It's been great to see that my Top Biking Myths Busted post has been enjoying more popularity than I anticipated. Now, I'm not talking Oprah kind of attention -- not for my little blog -- but it has been making the rounds in some circles.
It's not a huge surprise that some folks would read it and want to add their two cents. Or maybe ask me to link to their blog. This does happen, even to me, and I'm happy to consider it. But I was not prepared for the email I received.
A woman said her website just posted an article that my readers might be interested in and gave me a link. When I went to the article, the photo showed a possibly injured cyclist, lying on the pavement, with the front tire of his bike underneath a car's front bumper. The title was something along the lines of "Top Reasons Cyclists and Cars Don't Get Along."
What?
I kept reading, thinking I'd find something of merit, but the "reasons" were issues like:
- Bikes are hard to see
- Bikes dart in and out of traffic
- Arrogant cyclists use the roads instead of bike paths
- Cyclists ignore traffic signals
I'm still baffled. I wrote my piece as a "Go get 'em!" to anyone who decided to hop on a bike, enjoy using their body, get outside and start feeling the rewards. I bike almost every week and love it, and I want to share that with other folks who might not feel confident enough to give it a whirl.
This other article was the opposite. It should have been titled, "Cyclists, Here's Why Cars Hit You. It's Your Fault."
It was like I wrote an article titled "Women Enjoy Great Work Opportunities," and a reader sent back a link to an article on "Women Earn Less Than Men and Probably Always Will."
At this point, I don't know if I should post the link to the article so you can decide if I'm overreacting, which is entirely possible. I really don't want this website that's about self-promotion and faux information to get an increase in traffic because I called them out on a bad article. On the other hand, it's not like my blog has so much traffic that they're going to see a huge spike and then write another inflammatory article to generate more traffic.
Gimme your thoughts, folks.
P.S. I did send them a pointed email saying that I wouldn't be posting a link. Here it is.
Thanks for the link, [name].
I don't think [the article] will work for my blog because it basically tells cyclists that they're not welcome on streets because they're inconvenient for motorists. The opening photo of a cyclist lying injured on the road completely sets the tone of the article.
My blog is dedicated to empowering cyclists to have fun being attentive, conscientious riders, and I don't believe this article supports that or helps motorists and cyclists interact in a positive way.
I do appreciate you taking the time to forward the story to me, however.
Cherilyn
I agree with your stance. That article was an argument against what you are advocating and sounds pretty ignorant.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work!
It sounds like many of the complaints in the article boil down to one argument: biking stupidly is dangerous. Yes, biking at night without proper reflectors and lights is dangerous (though probably safer - especially for others - than *driving* at night without lights). Weaving in and out of traffic is also dangerous (I wonder how the author of the article would react if the cyclists in those situations took the lane all of the time - as they should - instead?). Ignoring traffic signals is also often dangerous (and I've never seen a driver run a red light before...).
ReplyDeleteSticking to bike paths? I'd love for there to be a bike path that would be useful for me on my commute - it's more relaxing to not have to think about traffic as much. There's even plenty of space on the main road I take to work to put in bike lanes separated from traffic by more than a white line - all we'd have to do is give up the on-street parking. How would the author feel about that?
One other thought I just had - it's possible that the "woman" that emailed you was nothing more than a spam-bot, and that an algorithm discovered a similarity between the article and your blog based on similar common words.
ReplyDeleteChris--It's possible the email was spam, but I don't think so. I'm more concerned about problem that a mass-market article about biking would be so negative about biking, mostly because bikes aren't cars.
ReplyDeleteNowhere in the article is there a hint that drivers need to use care because they're moving a hunk of heavy metal down the road at a rapid speed. Nope. The point seems to be that if bikes are stupid enough to be on the road as cars, they should expect problems. Oy.
That letter you wrote? I think you got 'er covered. Well done, friend.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you! Your reply was quite appropriate and measured. I think it's fair to say that most of us in the bike blog community stress personal responsbility for safe biking. Hand signals, predictable behavior, eye contact and being visible. Given all the bad behavior directed at cars by a few car drivers it puzzles me why so many still automatically assume it is something that we are doing. I am fully aware that in the battle between car and bike, bike will loose every time. Knowing that I pedal with care and respect the rules of the road. As a driver, I attend to the road and what is going on around me.
ReplyDelete