Carhead in the Seattle affair
“Carhead” is a word used to describe the bias found in many news reports and other discussions about conflicts between bicyclists and motorists. Check it out here in the text of CNN’s deplorable piece on the Seattle Critical Mass affair (from Seattle affiliate KING):
Title: Bike Protest Turns Violent: A group of cyclists protesting their right to the road ended up assaulting a driver after an argument.
Narrator: The crash between the driver of this white Subaru and a group of cyclists taking part in a critical mass demonstration played out in a quiet upscale neighborhood on Capital Hill.
Witness 1: “There’s some screaming and yelling, some crunching as he pulled onto the street.”
Narrator: What sparked the confrontation is unclear, but witnesses say they saw about a dozen cyclists surround the car, blocking the driver in. After revving his engine the driver backed up, hitting at least two cyclists, and took off. That’s when the cyclists retaliated.
Witness 2: “They flattened all four tires on his car, damaged both windows, and dented the car, and he ended up having an injury to the back of his head.”
Witness 1: “There’s a giant hole in the back windshield and he was getting out and he had some blood around his neck.”
Narrator: Critical mass is a group of cyclists who take to the streets the last Friday of every month to promote cyclist’s right to the road.
Along with the injured driver, witnesses tell us cyclists were also injured in the melee. But some thought the demonstrators took their message way too far.
Witness 2: “The rest of us who are standing here, in our cars or sitting and we can’t go anywhere because were all horrified, scared that if we go around then maybe they’re going to jump on our car too.”
There are so many other ways to tell this story, but the way it is told here comports with the master narrative we have all been trained to expect. Just nod along with the storyline everyone: lawless cyclists (you see them running stop signs every day) have now apparently formed gangs that assault drivers in nice neighborhoods. It is “unclear” what sets them off, but you don’t want to get in their way because if you do they will attack you. It might be okay to protest for your right to the road, but these people “take their message way too far” by attacking innocent civilians.
This whole piece is just awful–even the title, which says the bicyclists assaulted the driver after an “argument.” Surely the author of that line knew what a baseless deception that was?
Why not tell the real story, which is that a man in a car had no regard for the lives of several people, one of whom he literally ran over in his effort to speed through a crowd of bicyclists?
–Erik Ryberg
July 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Erik, you loose points with me when you are quick to judge the situation and take sides before hearing from both sides. You are quick to slam the media for being car heads but taking the opposite extreme isolates you as a bike head and nothing more than that. Now you have posted the other side’s take of this situation and it appears the media had it right to an extent.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Erik – when you slash someone’s tires, break their windows, and beat them over the head with a U-lock you lose the battle for public support. Do you really expect it to be different?
July 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Steve– No, I don’t expect it to be different. That’s why I am so sad by all this. Of course we lost this battle for public support, it’s obvious.
Anonymous- I was quick to judge the CNN report because they didn’t talk to cyclists and they portrayed the story unfairly. For example there was never any evidence that this was started by an “argument,” but that’s how they chose to market it. I disagree with you that what the driver says absolves CNN of the bias in that piece. And I am not sure what you mean that I am taking the opposite extreme. I don’t support any of what happened, starting with the “corking” and ending with the assault, and including everything that happened in between. So I don’t quite grasp how I am the other extreme.
I’m only saying that you can see how the story unfolded and it’s important to do so to keep it from ever unfolding that way again. I like to think that our Tuesday Night Rides here in Tuscon are populated by enough cooler-headed folks that it could not happen here, but I am not going to be callous about that.
-EBR
August 28th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I want to thank you for the cumulative signifigance of your blog as it’s been months since I was first here and it’s taken quite a while to catch up!
I look forward to hopefully critical comments about a potential backlash to possibly overpriced or at least of insufficient quality newly dealed somewhat innovative not just rider powered but still ultralow environmental etc. 2wheeled contraptions. I’ve heard from almost everyone that all the free publicity has almost everyone aware of the new ’store’ near campus.
On my most read of course are the comment to y our claim about how eating to pedal has an absurdly high you claimed energy toll. The military of course disagrees with there generator backpack etc.
I don’t know if the subject attemted in my name will splash for long or at all but I do think that freshman etc. need lots of guidance before buying any bike- especially if not aware of powerassisted ones or commited to buy one of those instantly.
THe potential of them is largely realised in almost any model- but that doesn’t m ean there are not available much better ones for much less then sold locally.
The brochure distributed even brags about one model being good for hauling around in “your SUV.” Indefensible of course as most bikes will fit in most ‘compensators.’
I would certainly prefer guiltless rentals as opposed to ‘carhead’ test drives. One wonders if the stores opening was delayed by a need to get the plastic taking till up and running to facilitate the ‘loaning’ of largely subprime batteried possibly opportunistically rushed to market “soul[ed] of scooter” pedalable machines.
The main question for you those is are these mopeds or do they really qualify under our locally sponsored, statewide adopted, Tucson tragically opted in, emphasized ban on uregistered such? The backlash if many are sold and then enforcement starts could set us back years!
Did the language about “built to be only pedal powered then modified” not get coded in the statute as I learned it did? Zak and others have bought models purpose built according to the Star.
I’m not saying complying with such a stupid rule is free. Only that it’s not a big deal- and enforcement should be expected, it’s only a matter of ‘need.’
Arizona has the law- how many other places do? IS there a decent website that has a good discussion engine and experts on this tide of innovation? A recent discussion for example ignored it as a solution to stop sign contempt- letting the battery make breaking less fatiguing… even though I’m not saying stopsigns fading to yield isn’t overdue in any ‘intersection’ most of the time not needing full stops.
I would like to see some local lenders get involved in helping people make car sized payments- not lumpsums to buy quality ‘bikes.’ THen the lender could perform the classic role of guiding against the manufacturers who spend more on there photographer then on there technology sourcer…….
August 28th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Since this is moderated here are the corrections to some missed words….
P2 “ultralow environmental etc. IMPACT 2wheeled contraptions”
P3 “On my most NEEDED TO read LIST of course IS”
Sorry about that- anything more from me tonight would be the sort of procrastinating that some might say keeps me too long away from your fantastic hay. I promise to visit more often and edit better if not soften.