Windshield Bias

Many of us envy countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where people cycle even if they have other transportation or recreation options.  Here in the US, we have "bicycle friendly" (a relative term, to be sure) islands in a motor-centric sea.

One reason for the difference between the cycling environments has to do with policies. Europeans seem to understand what it takes to make bicycling safe and practical enough for people to choose it over driving or other forms of transportation, at least for short trips. In America, on the other hand the notion of "bicycle friendliness" seems to consist of building bicycle lanes--which, as I've said in other posts, are too often poorly-conceived, -constructed and -maintained--and passing "safety" regulations that bear no relation to the experience of riding.

A reason for so much misguided policy, I believe, has to do with media coverage.  I'm not familiar with what the Danes and Dutch print or broadcast, but I suspect that it's less auto-centric than what the French see and hear which, in turn, seems like tout l'Equipe compared to what we see on our pages and screens in America.

Now, some might say that I am in a "Big Apple Bubble."  It's true that on many issues--including, ahem, gun rights (Guns have rights?)--most New Yorkers, including yours truly, think differently from a state legislator in Mississippi or Texas.  But from what I've been seeing and hearing, New York City's news stories aren't the only ones infected with "windshield bias."

That apt phrase came to me from Christian MilNeil, a reporter on the Boston edition of Streetsblog.  In his article, he describes how the city's broadcast news programs and newspapers have framed the debates in neighboring Cambridge over bike lanes and pedestrianizing public spaces.  He noted something I've seen here in New York: the debates are too often framed as "bike lanes vs. parking spaces" or some other false equivalency, as in "we have more important issues, like gun violence and affordable housing."

I will not argue that gun violence and affordable housing are not urgent issues. But comparing issues is not useful.  Moreover, how does making a park car-free prevent the  construction of apartments and houses that people and families can afford on worker's wages?  Or passing a law that would keep people who aren't old enough to drink or who have mental health issues from acquiring military-style assault weapons?  

Speaking of which:  A car, especially an SUV, is as deadly a weapon as an AR-15 when an unbalanced person is at the wheel.  If policy-makers actually want to encourage more people to pedal or walk to work or school, they could take measures to prevent and more severely punish violence committed against cyclists and pedestrians in which the motor vehicle is the weapon.  

But I digress.  MilNeil's article shows that while coverage in Boston's print media has been somewhat more balanced, the city's television and other electronic media are heavily skewed toward organizations like "Save Mass Ave" who argue that building bike lanes will destroy their businesses.  Too often, he points out, stories show only outraged owners of the businesses in question or give only a few seconds to a cycling or pedestrian advocate.

(For the record, the Cambridge City Council has consistently favored policies to build bike lanes and ban cars from parks and other public areas.)

Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge.  Photo from Boston Streetsblog.

I suspect that some of that distortion is inevitable.  For one thing, I'd guess that most reporters and editors aren't cyclists and probably don't often walk to get to wherever they're going.  But there is a more important built-in bias, I think:  As we've seen all too clearly during since Trump launched his first Presidential campaign, loud, angry voices are better than calm voices relating facts at "bringing the eyeballs to the screens" or keeping earbuds in ears. 

Could it be that we need advocates who foam at the mouth the way some folks do when their right to have as many and whatever kind of guns--or parking spaces--as they want. Or to use them whenever, whenever they want. 

For The "Chain Gang"

Yesterday, six years had passed since an intoxicated driver mowed down five members of the "Chain Gang," a group of experienced cyclists in the Kalamazoo, Michigan area.

To this day, it is one of the worst such incidents I've heard or read about.  Charles Pickett Jr., as it turned out, had a history of DUI charges before he plowed from behind into nine cyclists.  Paul Gobble, Jennifer Johnson, Paul Runnels and Sheila Jeske were injured and faced long periods of physical therapy and other kinds of recovery. On the other hand, Debbie Bradley, Melissa Fevig-Hughes, Tony Nelson, Larry Paulik and Suzanne Sippel did not survive the horror.

Photo above, l-to-r:  Melissa Fevig-Hughes, Suzanne Sippel, Debbie Bradley, Tony Nelson and Larry Paulik

I felt the need to re-memorialize them, however briefly, in light of yesterday's post.  Would Ms. Bradley, Fevig-Hughes and Sippel or Mr. Nelson and Paulik have been "asking for trouble," as per the pearl of wisdom of that sage Amanda Holden, if they'd been wearing cameras?  Or what if Mr. Gobble and Runnels and Ms. Johnson and Jeske had them?  

I can just see someone like her at a trial, telling other jurors the "Chain Gang's" choice to record their ride caused Charles Pickett to drive his van into their backs.  Would any other jurors go along with her "reasoning" that the riders brought the tragedy on themselves?

Fortunately,  the judge in the case saw the tragedy for what it is and meted out what was probably the longest sentence available under the circumstances:  40 to 75 years, with no possiblity of parole. (In case you're wondering:  Michigan hasn't had the death penalty since 1846.)  So, Pickett won't see the world outside of prison walls until he's 90 years old.

Of course, that sentence--or Pickett's expressions of remorse--will do nothing to bring back the five cyclists he killed or help the ones he injured.  But at least it's good to know that there was some measure of justice served on behalf of innocent victims, whatever else someone like Amanda Holden might want people to believe.

Yes, We Are Asking For Trouble--As She Defines It

Bicycling has heightened my sense of social justice, I believe.  Perhaps that has to do with the fact that cyclists come from literally all parts of society and ride for all sorts of reasons, whether out of necessity, for pleasure or fitness, or to make a statement.  

Likewise, being a transgender woman has, I believe, sensitized me to what some other opressed groups of people endure.  When I talk to Black people or read their accounts of being told that they're "whining" or "exaggerating" when they related the micro- and macro-aggressions they endure--or, worse, are told, openly or implicitly, that they were "looking for trouble" when they complained or "brought it on themselves" for not being, in essence, one of the "good ones"--I at least empathise with them.

In other words, I know what it's like to be told that you're to blame for whatever happens to you because you are what you are by people who would never be held to account for their indiscretions, let alone misdeeds.  To wit:   Someone can drive while texting, or gun through a red light, but the cyclist that driver hits or runs over will be blamed for the "accident."

And now we learn that on "Britain's Got Talent," English men and women have the opportunity to show that they have just as much talent as folks on the other side of the pond for clueless meanness or mean cluelessness.  Amanda Holden, who seems to be Albion's answer to one of the Kardashians (i.e., she has no talent, at least none I can discern, save for self-promotion) is a judge of BGT.  That gives her a platform for making all sorts of smug, ridiculous and simply toxic pronouncements.  

What pearl of wisdom did she impart to the world?  This:  Cyclists who wear cameras are "asking for trouble."

Let's follow the logic of her dictum:

Drivers who use dashcams are looking for trouble.

Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, non-heterosexual, non-cisgender people who record their job interviews or encounters with law enforcement or other authorities are "asking for trouble."

But people who drive intoxicated, distracted or too fast--or break some other law.  Naah, they're fine.  So are cops who lie or interviewers who tell qualified members of minority groups, "We don't feel you would be a good fit with the culture of this organization."

Yeah, we're all "asking for trouble" because to folks like Ms. Holden, people like us having the same rights as hers, and geting the same respect as human beings is "trouble," indeed!

 

Just a reminder why I wear mine @AmandaHolden @theJeremyVine. Go on, tell me it was me asking for it. 🤪 pic.twitter.com/mswxOBnbFN

— Wayne (@waynebago1) June 5, 2022