A Critical Moment for Critical Mass
Posted By Thomas Bahde on September 30, 2009
Love it or hate it, Critical Mass has been stirring up debate lately. From the Reader author who threatened violence against CM riders, to the recent meeting to discuss strategies for keeping the event positive, San Diego’s largest monthly ride has certainly been drawing some attention from both bicyclists and non-bicyclists.
Voice of San Diego’s Keegan Kyle has entered the fray with a rather negative impression of Critical Mass, which is bound to stir up its own controversy. Kyle mentions, but brushes off, the very positive meeting that took place the Monday before the ride, and refers to the event itself as “a serious public safety risk,” emphasizing the fact that laws were broken but no citations were issued by police. Kyle is especially bothered by the fact that the police maintain a presence at the Mass, but do not attempt to control it or issue citations for unlawful riding. We wonder if Kyle believes the alternatives (either a police crackdown, or a total police absence) would be better?
We would like to encourage our readers to write to Kyle and to Voice of San Diego with your opinions on the piece and about Critical Mass, either positive or negative. Contact information is at the bottom of Kyle’s piece.
Image: Voice of San Diego
I’m not sure if I agree with the writer about Keegan Kyle’s piece being negative. I felt it was pretty balanced, after reading the article. After reading a few of tbahdet’s reviews of articles on bikesd.org (a site which I generally dig on), I’m not sure if the writer himself has a balanced point of view which I agree with. I guess it’s like finding a movie critic you agree with, I just don’t agree with tbahdet.
I believe VOSD is a very strong local news outlet, especially as a non-profit. Their coverage of the housing crisis demonstrates particularly ethical and independent reporting, but Kyle’s piece shows, at best, inexperience – and worst, a clear agenda against those who participated in Critical Mass and unethical reporting. Here are a few examples:
1. He states that CM began in San Diego in 2003. That is not accurate.
2. Kyle writes that CM “is part of a national movement in metropolitan cities to advocate politically against the use of automobiles.” Actually, its an international movement, and it advocates (or can and should advocate) for more livable urban environments for bicycles, pedestrians, and mass transit. Its about urban planning, zoning, cultural & economic deference to motor vehicles, dependence on fossil fuels, the history of foreign policy toward petroleum-producing states, and against the violence and environmental degradation that motor vehicles wield, among other things.
3. The police are allowed to consistently define the nature of the event, while participants are given only passing remarks. The police do a great job on these rides, and are important sources, but they are not the arbiters of the event. That is simply poor journalism, but the kind of “official” reporting that we might come to expect from commercial-driven news operations whose corporate owners have asked young, inexperienced reporters to do more with less (when they’re not running straight PR). I used to think that VOSD was different.
4. After one officer states, “We’re not providing an escort to these bicycles.” Kyle goes on quote from Webster’s New World Dictionary (SERIOUSLY – is this 3rd grade where we’re quoting from a dictionary!? At least use OED! Did Kyle get background from Encyclopedia Britannica?), and then remarks, “the herd became a larger challenge for police to manage (or escort).” Well, he just called his source a liar, using a dictionary to do so. If thats the case, this the officer is not a reliable source, and should appear no where in the piece, right? What a major blunder.
5. His writing highlights the chaos, accidents, and carelessness of riders, and repeatedly refers to the group derisively a “herd.” He could have hidden his bias by referring to the group as “riders” (rather neutral and descriptive), or “mass,” which is the term most riders refer to themselves as. Police refer to themselves as “police,” so it would be equally out of order for Kyle to refer to them as “pigs.” Also, it would have been easy for a reporter to remark on the beauty, grace, and freedom demonstrated by this many riders riding together. But an emphasis on conflict is another hallmark of professional bias in journalism. His story line must have been “CM is chaotic, dangerous, and dumb.” His skepticism and adversarial approach (both good qualities in reporting) are turned exclusively toward CM. I wonder why he doesn’t write a piece detailing the violence, bad behavior, danger, chaos, arrogance, accidents, disregard, and pollution exhibited every day on the morning and evening commutes of hundreds of thousands of motor vehicles?
Lastly two small details: Kyle comments that “most riders don’t wear helmets.” Neither do most drivers. Head injuries in motor vehicle accidents account for the majority of the 40,000+ deaths on the roads every year. I don’t know why this is relevant. Second, “bikers” ride motorcycles, cyclists ride bicycles. A thousand bikers – now, that’s something to be afraid of!
I’m surprised that CM is treated as a surprise. The rides have been going on, with much discussion and news coverage, for a very long time. This might point to the notion that the issues that CM rides are about (which I mention above) are off the agenda of most news organizations, and, consequentially, the public shows lack of unawareness of the issues. The automobile, and the degraded landscape that it demands (strip malls, fast food, wide roads, parking lots, etc.), have achieved a level of common sense so that the debates about how this phenomenon came to be and what we should do next are obscured. When a group of people use civil disobedience to advocate against this (again – why the surprise about disorder!? Its a *protest*), they are treated as deviant by Kyle and many reporters. CM should rather be reported as a legitimate controversy, and CM participants should be treated fairly and accurately and given voice to define their own actions.
Chris Nixon – note that this is an advocacy news site.
