“I think there are some big leaps being made here with regard to the ad’s message being misleading or in some way endangering cyclists. The ad poses a question. How people interpret it or act on it is not up for TriMet to determine.”
— Becky Witt, Public Information Officer for TriMet
As the debate continues over an ad campaign on a MAX train that asks, “Should cyclists pay a road tax?”, several people in the comments have wondered whether TriMet should have even allowed the ad in the first place.
Yesterday, I learned more about TriMet’s advertising policy from their Public Information Officer Becky Witt. In a nutshell, Witt says an Oregon court ruling prevents TriMet from picking and choosing what ads they run, yet their policy still allows exceptions for offensive ads or ads that could endanger public safety.
In an email exchange/interview last night, I asked to Witt more about this situation.
When it comes to ads, Witt likened TriMet to “an impartial third party” and wrote that:
“TriMet is considered a public forum wherein we do not get to judge the content or nature of advertising being purchased on our vehicles or shelters… we provide the means for people to share their message, whatever that might be, and we do not get to prohibit advertisements that are political in nature, advocacy ads or the like.”
This policy is not TriMet’s choosing. Back in June of 2008, in Karuk Tribe v. TriMet, the State of Oregon ruled that TriMet’s refusal of a “political” advertisement (view PDF of it here) was unconstitutional, on both state and federal grounds.
According to the ACLU, the judge in the case ruled that:
“…TriMet does not have to make its buses available for advertisements, but that if it does “it places itself in the same position as a government … (and) may not … violate the Oregon Constitution.” TriMet’s decision to deny an ad, the judge ruled, may not be based on the content of that ad.”
TriMet strongly disagreed with the ruling and an appeal is still pending review.
However, despite this ruling and TriMet’s contention that they are an impartial third party, their advertising policy still states that:
“TriMet will allow transit advertising submissions that are not misleading, do not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of its customers…”
PIO Witt explained that policy further by stating that,
“we still make exceptions for ads that we think may be harmful to vulnerable populations (youth, for example) or are offensive as that is applied to the first amendment/free speech laws in Oregon and federally. Typically, the ads we would question are ones… that we think would be harmful to the public.”
So, I asked DeWitt, does this mean we can assume TriMet felt like “Should cyclists pay a road tax?” was not offensive or misleading?
Witt replied:
“In the case of this ad today, I’m not sure we would have caught that as being offensive or a road-rage inciting ad. Having uncovered the ad’s purpose today, we now know that the intent was to create controversy and spur dialogue and debate. Does that make it offensive or harmful? Perhaps, but it wasn’t up to us to question the ad’s intention.”
I asked Witt whether or not they considered how that statement might fuel anti-bike sentiment and lead to more dangerous conditions on the road.
Witt:
“I think there are some big leaps being made here with regard to the ad’s message being misleading or in some way endangering cyclists. The ad poses a question. How people interpret it or act on it is not up for TriMet to determine.”
That is Witt’s opinion, but she also adds that about a dozen calls and emails have come from the community saying that this campaign is an “inappropriate discussion for TriMet to be involved in.”
Several people in the comments yesterday shared that sentiment, including reader Jimmy P who wrote:
“I wrote to Trimet. It’s irresponsible on their part to accept this kind of advertisement. It creates an unsafe environment for everyone on the road. And, it does it with blatant lies – implying we don’t pay taxes.
It’s irresponsible, it’s dangerous, and it shouldn’t be allowed.”
In the end, Witt maintains that Oregon courts are to blame, not TriMet:
“This feedback and situations like this are precisely why we haven’t wanted to be viewed as a public forum. Oregon courts have ruled that, at least for the time being, we don’t get a say in what we can run on our vehicles and shelters.”
At the crux of this issue is whether or not people (like myself) who feel that the ad campaign is offensive and inflammatory can expect that TriMet and the marketing company who bought the ad — both of whom are understandably much less tuned into the sensitive nature of road safety and behavioral issues covered on this site — should be expected to share and understand these sensitivities.
Hopefully if they didn’t “get it” before this, maybe they do now.
— Read TriMet’s Advertising Policy Standards here.
— Read more about the Karuk Tribe v. TriMet case here.
The ad is indeed misleading because it falsely implies that cyclists don’t pay taxes for roads.
But the larger issue is that the overwhelming majority of people BELIEVE cyclists don’t pay taxes for roads. We should seize this moment of attention in the news cycle to spread the facts: that not only do cyclists indeed pay taxes for roads, but also that drivers receive more subsidies than cyclists.
One comparison… more money is being spent to rehab the MLK viaduct ($68 million) than has been spent by the city of Portland on ALL bicycle infrastructure over a quarter century (about $60 million).
