Anti-cyclist bias admitted by Post's Ombudsman

[From the Bike Washington DC list:]

Please take action!

I wrote the ombudsman of the Washington Post to complain about the anti-cyclist bias apparent in its titling of the original letter to the editor ["Why Do Bicyclists Dice With Death?"] and this is the answer I received. Everything makes sense now. Poor little Deborah Howell drives on MacArthur Blvd ever morning and also feels victimized by nasty cyclists who won't get out of the way. Quote:

"Ms. Taylor, I drive daily on MacArthur Blvd. and it happens to me all the time. I don't disagree with Mr. Arundel. Deborah

Deborah Howell
Washington Post Ombudsman"

Below is the complaint I wrote to Ms. Howell:

"I am writing specifically about a letter to the editor titled "Why Do Bicyclists Dice With Death?" published on August 15. The author of this letter complains about bicyclists riding on MacArthur Blvd instead of on the [very terrible] side path. In my opinion, the author is an ignorant bully, but his attitude is unfortunately all too common amongst DC area drivers. However, my complaint tonight is not about this man's opinion so much as it is about the title given to his letter. By asserting that cyclists are doing something risky [when they are not], the _Post_ gives undue weight to this man's view and essentially blames the victim.

Mr. Arundel seems to assert that cyclists _force_ him to drive in an unsafe manner, when the responsibility is Mr. Arundel's alone. The inflammatory title to the letter endorses Mr. Arundel's absurd point of view.

Please try to tone down the anti-cyclist rhetoric.

Nancy Taylor"

I urge every one of you to write Ms. Howell [ombudsman AT washpost DOT com] and complain about her using her position as a soapbox for her own opinions.

In a follow up to Ms. Howell I asked her to explain exactly what IT is that happens to her and how it harms her. [She sees cyclists?]

--Nancy The letter to the editor: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403258.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403258.html</a>;

by B' Spokes

Like most people I live a hectic life and who has the time for much exercise? Thanks to xtracycle now I do. By using my bike for daily activities I can get things done and get an hour plus work out in 15 minutes extra of my time, not a bad deal and beats taking the extra time going to the gym. In case you are still having trouble being motivated; the National Center of Disease Control says that inactivity is the #2 killer in the United States just behind smoking. ( http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/bb_nutrition/ ) Get out there and start living life! I can carry home a full shopping cart of groceries, car pool two kids or just get lost in the great outdoors camping for a week. Well I got go, another outing this weekend.
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Share It!

Story Options

  • Anti-cyclist bias admitted by Post's Ombudsman
  • 3 comments
Login required to comment
[My letter:] Shame on you for publishing "Why Do Bicyclists Dice With Death?" and encouraging motorists to act out on my kids and my fellow cyclists. Why are you promoting the the number one killer of kids ... being a passenger in a car and for promoting the number one of cause of traffic delays... reckless drivers? The problem is too many self-entitled car drivers not too many self-entitled bicyclists. Of the 111 people killed in traffic fatalities in Prince George's County, the 58 people killed in Montgomery County and the 37 people killed in Washington DC NONE were bicyclists and I will assert the cause of all these senseless killings were self-entitled motorists. Unsafe driving by motorists is the second leading cause of premature death in the United States. It is not that bicyclists are playing with death it is the motorists who insist on making senseless killings a mere byproduct of "having" to use the car for any kind of trip. I sincerely hope your air bags and seatbelt will save your life in your next car crash as that is the only thing you have between life and death as you obviously do not think that courtesy toward your fellowman nor adherence to the traffic laws plays any part in road safety.
An ombudsman is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens. .... An ombudsman need not be appointed by a legislature; they may work for a corporation, a newspaper.... So, Tom Arundel was 'representing the interests of the public' with his gripe of the 'slow' 15mph bicyclist as he tries to leadfoot it down a tight, winding two lane road. Maybe he was protecting our fantasy of rocketing along that twisty road in a BMW at twice the posted speed limit, and that certainly can be fun. It isn't safe, it isn't smart, it isn't legal, but doesn't all that just make it more fun? Tom has probably never been on a bicycle since he was 17, and before that he was limited to going a few blocks this way and a few blocks that way. Tom is certainly not a bicyclist today; bicycling never opened up a world for Tom. In Minneapolis, I was free to bike the city around age 10. In the "City of Lakes", our house was 6 blocks from a lake, and it had a paved trail around it. The trail interconnected with others and formed a system. But even without bike trails, midwestern street grids make it easy to take side streets to parallel main roads and make it safe for cyclists, particularly kids. My friends and I rode our bikes everywhere, and we could lock our bikes at stores in bike racks or on light posts without complaint. It was functionally like a car for us. So east coast motorists see the bicycle as a toy. They never had an extensive network of safe streets and sidewalks as kids, and certainly not now. And if Tom did spend five or six hundred dollars to buy a bike today, would he use it in place of his car? Most designers of roads are car people. Is it possible to take them out for a couple of hours and have them bicycle along the areas that they are designing? Not walk along, not drive in a car but ride on a bike. Preferably with some bicyclists who use the area and can provide perspective. It would get them out of the office, like a "field trip" in school. I was back in Minnesota a few weeks ago. My brother there likes roads, not trails. Trails are slow and have dogs and such. So we took a little ride to Watertown, on the state and county highways. A significant part of the trip had shoulders clean enough and wide enough to be able to ride side by side and not interfere with the cars. We did see a Share the Road sign, and a few temporary signs about a charity bike ride (a couple of people at a table were waving us over to them). But there was no official bike lane. All we need is a nice clean shoulder to ride on, half a lane wide or more. Tom did "address a complaint" of the motoring public, part of what an ombudsman is supposed to do. But all he did was complain, and never considered the view of those he complained about. That is certainly biased. I think that Tom should be sentenced to three months of bicycling to work. Write about THAT, Tommy boy.