason or another. Let's figure out how to get them to do so in lieu of patting ourselves on the back for beating them to it.
Recommended
I agree with the basic premise here 100% - no matter how you travel, don't be a jerk. Don't cut-off the bus because you think your 5 seconds is more important than those 40 other peoples'; don't terrorize pedestrians by acting like you're about to run over them; act predictably on the road.
I take exception with the helmet prescription, even though I wear one (except in Manhattan), but I see that as a separate topic. And I welcome Brian's call for an "adult conversation" (thoughtful, subtle, nuanced) - perhaps at a BP.org meetup?
Recommended
Recommended
The list of things that appear arrogant include:
Weaving through traffic, handless and shirtless;
trackstanding in front of people with walking assisting apparatuses;
passing on the right while cutting in line at intersections;
disrespect for traffic signals;
seeming to ignore Trimet yield signs;
squeezing by buses;
yelling at drivers;
unlawful behavior;
expensive bike gear;
helmetlessness.
I suspect there was some hyperbole used by the author to liven up an otherwise boring rant, so maybe one can look past some of the more ridiculous seeming flourishes.
Still, the flow of this piece was poor. The listing of "bad" behavior goes nowhere, then a concluding paragraph is tacked on to say something about the author's thinking they are right. Of course, you think you're right. You just spent 6 mini-paragraphs calling out where you think some "other" person is wrong.
The essay is self-indulgent and was not enjoyable to read due to content (just a list of stereo types with strong language, which doesn't impress me) and the lack of cohesion or purpose.
Better title: Stereotypical jerks are jerks and I am right. Here are a few hundred words wasted in saying such.
Recommended
Well, Nathan...you did at least try a little to offer some substantial criticism of the column, even if you couldn't resist bringing a whiny putdown into it. Waiting for your guest column. Perhaps you can better than she.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Anyone want to guess how many comments the post has by 5 pm? I am going to guess 89.
Recommended
Recommended
Latest: 1:33 PM by Bill Walters"
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Well done.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
You know what I find arrogant? People who feel superior because they wear little plastic hats with stickers that say "I love my brain" on them when they ride to Whole Foods. I appreciate the victim-blaming though. It's a reminder that, despite superficial appearances, Portland is in fact very much a part of America.
--BSNYC
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Bike Snob, you know what I find ridiculous, people who assume they can characterize an entire city based on one bike blog article and associated comments.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
As far the whole article being an exercise in victim blaming, that's not an answer. There is nothing in the article in which she says, suggests, implies or even hints cyclists deserve to be hit because they are arrogant. I imagine you have seen many examples of real victim blaming related to injured or killed cyclists in the comments section of our local paper.
I suppose some might see her comments regarding helmets as victim blaming, but I think that's an overreach. She doesn't say people deserve to get hit because they are not wearing a helmet, just that she thinks people are arrogant to think they will never be hit so don't need a helmet. I think that it's ridiculous to assume that's why people don't wear helmets, but it's not an exercise in victim blaming.
On a different note, I find the Bike Snob, who makes his living writing snarky, opinionated things about bicycling, and cheesesteaks apparently, hypocritical when he devotes a substantial portion of his blog today to criticizing someone else expressing an opinion about bicycling
Recommended
If a truck falls over on you, you are the victim and it will not matter one bit if you are wearing a helmet or not.
Simmer down JRB. We are on a blog here, not friends drinking coffee together. The internet is not a place to take offense. I don't know you from Adam. If I used an obtuse point to illustrate a mistake I saw in your logic, it was to encourage you to see that mistake, or disprove my logic. It was not to insult a collection of ones and zeros with a screen name attached to them.
Recommended
Recommended
http://castrovalley.patch.com/groups/ken-martins-blog/p/bp--blog-enough-with-defending-bicycle-riders-the-worb06fc1ccb9
Recommended
;-)
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
but it might give them a job making more cheap clothing...
Recommended
Anyone who wonders why we sometimes get a little militant has no clue what we have to deal with all the time.
