NPR Story on Aggressive Drivers Normalizes Motorists
Posted By Protorio on December 3, 2009
This story was originally posted on vélo-flâneur by Esteban who lives, works and rides in San Diego.
———–
In a story on All Things Considered, NPR reporter Mandalit del Barco uses the road rage conviction of Dr. Christopher Thomas Thompson to discuss the perceived growing tensions between cyclists and drivers in Southern California, and by implication, how the “problem” unfolds nationally.
(I listened to the first edition on the East Coast feed on WFCR, Amherst MA - ed.) The transcript can be found here.
The story begins with some numbers regarding cyclist fatalities and injuries:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, traffic crashes killed 716 cyclists last year and injured 52,000 people riding bikes, trikes and unicycles. That includes recent fatalities from Brookline, Mass., to Portland, Ore. But unlike the Los Angeles case, Mooney says drivers who kill or injure cyclists are rarely convicted.
The problem of driver convictions is made plain. Importantly, the story does not mention that there were 39,800 total motor vehicle-related deaths in 2008 (a record low!). Certainly, cars and trucks represent a threat to cyclists. But the numbers make clear the fact that motor vehicles are deadly for tens of thousands of people every year – a vast majority traveling in cars and trucks.
Yet, del Barco uses the Thompson case from early this year to dig into the issue of motorists’ growing resentment toward cyclists:
The Mandeville Canyon driver’s reaction was perhaps an extreme example of the everyday resentment heard from other motorists.
“These bicyclists are extremely rude, and they take up the road — four, five people at a time,” complained one caller to NPR member station KPCC’s show AirTalk. The caller said he lives in Mandeville Canyon, and he has had it with cyclists.
“When you pull up alongside them and ask them to stay out of your way, they yell at you,” he said. “They’re extremely provocative, they’re asking for trouble, and this is not the worst case that’s going to happen. Someone’s going to get killed, and to be frank with you, the residents aren’t going to feel too bad about it.”
This story constructs the problem as cyclist behavior, not the aggressive driving, honking, and impatience. This frame is strengthened by two subsequent passages: the first tells of reasonable but lawless behavior:
“When I see the light turn red, I try to race as fast as I can through it,” she says, “because I know I will have a block of peace and quiet, where there won’t be cars behind me.”
And the second provides an example of cyclists complaining bout law-breaking cyclists:
But even Thompson and another bike blogger, Ted Rogers, disapprove of reckless bike riders who maneuver through traffic as if playing a video game.
“Oh, we hate these guys,” says Rogers. “We absolutely hate them. The driver you tick off is the one who’s going to run me off the road.”
These instances are not out of the ordinary. For responsible and safe cyclists, sometimes running a red light is safer (like waiting to make a left turn) than standing in the middle of an active intersection like a sitting duck. And much of the “problem” of cyclist behavior comes from irresponsible riders who flaunt both safety and the law.
This story has some real positives for cyclist safety – it gives advocates a voice and lays out the danger that motorists facilitate. But the overall tone of the story is that the problem lies in cycling, if not specific cyclists. We have a right to be on the road, and we should be treated as normal. Most motorists are patient and friendly in my own experience. But also in my own experience, far too many drivers are aggressive, rude, and outright dangerous. Why aren’t motorists and motor vehicles treated as a variable here? In this story, it is the cyclist who causes things, not the drivers. del Barco, in effect, further normalizes “motorism” and implicitly marginalizes cycling as a normal, appropriate, and legal method of travel.
Comments
11 Responses to “NPR Story on Aggressive Drivers Normalizes Motorists”
Join in the discussion
I agree and disagree with you regarding the motorists I encounter. I would say I witness 90% of all the motorists on my route breaking the law, compared with maybe 15% of the cylists I see on my route doing so. I count that as aggressive driving behavior, though not necessarily hostile. Furthermore, I would say it’s an even split between courteous drivers and dangerous, hostile drivers. I can sometimes change their behaviour by waving and smiling as I approach–that tends to get them to realize I’m a human being, and they smile and wave back. But almost all the drivers who have to pass me, particularly on a narrow street where I have to take the lane for my own safety–they almost always pass me too closely for my safety, or pass and cut me off by slamming to a stop in front of me due to stop signs, or they right hook me. I guess the last two are technically the same thing, regardless of the actual turn.