Most people just don’t know the facts.
Vulnerable? Well, we do qualify as “vulnerable road users,” there’s even a recently passed law defining it, right?
Also, we are subject to quite frequent menacing offenses by motorists (ORS 163.190; see http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html). But the law on this is essentially a dead letter, since menacing committed by motorists is practically never subject to law enforcement crackdowns.
So, does this do anything to contribute to the problem? Uh, it sure could. But has Trimet ever even considered that? Hmm, doubt it.
Excuse me, but this is BULLSH*T.
I say, if they’re going to be putting up ads that stimulate the venom of maniac drivers, then they damn well ought to let cyclists put up a rebuttal ad for free.
How about they let us put up an ad showing that picture someone created once, illustrating the number of bikes that can fit in a section of roadway, alongside the picture of the same roadway filled with cars? The pictures alone could speak for themselves! (Or, you could add some caption text. How about, “If only we could get rid of all those @!#% bikes!”)
This ad campaign is being perpetrated by a company called Webtrends. I myself have already complained about this campaign to the, I suggest that others in the community do the same.
Not only is this ad misleading and deceptive, the information that it “gathers” is intended to be used as statistical data in a report to the city.
I’m willing to bet that tax money is being used for this debacle at some point along the strem.
Let Webtrends know that their style of deception and improper info gathering will not be tolerated as a means of creating public policy decisions in Portland.
If you check a blog named “Transit Sleuth” it is written by one of the scumbags behind all this. Let him know directly. I sure did.
Witt is being disingenuous and evasive. Which is par for the course at TriMet.
Not sure these links have been posted yet:
http://adronbhall.com/blogs/my_transportation_obsession/post/2009/07/01/Measured-And-Tallied.aspx
https://www.webtrends.com/LP/Events/Max.aspx
http://trimet.org/mailforms/comments_general
Not sure these links have been posted yet:
http://adronbhall.com/blogs/my_transportation_obsession/post/2009/07/01/Measured-And-Tallied.aspx
https://www.webtrends.com/LP/Events/Max.aspx
http://trimet.org/mailforms/comments_general
It seems to me that TriMet would actually be one of the _more_ appropriate places for the ad. Here’s my rational:
– On the MAX, the ad is viewed by commuters of various types (public transit-only, park-and-riders, cyclists, and passing drivers). If they had posted it on a billboard overlooking I-84 where only cars see it, wouldn’t that be worse?
– Advertising on TriMet provides money to the public transit system, whereas anywhere else the money would have just gone to an advertising firm, TV station, etc. This way, aren’t they helping to public infrastructure to a certain extent?
If anything, the ad has got people thinking and talking about the issue. I don’t think it’s inappropriate, but maybe I’m in the minority on that. My personal view has changed as a result of the ad – I certainly don’t think that cyclists should have to pay any sort of _additional_ road tax beyond what they already pay through various revenue streams, but it has has definitely made me think more closely about the issues of required insurance, licensing, and safety issues, all of which are lax at the moment.
Lastly, on other posts, it seems that WebTrends employees are being personally attacked with rather vitriolic language and claims, which seems like an unfortunate way to continue the dialogue.
I agree with Witt, that it’s a big leap to think this ad campaign will cause road rage.
People road rage on us because we blow stop signs and lights, cut in and out of traffic, hop on and off sidewalks and, in general, think we rule the road.
Webtrends is just looking for publicity, good or bad.
The webtrends debate is a “logical fallacy” as nicely explained on Wikipedia. The “traditional” response is Mu, or un-asking the question. 🙂
Jeff Mapes provides some useful stats on page 143 in Pedaling Revolution: “… the cost of building Portland’s bike network between 1993 and 2008 clocked in at less than $100 million [and this includes the eastbank esplanade]. It cost … $143 million … to rebuild just one of the city’s freeway interchanges, the Sylvan exit on Highway 26.”
These numbers might open some eyes when non-cyclists opine that cyclists need to pay more taxes.
I’d also throw in the expense of resurfacing the freeways every couple of years to fill in the ruts caused by studded tires. Maybe users of studded tires should pay additional taxes.
Someone should run an ad along the lines of “Should bike riders continue to subsidize motor vehicle travel?” Even though that is far more accurate and factual of a question than is currently being posited, it is also quite a bit more inflammatory.
Even when people have the fact plainly spelled out to them they still want to believe the cyclists are somehow getting a free ride when in fact it quite the contrary.
I agree the ad is stupid, but I don’t know that TriMet had a lot of options here. They’ve been burned with the ACLU lawsuit over their advertising, and had they denied this ad, it is likely there would have been a first amendment claim here as well.