When people accost me about (mostly other) cyclists' behavior or how the roads allegedly now favor bikes over cars, I tell them to try riding to work and doing their other daily business just ONE DAY A MONTH - for one year, so they've tried it every month of the year - before whining at me. That usually shuts them the hell up.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Is this somehow worse -- or even as bad -- as someone who blows tens of thousands on an SUV or luxury car with air-conditioned leather seats so they can shave 12 seconds off their commute in comfort?
This and much of the other behavior described in the article is no better or worse among drivers or the public at large than it is among cyclists. Widespread belief to the contrary can be chalked up to availability and confirmation biases combined with xenophobia. In any group of people you're going to have a certain percentage of self-centered, reckless assholes. That's not "cyclist arrogance", it's the human condition.
Recommended
Recommended
The only thing I can think of is auto liability. These folks aren't thinking about potential brain damage, or loss of life, they're only thinking "if I hit and hurt this person, what's it going to cost me".
Recommended
"Keep your ideals off of my head!"
Recommended
Recommended
I think I figured out why this lifestyle column needs tweaking... statements like the above run counter to what I would expect a cycling lifestyle columnist to think about bike gear.
I WANT my lifestyle columnist to be a gear nerd.
I WANT my lifestyle columnist to know that Castelli and Rapha's US based headquarters are here in Portland and that people riding around town in their gear provides local jobs.
I WANT my lifestyle columnist to be able to spend a day at the Lumberyard and a day at PIR and not just write about how weird everything seems... (MT Bikers wear baggy pants, but road racers wear lycra... How crazy is that? Bikers sure are an odd bunch!)
I WANT my cycling lifestyle columnist to not write like he or she is seeing everything for the first time.
you know those columns where they stop somebody on the street and ask about their clothes and where they got them and how much they paid? Do that...
You know those slideshows of pro's bikes at races and all the cool doodads they add? Do that with average bikers downtown, or some working class racers...
You may learn a thing or two about the lifestyle of the average reader of this blog. you may also learn a thing or two about the things you, so far, have shown disdain for. you may learn that somebody's lycra kit has been put together after a few years of hunting down bargains or getting a jersey for raising money for charity, not all bought off the rack brand new at once...
You may learn that a racer's frame was won at a raffle, and they have been using it to get some consistent top 10 placings.
There's stories out there... go find them.
Recommended
“They weave through downtown traffic, handless and shirtless.”
Riding no-handed is a terrific way to develop balancing skills which can make a difference in an emergency.
“They hover jerkily in clumsy track stands, inches from geriatric pedestrians in crosswalks.”
A track stand is a fine way to develop balancing skills which can make a difference in an emergency. Moreover, as long as the cyclist has not entered the crosswalk this behavior is perfectly legal. Perhaps the author is simply jealous of others' track-standing/sitting skills.
'Their impatient posture appears to sneer, "What's wrong with you? Pick up that walker and get a move on so I don't have to put my foot down." '
Or...maybe...just maybe...it's actually safer and more convenient to trackstand/sit (especially when one uses clipless pedals).
They are rudest of all to other bikers, passing on the right and cutting in front of the line at four-way stops.
Oregon vehicle statutes specifically allow cyclists to pass vehicles (including bikes) on the right. If you do not agree with the law then you are welcome to attempt to change it. Fat chance.
They thumb their noses at moderation, common courtesy and traffic signals.
It is sometimes courteous and safe to violate traffic signals. Why should motorists wait for more nimble bike traffic that can quickly and efficiently clear a lumbering jam of motorized vehicles? Why should cyclists sit in an intersection waiting for traffic to accumulate when they can quickly and safely clear an open traffic-less intersection?
“Occasionally, an especially egregious hedonist can be heard yelling livid profanities at drivers, seeming to enjoy himself in the process.”
Oh...the inhumanity of livid profanities!
“Erratic, frequently unlawful behavior on the road looks almost as if it is meant to startle and piss-off drivers. Is it a game? Is it a challenge?”
It's a challenge and a game. Some would even call it a war. Unfortunately, it's one where almost all the casualties (human, animal, and environmental) are on one side.
“Expensive bike gear and "members only" attire boasts,”
The idea of saving thousands of dollars a year in ,b>both motorvehicle and gym expenses is doubly outrageous!
