The Chainlink

Are you in any of these videos of bicycling "scofflaws"?

OK, this is student journalism from Medill, so do NOT use normal standards in critiquing the content of this piece, "Bicyclists, cars, pedestrians are an uneasy mix". 

I found it interesting to watch the five short accompanying video clips, used to illustrate that bicyclists do not follow the rules of the road. In each case, the shot is too tight to see the entire intersection, so critical information is missing like whether it's a one-way cross street a T-intersection (which is the case in three of the videos). Perhaps the author doesn't ride a bicycle very much herself; she seems to feel that a cyclist needs to visibly wag her head left to right in order to view the whole intersection and prove she's following the law.

In any case, I'm surprised the author couldn't get footage of more egregious behavior, as these clips are pretty tame. For example, it's true that the cyclist in the third video at Clark and LaSalle should not be blocking the crosswalk (although a mitigating factor is there are no pedestrians present); but he is rightfully in front of all the cars (the author seems to imply he should be behind the stop line for vehicles?) and he has to be given credit for stopping at the red light, proceeding with green, and most impressively balancing on his bike for at least 20 seconds!

Views: 1233

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on December 5, 2011 at 8:54pm

Any requests before I close P-shop?

Permalink Reply by S on December 5, 2011 at 9:08pm

You should replace the cyclist in the plate with one where it's much more evident that he's wearing lyrca.  Also, make him resemble lance armstrong a bit more.  Since you know, all cyclists wear lyrca and Lance is the only cyclist of note.

h' said:

Any requests before I close P-shop?

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on December 5, 2011 at 9:44pm

Er . . . just because I have Photoshop doesn't mean I know how to use it :-)

But-- I think you really want to say "Spandex" instead of "Lycra" for the proper imagery.

And never forget to mention the stream of energy bar wrappers that trails from all cyclists.



S said:

You should replace the cyclist in the plate with one where it's much more evident that he's wearing lyrca.  Also, make him resemble lance armstrong a bit more.  Since you know, all cyclists wear lyrca and Lance is the only cyclist of note.

h' said:

Any requests before I close P-shop?

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on December 5, 2011 at 9:54pm

Perhaps a little John Pike pepper-spray action?



h' said:

Any requests before I close P-shop?

Permalink Reply by nik was here on December 6, 2011 at 1:01am

In regards to the Kozy Manager's comments:

The question posed, after a 20 minute phone interview, from an interviewer who seemed to know little about riding in the city and probably had never, was "Why do you think riders break the law while riding?". An answer, which included among other things, was that some may do it for the excitement or rush. I do not feel that was an inappropriate answer, as it was not intended to categorize ALL riders, but explain a sound reason as to why some riders ride the way they do. 

Do you believe that there is no one out there that might get a thrill from riding in the city, in a way which may include breaking traffic laws? If so, I urge you to watch any Macaframa video. Or for a comparison, go to Goose Island any Saturday night, like during a Midnight Marauder ride, and there are street car racers throwing their Hondas around corners, because they enjoy the thrill of breaking the law, though they may not even perceive it from that angle. 

In the end, I gave what I thought was a very fair and just interview. One that was sprung on me when my superior gave me a phone and said there was a reporter on the line. I answered many other questions, always knowing that any of it could be taken out of context. In fact, the piece in the article are not my own words but a vague reflection of what I said and from a very small part of the interview. I am a rider, and I am out on the streets daily and have just as much to loose or gain by portraying riders one way or the other. I apologize that the article has twisted my words in a way that may make some of you feel that I have harmed the image of cyclists. But whether my words were taken out of context or not, I don't think I said anything that is false or anything that was actually harmful. Are we to just avoid part of the truth of the situation? Or would I get the same backlash if I told the reporter that the sky was blue?

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on December 6, 2011 at 1:50am

That's kind of what I figured, Nik.

In the ideal world, we'd all have the experience and the practice to recognize when a reporter or journalist is asking leading questions and looking for very specific statements, and all have the ability to think on our feet no matter how little sleep we'd had last night or how bad the timing of the call is, and be able to recognize and deflect or redirect these leading questions. But most of us don't have the benefit of being immersed in professional advocacy discussions and training in talking to media on a regular basis.

We've had a few good models for how to handle the "bicycling is unsafe" line of questioning, including Rob Sadowsky and Ben Gomberg.

If you have a moment, there are some good examples here of how to parry when an interviewer tries to box you into a corner:

http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,8&vid=052208b

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on December 6, 2011 at 9:04am

There seem to be two schools of thought here:

*One school of thought is that city roads are to be high-speed auto-traffic arteries and slow-moving pedesrians and bicylists should get the hell out of the way of the fast-moving cars -staying only in their designated crosswalks at their designated crossing times and outside of that staying OUT OF THE WAY OF THE CARS which need to speed through at high speeds (higher than it is safe with peds present so get them OFF THE ROAD) like it is a super-highway or interstate.

