a crank’s progress

15 Comments

1. Josh wrote:

   I don’t think Aaron and Zack (helmetless and beerful, respectively–I can’t tell if Aaron’s got a can in that photo or not, but I think not) are representative of Critical Mass, let alone the bicycle advocacy community at large. They’re representative of a certain faction, for sure. But I count 17 (or maybe 18) helmets and 4 (or maybe 3) bare heads in that photo of Aaron on his tallbike.

   I’m of two minds about Critical Mass, but I don’t think it can be easily written off as simply a bunch of antisocial misfits with entitlement issues.

   Monday, October 23, 2006 at 4:26 PM | Permalink
2. paul wrote:

   If you look at the larger picture at the Times website (actually, the dead tree version is more clear), you can see the can as what it is, and the fact that his panniers are loaded with PBR is also mentioned.

   I think you’re missing the larger point. If a car fanciers club were to commandeer a section of roadway and then drink publicly in the process, who would find their antics acceptable?

   A friend and I were discussing this today and he suggested a license for cyclists, not as a test of skill but as an acknowledgement of responsibility for and understanding of the laws that apply to all road traffic. It seems to me some people want it both ways: to have the access to roads that cars get but the freedom to cut into traffic, run stop signs/lights, etc. You can’t tell me you have never seen this.

   I think anyone in Critical Mass can safely be assumed to be ‘representative’ if they showed up for it, especially if they showed up with refreshments and a customized ride. Can anarchy have representatives? Do mobs think or merely ooze?

   Monday, October 23, 2006 at 7:36 PM | Permalink
3. Josh wrote:

   I’m fairly certain that the person pictured riding the tallbike with beer in his panniers is Aaron Goss (owner of the fabulous Aaron’s Bicycle Repair in West Seattle), and the person pictured in a black sleeveless top carrying a can of PBR is Zack Treisman, the guy arrested by King County police a few months back. It may be that Aaron’s holding a can, too, but I can’t see it in the larger size of the photo on the left, and you’ve cropped the photo on the right that does clearly show a beer can to not show the helmet being worn by its rider (or the 7 other riders, all of whom are also wearing helmets).

   I understand that there are people who believe that helmet laws are bad, just like there are people who believe that seat belt laws are bad. I don’t agree with them, but I don’t consider not wearing a helmet a priori evidence that someone is an irresponsible bicyclist. Operating a bicycle with an open can of PBR is another story.

   Carrying a bunch of beer in panniers? Nothing wrong with that. Why should driving to a party with a case of beer in the trunk be any more acceptible than biking to a party with beer in your panniers?

   I think you’re missing the larger point. If a car fanciers club were to commandeer a section of roadway and then drink publicly in the process, who would find their antics acceptable?

   During the WTO protests in 1999, there were tens of thousands of protesters. A few dozen of them were black-clad, window-smashing, bandenna-wearing, graffiti-spraying “anarchists”. But to judge by the media coverage of the protests, they were the norm. They were certainly the public face of the protests I saw on the news every night.

   Photo editors are like this with stories about bicycles. Maybe 75% of the time, if there’s a news story about bicycling, the photo editor will choose a photo that includes someone not wearing a helmet. That’s just the way it is, and if you don’t believe me, I suggest you go watch any bicycling-related event that’s going to get news coverage, form an impression of what the helmet to non-helmet ratio there is, and then check the coverage later. I almost guarantee that the photos will give you the impression that there were a lot more people not wearing helmets than you observed in person.

   So, yeah, I admit that there are jerks at Critical Mass. There are jerks everywhere. Are the jerks in the majority at Critical Mass? I don’t know; I’ve never been to one to see for myself. Have you?

   It seems to me some people want it both ways: to have the access to roads that cars get but the freedom to cut into traffic, run stop signs/lights, etc.

   And this is unique to bicyclists how? I see bicyclists run stop signs all the time, sure. I see car drivers do the same thing. Go camp out at the nearest 4-way stop some time and really pay attention to whether people are coming to a full stop or not. If there’s not a lot of traffic, I bet you’ll find that at least a third of the cars perform “rolling stops”.

   It isn’t about wanting it both ways. Bicyclists already have it both ways, exactly the same way auto drivers do. We all have access to the roads, and we all have the freedom (although not the right) to break traffic laws.

   It’s not about demanding rights; it’s about demanding that car drivers acknowledge the existence of bicycles on the roads. Listen to any driver who’s hit a bicyclist explain what happened: “He came out of nowhere.” “I never even saw her.” I’m sure in some of these cases, the bicyclist did do something stupid and come out of nowhere. But in a lot of them, I’m betting the car driver just wasn’t including bicyclists in his internal model of the road.

   I’ve had drivers look right through me and not realize I was directly in front of them until it was nearly too late. Cam was knocked out of a crosswalk and had her tailbone broken by a driver who didn’t notice her walking directly in front of his stopped vehicle. Hell, I once nearly hit a pedestrian who (in my mind) “appeared out of nowhere” when I was driving a car. If Critical Mass gets drivers to pay more attention during other times, then I think maybe it’s a net good. Even if a few jerks show up with open cans of PBR.

   Monday, October 23, 2006 at 11:32 PM | Permalink
4. paul wrote:

   The people in the pictures are identified in the article, just as you assume. Photo editors are good for that, at least ;-)

   The WTO protestors came out swinging, as a demonstration of why they were there in the first place. I have to assume likewise in this case with these guys who, if they drove car with a beer in one hand, would be looking at some corrective action from the law.

   As for the cropping, the full-size images are available. If I get a chance, I’ll walk the dead tree edition down to you.

   I too have almost hit a pedestrian: two weeks ago a guy was running the Burke-Gilman at 70th and didn’t see my headlights and I didn’t see his black clothes emerge from the darkness. And just yesterday, I was almost hit myself on a sidewalk by someone coming out an alley much too quickly.

   Sometimes you just have to be as careful as you can, especially when you have the most to lose. A cyclist or a pedestrian is at a distinct disadvantage and to trivialize that by not wearing a helmet or engaging in an activity that requires the use of one hand — no cup holders on those bikes that I could see — seems like an unnecessary risk.

   As for the notion the photo editor cherry-picked those pictures, so what? Did they ask the guy to ride a tallbike in a Hawaiian print shirt and add some amusing ballast to his panniers? No. He decided that was how he wanted to be. Did the photographer pass out cans of Becks and take pictures of the smaller group (again, the context for these is at the Times site) but only the guy who is also pictured being trussed up by cops took one?

   There is a some personal responsibility here. To go to a large consciousness-raising event and make an ass of yourself, exercise poor judgment, and then complain that people aren’t cutting you any slack shows a little too much chutzpah to be taken seriously.

   There was a lot of good in that article, by the way. The show of hands by people who had been hit by cars (I can still see the Ghost Cycle installation from a couple of years ago) and the few, by contrast, who had reported the incidents was very telling. That needs to change. The cycling community needs to do a better job holding the rest of the road-users accountable. But they need to be sure their cause isn’t undermined by knuckleheads at the same time.

   Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 5:45 AM | Permalink
5. Josh wrote:

   But they need to be sure their cause isn’t undermined by knuckleheads at the same time.

   Yeah, because the rest of us have any say over what the knuckleheads do. What do you propose? That the Bicycle Alliance of Washington and Cascade Bicycle Club (at whose events I doubt you’ll find many people bicycling while drinking) somehow take over Critical Mass and start denying the knuckleheads entry to the ride?

   I was at the bicycle master plan meeting mentioned in that article. What could have been done at that meeting to make sure that the cause wasn’t being undermined by a few attendees of a different event?

   As for the notion the photo editor cherry-picked those pictures, so what? Did they ask the guy to ride a tallbike in a Hawaiian print shirt and add some amusing ballast to his panniers? No. He decided that was how he wanted to be.

   And the photo editor decided that that was the photo he wanted to use to represent the entire event. That’s so what. You have apparently decided, based on those photos, that Critical Mass is full of people behaving irresponsibly: Critical Mass, if these people are representative of it, is crap. That conditional clause? The photo editor’s cherry-picking is part of what helps you determine whether the condition’s been fulfilled.

   The WTO protestors came out swinging, as a demonstration of why they were there in the first place.

   Now, when you say “WTO protestors”, are you talking about the few dozen vandals, or the umpty-thousand non-destructive protesters? Because this is exactly what I’m talking about. The people breaking windows were a tiny fraction of the people marching in the streets, and in fact a good number of the peaceful protesters tried to restrain the vandals. But the vandals are who made the news, and so they’re what people think of when you say “WTO protesters”, even though they weren’t representative of the group.

   I’ll take your word for it that Aaron’s carrying a can in the tallbike photo. I can’t see it in the large image, but maybe it’s clear in the print version. If so, he should know better.

   Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 12:24 PM | Permalink
6. Josh wrote:

   Ah, thanks for the scan of the print edition. I see now what you’re talking about. I was confused by the smaller images.

   So, ok. Aaron clearly shouldn’t be the poster boy for the bicycling community. Whose fault is it that he’s the one on the cover of the magazine? Not the Cascade Bicycle Club’s. Not Bicycle Alliance of Washington’s. Probably not even his. That’s solely the responsibility of the photo editor.

   Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 12:29 PM | Permalink
7. paul wrote:

   To respond to both comments:
   As someone who looks at a lot of pictures, my own and those of others, I think the picture of Aaron on the tallbike is a great image. I don’t think it was chosen to make the event look like a rolling disturbance. You are implying the choice was more about politicizing or emphasizing the negative rather than capturing the event. if you don’t think so, re-read your words.

   Yes, the photo was chosen but I suspect more on its merits — big guy in a colorful shirt on an unusual bike surrounded by other cyclists, all of whom look to be having a good time — than out of a need to demonize Critical Mass. So think about the picture itself. Would it be a less illustrative image without the PBR can? I don’t think so. So if that’s true — that the photographer didn’t single out a guy with a beer — then the choice of carrying the beer can was — Aaron’s. He could have been on the cover of PNW without it. And we wouldn’t be having this conversation. And there were a few more pictures that showed Cyclists Behaving Well, just the two I noted were of people who should know better. So it’s not like the only pictures used were intended to make cyclists look like yahoos.

   As I mentioned in the original post, I would be heartened if I saw some reader feedback that commented on this, that supported a more responsible view. I don’t know if that will happen.

   Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 1:07 PM | Permalink
8. Josh wrote:

   The photo editor doesn’t have to be making a conscious choice to demonize Critical Mass in order to choose a photo that accomplishes that effect. I agree; it’s a great shot, and it makes sense to use it as a cover shot. But the point is, it’s not like the Bicyle Enthusiast Community woke up that morning and said “Let’s make Aaron Goss our poster boy. He’ll represent us well!”

   Aaron’s failings are his own deal. I’m pretty sure his thought process that day didn’t go: “I will be photographed for the cover of a magazine this evening. Should I bring the beer, or not? How will my choice reflect on the state of bicycle advocacy in general?” Maybe he should have been thinking like that. He certainly shouldn’t be bicycling while drinking, in any case. But deciding that he’s representative of anything but himself is all on you. Here’s what the article said about CM:
   

   One guy pedals atop a double-decker bike, his panniers loaded with five 12-packs of Pabst Blue Ribbon. Another trails a large stereo speaker booming experimental Japanese music and Broadway show tunes. There’s a nude tattooed bicyclist, a steady ringing of bicycle bells.

   But these are not WTO anarchists or hard-core bike messengers (who patronizingly refer to Critical Mass as “amateur hour”). Mostly, they’re regular folks, exactly the type Lagerwey and Cascade are trying to get onto bikes. There’s a real-estate agent, electronics technician, fourth-grade teacher, research engineer, graphic designer. The August night I rode Critical Mass, I chatted with Sadie Frederick, the manager of Mighty-O Donuts near Green Lake, who pedaled a sturdy commuter bike with a handle-bar basket, a la Wizard of Oz. She wore a skirt, not Lycra, and said she was riding Critical Mass for the first time to celebrate giving up her car.

   Does deciding the first paragraph is more representative of CM than the second say more about CM, or about you?

   Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 1:35 PM | Permalink
9. paul wrote:

   My reaction was based on the images I saw (hence the title of the post). The text offers more detail, as one would expect. As with any other lightly-organized group, there are always a few who have to act out. I came away with a good impression of Cascade and the involvement of people who use bikes as a way to get around.

   I confess to being bent out of shape by juvenile behavior by people who know better. I think there are more productive ways to make a case than making a rolling disturbance. You can ask the folks at Cascade how this helps their efforts. I have.

   Food for thought, to be sure. If the “regular folks” are there every time keeping the yahoo quotient down, that’s great. I suspect it will be a core of professionals with a rotating cast of “regular folks.”

   As for the poster boy, it seems he was also photographed at Chilly Hilly in similar style but sans beer. So this is a schtick that news people can rely on. A helmet with viking horns or some other amusing ornamentation would serve a better purpose but that’s not my problem. He is certainly representative if he keeps acting the same way and no one finds it worth the effort to dissuade him from it. I don’t know him: you do. Do you think if some reasonable person said, “Hey, the helmetless thing is really hurting the people doing their best to make cycling accessible and safe. Could you knock it off?” he would tell them to stuff it? I can’t answer that. Maybe it’s worth doing. You think I’m the only person to read that article and see those pictures and come to an misimpression, either of a couple of people or an event?

   Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 3:26 PM | Permalink
10. Josh wrote:

    Do you think if some reasonable person said, “Hey, the helmetless thing is really hurting the people doing their best to make cycling accessible and safe. Could you knock it off?” he would tell them to stuff it?

    I’ve only met him once, but from the impression I’ve gotten from others about him, I suspect that, yeah. He might tell them to stuff it, because the helmet law’s a stupid nanny state frippery that may protect children and people who don’t know how to properly ride a bike, but isn’t necessary for people like him, and part of the bicycle advocacy movement ought to be resistance to helmet laws. But I don’t really know him.

    I do know that critical mass isn’t lightly-organized; it’s completely unorganized. It’s a flash mob without any guiding principle except “meet here at this time and make yourself visible”. Expecting the reasonable people in such a group to be able to persuade the unreasonable people to behave differently is a losing proposition.

    Does the existence of CM hurt or help groups like CBC and WBA in the long run? I have absolutely no idea.

    But if, as a bicycle rider yourself, you’d like to address Aaron directly and tell him he’s not helping, his email address is aaron@rideyourbike.com.

    Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 4:09 PM | Permalink
11. Aaron Goss wrote:

    I got a bunch of shit for the picture of me in the Times back in February when I rode a tall bike durning the Chilly Hilly with no helmet. I don’t wear a helmet. I don’t want to. So what! If I had not had a beer in my hand I still would be being rung thru the ringer. All the zealots care about is every body riding a safe bike with a helmet and a neon green jacket.
    Also I did not try to position the logo of the PBR can forward.
    As for the Bicycle Alliance of Washington not approving of beer, know this. Every year at their auction they pass out free beer. You can drink as much as you want. Not many people ride bikes to auctions. They drive. At the end of the evening, I have witnessed many people obviously over the legal limit getting in their cars in the parking lot. (my wife always drove me).

    So he who is without sin, cast the first stone!

    Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 4:54 PM | Permalink
12. Zack wrote:

    The damage that is being done to the usefulness of this article is being done by people who can’t get past the fact that not everyone thinks in they same way that they do. Aaron does more for the biking comunity in Seattle than just about any other individual. Why don’t you let that fact speak for him? Who gives a shit if he wants to ride without a helmet?

    Floyd Landis indicated to the world that one can simultaneously drink beer and win the Tour de France. (Drug test – that’s just France’s good old boy network responding to the USA’s. “You want to have that jackass for a president? Then you must stop winning our bike race!”) So quit whining about the dangers of riding 8mph one handed. Go figure out how to do something real with your time and fix problems rather than make them.

    Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 8:59 AM | Permalink
13. Aaron Goss wrote:

    Josh wrote: Aaron’s failings are his own deal.

    Failings? WTF? Not wearing a helmet? Drinking cheap beer?

    Failing would be driving my kid to school every day in an SUV instead of “making” him take the school bus (or picking him up on my bike).

    Failing would be drinking beer after work and then getting in a motor vehicle to drive home.

    Failing would be not being honest and telling the truth….always.

    Failing would be hating.

    Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 10:13 AM | Permalink
14. Josh wrote:

    So he who is without sin, cast the first stone!

    *toss*

    I’ve never operated a vehicle, motorized or otherwise, while alcohol-impaired. So, no, I don’t think it’s appropriate to ride a bicycle while drinking, even if it’s just low-alcohol swill like PBR.

    I honestly don’t give a crap if you ride without a helmet, because there are valid arguments to be made against being compelled by the state to wear one. (“I don’t want to. So what!” isn’t one of them.) And while I do think a little less of you for drinking PBR (seriously, wtf? That stuff is nasty enough to more than offset its cheapness), that’s not something I really give a crap about either. It’s the combination of drinking and biking that I don’t think is a good idea, and I don’t care if you think I’m an idiot for being against it.

    Is the argument that drinking and biking isn’t as dangerous as drinking and driving? Ok, then, where’s the cutoff? A VW bug? How about if you only drive it 3mph? A 250cc motorcycle? A 50cc Vespa? A stokemonkey-assisted xtracycle? A tallbike? Seriously, at what point does it become ok to operate your vehicle while drinking? I’d like to know.

    And I didn’t know that Floyd Landis was drinking beer while biking the tour de france. For some reason, all the news stories I read had him drinking after the day’s racing was done. I wonder how they could all have gotten that so wrong?

    (For the record, I don’t own a car, by choice. So it’s not like I’m some SUV-driving bike-hater. And I like beer, just not PBR.)

    Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 3:20 PM | Permalink
15. paul wrote:

    I guess the cutoff is 8 mph.

    Wednesday, October 25, 2006 at 4:44 PM | Permalink

Post a Comment