Recommended
"misguided and unfunny satire".
Recommended
But she certainly was not referring to 80's Member's Only Jackets, so it quickly is not funny again.
Recommended
"It's a privilege not to drive..."
I'm pretty sure this is backwards. Despite our intentional ignorance of this issue, even the Oregon driver's manual says it is a privilege TO drive, and that this privilege can be taken away (though that rarely, if ever, happens on any permanent basis).
It is a *choice* not to drive. It is a heavier choice not to own a car (for those who *can* actually afford to own one), but still a choice. This is a choice that anyone can technically make (except of course, as I said, those who can't afford to own a car in the first place). Depending on your own personal circumstances, you may have a better or worse set of options in this choice, but it is a choice.
I can also see how the majority of people would see not owning a car, not as a privilege, but as a severe handicap. Because in Portland, in some ways it really is. Our public transit is spotty at best, and our bicycle accommodations are nearly non-existent, in the overall scheme of things. If you get outside about the SE/NE 50's, you start running into areas with no sidewalks, and just over Marquam Hill in SW you have the same issue.
Sure, you save money, and you can more easily skip traffic, but in a city that is 90% suburbs (granted, old suburbs, but suburbs nonetheless), there is a notable hit in convenience and feeling of safety unless you are able to and decide to make very specific decisions about where/how to live.
--------------------------
So, both people who wear few clothes (shirtless), and people who wear expensive clothes (expensive bike gear) are arrogant? What if the person is wearing a tailored 3-piece suit? That could be at least as expensive as a high-vis suit, potentially quite a bit more. Is that arrogant? Did you ever think that maybe someone who has $2,000 to blow on bike gear might also have another $2,000 to give to charity?
Also, you seem to be awfully concerned with peoples' money...
---------------------------
I'm not even going to get into the helmet issue, except to say that the statement "the king of arrogance is the biker without a helmet" is spoken like a true captive with Stockholm Syndrome.
---------------------------
"Helmetless people are among those seen flying through red lights, too..."
As are people driving cars, people in sunglasses, people with shoes on, people with *blue eyes* (god forbid), and people wearing helmets!
Incidentally, helmetless people are also among those who generally obey rules (as are people driving cars, people in sunglasses, people with shoes on, people with blue eyes, and people wearing helmets), and they're swarming all over the sidewalks too. You see them in cafes having normal conversations and you see them at desks in important offices.
----------------------------
This article... I just don't get it.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
I made a pretty negative comment above and it is incumbent on me to provide some constructive criticism rather than just a harsh expression of my opinion.
I think this piece really fails to live up to the kind of quality journalism that Bike Portland tries to provide. I think the biggest issue is that this particular piece ends up as an undefined genre somewhere between Lifestyle and Opinion. Lifestyle implies that we shouldn't expect it to be a rigorous news article. It is acceptable for lifestyle columns to be fluffy and frivolous, humorous and entertaining, and not be rigorous with facts and logic . However, this lifestyle column dives in to a number of serious controversies both between and within various groups. It really reads much more as an opinion piece. Simply put Cathy expresses strong opinions about several controversial topics, while broadly and indiscriminately disparaging other cyclists as arrogant, self-righteous, and ignominious. Apparently this is supposed to be justified because Cathy admits at the start that she is herself arrogant. Thus it is acceptable to skewer everyone else's perceived arrogance? Besides it's just a "Lifestyle" piece, don't take it so seriously.
Yet, the approach is totally stereo-typical, and largely repeats the same tropes we hear over and over again in anti-cycling (allegedly serious) opinion columns that are sloppy journalism in the Oregonian and other newspapers both prominent institutions like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal and tabloids.
The result is just a muddle. The column is not funny, light or "in good spirit." At the same time it does not add anything to the discussion of the issues raised, and instead mainly speculates on the great selfishness all those inferior cyclists.
Don't give up. Try again.
Sincerely
Paul (you know who I am) in the 'Couve
Recommended
Recommended
And, because I want to pass you, due to the fact you and I will NEVER bike at the same speed, that also makes me arrogant?