Is asking “should cyclists pay a road tax” on a par with yelling fire in a crowded theater? I’m no lawyer but it doesn’t seem to me that the government should restrain that speech, as inflammatory — or just plain dumb — as we think it is.
That ad is no more “fanning the flames” then your constant demands to the right to ride on the road, Jonathon. It just doesn’t meet your agenda so you find it personally offensive. “Offensive” is pretty relative though.
BTW, you forgot to write “Editorial” before the post title.
So apples to apples, TriMet could run a “Should women be allowed to vote?” campaign?
Nice.
Oregon courts, TriMet or whomever- somebody needs to think before they allow these things to roll through our community.
This ad jeopardizes my safety and acceptance on the street. Sure it’s not on the level of women’s suffrage, but we have an ongoing campaign for equal rights on the streets. This ad campaign is “harmful to vulnerable populations.”
This is the typical ” who me..?” mentality displayed by most politico/public entities these days.
By providing the space for messages and advertising, Tri-Met effectively endorse ANY ad message whether their stated policies reflect that or not. Their actions are equal to the “O’s” constantly divisive articles designed at spurring controversy and conflict between cyclists and the non-cyclist public.
Shame on you Tri-Met.
@El Seven
That ad is no more “fanning the flames” then your constant demands to the right to ride on the road, Jonathon.
First, learning proper english makes you appear intelligent. Failing to do so, well… doesn’t.
Second, nobody is making demands for the right to ride on the road. That right already exists, and has existed in Oregon since there were roads and bicycles. You may not know this, but it is actually illegal to not ride on the road downtown.
Third, your equivocation is extremely weak. This is a website, thus you must take action to visit the blog to read Jonathan’s opinions. It does not roll by you in a public space.
This is the news cycle…can we not take advantage of it?
This our turn to say over and over again, because this time people are listening:
“WE DO PAY FOR THE ROADS”
TriMet’s response is willfully disingenuous.
Here’s a roadmap…
STEP ONE: THE COURT’S HOLDING
“TriMet’s decision to deny the ad may not be based on the basis of content” Karuk Tribe v. TriMet.
STEP TWO: TRIMET’S INTERPRETATION
“We do not get to judge the content or nature of advertising being purchased on our vehicles or shelters.”
STEP THREE: TRIMET’S “OFFENSIVENESS/PUBLIC SAFETY” EXCEPTION
“Witt likened TriMet to “an impartial third party.”
“Witt says an Oregon court ruling prevents TriMet from picking and choosing what ads they run, yet their policy still allows exceptions for offensive ads or ads that could endanger public safety.”
In Step Two TriMet says they do get to choose based on content. In Step Three TriMet admits the fallacy of this statement. In fact, they deny content based on TriMet’s determination of offensiveness or public safety.
While TriMet conveniently fails to clearly articulate the legal basis of this exception, one can reasonably infer it exists in law because it’s in TriMet’s own words, it’s their policy. TriMet would not have a policy that is contrary to law, particularly when the court has spoken on this issue. DeWitt’s comments are willfully disingenuous.
Now that we know the following TriMet statement is a blatant lie, “we don’t get a say in what we can run on our vehicles and shelters” let’s see how well that “impartial third party” tag holds up:
STEP FOUR: TRIMET’S WILLFUL DECEPTION
“TriMet will allow transit advertising submissions that are not misleading, do not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of its customers…”
“We still make exceptions for ads that we think may be harmful to vulnerable populations (youth, for example) or are offensive as that is applied to the first amendment/free speech laws in Oregon and federally. Typically, the ads we would question are ones… that we think would be harmful to the public.”
Jeff Mapes, Jonathan Maus, and countless others have systematically corralled the facts to demonstrate incontrovertibly that the ad is (applying TriMet’s own words) “misleading.” That doesn’t need to be restated here.
“Harmful to the public?” Of course. Arguably anything so blatantly misleading is “harmful to the public.”
TriMet’s standard is even lower for “vulnerable populations such as youth.” For vulnerable populations, TriMet’s standard is “may be harmful.” Not “harmful” but “may be harmful.”
Does TriMet’s lower threshold apply to those who choose to do the right thing and travel by bicycle?
Oregon State Law defines those who travel by bicycle as “vulnerable.” And of course many bicyclists are “youth,” i.e. one of TriMet’s identified vulnerable populations.
As a practical matter, virtually any person who has traveled some amount by bicycle in the TriMet catchment basin has experienced vulnerability, including scary encounters with road-raged motorists. Bike Portland contributors could fill TriMet’s comment lines for weeks reciting these experiences.
Moreover, it’s entirely plausible to extend the argument that the misleading statement has “an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of its customers.” Many of TriMet’s customers trip-chain with bikes. To cite only two of the many examples, TriMet seeks ways to reduce the number of bikes on trains at peak travel hours. And every bus in the region has a rack that accommodates two bikes.
And it’s in TriMet’s strategic best interest to encourage trip-chaining, since neither bus nor rail can take a would-be TriMet customer everywhere a bike can. As a matter of policy, TriMet readily acknowledges trip-chaining with bikes is an under-explored potential market growth segment.
All of which is to say TriMet’s decision here could hardly be interpreted as “impartial.”
STEP FIVE: TRIMET- IGNORANT OR BIASED?
Despite TriMet’s spokesperson being trapped by Maus in her circular arguments of inconsistency, TriMet reveals its true feelings with this statement:
“I think there are some big leaps being made here with regard to the ad’s message being misleading or in some way endangering cyclists. The ad poses a question. How people interpret it or act on it is not up for TriMet to determine.”
Ms. Witt: to put it bluntly, your organization is either ignorant to the law and to reality because you should have seen this coming, or your organization is biased against the welfare of those who choose to ride bicycles.
In either case, the emotional frustration that led to your statement is unacceptable. Portland is the nation’s most bike friendly city, in part because we are vigilant about protecting the right of EVERYBODY to travel safely on our streets and trails by bicycle. Including yours. If you’re the PIO for TriMet you’d better get smart on bicycling in a hurry.
When you and your quasi-governmental organization that relies on our tax base for its existence shows us the respect the law affords us as “vulnerable” road users we will accept your apology, which should include removing these intentionally misleading advertisements from your trains immediately.
What’s funny about this is how Webtrends, a marketing company, is really de-marketing themselves.
Who wants to hire a marketing/consulting firm that fails at basic research when promoting their own company? They may have succeeded in creating a minor buzz for a few days but they’ve also succeeded in showcasing their inept and unsophisticated approach.
Way to go, Webtrends! Market yourself right out of the marketing business.
There is a difference between political speech and economic speech. The referenced court case seems to only affect political speech. TriMet should not be obligated to put any advertising on its buses/MAX cars that negatively affects its business. For example, TriMet should not be required to put up signs that say “Don’t ride light rail.” Similarly, TriMet, as a public entity that supports alternative forms of transportation, should not be required to put up signs that say “Should bikers pay a road tax?”
GRAMMATICAL CORRECTIONS:
1.
Line 1 of Paragraph 3 in STEP THREE should read “In Step Two TriMet says they do *NOT* get to choose based on content.
2. Line 1 of Paragraph 4 in STEP THREE should read “While TriMet conveniently fails to clearly articulate the legal basis of this exception, one can reasonably infer it exists in law because in TriMet’s own words, it’s their policy.” I omitted an extra word.
It’s really sort of a genius thing in a way, appealing to the spoiled crybaby’s already inflated sense of entitlement — always needing and deserving yet more to be done for them or given to them by others.
More ideas:
“Are Mexican immigrants taking all the cushy, easy jobs?”
“Is the third world really paying its share to support our lifestyle?”
“Iraq — hoarding our oil?”
“Why won’t the government pony up to widen the lane for your SUV?”
“Are we lavishing too much praise and status on black people?”
“Are promotions too easy for women to get?”
“Should the neighbor’s cat be allowed to poop willy-nilly in my yard?”
I’m all for the ads, because it informs people about the realities of bicycle infrastructure. Can’t wait for the atheist ads, and intelligent discussion from advertising, rather than the wasteland that occurs with product advertising.
Sending this letter to TriMet today:
I was dismayed to learn, from Joseph Rose’s blog on OregonLive.com, and from the BikePortland.org blog, of an ad campaign
Webtrends is running on the side of MAX trains, which poses the question “Should cyclists pay a road tax?”
First of all, this question is a textbook example of a logical fallacy, a tactic to deliberately mislead, whereby the question being asked pre-supposes something which is false. In this case the question pre-supposes two falsehoods:
1) That there is a separate class of human beings known as “cyclists.” When I am on my bicycle am I a “cyclist?” When I get
off my bike and get in my car, am I a “cyclist?” Or when I’m sitting on my couch, am I a “cyclist” then? When I’m sitting
on a TriMet train, am I a “cyclist?” Clearly the term is meaningless. And if someone were to attempt a tax on “cyclists,” I
wonder how they would administer such a thing, and how they would find any “cyclists.” When I see the bike tax man coming, I will certainly hop off my bike and become a “pedestrian” toute de suite. That’s a joke, but it illustrates the ludicrousness of this.
2) That people who ride bicycles do not already pay a “road tax.” The entire populace pays for roads through income,
property, and sales taxes. And “cyclists” who use cars additionally pay gas taxes, license and registration fees and so on, which are what the general populace probably thinks of when they hear the phrase “road taxes.” Furthermore, “cyclists” pay taxes to pay for highways on which bicycles aren’t even allowed, and disproportionately pay for fire, ambulance and police services to respond to the types of emergencies made possible and severe only by the internal combustion engine. They also disproportionately subsidize the building of roads that are far in excess of bicycling requirements in terms of width, pavement thickness, and signalization & signage. Additionally, “cyclists” who ride TriMet (and who do so now despite this gesture of hostility from TriMet, created by this ad) pay to maintain TriMet’s facilities, vehicles and light rail tracks.
Therefore this ad is misleading, and goes against TriMet’s policy of running ads “that are not misleading.”
(from http://trimet.org/advertising/advertising_policy_standards.htm)
Secondly, this ad would seem to have the effect of fomenting and worsening an already problematic attitude of hostility on the part of certain road users who mistakenly believe falsehoods 1) and 2) above, and who have the mistaken opinion that “cyclists” are somehow to blame for all of their petty problems. I’m talking of course about the small but dangerous minority of road users predisposed toward “road rage” type incidents. Such a person when driving a car is in control of tons of metal. Encounters between such people and the largely unprotected and more vulnerable road users such as those on bikes, can end in injuries and even death for the latter. TriMet should be working toward furtherance of a tolerant and understanding culture out on the roads, and should not be giving further credence to fallacies in the minds of these people, even by asking this asinine question, or by consenting to ask it on the side of a MAX train.
Therefore this ad violates the next clause in TriMet’s advertising policy, whereby it will allow ads that “do not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of its customers.”
Furthermore, the ad arguably qualifies as hate speech, in that it singles out an essentially non-existent “group,” names that group (think “cyclists” vs. e.g. “blacks,” “Jews”), based on what should be (and otherwise are) insignificant attributes (mode of transport chosen at that moment, vs. skin color or religion, respectively), and spreads lies about it (“cyclists don’t pay taxes” vs. any number of racist or anti-Semitic lies we’re all too familiar with, that I won’t repeat here).
Using this formula it would be very easy to dream up other misleading, offensive, hateful ads for your trains:
“Are Mexicans taking all the cushy, easy jobs?”
“Do women get promoted too easily?”
I’ll stop there. Though I suppose if I had the money and the inclination, I could get the spineless TriMet to rubber-stamp ads like these and run them for me.
The point is, this cowardice and ignorance has no place on a TriMet facility, and it displays an incredible lack of judgment and courage for TriMet to consent to run such an ad. And, it essentially presents an attitude of hostility — not from Webtrends but FROM TRIMET — which I think TriMet can ill afford if it wants to appeal to its true and more important funding base: the taxpayer.
Your Public Information Officer Becky Witt was quoted on BikePortland as saying: “We still make exceptions for ads that we think may be harmful to vulnerable populations (youth, for example)…” [persons riding bicycles unprotected on public roadways in close proximity to hurtling vehicles of hard metal, for another example] “…or are offensive…” [already shown] “…as that is applied to the first amendment/free speech laws in Oregon and federally. Typically, the ads we would question are ones… that we think would be harmful to the public.” I would encourage you to not only question but remove this ad on those grounds. It’s harmful, not just to the group it lies about, but to anyone who reads the lie.
Roland J. Couture
The applicable logical fallacy is: “Simpliciter a dicto, ad dictum secundum quid;” saying something is different (simpler) than it actually is.
The ad is a not-so-carefully disguised lie, which the basic technique of all “marketing.”
Also, tomorrow is my birthday! Be happy!
Here’s the extent of my Latin on the matter: “Cogito that this est bullshittum.”
I know a lot of TriMet bus drivers are angry at Joe Rose of The Oregonian for posting a number of blog articles that are pointed out bad behavior by bus drivers.
I wonder if TriMet would let us plaster a Max train with the question “Should TriMet bus drivers have to obey stop lights?” (implying that they routinely run stop lights, which is one of those hot button issues they are up in arms about).
Rob, oh I’m sorry, is my English not good enough for you? What else is there I can do to make things easier for you? I will not go too deep into how knowing multiple languages affects the grammer of both of them. I’m sure you are so intelligent that you know several as well and probably figured that out by now. Or not.
But once again, the intolerant, bigoted left rears it’s ugly head! Thank you for reinforcing my opinion of the bike chicken snob.
#24, I’m not going to read your entire tirade because I’m sure it’s repetitive but two things stuck out.
‘”Are Mexicans taking all the cushy, easy jobs?”
“Do women get promoted too easily?”‘
So, in your opinion, the gender and and race somebody is born and cannot change is comparable to somebody who chooses to ride a bike and vilify others who choose to take another mode of transportation? Wow, cyclists must be really important!
I disagree with the ad. I do not believe cyclists should have to pay a road tax. I commute exclusively by bike and MAX.
I believe that Tri-Met had no choice but to accept this ad.
Spin it however you want but the ad is legit and you’d really have to reach to make the argument that it will spurn road rage against cyclists.
Whine and complain all you like, but the bicycles aren’t licensed, and don’t have a fuel from which to draw added taxes, but suck up a significant proportion of the roads. Hypersensitivity aside, no bicycle contributes a penny towards construction or maintenance of any roadway from which the cyclists demand “equal access”. You want equality, pay for your proportion of the roadways, and then we can sit at the same table. Until then, your income, property taxes go into the same general fund that subsidizes everything – not like you’re directing the funds anywhere in particular (and from many of the writings & speeches I’ve heard on the subject, many of you would prefer to direct your tax dollars *away* from those roads anyway).
I love the low impact and high health that come with bikes, and I have many friends who are devoted cyclists (but not these “militant”/itinerant cycle bigots). But I expect them to not just wave red flags every time there’s another way to drive a wedge (or pardon me, their single-minded agenda). C’mon, let’s make a little more win-win talk and not get all righteous every time you see an excuse to find grave offense.
Wrong. Road rage already exists. It’s a daily phenomenon. And being that it’s one of the major reasons more people don’t want to brave the roads on bikes, it’s also one of the major obstacles to increasing bike commuting (and decreasing pollution and traffic congestion, and thereby making everyone’s travel on the roads easier).
The point is not whether any particular ad could ever be linked to any particular behavioral episode. That WOULD be a stretch.
The point is that, in the case of aggressive, hazardous, and illegal behavior by motorists that is already occurring at epidemic levels, does broadcasting any argument (whether implicit, in the “stop beating your wife style as seen here) or explicit that “bicycles don’t pay their fair share” help to contribute to a public atmosphere of irrational resentment towards cyclists? An attitude that in turn helps already belligerent motorists — of which there are far too many as is — justify acts of aggression in their own minds as being socially acceptable?
Not only does this not seem like a stretch, it seems like such common sense that anyone here trying to make the counterargument should have be the ones bearing the burden of proof.
I read stuff like this and it makes me really wish that every cyclist had a car. I could organize a sort of reverse critical mass. I think I would suggest that every cyclist behave like a typical American for one week and drive his/her car if the destination is over a quarter of a mile. We could even put a sticker that says “bike commuter” in the window.
What would happen in this town if that were to occur? Downtown would certainly suffer as finding a place to park your car is hard enough already. Imagine the nightmare that would create in the NW Trader Joe’s area due to its rather small parking lot. Think of all those bikes that go down SE Ankeny every day and put them on Burnside instead. Want to cross the Hawthorne Bridge and get home in a reasonable amount of time? Well, get in line and good luck.
mostly to Mike in #30: (and those who think similarly in general) and then somewhat musing in general.
You points are just not valid. Significant proportion of the road? Really?
1) bike traffic makes up about 6% of all vehicular traffic in Portland, that’s not a lot…last I checked out of 100 vehicles, that means a mere 6 would be bikes. It just LOOKS like a lot because there are more bikes on the road here than in other parts of the state/country.
2) People who ride bikes take up a lot less road space than people who drive cars, 3-6 bikes can fit in the same amount of space, again, not using a lot of road compared to a car…
2) Bike lanes are maybe 4ft wide(?), that’s a small percentage of the entire road in which they are on.
4)Since bikes take up less space the more people who bike actually make more room for people who drive. It’s win-win.
5) about 1% of general funds for traffic are spent on bike related infrastructure. So really we aren’t getting much for our property and income taxes, if it reflected road use, we’d get 5% more of that money, so people who ride bikes STILL subsidize roads for more than they get back.
People who drive sure seem to be coming out winners in this more people biking thing!
6) (AND maybe most key here) People who ride bikes are also people who drive cars. MOST cyclist are ALSO drivers. THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALY EXCLUSIVE. Most people who commute by bike do not do so 100%. Divers are cyclists, cyclists are drivers (and we’re all pedestrians!) and therefore ALSO pay gas and vehicle taxes and licencing and have insurance.
The point is MOOT and a fallacy.
7) If Oregon had a sales tax then maybe the bikes themselves would also fund roads and other crap. The BIKE may not pay for the roads but the PEOPLE who ride them DO.
(Don’t get me started on how much car driving is already subsidized, it’s almost as bad as corporate welfare or agriculture. If we individually paid the actual cost share of road use and maintenance and gas and autos, no one could afford to drive the darned things.)
And 8) the reason people are upset is that the ad is divisive, not conducive to actual honest open discussion. Instead it just gets people all riled up, and brings out the scary on all sides.
Most people who see that ad are not going to look up the webtrends site or voice thier opinion.. it’s just going to validate what they already believe to be true, when it is false, and breed more discontent between different modes of road share that people choose to use.
We continue to label each other as ‘the other’ and stop seeing each other as people, neighbors, friends…
Most people who chose to cycle are not anti-car, they are not bigots, they are not militant. People can’t get upset without getting labeled as an angry mob. Dude, people get upset.
There are some who have the loudest voices, but they who shout the loudest aren’t nessacery representative of the whole. I do not think that Ann Coulter for example is representative of all republicans, or that Tre Arrow is representative of all environmentalists. (extreme examples I know.)
What we’re tired of is being abused by other people for choosing to ride out bikes instead of drive our cars… for what ever reason.
Tired of using the road as we are legally allowed to do and told to get off the road and that we don’t deserve to be there because (insert reason here).It gets tiresome.
The misinformation, lack of education (on all sides, lots of people who bike have a lack of knowledge of the rules of the road that apply to them…not that lots of people who drive don’t disregard rules of the road that apply to them too, it’s just less noticeable due to over saturation, we’re so used to driver scofflaw antics, we don’t see them anymore…anyways.
There are better was to find solutions than this Webtrends nonsense.
I do think it’s ironic that such a heavily subsidized from of transportation is carrying the advert.
rambling over. If I am way off base on anything freel free to call me out.
Happy 4th!!
=)
Where to start? Mr. Lonergan, if you’re seriously positing this argument because that is what you have been led to believe, I’ll answer you. If you’re flamebaiting, please go back to the comments section of oregonlive, where you can live in deluded peace.
A bicycle takes up about a third of the road width a car takes in the road. A bicycle generates so much less wear on the road than a car that it’s hard to calculate, but let’s say 1/1000th. A bicycle — even ridden by a full-time cyclist — goes about a third of the distance per year as the average car does. So, not even considering the extra services cars require to clear their many crashes, and note counting the economic cost of 40K+/year dead as a result of cars, or the health issues associates with the pollution, nor the health issues associated with the sedentary lifestyle that cars support, it looks like cars are a lot more expensive to support. Even though I don’t drive more than a few hundred miles a year, I’m willing to pay my taxes to keep them going. But not you, Mr Lonergan, not you. I’m cutting you off! You’ll have to pay your way from now on. That’ll mean a gas tax of about $8/gallon. Have fun with that, sir. And by sir, I mean @$$^*!&
Mr. Lonergan is exactly the kind of delusional person the webtrends ad exploits
This Webtrends issue (as well as Ms. Palin’s resignation) have certainly animated the holiday weekend. Both themes bring out the real enemies we all face: resolute but uninformed animosity and baseless hostility. But, on a hopeful note, sensible and sensitive commentary and analysis, most of it in this website. I’ve done the tour of readers’ hits on both events and I can say BikePortland is a oasis of fresh air. Ride safely, everyone.
Sorry–make that “an oasis”.
patrickz – don’t forget ignorance, ignorance is a powerful tool in modern society. America is being dumbed down on a daily basis to the point we are practically inured to the damage this type of ‘advertising’ can do. Twitter does nothing but reinforce this for me, the extremely limited message length virtually guarantees shallow vacuousness of the ‘ignorance is bliss’ kind, which is exactly the market niche Webtrends and Justin, the ‘social media marketer’, are attempting to exploit.
Seems to me that you bikers are a thin=skinned lot along with NOT willing to pay your share of road (you use the roads, right?) maintenance! And yes you bikers are a class unto yourselves! Shame on you!
Do nonsmokers pay their “fair share” of the cost of education?
Do non-criminals pay their “fair share” of the cost of victim restitution programs?
Etc.
The point this is getting at is that “fair share” is meaningless nonsense when it comes to fiscal policy. The only rational thing to consider when you are deciding what taxes and fees that government should impose is, “Do you want more — or less — of the activity or product in question whose taxation is being proposed?” Do we want more bikes on the roads, or fewer? Do we want more smoking, or less? Etc, etc.
A rational society would not impose any tax increases at all on goods and activities it wants to encourage, but only those it wants to keep in check. A tax is a way to redistribute resources away from some parts of the economy and towards others.
Ergo: if we think there are too many bicycles on the roads, and not enough cars, then we should tax bicycles more to pay for the roads, and cars less. And likewise the reverse holds.
But really, how many of even the most rabid motorist fanatics want to share “THEIR” roads with more cars??!
Thus, there is clearly no RATIONAL argument at stake in these provocative ads — what we are debating here is only a purely IRRATIONAL and visceral, cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your face, animus against sharing the roads with nonmotorized users.
I’ve always wondered, since they’re movable, premium ad space, why mass transit agencies don’t sell space to cigarett, liquor, and adult entertainment vendors at a super-premium rate–let Tri Met and C Tran milk Johnny Walker, the Marlboro Man and Traci Lords for all they’re worth.
jascha.kaykaswolff@webtrends.com is listed as their marketing director. s/he and I have had an exchange of e-mails on this subject.
my most recent:
the more I think about this, the angrier I get. how do you dare to condescend to me with this “rest assured” nonsense. if webtrends has any integrity at all, you will immediately post to the page on which you are collecting comments factual information making it clear to even the most ignorant motorist that the roads are almost entirely paid for by general revenue, not fuel taxes or licensing fees. this information is readily available from hundreds of credible sources, which webtrends has obviously not bothered to research.
in the meantime, you are intentionally throwing kerosene on a fire. literally every day I am harassed on the roads by motorists who have it in their heads that the roads are exclusively theirs. if any of these incidents results in an injury to me, you may be assured that the question “have you seen the webtrends ad” will be asked, and you will be joined as a defendant in the liability lawsuit.
As an amature cyclist and driver I disagree with the ad, I think it is silly, and I think it should stay. The concept that the ad is somehow TriMet’s fault and/or that they should start censoring ads is ridiculous. If someone is at fault it’s the sponsor of the ad.
Does road rage exist? Of course. Is this ad inciting drivers to violence? Totally subjective. The courts would never hold that up.
So given that this isn’t a hate crime, that the ad is essentially political in nature, it fits under he law and under TriMet’s policy.
The policy and law are both correct in that they favor free speech at the risk of controversy. On some other issue the outraged on this thread may very well be thankful for those same rules.
The ad should read ” should cyclists pay ADDITIONAL road taxes “… To which I again would say no. Should free speech be impinged upon? Hell no.
I fully expect TriMet’s email inbox to be full of complaints when they return on Monday Morning.
http://trimet.org/mailforms/comments_general
Gosh, it can’t be hard to print up a bunch of oversize bumper stickers that say: “I DO pay taxes!” and then, you know, stick them somewhere. Can’t think of the most appropriate place, hmmm….
This seems to be yet one more sign of our inability to have a balanced conversion. Everything is either all or nothing. Had the ad read “Should SUVs pay more gas tax?” most people on this site would be cheering the message not questioning whether it is fair or whether or not the owners already do pay their share due to the excessive amount of fuel their vehicles consume. This should be seen as an opportunity to discuss how infrastructure is funded and where the funds actually come from, not an us vs. them. Anyone cheering or jeering this ad already had their mind made up and I doubt anyone on the fence is being convinced one way or the other because of it.
Steve – the larger the vehicle, the more heavily it is subsidized by everyone else, regardless of the vehicle’s fuel economy. Add studded tires to the vehicle and the subsidy increases exponentially.
The slogan painted on my back for this year’s world naked bike ride was:
Taxpayer: We all pay for roads!
I would like to see Shift or BTA (or any other group for that matter) seek an injunction to ban this ad immediately.
It would be blatantly illegal to post an ad questioning whether gays should be required to pay taxes. The falsehood would be obvious and the intent to incite prejudice-based anger toward a minority lifestyle would be clear. The same legal status should apply to persons who have chosen to make bicycling a part of their lifestyle.
Tri-Met should be held blameless in this matter. It is not within Tri-Met’s charter to track emerging lifestyles, and bicycling as a distinct lifestyle choice is less than one generation old in the Portland area. Tri-Met is being victimized as much as the cyclists by this ad.
A fair injunction would be to require Web Trends to pay Tri-Met to remove the existing ads, and for those spaces to be blank for the time that Web Trends has purchased. Web Trends should not receive any refund. They are in the business of understanding emerging societal trends, and they definitely knew that what they were doing was crossing the line, similar to the way the Nazis stirred up antisemitic sentiment in the 1930s.
Further, Web Trends should not benefit in any way from these ads: the court should enjoin them to turn over all responses received, and all related data and analyses, either to the court or to some 3rd party known to not be prejudicial against the cycling community.
I don’t see a good argument for raising taxes on bikers, but I’m not offended by being asked the question. I’m a proud lefty, and it’s disturbing to hear such blatant attacke on free speech coming from my camp!
Oh, and do some of you above really think that the oppression faced by bikers is analogous to that faced by women and the gay community???