Great post.
The NPR story also has the similar tone that so many other stories that cover cyclists, an obsession with safety.
Millions of trips are taken per year by auto, bicycle, and walking, and most of them are safe. By and large San Diego drivers are aware and forgiving of bicycles. This changes from neighborhood to neighborhood.
We have chosen to live in a bicycle friendly neighborhood, and it’s paid off.
If people hate cyclists so much, they can move to where there are none kind of like the opposite of what we did.
Besides, there’s a well known bias where people only notice the rude cyclists. This is well proven scientifically. Same goes for rude drivers. Our minds just work like that. But if you open up you will see most people going along quite well.
At any rate, stupid driving or cycling does have a kind of darwinian justice in that if you cycle or drive badly for long enough statistics will catch up with you. I pray that these people are safe and live long enough to improve their road skills, but often my prayers are not enough to keep these people alive.
Recently I watched people run reds, and, alas, most of them paid in one way or another.
I guess this puts another nail in NPR’s liberal coffin. As a liberal, I can’t stand to listen to them because all of their stories have a similar right wing tinge, but with softer voices, and new agey music.
I’d prefer to see stories of people opening new bike paths/lanes, children learning how to cycle and taking to the road, successful bicycle tours, or perhaps something about how cyclists make motorists safer because they break them out of their routine and wake them up.
Instead, we have the re-warmed same old, same old. There must be a template for these stories in reporter’s offices somewhere. And Old Media wonders why people are tuning them out.
Fred,
I’m just going to have to keep reminding myself that sooner or later karma and Darwin will catch up with dangerous drivers (and cyclists), and let that knowledge by my silent revenge. =) Thanks for the moment of zen.
so they wrote about the problems of dangerous cyclists and dangerous drivers, when will they write about the problem of dangerously designed car-dominated communities?
Oh, one more thing. Poor driving is all ready decriminalized in part. If you even see a job application, when putting criminal background, you are allowed to conceal automotive offenses. To me, it’s kind of like saying that breaking the law in this manner is OK; these laws, you must obey, but you may decide to break these other laws. Pick and choose.
When I mention to this to motorists, they get often get uncomfortable, which, to me is a strange thing. It’s just a question on a job application.
Ken, I hope they wake up and do so soon. In the past two days, four people, two pedestrians and two cyclists have been killed by hit and run accidents, supported by unsafe urban engineering. One was an 80 year old, wheel chair bound man who was forced to use the street versus the sidewalk, because likely the sidewalk was too broken up for his wheelchair to navigate (I’m assuming, haven’t proven, but it’s very likely).
I think you all are touching on an important structural issue: we’ve deferred to motorized traffic in our urban plan, marginalizing bicycling, walking, and wheelchair infrastructure (bike lanes, crosswalks, and ramps are really quite trivial considering the billions that support motorized travel). This has created spaces and ways of life that are not community-building, interaction, or sustainability.
Fred and danceralamode also make a great points about the perception of they cycling “problem.” I’m willing to state that most drivers are responsible, and most cyclists are responsible (most of us value or lives) — but we remember the ones who are not.
So… what’s going on with public policy and journalism? There is clearly a perception that cyclists are butting up against the common sense of travel and infrastructure propelled by the the internal combustion engine. Certainly, over the last 5 years, there are more of us – in San Diego and everywhere. I’d like to think that bike blogs, advocacy and culture sites liek Bikesd.org, and the dearth of practical city bicycles have paved the way.