Get a clue Cathy! Reading this column is five minutes of my life I'll never get back. Thank God for the comments section.
Recommended
Recommended
Bike Snob took down this lazy, biased way of thinking about riding behavior recently in his excellent and much-shared post Shafted Again (http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2013/11/shafted-again.html), which profoundly changed my approach to coexisting with other riders whose behavior I feel is unsafe or believe is illegal. The idea that anyone riding should be spending a lot of effort telling another rider how to behave, when all of us are struggling with much larger forces in a system that is not designed to keep us safe or make our travel convenient, is, I realized, absurd.* I used to think I was accomplishing something, at least, by disapproving of people riding in ways that I consider unsafe. Understanding that by doing so I was spending my energy on something that ultimately causes very few problems, and that I was contributing to the impression that such behavior is common and problematic while diverting my own and others' focus from the serious systemic issues at play, made me realize that it's at best pointless and at worst seriously counterproductive. Apparently this author hasn't gotten there, and if this post has any value at all, maybe that's it: for the responses to help at least one more person move past that common and Stockholm syndrome-esque misconception.
Based on my experience with BikePortland, I believe that it shares the belief I've just articulated: that there are serious systemic issues that have to be addressed to make bicycling safe, and that those issues deserve our focus and attention. This column stands for exactly the opposite of that belief, and for that reason I don't think it's appropriate material for this site. But if it's not to be removed as likely to cause more harm than good, I at least hope that the responses may have the small but salutary effect of changing the writer's mind.
*I exempt sincere, systematic efforts at education from this statement; those are trying to remedy the genuine problem of people not being aware of the best ways to ride.
Recommended
Recommended
I applaud you for your courage and candor in writing your article. I commute daily from Clark County to my job at PDX. Although I live in a semi-rural area with scenic routes, on weekends I really enjoy riding into Portland for its great infrastructure, interesting sights and people, and wonderful old neighborhoods. I have observed many of the attitudes and behaviors you describe. I try to be safe, considerate to others, and somewhat of an ambassador on my bike, as a counter-response to the negative attitude that many motorists have toward cyclists (in many cases, I suspect that that attitude did not just self-create, while in other cases there are people who are just born jerks). As I was reading your piece, I would have hoped that it would give cause for self-reflection for some, but I just knew it would elicit a flood of aggrieved protests. On the other hand, if you toss a rock into a flock of geese, you know who you hit 'cause he's gonna holler.
Recommended
Recommended
You are doing it to try to hurt as many Gesse as possible with the least effort.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Great, insightful article, Cathy , one of the best ever to appear on BP.org
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
"I can't speak for everybody, but I have to admit, while I try to keep in it check, to a little bit of smugness about the moral superiority of my chosen mode of travel. Again, while I try to contain such base impulses, I have also not been above judging other cyclists as being arrogant or rude because they ride differently than me."
Recommended
Recommended
I care because if somebody was reading this blog for the first time, say somebody that is thinking of visiting Portland, they would think to themselves "Portland bike riders sound like jerks", when really, the author is just trying to be sensational... or something...
I'm making fun of you because you really shouldn't be having all these thoughts about arrogance, but the author has made you ask, "Geez, am I arrogant too? maybe just a little..." that is unfair to you.
Recommended
I used to be one of those folks who got annoyed at other people who did stupid things on bikes because I thought it reflected badly on me and other people who ride bikes. I was persuaded to a different point of view, mostly from reading comments on BikePortland, that anybody who thinks they know something about me just because somebody who pissed them off also rides a bike is not someone whose opinion matters to me. The same for anyone who is going to form an opinion on bicyclists in Portland by reading one article.
The author hasn't made me do anything. Without any prompting I do think about how I can be a more considerate road user, whether I am on a bike, behind the wheel or on foot, in much the same way that I sometimes think about how I can be a better spouse, parent, citizen etc. That I think I can be better doesn't mean I think I am bad. Nothing I expressed here were thoughts I never had prior to reading the piece.
I have to head off to work. If you respond and I don't, it's not because I don't care about what you have to say. I hope you stay warm and enjoy your next ride.
