The media onslaught inspired by the recent headline–grabbing road rage incidents in Portland continues.
Even Oregon Public Broadcasting’s daily Think Out Loud program decided to spend a few minutes of their show today talking about it.
The show, titled Mind Your Manners, focused on several different situations where you might be inclined to tell a complete stranger how they should behave (like leashing a dog, littering, or running a red light).
Host Emily Harris asked me to join the show to give share my opinions and insights into the recent altercations.
We had a nice discussion and I was able to bring things up that I haven’t shared yet here on BikePortland.org (like how alcohol played such a key role in both situations).
You can listen to the show via an MP3 on their website (I am the first guest to speak right after Harris introduces the show) or you can listen to the re-broadcast tonight from 9-10pm.
And I hope you’re not tired of hearing about road rage. There is a lot of coverage and discussion from the local media to come (check The Oregonian tomorrow and I’ll be on the Bob Miller Show (860 AM) tomorrow morning at 7:10 am if anyone’s interested).
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
With all the comments here and in the O blogs, I was surprised at how few pointed out two key elements common to both incidents:
1. Verbal provocation evoked a violent response
2. The operators of both vehicles committing the alleged infractions were under the influence of alcohol
The majority of responses focused on the types of vehicles involved, their perceived flaws, and the generalization of behavior of the operators of said vehicle types. Some of it has been rational with interesting ideas floated. For the most part, though, I think we tend to think inside the box and our comments (mine included) are guided by the flow of the media\’s reporting and the discussion.
If media coverage of various types of rage continues – with opportunity for public feedback – I think it helps open up people\’s minds to the issues around them and tempers the knee-jerk reactions. I found myself questioning my own thoughts following Portland Gentrification\’s \’elite cyclist\’ conversation not too long ago, for example. I don\’t think tabloid-style coverage without commentary and follow-up editorial is fruitful, though, and people who don\’t make the effort to open their minds will never learn from other points of view.
This topic too will become tiresome and pass, but hopefully result in at least a smidge of evolution!
The philosophy professor who spoke after Jonathan made a great point:
On the road, it\’s about being safe, not about being right. I think a lot of people eager to confront someone about doing something \’wrong\’ should take that sentiment into consideration.
Being safe is more important than being right. You\’re more likely to make it home alive if you\’re more focused on being safe than being \”right\”.
I\’m getting pretty tired of this. Is there some heartwarming story waiting in your WordPress admin area . . . maybe something involving fuzzy animals and bikes.
Mmmmm…. Approaching Hobbesian Nightmare…. Hughahaghallll….
Ethan,
You want fuzzy animals and bikes? read AO\’s comment here!
http://tinyurl.com/5hysfg
😉
Klixi,
\”You\’re more likely to make it home alive if you\’re more focused on being safe than being \”right\”.\”
Indeed you\’re right Klixi, to a point. What I do think is key here though is that we as a society shouldn\’t in any way suggest that a physical response, especially one that has a profound advantage over someone, is even remotely okay. It is simply NOT a reasonable response.
I reserve the right to call out the wingnuts who drive through my neighborhood like it\’s their private freeway.
There is a fine line between emphasizing the relative safety of silence, and advocating the surrender of our public space to bullies.
There\’s a balancing act here, but the sweet spot is found somewhere in the middle, not on the end where we don\’t say anything for fear of getting attacked by some sociopath. Nor is it found on the other end where we harass anyone who happens to make an honest mistake.
Be safe, take your turn at stop signs, yield to peds, and get a light.
tony,
I completely agree 100%. Physical confrontation is never the way to solve anything when it comes to issues on the roads involving bikes and cars.
Given the vast majority of good drivers compared to the small percentage of bad drivers, I cannot confidently say we\’re surrendering our public space to bullies. If, say, 50% of drivers were crazy, then I\’d totally agree. I just see FAR too many awesome drivers and a VERY few bad ones for me to say we\’ve surrendered to reckless drivers. But I also say that because the really bad and reckless drivers -know- they\’re being reckless. And if confronted on it, they\’re the ones who are most likely to engage in a physical confrontation. They are reckless because they think it adds an element of cool/badass to them. And nothing is more uncool or \”unbadass\” than being lectured to by a law abiding citizen – thus the reckless person is very likely to not shy away from confrontation. It\’s just not worth it to me. It\’s not fair or right, but it keeps me alive to not harass or threaten those crazy types. I wish the world was more perfect, but I still enjoy making due with what we have. Things aren\’t perfect in PDX, but I\’d rather be nowhere else.