But I would also argue that drivers, journalists, and policy makers are noticing something that I certainly notice while riding: there are far too many instances of cyclists running afoul of the law, safety, and common courtesy. I see it all the time from thrill-seeking kids darting through traffice to know-nothing folks on beach cruisers riding the wrong way on the sidewalk. Why don’t journalists and policy makers notice the habitual and dangerous transgressions of motorists, which have defined the dangers of travel over 50 years and created spaces that are – in a word – anti-human? Its because automobile travel has achieved a level of common sense (I hope to write more about “motorism”). They certainly notice the cyclists – who appear out-of-the-ordinary. Certainly, we are not. But how do you explain campaigns like “Lose the Roaditude” and news frames like those in the NPR story and that appear on Voice of SD? There is ferment afoot about cycling here and in other cities. We should think and ride strategically to contest it.
Esteban,
I think a big issue is education: both better drivers education for motorists, and teaching our children, when they first learn to ride, the rules of the road. Far to often I encounter recreational cyclists putting me in danger by riding on the wrong side of the road–pedestrians too. Children don’t understand the danger of darting into traffic from the sidewalk. Cyclists get a bad name because there are those of us who are road or vehicular cyclists, meaning our bicycles are our vehicles, and recreational cyclists–those kids who dart in and out of traffic or parents and their kids riding the wrong way on a bike path or street. I have an idea that perhaps all cyclists should be required to be licenses, and if you’re under the age of 15, you can’t ride your bicycle alone without a licensed cyclist. Pretty much the same as drivers licenses and permits. If we are going to use the streets the same way, we should all be required to show we know the laws.
Excellent piece, Esteban. I really like your follow up comment, too. In fact, all of the comments in response to this piece have been very thought-provoking.
This NPR piece is very discouraging. Even well-trusted news establishment are failing to break-free from a dangerous windshield perspective of urban design and traffic sociology. In this global warming era, we need news establishments to break-free from that perspective now, more than ever before. The impact that global warming will have on our lives and the lives of future generations is too serious to continue on with business-as-usual. Every cyclist out there should be proud of the fact that you are a living climate solution.
The recent media backlash—from Keegan Kyle’s piece for Voice of San Diego, to Josh Board’s piece in The Reader, to Hadley Mendoza’s piece for the UCSD Guardian, to SDUT’s 2008 piece on SD Critical Mass, to this NPR piece—is extremely discouraging in that these stories are obsessed with one thing; the socio-cultural conflict that riding a bicycle supposedly brings to the streets normally dominated by motorists.
To paraphrase Esteban and Ken, these auto-centric pieces are obsessed w/ situations which are supposedly caused by cyclists rather than focusing on the car-first, cyclists/pedestrians-last philosophy which is facilitated everyday by San Diego automobile traffic engineers and put into practice by many motorists in SD.
In SD, there is a widespread cultural hostility towards cyclists. I don’t believe that this is due to the fact that some cyclists roll or run stop signs. The cultural hostility is due to what I’ve called the Culture of Immediacy. Motorists who subscribe to the Culture of Immediacy school-of-thought have placed their immediate priorities (i.e. getting somewhere in their car as fast as possible) far above the well-being and livelihood of other human beings. Those speeding motorists who subscribe to this school-of-thought treat other road users who force them to yield w/ great hostility.
As I once argued in a debate about an article written by the truly provocative Chris Carlsson, I believe that Culture of Immediacy school-of-thought motorists are actually bothered most by cyclists who ride in the lane. A rider who takes the lane forces a motorist to yield. Vehicular cycling relies on the principle that approaching traffic will yield to you (i.e. the vehicular cyclist). Many motorists are shocked when a cyclist does this. Some of those motorists believe that cyclists shouldn’t even be on the road, that cyclists deserve less rights than motorists, and that cyclists should forfeit their place on the road every time a motorists approaches from behind—like the motorist discussed in the NPR piece who hypocritically, arrogantly, and ignorantly said the following:
“When you pull up alongside them [cyclists] and ask them to stay out of your way, they yell at you,” he said. “They’re extremely provocative, they’re asking for trouble…”
‘Stay out of your way?’ This a quintessential example of the Culture of Immediacy school-of-thought in action. This motorist and many like him/her, would prefer that cyclists ride in the door zone and/or the gutters—i.e. anywhere that will not require that impatient motorist to yield or slow down. Does that mean that I’m going to start riding in the door zone/gutters and stop riding vehicularly?… Heck no! We must not give in to what the great sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville called the ‘Tyranny of the Majority.’ If we as cyclists only allow motorists and auto-centric windshield perspective thinkers to decide where and how we should ride, then our lives will be in serious jeopardy
Clearly, we as cyclists need a major outreach effort to educate motorists about (1) why riding in the lane is not only legal but safer (in many circumstances). And (2) we also need a campaign that conveys that we (cyclists) are worth yielding for; not just because it’s the legal thing to do, but because we make cities more livable and because we are climate solutions in an era which desperately needs them.