Recommended
this was lightweight doodling posed as a non-conscious admission of guilt in that most heinous of crimes: biker on biker.
not sure how it broke down in comments into argument on whether or not stationary cars in the middle of a field are safe or not (trick question, the field is gmo corn) or whether wearing a helmet is safe or not (there is no argument, its simply not safe biking w/o a helmet in the streets…the only argument is whether it should be personal choice to do so)
i drive.
i get hacked off at some bike behavior in the roadway
i lurk on this site (and especially the comments) b/c it actually is helpful in pointing out to me where "the other side" is coming from. its a really helpful forum in that regard, for someone who doesn't bike.
but i do see some humor in how i read the article (as bikers ripping bikers), and how the comments have played out (as bikers ripping bikers, and the author, a biker)
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
You're absolutely right I am.
Recommended
In reading the comments, I see a lot of angry-sounding words. I am not surprised - the article was meant to be edgy (lucky for you, my editor took out my reference to little dicks). But perhaps I left you all wondering: 1) "Who the hell is she?" and, 2) "What the hell is she trying to say?"
Here are your answers:
1) I am an enthusiastic, unpaid writer who happens to bike. I love the low-car lifestyle and all of the great opportunities Portland offers to live it. In my opinions, I draw from my personal experiences, am beholden to no one, and do not strive to be an advocate, a leader or a mover and shaker in the biking world. I just write about what I love; and in this article, the behaviors that make what I love less pleasant.
2) My message?
A) We are all arrogant in some way. Some of us in ways that make it unpleasant for others, unfortunately.
B) I don't like rude behavior. I don't like it when a person cuts in line at the grocery store. Do you? Similarly, I don't like it when a biker comes from behind me at a four-way-stop and passes me and the other 4 vehicles who have waited patiently for our turns. If a person behaves in a non-rude way, but, for example, passes me on the right (be careful, that is the direction I spit when I have a cold), I don't mind at all. Skilled track standers are great; the unskilled ones that threaten to fall on peds as they cross nearby are, well, kind of rude. Practice a few feet further back please.
C) I find expensive lifestyles somewhat distasteful. It's a childhood hangup I know, but I can't escape it. Call me a tightwad, but any vehicle or hobby that costs more than $6,000 (yes, including cars) makes me wonder - is that really necessary?
D) I know there is a heated debate about the benefit to a cyclist of wearing a helmet. I hate helmets. I would much rather feel my hair flying in the wind. But in the off-chance that my helmet on my head might save my husband and my children from a lifetime of feeding me through a tube and changing my diapers as I stare blankly at the wall, I will wear one - for them.
E) As for riding without hands or shirt, I do both, just not downtown in heavy traffic - I don't want my boss to see my titties. Everything in moderation!
So there you have it, for anyone who cares... I know many of you don't, and that's OK. Really. I don't write to gain approval, although it is nice for BIkePortland if you want to read the stuff they post. It's not my job to worry about what people think of my opinions - they too are just opinions. But if we want to be heard, it is our job to speak up! (I hope that cyclist who almost mowed me down as I biked up SE Clinton Street heard this!) Comment Away!
Recommended
"I find expensive lifestyles somewhat distasteful. It's a childhood hangup I know, but I can't escape it. Call me a tightwad, but any vehicle or hobby that costs more than $6,000 (yes, including cars) makes me wonder - is that really necessary?"
Well... since the editors have cleared you (and by extension, us) to be "edgy" and to chronicle the things that "make what (we) love less pleasant", then YES, I think it is necessary, even desirable. And YES, you are a tightwad.
So there you have it, if you care... I know you don't, and that's OK. Really. I don't write to gain approval, although it is nice for BIkePortland if folks stop to think about our "discussion". It's not my job to worry about what people think of my opinions - they too are just opinions. But if we want to be heard, it is our job to speak up!
Recommended
On arrogance displayed by road users, on bikes, in motor vehicles, etc.: I suppose all people have the potential to be arrogant, though many generally manage to keep that reasonably in check, whatever it is they do.