One more thing (sorry – my baby daughter woke me up and I can’t go back to sleep). If reporting highlights the conflict on CM rides, then shouldn’t we expect more people to come out expecting, and perhaps causing, more conflict?
Hi, Chris, the offending party here (tbahdet). As I know you are aware, we all pick up on subtle markers in how other people use language, just like we pick up on small movements or expressions when we speak with people in person. Each person is bound to respond differently to these markers based on their own experience and outlook. I certainly have no problem with your disagreement over my interpretation of this particular piece, but I would urge you not to completely write-off my viewpoint as one you disagree with wholesale.
Looking back over my posts, my approach to many of the bicycle-related stories that appear in our local media has been pretty neutral. I typically post an excerpt of the story and a brief comment that tries to tie the piece to larger concerns relevant to bicyclists. Part of our concern here at BikeSD is the sometimes subtle and sometimes explicit disregard that the local media as a whole typically shows toward bicyclists. We wouldn’t have felt the need to form this site if we felt these issues were being addressed in the mainstream media.
When I have posted critically about the media’s coverage of bicycle-related stories, my goal has been to challenge prevailing assumptions that bicyclists and bicycling are dangerous or aberrant. My feeling was that Kyle’s piece, taken as a whole, contributed to a negative view not only of the Critical Mass event (about which I myself have serious misgivings) also to a view that bicyclists do not belong on the public roadways.
Kyle has not posted similarly about gridlock or traffic jams caused by driving or auto accidents, and he does not seem to be as concerned with drivers habitually and purposefully breaking traffic laws. If a large group of bicyclists do it once a month with police presence, this certainly seems like less of a public safety threat than the constant flouting of the traffic laws by everyone else all the time.
So, here’s the real crux of the thing: I appreciate your disagreement with my postings, as I’m sure you appreciate mine with the overall tone of Kyle’s piece. I hope I’ve done something to explain my perspective. The best case scenario someday would be for everyone who writes about bicycling in San Diego to do so in a productive and positive way. That’s what we’re trying to do here, but we also feel obligated to call out others who we feel contribute to the confrontational situation we now seem to face. In this case, Kyle’s piece seemed to be more negative than positive. That was my point, but I don’t condemn Kyle wholesale, and I look forward to his next piece. I hope you’ll give me the same consideration.
I’ve been watching this debate back and forth about Critical Mass with interest. Leaving the pros and cons of CM aside, here’s a way that you can support more space and infrastructure devoted to cycling in San Diego County.
The city of Leucadia is considering a redesign of 101 that would close one lane of this highway (northbound) and give the space to bike lanes, traffic calming measures, trees, and a walking path. If you’ve ever biked through Leucadia, you know that the combination of traffic, parked cars, and narrow lanes (especially southbound) is pretty dangerous. (Don’t worry if you don’t live in Leucadia, if you’ve ever biked through the city, then you’re also a “stakeholder” on this issue.)
There’s a public workshop on the plan on the morning of Sat. Oct. 10th, and proponents of the plan say they need a big turnout of support to make sure it gets enacted. You can imagine that there will be plenty of protests from people who don’t want to see any loss of pavement for cars.
Here are more details on the plan and the workshop:
http://groups.google.com/group/sdcbc/browse_thread/thread/5e6a4360a246af5?hl=en
(or if that’s too long: http://tinyurl.com/y98axw4 )
So if you want to support more room for biking, here’s a good way to do it. Maybe one day similar proposals will filter down to the city of San Diego.
Just to get back to his writing skills, I’m pretty sure I was misquoted.
I’d submit that by accompanying the riders and stopping traffic for them, the local police are given defacto permission to ride. I have not seen anyone complain that a police escorted parade or motorcade is illegal because they run lights.
I’m very glad that Mr. Kyle is entering the discussion. I believe that there are some beliefs concerning the roads that were never discussed publicly, but we all take for granted to a certain extent. A big one is, “What is the purpose of our roads.” Motorist journalists usually assume that the roads are for moving as many automobiles as possible. All other activity must take a back seat to this goal. This is a pretty general belief, but does this mean it is correct?
CM questions this belief and like all other tightly held beliefs, when it is questioned people get uncomfortable. I’d like to counter the above belief with the question, “what use of the roads will benefit people the most.”
I appreciate Mr. Kyle’s kindness towards cyclists in which he is concerned about people wearing helmets. There are cycling safety courses, and I’d urge him to volunteer in recruiting people to attend. A recruiter goes to the OB Farmers’ Market on Wed. There are other places that can use help. Also, perhaps people can be invited to education at CM itself?
In his article, Mr. Kyle seems highly fixated on “leadership.” I find this to be very timely. It seems that the more our world comes under human control, ironically, the more people feel like things are out of control.
It seems like there’s a big fear of spontaneity. In reality, things are not under our control, and they never have been. Every automobile ride carries with it a certain risk. To get an idea of this risk try to see if you or someone you know got into an auto accident.
I urge Mr. Kyle to continue in his questioning. For example, if CM should not be sanctioned y the city because it is so risky, should the city allow people to drive? If so, why the distinction between mode of transportation.
Overall, Mr. Kyle scratched the surface with his questions. I was very glad to read them, and I hope he continues in his quest for answers.