In fact, these are two messages which I (and the rest of Bic Control) are interested in disseminating locally via mainstream media. It’d be awesome to have all your help! Please email us biccontrol [at] gmail [dot] com if you might be interested.
To summarize, the ‘stay-out-my-way/Culture of Immediacy school-of-thought’-motorist will always think that way, regardless of whether a rider stops at a stop sign versus rolling one. That is because the ‘stay-out-my-way’-motorist is concerned about one main thing—cyclists staying out of his/her way. That motorist will always think that way…unless he/she can be convinced otherwise via an effective education campaign.
The Lose The Roaditude campaign is not nearly enough. The ‘This is a bike lane, too’ ad is great. However, for a campaign w/ an implicit goal of addressing society’s greatest traffic problems, the Lose The Roaditude campaign is way off. The Lose The Roaditude campaign is extremely soft on motorist speeding. Laws which are defied more often than any other law in American society are laws pertaining to speed limits. This is not a so-called “victimless” crime. Speeding puts the lives of innocent people at risk. Fred, your point about reckless driving becoming de-criminalized in some arenas is a great one.
Danceralamode, I like most of your comments. However, I strongly disagree w/ your idea to force all cyclists to get special licenses and to force under-15 cyclists to only ride a bike when done so w/ a “licensed” cyclist. We need laws that encourage more people to take up cycling. We don’t need laws which take rights away from cyclists. Australia already experimented w/ this and the results were devastating. When Australia, the 2nd largest emitter of GHG in the world (the U.S. is 1st), passed a law which required ALL cyclists regardless of age to wear a helmet at all times, bike ridership in Australia immediately dropped thereafter. (In fact, there is a documentary underdevelopment about a woman’s efforts to overturn this backwards law). If you force cyclists in the U.S. to get a special license I predict that, like the AUS case, bike ridership will dramatically drop. If that happens, the roads will actually become MORE dangerous for the remaining cyclists. The roads are safer for cyclists when there are more cyclists in the streets. Research by Peter Jacobsen, published in Injury Prevention proves this. The following link has more info on the “safety in numbers”-effect and data which shows that it is happening in NYC:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/05/safety-in-numbers-its-happening-in-nyc/#comments
The case for auto-centric thinking must be de-constructed in words. In the global warming era, the car-first, pedestrians/cyclist-last philosophy is unsustainable and completely backwards. We as cyclists and as bike bloggers have a much stronger case than do auto-centric, car-first, pedestrians/cyclists-last thinkers. We need to let that case be known. Esteban and supporting commenters, this is one step in that process. Thank you. Keep doing what you do. You’re not a problem. You’re a solution.
Very sharp stuff, Bic Control. I especially like this comment about recent news stories:
“these stories are obsessed with one thing; the socio-cultural conflict that riding a bicycle supposedly brings to the streets normally dominated by motorists.”
I think that hits the nail on the head regarding the frameworks that most journalists bring to everyday metro reporting. Luckily, we having a growing advocacy journalism movement around the world that’s taking such frameworks to task and replacing them with fair reporting and impassioned opinion that places cycling and walking as appropriate, normal, and -indeed- ethical modes of movement and spatial design. But these existing frames must be contested.
The funny thing about the NPR report (they have as series on transportation safety) is that the report actually includes important pieces of bicycle advocacy: it calls out motorist violence; we hear about how dangerous cars can be to cyclists; and we hear from cycling advocates. But its the overall frame that treats cycling as a variable, and treats auto traffic as normal, the causes the problems. If cycling is the variable, then it can be eliminated and the problem might be eliminated. I would like to understand this as “false equivalence.”