*Then there is the school of thought that the roads are for PEOPLE -not 2-ton+ gas-guzling killing machines.  That if these massive earth-destroying cars must be allowed on the city city streets then they should have to slow down for PEOPLE who want to use the streets as well -to cross from one side to the other rather than walking an extra quarter-mile to an intersection for a designated crosswalk and then back again to same location where they just wanted to get to the other side.  This school of thought is that Bikes and Peds should be able to use the roads and the cars need to slow down and realize that the roads were not meant for just them and buzzing around wasting precious fuel and spewing out CO2 and other pollutants in the process.

Back when the roads were first designed and laid out in this city (and many others) roads were for all PEOPLE -not cars bent on zooming across the city in as short a time as possible like some manic video game with no regard to other road users and the people who actually LIVED and WORKED in these neighborhoods and who wanted to be able to walk from one place to another without having to go 3-4 times as far just to cross the damn street.

I don't know about other people, but my opinion is that the roads should be for EVERYONE.  And that if the cars want to drive fast and get somewhere in far-far-away then they should stick to LSD and the Expressways.  If they want to get to far-off work faster than the time it takes to drive downtown in sane, slower, and safer-moving traffic then they should take the damn train -not expect everyone to be legally bound to stay the hell out of their precious entitled fast-moving way.

IMHO The crosswalks should all be taken down and people should cross anywhere/everywhere.  Maybe even the sidewalks should be extended into the street for all-user mixed use like they are starting to do in many European cities.  I think this is an improvement over the monopoly the cars feel they are entitled for zooming around at high speeds at the exclusion of PEOPLE.  There should be no such thing as "jay-walking" and peds should be able to cross or even walk down their own darn city streets and if if the cars want to use the roads they can just slow down and drive around them without hitting them. 

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on December 6, 2011 at 9:05am

"Be sure the pizza has an old fly in it." 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9L9A1IMTQo (no bikey content)

thanks H!


h' said:

Any requests before I close P-shop?

Permalink Reply by Liz on December 6, 2011 at 9:37am

In my opinion the system you describe in downtown Chicago would stiffle cyclists and bus traffic and make it less accessible. European cities are laid out much differently than chicago.  While the population is higher the density is more "consistent" throughout the whole city, there are not the pockets of high commercial density you see in Chicago's loop.  A very large plaza works as a pedestrian area for a smaller amount of people.  These same cities also contain many arterial streets with crosswalks that people cross only at lights.

While changing the way our streets are laid out is one step to making streets work better for all traffic to flow smoothly.

My main concern is safety for myself and fellow commuters. 

Enforcing the current laws to help keep everyone safe and moving along would help reduce motorist, cyclists and pedestrian collisions.  I often see cars speeding, cyclists running red lights and pedestrians jaywalking, none of these behaviors get these people to work much faster than following the law would.  I watch people participate in these behaviors only to arrive to a downtown corner at the same time I do. 


James BlackHeron said:

I don't know about other people, but my opinion is that the roads should be for EVERYONE.  And that if the cars want to drive fast and get somewhere in far-far-away then they should stick to LSD and the Expressways.  If they want to get to far-off work faster than the time it takes to drive downtown in sane, slower, and safer-moving traffic then they should take the damn train -not expect everyone to be legally bound to stay the hell out of their precious entitled fast-moving way.

IMHO The crosswalks should all be taken down and people should cross anywhere/everywhere.  Maybe even the sidewalks should be extended into the street for all-user mixed use like they are starting to do in many European cities.  I think this is an improvement over the monopoly the cars feel they are entitled for zooming around at high speeds at the exclusion of PEOPLE.  There should be no such thing as "jay-walking" and peds should be able to cross or even walk down their own darn city streets and if if the cars want to use the roads they can just slow down and drive around them without hitting them. 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on December 6, 2011 at 10:12am

The laws we have now and the entire design of the road system revolves around the maximum flow of cars and serve them.

99% of the signage, controlled intersections, and road markings are there so that cars can exist without killing those not in cars.  Most of it didn't need to exist before cars got there.


Traffic laws and the related signage was made for cars.  Bikes and peds shouldn't even have to follow rules for cars.  We'd be fine without them.  The only rules necessary would be ones that make cars go no faster than 20MPH and be totally financially and legally responsible for all collisions.  


IMHO It would be best if they were to just take out all stop signs and traffic lights and make every intersection a yield and let anyone use the road in whatever fashion they needed.  Bikes and peds would do just fine. The roads are for everyone -not just cars.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on December 8, 2011 at 11:06am

A stop sign at a 3 way intersection is for cars. Like the one on Kinzie next to the parking garage.

No traffic is coming from the right,no cars should be entering the bike lane so stopping for non existent traffic is dumb.

Balancing in the cross walk w/out pedestrians present is a skill.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on December 8, 2011 at 11:15am

Is the problem building it (infrastructure) before people ride or doing it after so many start riding they need to make a lane or accommodate bikes in other ways?



da' Square Wheelman (aka garth) said:

I posted the Salon article on my FB page and Anne Alt mentioned the lack of effort to improver bike infrastructure on the South and West Sides. It looks like London is having the same problem according to This Big City: In addition to its limited geographical distribution, London’s cycle hire scheme has been criticised for failing to attract a broad range of users.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service