>>\”There\’s a balancing act here, but the sweet spot is found somewhere in the middle, not on the end where we don\’t say anything for fear of getting attacked by some sociopath…\”
Nice point. Try taking that tack AFTER you\’ve been threatened or attacked by someone bigger than you. I\’ll stick with being safe over being right any day, and if it makes me look weak, who cares?
Speaking of road rage … I was on my best behavior on the way in this morning and stopped for a pedestrian waiting at a cross-walk. Left to right, there\’s a car lane, bike lane, and a right-turn lane. I\’m in no way blocking the right-turn lane by waiting for the pedestrian; but a wonderful individual in a mini-van pulled up impatiently next to me in the right-turn lane and honked for good measure anyway. Scared the bejesus out of me. I guess they figured I was one of those out of control cyclists who couldn\’t stay in my lane or something, and they wanted me completely out of their range of vision before turning. I really have no idea what they were thinking, but it was rude. It really takes the shine off a good morning ride 🙁
beth h,
We all have to make these decisions on our own, based on individual circumstances. There is NO one size fits all response.
It\’s sad that when someone wants to stand up for what\’s right, in a measured and reasonable way, you project upon them a fear of looking weak.
Perhaps there are people out there who are motivated more by principle than fear.
Meg #8,
I got deja vu reading your post.
I was on the street behind the Hawthorne Fred Meyer, facing east, waiting to cross 39th. I was in the left part of what essentially becomes a two lane street when it\’s full: people on the left go left and straight, and people on the right go right. I got in the left lane to go straight, and also to allow cars to turn right on red without right-hooking me. Two kids took the right lane though, so the minivan that came up behind us couldn\’t turn right on red. Outrage! He started honking and yelling and the kids moved to let him by. As he passed, he gave me an earful about how bikes are supposed to stay on the right, then took off before I could tell my side. Irritating.
Was yours an elderly, heavy-set guy with a cowed-looking wife in the passenger seat, and driving a fairly crappy mini-van?
Regardless, you are not alone.
Jonathan, great job on the radio. You managed to hit the important points in a limited time, like the 30:3000 weight ratio, the presence of alcohol, and knowing the tension of driving when there\’s bikes all over, and biking when there\’s cars all over. And more.
I feel like I would forget some important point and end up slapping my forehead on the way out of the station.
I think all of this discussion may actually be making Portland friendlier on the road.
I had my wisdom teeth pulled last week, and Tuesday evening was my first ride back into Portland since then. On numerous occasions, despite rush hour traffic, cars politely yielded to me properly. In Coe Circle of all places, an SUV yielded to me when my chain slips. I wasn\’t once cut off. Drivers seemed oddly courteous. My 35-mile-long ride was almost road rage-free until I decided to head out on what is more or less the last country road sandwiched between Vancouver and Camas.
In the relative darkness, the full moon was quite relaxing, and the air like a cold shower on a hot day. On a dark, narrow road like that, I had my brightest lights on, riding in the middle of the lane as to avoid being pushed into a ditch, which, as you all know, is completely legal. A few cars came up behind me, lowered their lights, and safely passed in the other lane.
After a couple of cars passed, there were no oncoming cars, so I rode in the darkness admiring the scenery. Then a car comes speeding up behind me. I expect him to speed past me in the other lane; he begins tailgating me. He wails on the horn. I look around—no cars are coming, so I try and get him to simply pass me. He yells out of his window, \”Get out of the road!\” Already traveling at a leisurely pace, I signal and stop.
With my bike between me and the car, I take down the plate number as I take out my phone and begin to dial 911. At this point he relents. I look in the car and him an his passengers realize we all know each other. I tell him what I was doing was legal, and what he was doing was not. I told him to pass safely, or don\’t pass at all. His excuse was that he was turning soon. In that case, he should of been slowing down, and at least he didn\’t cut me off. WRONG. As he drove off, he took a LEFT turn.
Good job. Thanks for ruining an otherwise friendly ride.
\”They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.\”
-Benjamin Franklin
John (post #12), I like your approach. Perhaps we as cyclists need to do this a little more. In your case, you were the object of an act of intimidation.
It takes courage to stop, and quietly confront poor behavior. I take that as a lesson for myself.
[Pete said]
1. Verbal provocation evoked a violent response
2. The operators of both vehicles committing the alleged infractions were under the influence of alcohol
[end Pete]
1. If pointing out someone\’s error provokes a violent response, then the onus is on the part of the violent party, isn\’t it?
People who react violently need to put down their stupid first person shooter video games. Get off the g*d d*mned cell phone while driving/riding. Stop thinking that someone died and left them and only them in charge. Realize that life is more that just about themselves and their petty little concerns. Try to understand that people care and are hoping to make things safer by pointing out their errors.
In other words: Grow up!
2. Driving/riding in an impaired state is unsafe for everyone. There are enough challenges to riding in traffic as it is.
The OPB show struck me as a good discussion. However, I have a problem with continuing suggestions that media coverage could incite more confrontations. That\’s like suggesting if someone reads a story about a bank robbery, he might be more inclined to rob a bank. Making such suggestions is as ill-advised as the \”war\” and \”us vs. them\” type headlines.
\”I have a problem with continuing suggestions that media coverage could incite more confrontations… Making such suggestions is as ill-advised as the \”war\” and \”us vs. them” type headlines\”
Mike, I don\’t agree with you.
When a false division is perpetuated like it has been in The Oregonian repeatedly, it re-affirms people\’s stress and anger toward others and I do think it has an impact on how they behave.
You of all people should know the power of the media in influencing how people act.
Can you imagine the public outcry if the same type of coverage was given to other groups that have tension. What if their was a hate crime and The Oregonian did a huge, front-page headline with \”Gays vs. Straights\” or \”Blacks vs. Whites\”. It would be immediately condemned by everyone.
The Oregonian is treating \”Bicyclists\” and \”Motorists\” as if they are two socially defined groups. I don\’t think social groups should ever be labeled and pitted against one another in a divisive way, especially when that division is not as pronounced as it\’s made out to be.
Thanks for your feedback.
I wish car drivers would understand that I\’m not doing things to impede them or piss them off. Every decision I make on the bike is made with my safety as priority #1. Other people\’s safety #2. Everyone\’s convenience #3. If I\’m riding in the middle of the lane, it\’s not because I want to piss people off or make a statement, it\’s because I\’m of the very experienced opinion that that\’s the safest thing to do at that point in time.
Same goes for yelling. Although I admit sometimes followup yelling is focused on everyone\’s saftey next time. But if someone on a bike is yelling at someone in a car, there\’s a good chance that there\’s fear based adrenalin involved, because the cyclist came close to injury.
Jonathan,
I think you did a really good job on the radio. You are a voice of reason but also definitely from a cyclist\’s perspective. Thanks for representing us.
Jonathan,
I agree with your main points about divisiveness. The media has an unfortunate tendency to oversimplify and reach broad conclusions based on too little evidence (conflating the recent incidents into a war or sorts). But the cause and effect that you\’ve suggested might result seems like a stretch, too. If people consistently responded to media coverage of bad behavior with copy-cat actions, we\’d be in a hell of a mess.
But I\’ll concede I may be too focused on too small of an issue in the more important larger debate.
— Mike
@Robert (#4)
Hobbesian Nightmare…I read that and couldn\’t stop myself from laughing out loud. Co-workers gave me funny looks.
klixi #7 – \”unbadass\” = \”goodass\”?
Nice job, Jonathan. Too bad they spent more time talking about dog poop than the very serious issue of safety on our roads. Definitely agree that the \”motorist vs. cyclist\” generalization is inaccurate and divisive. I talked to a reporter myself today and it took every effort to steer the conversation in a more productive direction instead of dwelling on \”the conflict\”.
\”People who react violently need to put down their stupid first person shooter video games.\”
Hey now, I love my first-person shooters :). And yet I somehow manage to remain a level-headed, non-violent individual.
If there\’s one thing I learned from Counter-Strike, it\’s that no matter how l33t you think your skillz are, there\’s always someone who can mop up the floor with you. That, and if you\’re new to the game, you will be smacked down repeatedly. This knowledge definitely does its part to check any desire I might have to start picking fights out in the real world.
Graham #11,
I wasn\’t paying a lot of attention to him, but that does sound awfully familiar. 😉
*sigh*
Interesting that bikeportland.org doesn\’t bother to report on bike vs. bike road rage. (leckie vs schrepping)
Rich # 18. very right on. Earlier thoughts of mine was that shouting only provokes confrontation. But Friday morning commute found me shouting at car as driver driving along side me slowly drifted into marked bike lane. I SHOUTED to save injury or worse! Driver slowly went back into auto lane and we both proceeded along our merry way, although with an elevated heart rate for me.