The failure or unwillingness on the part of certain road users, to keep their arrogance reasonably in check, is I think what has become a big bone of contention amongst road users...particularly amongst the majority road users that use the road with motor vehicles, with regards to arrogant road users of the vulnerable sort, that...tah-dah!...ride bikes with varying degrees of arrogance and disdain for most any road users but themselves.
Not every person riding a bike on the road, behaves like an arrogant jerk, and I didn't gather from your column that you intended anything of the sort. Yet notice the number of bikeportland readers commenting here, that seem to have automatically jumped to the conclusion, without any particular support for it, that this was exactly what you were implying.
That suggests something seriously missing in their thinking and attitudes, rather than yours.
Recommended
Surely you are not going to comment on people commenting without supporting their points without supporting your point. Are you wsbob? Why is your assumption about her intention any more valid than anyone else's?
Recommended
I've implied no such thing. Re-read her column. You and anyone else, are entitled to draw any conclusion from it you choose, and it seems you have.
Recommended
Recommended
Maybe you understand what you wrote there. I sure don't, except that it's kind of funny reading, like Jabberwocky, so I suppose you can count that as some kind of a win. Congratulations!
Recommended
Case closed.
Recommended
Also, regarding cycling clothing: Do you not understand what it's for? Do you just think it looks funny? Are you not aware that a lot of it can be acquired fairly inexpensively? One could buy a pretty impressive amount of gear and not come anywhere near your arbitrary (and somewhat exorbitant considering what we're talking about here) $6000 threshold for appropriate hobby spending. Maybe you just like to dump on activity appropriate attire (can we also find you down at the bouldering gym snarking at everyone's stupid little shoes?) but your continued preoccupation is strange coming from a "cycling lifestyle columnist".
Recommended
Provocation for its own sake is usually boring. ..." pengo
For you, apparently not in this case though, because here you've gone ahead and written something in response that really is boring. Next time, try to write something that has a little more to offer than anxious sarcasm.
Recommended
Some of the old pot calling the kettle black, eh wsbob?
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
"Your words lead me to believe that while there was a point you were trying to get across, style was prioritized over substance and that point became lost. This often happens when there's a self-conscious desire to be provocative. You seem to have acknowledged that your piece failed on a basic level, and this may be a large part of the reason for that. You can be clear and coherent while still being 'beholden to no one'.
You also appear to hold some very basic misconceptions regarding the utility of athletic attire and your attempt to clarify accomplished the opposite. You cite financial reasons, but don't seem to know what anything costs. Some of it is expensive, a great deal of it is not. You further don't seem to understand that most cycling clothing serves a purpose above and beyond broadcasting athletic prowess to the world. Given your acknowledged well paying job, it's possible that you live a much more expensive lifestyle than somebody who owns a lot more cycling gear than you do. It's troubling that this needs to be pointed out to someone attempting to be a cycling lifestyle columnist."
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
As for the helmets, yes, wearing one may (the data are unclear, but it seems to make sense) reduce the chance of you getting a head injury in an accident, which is why they are required in bike and car racing. If you wear one while biking, you should consider wearing one while driving, "in the off-chance that my helmet on my head might save my husband and my children from a lifetime of feeding me through a tube and changing my diapers as I stare blankly at the wall."
I love the fury that your column brought about here in virtual Portlandia.
Recommended
http://www.stc-law.com/bicycle_archive19apr06.html
It's perfectly legal and working as intended.
It frustrates me to see people do it in situations where cars and bikes will pass back and forth over and over. But I guess all I can do as a driver or rider is do it well and safely and hope people learn from the example.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
But seriously, this is such a frustrating label to have to deal with - sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't. It depends on the situation, and if you are a type of person that is going to bike more and drive less primarily because you have a protective shell on your head - then by all means strap that helmet on and get out there on your bike! THAT is what I love seeing, and to me that person is absolutely gorgeous! Talk about a beautiful lifestyle :)
However, please don't label others as arrogant for their own personal choices that have absolutely no effect on you. Otherwise it'll be that much tougher to be able to advance our region's transportation system to become safer for the community as a whole, such as the Netherlands - who by the way are brimfull with a bunch of arrogant people, apparently (http://www.streetfilms.org/groningen-the-worlds-cycling-city/). Ugh, gross. Yeah, let's not be like them. Let us instead talk about what other people should dress like so we can all be a uniform 'bicycle community' without any individual character. That'll attract the new 'interested but concerned' riders in no time!
