Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Lars Larson can usually be counted on for ranting against bicyclists, but now it seems he’s taking a cue from the Oregonian and showing his support for the Vulnerable Roadway Users bill.
Case in point. I was forwarded an email from someone who claimed to have heard him speaking positively about the bill on his show this morning. A quick look at the front page of his website, and sure enough, “Do we really need more laws to protect cyclists?” is listed as a topic.
Click that headline and you go to a page which reprints the recent Oregonian editorial that was highly supportive of the bill. Above that, Larson writes, “Oregon should toughen punishments for careless motorists who run over cyclists riding safely and according to the law.”
With so much supportive media attention, and the recent death of Timothy O’Donnell, it’s hard to imagine this bill getting any more momentum. Let’s just hope this all translates into a legislative landslide next week.
Unlikely is right! I\’ve always regarded Lars Larson as Portland\’s answer to Rush Limbaugh. His support of the Vulnerable Users bill will certainly cause me to reevaluate my opinion of him.
Hell freezes over!
This reminds me of that one time I saw a guy riding a recumbent with a Bush sticker on the back of his seat.
even a broken clock is right twice daily.
While I would welcome all support,I would have to see a lot more thinking and a lot less yelling before my opinion of Lars changed.
I think this speaks as much of the sea change in attitudes regarding the supremacy of the auto, after the costs of driving become so apparent.
Ok, really… at this point, who\’s apposing this bill? Has anyone come out strongly against it? Not that I want them to of course, it’s really great to see such an important piece of legislation receiving so much support.
The common notion that Republicans are anti-cyclist is not as simple as people make it out to me. The Vulnerable Road User bill is a \”law-and-order\” statute that gives the authorities more power to prosecute BAD drivers and doesn\’t restrict the rights of drivers.
Most conservatives I know have more of an issue with \”scofflaw\” cyclists and mandates that roadway/gasoline/licensing taxes be set aside for bike infrastructure. Those topics are ripe for debate but I think both parties agree on the need to protect the lives of law abiding human beings and punish those who needlessly and selfishly endanger others.
Most conservatives I know put more weight behind corporate interests than popular interests. I\’m one that makes it out to be that simple.
It is corporate interest that keeps trucks moving through an intersection where little old ladies wait to cross.
There\’s a societal balance, but we still have quite a few liberal rebounds before we\’re there again. Protecting vulnerable roadway users is one.
Interesting logic. Voting for lower taxes, smaller government, and more law enforcement gives carte blanche to mowing down seniors with semis? Should I also assume that the construction workers with \”Proud to be Union!\” stickers on their pick-up trucks that blare their horns and call me \”Bike F*g!!!\” as they pass are representative of all Democrats?
24-5. It appears some Republican senators transcended stereotype to vote for this bill.