Demonizing bicyclists

By Steven T. Jones
Despite finally getting the bicyclists' perspective into today's story, the Chronicle continues its misleading and irresponsible effort to demonize Critical Mass and bicyclists in general. And the result has been dozens of angry and menacing online posts by overentitled car drivers who threaten the lives of those opting for a more environmentally friendly transportation option.
biking newsom.jpg
Unlike the more reasonable Examiner account, the Chronicle seems to have lost all sense of proportion, with its reporters trying to push Mayor Gavin Newsom (who was also fairly measured in his reaction) into cracking down on Critical Mass. As I mentioned in my post yesterday, I sought a reaction from the Chron's Andy Ross, which I've now received and am posting below followed by more discussion.

Andy Ross wrote: "Look, we reported this story to the best of our ability on a deadline, and relied on both a police report and interviews with the senior officer at the scene and the woman driving the van. We certainly would have liked to talk to the Critical Mass rider who was hit but, as we reported, he didn't give his name and allegedly took off unharmed. I frankly wasn't aware that you were on the ride, and would have called you had I known. But none of that changes the basic facts that we reported -- namely that a woman, along with her family and friends, were in town for a birthday celebration, drove onto a public street and suddenly found themselves surrounded by scores of bicyclists. In the chaos that followed, she banged into a rider (witnesses today tell us the cyclist was either to the side of the van or behind it -- not in front of the driver). That, in turn, touched off an angry rection from the bicyclists, who banged on the van, cursed at the driver and at some point broke out the rear window. For an unsuspecting family, it was a terrifying adventure into San Francisco. Does this make all Critical Mass riders bad. Certainly not. But this certainly looks like the kind of unfortunate incident that was waiting to happen. Regards, Andy Ross"

The key point that Ross and the Chron fail to emphasize was what happened between "found themselves surrounded by scores of bicyclists" and "the chaos that followed." Based on my own interviews with those who were there (I had just left the ride when the incident occurred), what happened was this impatient woman tried to drive around the traffic jam of bicyclists and hit one. The Chron further betrays its biases today by trying to minimize the incident by saying she "inadvertently tapped one of the bike's tires." But 4,000 pound vehicles don't "tap" bikes, as evidenced by the cyclist being thrown to the ground. Then the woman tried to flee the scene, which is why the bicyclists tried to block her exit, although she kept trying to drive away and was yelling at the cyclists (who had called 911 -- not exactly something an angry mob attacking an innocent family would do). And yes, someone finally went too far in getting her attention.

Inflicting damage to a car is not OK. Nobody is saying it is, although I would maintain that it was the end result in a cycle of escalating violence that this woman initiated. But the Chron's main sin here is to blow this minor crime way out of proportion, particularly as it underemphasizes and fails to report the more serious crime of motorists regularly running over bicyclists and pedestrians in San Francisco, not to mention using their deadly vehicles to reinforce their mistaken view that the roads are for cars, not bikes. As a bicyclist, I've been hit by cars twice in this town and threatened and menaced by them countless times. All cyclists have similar stories. Yet as traffic becomes worse and the planet becomes warmer, our city government has done remarkably little to facilitate bicycling and make it a more safe and attractive transportation option.

That's one of the reasons why we relish our little monthly paradigm shift when, for a couple hours citywide or about 10 minutes at any given intersection, bicyclists displace automobiles from their position of primacy. It's a minor inconvenience for most drivers -- only the hostile ones tends to slow the mass and invite escalating confrontation -- but it remains a relevant and important statement. That's clearly not how the Chronicle sees it, or bicycling in general. That newspaper actively tries to marginalize the bicycle community as some kind of elitist special interest. They have done it with Healthy Saturdays (which, perhaps not coincidentally, is about to come up for a vote), with the city's flawed bike plan that led to an injunction against all bike safety projects in the city, and Critical Mass. But bicyclists aren't the main problem here, so it was great to see SFBC director Leah Shahum stick to her guns in today's Chron piece.

Sure, we'd be willing to have a conversation about improving the relationship between drivers and bicyclists. But that conversation has to be predicated on an understanding that bicycles are traffic, as legitimately and legally entitled to the roadways as cars, and when an automobile threatens a bicycle (even one that is blocking traffic or not where he should be) then that's a serious crime that the city needs to actively discourage. But the Chron's provocative "road wars" approach -- and Ross's final statement that we had it coming -- is not how we start that conversation.