Recommended
I've been car-free or car light for decades, I'm vegan, I've voluntarily limited my spending to $15K/year for many years, I take energy efficiency to extremes, I share 700 square feet out of choice (not poverty), I avoid jet travel, and I give thousands a year to non-religious and non-governmental NGOs.
Nevertheless, these choices do not give me the right to piss all over people who eat meat, spend/consume more than I, live in a 1st world inner SE mcmansion, or jet off on vacays. And even if I wanted to criticize these behaviors I'm smart enough to realize that you don't get much traction by being a judgey hypocrtical @#$%&.
Recommended
Recommended
If people don't adhere to your concept of budgetary constraints, then *they* are the arrogant ones?
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
much like our shared experience with cycling. To excoriate Ms Hastie because her experience is not like yours misses that point. It is what we say it is. She simply chose to speak out about her experience.
Recommended
Recommended
A few months ago, my children--the parents of my grandchildren--prevailed upon me to wear my bike helmet, after I was hit by an unlicensed driver driving a car that he did not own. I did hit my helmet-free head on the pavement when I went down and suffered a MINOR head injury. So I now wear my helmet under duress (spelled with sticker-letters on my helmet). But on those hot, humid, hazy days last summer, sometimes I removed my helmet and took my chances with possible head trauma over certain heat stroke were I to keep the helmet on. Sometimes, when I'm in certain neighborhoods or on certain streets, or on our city's half mile of protected bike lane, I ride without the helmet.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!
Recommended
Then take that expression of fear off your face when you're riding, because it's certainly not use of bike helmets that's conveying a message that cycling is dangerous. Upon those using them, bike helmets convey a sense of good judgment and responsibility taken.
Recommended
have you considered that to some people (those who drive, walk, take showers without helmets, to name just a few) it is possible to draw the conclusion that somehow biking is uniquely dangerous because of all those activities it is the only one where helmets are mandated, considered necessary, etc.?
all those activities' dangers fall on a scale, yet no one is seriously proposing that people who engage in them wear helmets.
Recommended
Do you know Erin? This seems like an unsupported presumption that is not based in reality.
"...bike helmets convey a sense of good judgment and responsibility taken." - wsbob
Also, completely unsupported and based solely on what you think.
Recommended
"...When I wear a helmet, I send a message to others that cycling is dangerous. ..."
She didn't say it was the helmet that was sending the message. She said it was herself that was sending the message.
Recommended
"Erin"'s statement is gender neutral. Why have you decided that the poster is female? Am I missing something?
"She said it was herself that was sending the message." - wsbob
By wearing a helmet, not because of a facial expression.
"you can get busy and go find the majority support you seem to think exists for the contrary opinion, if that's what you think you need." - wsbob
I know plenty of people that ride without helmets on both motorcycles and bicycles. If this is opinion only, based on personal perception, you will need to present data supporting your assertion of majority support for helmets.
Recommended
"..."...bike helmets convey a sense of good judgment and responsibility taken." - wsbob
Also, completely unsupported and based solely on what you think." Scott
Not based solely on what I think, but also upon what many thousands of people in our area, in Oregon, and millions of people in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world, also think. But you don't have to take my word for it...you can get busy and go find the majority support you seem to think exists for the contrary opinion, if that's what you think you need.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
That seems to be missing here.
If Bikeportland.org is going to start posting Onion-like satire we could stand to be warned first if the website is switching formats from news to entertainment.
Recommended
Recommended
Gee Cathie, what the heck were you thinking by writing lines like that?
In a previous article, you claimed that the new light rail bridge was "a bridge for me." This article is the very picture of liberal white privilege.
I too have had lucky breaks in life, but try not to gloat, and I try to be sensitive to the folks who had less luck and must struggle more.
Many people contribute to society in different ways.