False equivalence is a phenomenon found in reporting that tries to be objective. This kind of reporting makes great pains to ensure that there are two sides to a story in order to convey the idea that the reporter is “in the middle” even if the two sides are unequal. I think that’s at work here: there is conflict between cyclists and drivers. Cyclists raise legitimate concerns that are along the line with the law. Drivers raise concerns that are not in line with the law. Yet, we hear from “two sides” which further solidifies the notion that cars belong.
This is also at work in the “Loose the Road-itude” campaign. This is not a problem shared equally by cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. The problem of vehicular violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by motorists. Cyclists and pedestrians might violate the law and decency – but what are they going to do? They are most likely to hurt themselves, not anyone else (which is one benefit to the campaign). Motorists kill and maim around 40K people a year. I suppose most news organizations are OK with that — otherwise they would do relentless reporting on it.
One more thing (whew!) – I love the Culture of Immediacy stuff. I think about this a lot. If you think about it, consumer culture makes selfishness a rational choice. This is one of the great reasons that cycling is, in theory, a counter-cultural exercise. It slows you down, asks you to think about where you are and who you’re with. It begs the rider to pay attention, enjoy the view, see things. It makes sense to me that most thoughtful cyclists I meet are also interested in thinking differently about food, craft, design, sustainability, etc.
Thanks so much, Esteban. Glad you liked the comment. It really means a lot.
You raise many good points in your latest comment.
The “false equivalence” concept is very interesting, especially for us media studies nerds.
‘Motorists kill and maim around 40K people a year. I suppose most news organizations are OK with that — otherwise they would do relentless reporting on it.’
This is true, but also very sad. I think this also relates back to the “windshield perspective” of road design. Most journalists are motorists. Unless they also ride a bike and/or walk frequently or use a wheelchair, chances are that these journalists have a “windshield perspective” of road design. Obviously, not all car-driving journalists employ this perspective. However, most do. This bias becomes evident in most articles pertaining to traffic sociology and crashes (popularly referred to as “accidents,” which is most often a misnomer) involving cars. A few recent examples of the “windshield perspective” are evident in the media representations of 12-year-old Randy Vargas, 60-year old Hector Villasenor, and 64-year-old Walter Freeman. Each of these people (two bicyclists and one man in a wheelchair) were crushed to death by motorists, yet not ONE of the articles posed the following question: Why couldn’t the motorist yield in time? In the Randy Vargas and Mr. Villasenor case, the journalists never included the speed of travel of the motorists.
We wrote an article about those cases here: http://biccontrol.blogspot.com/2009/11/man-on-wheelchair-killed-by-motorist-in.html
My point is not only about the terrible auto-centrism at hand, but about the average person’s perspective of road design and urban planning. Auto-centrism is something that is deeply ingrained into the minds of many Americans, but in particular, Southern Californians, who live in a region where automobile dependency runs especially high.
I agree that bloggers who have identified themselves as supporters of the Livable Streets, Smart Growth, and New Urbanism (aka Neo-traditionalism) movement are de-constructing auto-centrism and are, as you said, ‘replacing them with fair reporting and impassioned opinion that places cycling and walking as appropriate, normal, and -indeed- ethical modes of movement and spatial design.’
Auto-centrism can be debunked and de-constructed. I think we started to see serious cracks in the foundation of this thinking in 2008 when gas prices skyrocketed. People were sitting in grid-lock freeway traffic, wasting time and patience, while their expensive gasoline burned as the emissions rose into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming, all while wondering where their gas $ was going. People began to seriously question our urban system. And many did something about it. Bicycling, walking, and public transit system ridership skyrocketed. My point here is that the Livable Streets movement is making serious strides forward and that the concepts behind this movement are starting to become popularized.
I wish urban planning and urban sociology courses were more common in universities, community colleges, and high schools.
I’ll end w/ this positive fact: The Urban Studies & Planning program at UCSD is one of the fastest growing programs in the entire university, if not THEE fastest.
That’s a great sign.