P.S. Witnesses also say that the bicyclist who was hit wanted to file a police report, but was told by the officers that the only way to do so would be if they called an ambulance for him, which he would have to pay for. And when he tried to file a report through another officer, the first one came over and repeated the ambulance requirement. What's up with that? Anyway, I thought that was an important omitted detail that neither the Chron nor several online posters have acknowledged as they try to minimize this collision and its catalytic role.

Comments (15)

NoeValleyJim

Time to start canceling subscriptions.

Posted by NoeValleyJim | April 5, 2007 02:17 PM

razzu

What this whole story boils down to is irresponsible reporting by the Chronicle. Had Matier and Ross done some basic research, or even just presented the story in a less inflammatory way I don't think folks (bikers or drivers or both) would be nearly as angry as they are now.

I think it is a bad idea for either side to resort to violence, whether that involves running your vehicle through a crowd of cyclists, or smashing the window of a car. But a "tapped" bicycle or a damaged car matters less than the fact that Andy Ross inflamed tempers on both sides with his biased column.

The result: cyclists will continue to feel unsafe and motorists will continue to have to contend with the pollution, traffic and headache that is parking in a city. If on the other hand it had been presented as a deplorable turn of events in what is usually a minor inconvenience for drivers, things might be different.

When will drivers realize that if they slow down and pay attention to bikers maybe more people will feel safe biking? More bikes is better for everyone, including those who for whatever reason choose to drive. Think about it: a bike takes up less room on the road, resulting in less traffic overall, doesn't occupy your parking spot when you get to your destination, and doesn't pollute the air you breathe. Doesn't that sound like a win-win situation? But instead, we have an irrational shout-fest and the ongoing problem of aggressive drivers and irresponsible columnists making things worse.

Posted by razzu | April 5, 2007 03:12 PM

amosmag

if people don't like bicycles in San Francisco, they ought to try Taipei. The last time I visited, there were more bicycles in the streets and on the sidewalks than there are cars in New York City. A pedesrian in Taipei takes his/her life in his/her hands. It isn't unusual, if you are inattentive, to hear a roar suddenly upon you and feel the hot air as a motor bike roars by. San Francisco is benign by comparison.

Posted by amosmag | April 5, 2007 04:39 PM

leahbike

Thanks to Steve Jones for getting *this* important part of the story out. As the facts come out that both the motorist & the bicyclists involved seem to share some blame, we should all be questioning how the Chronicle's Matier & Ross can get away w/ such shoddy & irresponsible "journalism."

Phil Matier called me last Friday afternoon to ask how big & disruptive Critical Mass was going to be. As always, I responded that b/c the SFBC does not organize C. Mass, I had no earthly idea what would happen. He persisted for 5 minutes, badgering me w/ questions, unwilling to take that for an answer, fishing for any sort of info. I gave him nothing b/c I had nothing.

Interestingly, Matier didn't bother calling me AFTER he found out about the incident. If he had, I would have shared contact info. for several witnesses at the scene. Then, the Chronicle could have covered *both* sides of the story.

It's clear to me now that Matier called me before the C Mass ride b/c he was predicting a slow news week....well, he sure helped change that.

Not to say, of course, that the people involved in this ugly-sounding incident aren't to blame, but the Chronicle also carries responsibility by stoking the flames of anti-bike fervor.

I've gotten calls from people saying they're scared to commute by bike because of the anti-bike feelings coming out of this media frenzy.

This idea of a road war out there is ridiculous. Drivers and bicyclists are coexisting better than I've seen in my 13 years in SF. One ugly incident does not make a war....though one poorly reported article sure is trying....

Posted by leahbike | April 5, 2007 05:15 PM

ftaylor

To understand the Chron's position on any transportation issue, simply check out the fat car ad section in every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday edition. Money talks. That's why we're treated to multiple stories every time FasTrak gets a new lane striped, but transit, bike, and pedestrian issues are ignored, marginalized, or reported in clueless fashion.

Posted by ftaylor | April 5, 2007 05:39 PM

PhilG

Nice reporting Steve, glad to see someone asking questions about what happened rather than going for the sensational story. After reading various comments on blogs yesterday, I decided that today was a good day to get off the bike and get on MUNI. Let's hope that as the whole story comes out it will ratchet down the hysteria that the Chron has engendered.

Posted by PhilG | April 5, 2007 06:35 PM

bikesound

My account of this incident: This was towards the end of the ride (after splitting off and dissipating). We had about 30 people by the time we were leaving Japantown when I heard a noise, which I could even hear over the music, and I turned my head to see a minivan on my left just having run over a bike and saw the rider on the ground. Riders nearby yelled at the driver to stop and the minivan just sped away. Many people in the ride chased after the van and surrounded it after catching up with it at the red light. The driver had her hand pressed on the horn the entire time. The cops got there pretty much right away as they were following right behind us. I rode away with the rest of the ride but some people stayed behind to deal with the cops. I didn't see the rear window get smashed but I can say that I only saw the couple sitting in the front of the minivan as the rest of the windows were heavily tinted and we could not see that there was anyone else in the vehicle.

If anyone cares, you can see that the windows were tinted in this video of the awful KRON4 news report:
http://tinyurl.com/27v4pf

Posted by bikesound | April 6, 2007 04:04 AM

oh, and here are the upcoming rides for anyone interested:

April 6th - Oakland Critical Mass (every first friday)
6pm @ Frank Ogawa Plaza (12th St. BART entrance on Broadway & 14th St)

April 13th - Berkeley Critical Mass (every second friday)
6pm @ Downtown Berkley BART on Shattuck Ave

April 20th - Walnut Creek Critical Mass (every third friday)
6pm @ Walnut Creek BART

April 27th - San Francisco Critical Mass (every last friday)
6pm @ Justin Herman Plaza (near Embarcadero BART on Market St.)

Posted by bikesound | April 6, 2007 04:13 AM

evillib

bikesound:

If you saw the bike get, "ran over", why did the biker not report his? It only makes sense that the bike got bent up. Would you agree?

What difference does it make if the windows where tinted or not? YoAre you saying it is ok to pick on a woman, but not a woman with kids?

The bikers in critical mass need to take responsability for their actions as well. Not runing red lights ect In other words, sticking to the same laws as the cars. Would you agree?

Please do not take me wrong, I respect space between me and a biker.

Posted by evillib | April 6, 2007 10:32 AM

People who saw the whole thing called 911 and stayed behind to file a report with the cops. The cops lied to them and said that they couldn't file one unless the ambulance was called.

I only mentioned the tinted windows because most of the media reports make it seem like whoever broke the window knowingly put the kids in danger, while never mentioning the driver who ran over someone's bike and sped away without checking to see if the rider was okay while her own kids were in the minivan.

Posted by bikesound | April 6, 2007 10:54 AM

caledongirl

I was hit by a taxi as a pedestrian and the police told me the same thing: "Call an ambulance. One you have a hospital report you can file a police report." Excuse me?

Posted by caledongirl | April 6, 2007 01:13 PM

Again, what condition was the bike in after "just having run over a bike and saw the rider on the ground"? Was the bike damaged?

Posted by evillib | April 6, 2007 02:38 PM

rocketboy

About cyclists filing police reports:

Late one Saturday morning I saw a motorist slowly back up onto a curb on Sutter St. and into my locked bike! I had to actually tap the middle-aged female driver on the shoulder as she was walking into nearby building (as a professional cat sitter) because she was oblivious to my calls of "Ma'am, Ma'am". She seemed in a bit of a fog but walked with me out to the curb to see the damage to my fork and front wheel because she "accidently" backed and parked the rear car wheel up on the curb.

I got her driver's license contact info and she went back into the building. The damage to the bike was less then $500 threshold on when to contact police for insurance purposes. I didn't want to involve her insurance company or the police and was about to go back in a public radio show I worked on when the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. "She didn't even repark the car", I wondered to myself. She seemed "clueless" that part of the car was still up on the sidewalk.

SO I CALLED SF's FINEST to just make a police report of the "accident". She had left when a SFPD patrol car arrived 20 minutes later. When I explained what happened to the officer, he was a bit dumbfounded that he was called out for this. I didn't want to involve the police, but I thought best in this case to have a police report created of it--those neck hairs. The officer said he would run her plate (ICATSIT) but that was all he could do. Okay fine, I'm not here to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Well guess what folks, 30 minutes later, the officer is putting an APB out on this woman and getting out the measuring wheel to create a major traffic investigation. It seems this woman didn't have one DUI to her name but, THREE DUI's and her license had been suspended. Obviously this woman is a serious alcoholic and needs to be given professional help immediately, but out on the road, she was a loaded gun. So sometimes, even the smallest bicycle fender benders need a police report. Use my story if the SFPD ever gives you a hard time.

Postscript: Nothing ever happened to the female driver. While the SFPD ended up doing their job, the DA's office under Hallinan declined to do anything.

Please give wide car room to ICATSIT. Maybe a future CA traffic law will require taking away the car along with the license on a drivers with two or more DUI strikes.

Posted by rocketboy | April 7, 2007 05:15 PM

Posted by rocketboy | April 7, 2007 05:16 PM

Posted by rocketboy | April 7, 2007 05:59 PM

Comments (15)

Post a comment