This elevation of biking to a great civic virtue is... just sad.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
I think there's a demographic/generational element at work in her column and the responses that no one's really picked up on. I'm an older female and an occasional cycling commuter who otherwise takes transit. One of the reasons I did not enjoy my cycling commute that much (on the Eastbank Esplanade and downtown) was the cyclists on the Esplanade (usually in logo-covered clothing) who would not yield when their direction was blocked and instead would come straight at me, forcing me to brake suddenly. Or those who would pass me unsafely (too close, on the right, no heads' up.)
If cyclists obey the laws and treat those of us who are outside your (overwhelmingly young and/or male) demographic like we belong on the road with you, maybe some may not be so apt to call you arrogant. (And if you don't like the laws, then work to change them - I'll be right along side you!) Plus, we know you're faster than us and you'll pass us - that's not the point! -- it's how you demonstrate your prowess. If you're faster, be the big person and pass safely, being considerate of the slower/older/younger. On an aside, I think cycling should be made/viewed as a "normal" part of life for everyone, as in Northern Europe, and should not be a "culture" in and of itself. One of the downsides of promoting cycling as a culture is that those outside it may be more quick to associate [bad] individual behavior with the collective. I would argue that a culture of arrogance is one that the cycling community (which I'm part of) does not want to be associated with. This should be a wake-up call to that effect (that one of our own is calling us on the carpet) rather than an opportunity to squelch other perspectives that differ from the majority's.
Recommended
*ageist
*sexist
*authoritarian
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
I sometimes do things that aren't necessary but sure are fun!
Recommended
(1) Miscategorization. This is an opinion piece and should have been labeled as such. It is not a lifestyle column.
(2) Lack of Clarity. Effective opinion pieces should never leave you guessing as to what the author's point is. Here, Cathy comments and admits that her writing left people wondering "What is she trying to say?" That's a failure. Even once Cathy attempts to clairfy what it is she is trying to say, she has a laudry list of four points, some more developed than others.
Next time, Cathy, pick one: Write a piece about why you wear a helmet. Write a piece about "rude" behavior by people on bikes. Write a piece about "expensive lifestyles". Write a piece about riding without a shirt. Or write a piece about riding with no hands.
But what you wrote (and what BikePortland chose to publish as a column rather than as an opinion piece) is just a jumbled mess of ideas. Instead of provoking informed debate about your opinions in any sort of ordered way, you lost credibility, muddle the issues, and instead of intelligent discussion, we get 170+ comments that are criticisms of you, rather than discussion of the issues.
Do better next time.
Recommended
Next time, please write as simplistically and dumbed-down as possible, so that Ciaran can follow it without really having to think.
Recommended
Cathy's writing fails to communicate her ideas. As a result, readers have had to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what it is Cathy was trying to say, rather than thinking about what they think of her ideas. Ineffective communication--as exemplified by Cathy's column--does not serve the author or the reader well.
I love writing that makes me think...about the author's actual ideas. But I despise writing that forces me to think about the writer's lack of skill.
Recommended
Fine, except it seems that about 90 percent of what bikeportland publishes is that type of thing. Not enough focus is directed towards acknowledging and changing the behavior of people on their bikes in traffic, that are mucking up efforts to bring biking about as a more common, practical means of transportation.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2013/12/inside-450-nearly-identical-and.html
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
This is interesting as my posts are much milder than many that are published. weird.
Are potential posts scanned by NAME, IP address or key word scanned ? Are certain posters tagged to be approved before posting ?
What is BP so scared of ?
I'll be amazed if this goes through and is still up tomorrow.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
I **think** that JM is a stand up guy and wouldn't do this CS editing/deleting , but dunno ??
Posting on other subjects go thru fine.
Recommended
Even when asked directly for any indication of what consistently will get a comment rejected JM & friends keep silent. It would seem they enjoy the ambiguity.
We know that if a you get a comment removed it seems to put you on a mandatory screening list for some period of time, like a day or so. So too for some profanity and some innocuous keywords. If you are a consistent agitator of the staff or tr011 the comments in a particularly big0ted manner you can get on long term list that automatically drops your comments in moderation hell.
But nothing is solid because they won't explain anything on the topic ever.
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended