a tricky crossing for people on bikes and on foot — is even less funny.
(Photo © J. Maus)
For anyone that follows our national politics, the tragic news of this weekend comes as no surprise. We have let public discourse in this country devolve into a “climate of hate”.
Unfortunately, politics isn’t the only place where dangerous vitriol happens.
As we’ve seen with many examples through the years, our traffic culture is also a place where hate is all too common. Remember back in 2006, when a Portland shock-jock said, “When I hear on TV that a cyclist has been hit and killed by a car I laugh, I think it’s funny… If you are a cyclist you should know I exist, that I don’t care about you. That I don’t care about your life.” I took those words very seriously and did everything I could to bring attention to them and hold that person and their employer accountable. Or how about the situation back in July, when a TriMet bus operator published a blog post detailing his homicidal impulses with the headline “Kill This Bicyclist!” complete with photos of the “bicyclist” in question?
All you have to do is read comments on bike-related stories in any mainstream news outlet and you’ll understand that hateful rhetoric is alive and well in our traffic culture.
I am a firm believer that the language we use and the tone it sets has a very powerful influence on how people act. As a society, we need to do everything we can to call out hate-filled rhetoric and be mindful of how it can lead to dangerous behavior — whether it’s directed toward politicians or toward other road users.
— A few readers shared a great post about a need for transportation civility posted today on the Greater Greater Washington site.
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.
So, can we cyclists resolve to stop using the term “cager” then? I stopped a long time ago and invite others to do the same.
It works both ways, agreed!
yeah, my thoughts, exactly. although, some think it is better said subtlely.
Good points, Jonathan. I think a lot of this can be helped by people standing up and saying something when they hear something hateful or violence inducing. I think for the last 10 years, those of us who think all of this Fox News BS is ridiculous have just sat by and hoped it would go away if we ignored it. Sadly, that’s not the case. The majority rational element of society needs to be willing to stand up and say “that’s enough.” A good start would be to take a can of WD-40 and get rid of that graffiti the next time you ride by.
wow someone took the time to do this? sad..
peace in the streets I say.. 🙂
That’s odd — the person who wrote that on the sign was probably on foot at the time.
Another thought… I didn’t put this in the story, but I think it’s important to know that each time I’ve taken a public stand against what I think is dangerous language I have been criticized by many people as being intolerant of other opinions. To me, free speech has gotten out of hand and too many people are afraid to call it out… that’s why Palin and others got so far down the road. Hopefully now people will be emboldened to call it out and make it stop.
This is a sad part of this. I remember last years how quickly Tony Kornheiser had his tail between his legs after being called out by Lance Armstrong for Kornheiser’s ridiculous anti-bike rant — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFGz2n2tX88
It’s nice that a guy like Armstrong will stand up for cyclists when something like that happens, but it’s too bad more “ordinary” cyclists don’t get taken as seriously.
It should be said, also, that Armstrong is very tactful whenever he says something publicly. I think that does help. (Not that I think you aren’t tactful, Jonathan.)
how can free speech “get out of hand”? its freakin free speech, JM.
Good point Jonathan,
It seems to me that we are missing civility in so many areas of our society, and I don’t see it getting better any time soon.
As we undergo the loss of our once vibrant middle class, economic ruination at the hands of “corportocracy”, and the Republicans successfully pit one struggling class against the other to to after their table scraps, the thin veneer of our civilization is being ripped away.
Completely agree.
On the topic of rhetoric, it has been pointed out in the context of the Arizona shooting (and promptly and spuriously refuted by Rightist trolls) that there is a vast difference between the derision and mocking in the progressive media such as Olberman or Maddow and the violent incitement coming from the right – be it Glen Beck advocating poisoning Nancy Pelosi or Palin publishing a map with crosshairs over the districts of targeted Democrats.
And while I never use the term “cager” it seems childish and hipsterish (of which I assure you I am only one), let us not pretend that calling a motorist a cager – even to his or her face – is anything close to the vitriol of saying Kill this Cyclist or 5 points or I laugh when I hear a cyclist is killed.
Let’s not bow down to the false god of balanced and fair, becasue some positions are, by any measure of civilization, simply wrong.
I think that’s a valid point – calling a person who is driving a “cager” is nothing like telling someone to kill them – but still, calling them a cager isn’t going to help them calm down, either.
Well said JAT!
I am so sick of false equivalency! Though I don’t think VeloBusDriver was trying to head in that direction. I agree with him (in what I assume is his general point) that we still need to show respect and civility to others that we may disagree with.
Not only that but we must not fight fire with fire, i.e. such as “stooping to their level” and using vitriol or ad hominem attacks back when used against us. Keeping things civil has gotten me out of several sticky situations when dealing with myriad situations in my life.
Great article, Jonathan. Completely agree with your thoughts and glad to see the positive responses (although not surprised) here.
It is sad how quickly any issue like this devolves an opportunity to rip on the right. I don’t think Sarah Palin painted this sign but it could have been Dick Cheney or one his Haliburton buddies. Pleeeaaase!
Also, to the dangerous language, I havent heard any complaints about the following Obama quote; “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Philadelphia, 2008. Violent metaphors are used by the left as well.
The double standards displayed by contributors to this site are amazing to me. You carry on conversations as though conservative cyclists like me do not exist. So much for the notion of working together!
Interesting you immediately took this article (an opinion) to be “ripping on the Right”. All I read was facts.
Where is any “fact” stated that shows the shooting in Arizona was due to the shooters admiration of Palin or for that matter, any right wing thinking what so ever? the only “fact” I have seen so far is that he is just crazy, and hated all government.
I’m not even sure what the heck you’re talking about right now. Are we all reading the same article?
Sorry you feel so oppressed, Barney. Re: your Obama quote, you concede that was a metaphorical fight, right? I’m not sure the same can be said when Sharron Angle’s proposed “2nd Amendment remedies” to the Harry Reid problem. Do you think it can?
Barney,
Thanks for the comment. I am all for working together; and, just like I don’t label people for the transportation mode they use, I don’t label them for their politics either. Perhaps my mention of Palin the comment above was not necessary, but her “Take out the 20” campaign and the fact that Giffords had given national media interviews about that specific campaign and the threats she had been receiving, I feel makes Palin part of this story.
It is noteworthy that this image was removed from the active web page hosted for Palin.
Barney,
Do you really believe that the “left” is engaging in anywhere near the vitriol, and flat out hate spewing out of the well fed mouths of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O. and the GOP every day? This is false equivalency at best. When was the last time a liberal held a machine gun fundraiser to “target” a Republican? I could go on with examples ad nauseam, but surely you know the truth of what I am saying if you have ever really listened to them. Wouldn’t it be better if we all (despite political disagreement) “listened to better angels of our nature,” and repudiated violent rhetoric wherever we find it?
I still think the only way to stop this sort of bullying is too meet it head on – stand up to it. That goes for the political climate as well. They push us around because we let them. They get away with it because we let them.
Barney,
Sounds like you are commenting on a different article.
The Obama quote you included was a really badly used metaphor but this article was about bombast related to transportation modes and how they threaten progress and create a climate of fear.
Note that articles published here use people-first language like “person riding a bike” rather than “cyclist” which, in my opinion, is a very important way to accurately describe somebody without generic terms like “cyclist, motorist, cager, biker or even pedestrian” which mean different things to different readers. I don’t read a double standard at all, rather a concerted effort to set a reasonable standard of discussion. Do not confuse the published articles with the content of reader comments. While comments here can be ignorant, I don’t see the threatening divisiveness that I see on other publication comment threads.
As a self-named “conservative cyclist”, I’d like to know what transportation issues you’d like help working together on and to know how this site could better serve you.
oh come on, it’s just good clean American violence… it’s not like they’re using naughty words or anything we’d have to take action against…
Some far more enjoyable sign graffiti… http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/16/gallery-amusingly-defaced-street-signs/
I’m not by any stretch trying to claim that all sides are equally guilty in this pattern of rhetoric. The point I have been thinking about is that there seems to be a pattern of trying to dehumanize the “other side”. That is what labels do, whether it is something as relatively innocuous as “cager” or some of the more extreme terms flying around. That is also the purpose of viewing large numbers of individuals as a single monolithic group, i.e. the “bicycling community”.
If you can look at someone as a fellow person instead of as a “whatever label”, it is much harder to use the same rhetoric. There was a story on here a few months back about a cyclist who had a driver yell at him and then pull over to continue the confrontation. The cyclist said he immediately went up to the driver, held out his hand and introduced himself by name. The two of them had a rational conversation about biking in that area. This is a great example of how seeing each other as people who disagree on some things but probably hold the same values on others can be a lot more productive and safer to all of us.
Bingo.
I find terms like “person driving a car” to be awkward and dehumanizing. When I drive, I prefer to be termed a cager. These debates about language have more to do with the implied criticism (for which I make no apology) rather than any esoteric ad hominem meaning.
When I drive, I prefer to be termed spare tire.
When I drive I GET a spare tire.
Great! LOL.
Love it or hate it, I thought The Mercury’s “I, Anonymous” column was particularly accurate this week: http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/i-anonymous/Content?oid=3230166. What will we think when our transportation culture is just like everywhere else – nasty?
@Jonathan: “free speech has gotten out of hand ” Really?
Please tell me that you really meant that civil discourse or meaningful dialogue has become endangered in the era of heated rhetoric and personal attacks…
yes ed, that’s what I meant.
When I typed “free speech has gotten out of hand” I was referring to the fact that people are hiding behind “free speech” protection to say extremely dangerous things and politicians and other leaders are afraid to call out the rhetoric out of fear of being labeled as someone who’s against free speech. It has gotten out of hand when people say things under the guise of free speech knowing that they can get away with it… but not taking full responsibility for its consequences. And yes, I agree with you that “civil discourse” is not common enough.
Comments here can get pretty out of hand as well:
“one thing I notice about Portland is drivers dont give a shit about anything but themsefls.”
I don’t see you doing much here to tamp down the anti-car rhetoric that drives one side of the bikes-vs-cars debate. Remember a year or two ago when a cyclist went crazy and attacked driver with his bike? If you’re going to advocate for civil discourse and censorship why don’t you start with the site you control?
cyclist,
Thanks for sharing that comment. Context is everything. You’ll be interested to know that I thought long and hard about approving that comment you reference above. I took into account several things in deciding to ultimately let it through. The most important thing was that the person who left the comment has a long history of thoughtful comments on this site. Another thing is that I would have no problem approving a similar comment that was about bikes.
And just FYI, I censor this site a lot and I spend a lot of time thinking about which comments to allow and which ones to not allow. I appreciate your feedback.
It means that just because you have the right to say stupid, incorrect and borderline threatening things does not mean one should.
Racing to the extremes to make a hyperbolic point doesn’t serve much good.
Glad to see this Jonathan. There’s a difference between standing up for your rights and provoking a fight, and it’s important to remember where that line is. The rhetoric of the last few years (starting especially in ’08, and ramped up incredibly by the healthcare town hall fiascos in 09) has really poisoned the political atmosphere, and has spread into everyday civility. I have friends who have wildly different political beliefs than myself, and unfortunately there are very few topics we can discuss anymore with any common ground.
Jonathan, when speech is stifled, even hateful, despicable speech, dissenters will express their dissatisfaction in other, perhaps more violent, ways. Debate cannot be limited to only those able to express their ideas and feelings in sophisticated and flowery language.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire
Notice, he didn’t say, I’ll defend to the death your right to say it, as long as I don’t find it offensive or hateful.
P & S: I don’t recall saying anything about oppression. Conservative views are rarely expressed here on this blog, and when they do appear they are “dealt with” promptly. It is probably more a case of suppression than oppression.
Jack: The reference to Palin was what triggered (can I say that) the “ripping the right” remark. You may be aware that within minutes of the recent shooting tragedy MSNBC blamed Palin for influencing the shooter to act. That it also ends up as a reference on this blog so quickly is no coincidence.
Jonathon: Your reference to Giffords and Palin in your reply show that you clearly connected those dots in your article although there is no viable connection between Palin and the recent tragedy. Maybe you missed the recent post (just days ago) on the Daily Kos that stated that “Giffords is dead to me!” The post has been taken down since it almost came true.
Daniel: For more vitriol from the left see comment above. Also, “if we followed our better angels” is a great idea. Perhaps if we started by cleaning our own houses first. Too often though we first notice the offences coming from others before we notice our own offences.
JR: The Palin metaphor may be equally bad but you do not dismiss it as readily as the Obama metaphor. I appreciate your willingness to offer your hand in working together on cycling issues. With the current political realities that is the only way to move the discussion forward.
My initial comment was in objection to the “false equivalency” or “facts” that placed Sarah Palin in the same category as the “kill this bicyclist” references stated in the original article. Since that has been removed I have no further objection. I am still amazed at how many other non-related political references have come into the discussion over the original article.
I am a cyclist and I believe that my life is worth more than 5 points, but hateful actions are not the exclusive provence of left or right!
Barney
Outnumbered but holding my own!
Barney makes some excellent points, and I really feel it all boils down to this – a problem exists when we view our particular ideology more than we value another human individual. There are countless examples on both sides of this occurring, and it usually starts with “I don’t care what [person] thinks”.
If person X doesn’t care what person y thinks, then why the ^%$# is person x a member of society? In order to even have a society, not only does “x” need to care what “y” thinks, but the two have to reach some common ground.
I’ve already heard this shooter called a terrorist.
He took what saw as orders for a hit from a webpage and killed indiscrimnately.
If an Alqueda member attacks we know they are a terrorist and Osama bin Laden shares blame.
What does this make Sarah Palin?
When the opportunity exists, I give these “offenders” a printed flier inviting them to come Ride With Me. I have found this dilutes their frustrations and/or leaves them bewildered that I don’t stand ground at the traffic light.
This also allows them at their leisure to visit the blog and gain some insight as to what we are about as transportation/utility cyclists.
The printed flier can be found at http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2009/02/13/guerrilla-marketing/
I didn’t read all the comments but I could get a good sense of an attitude that some cyclists have that put themselves in the us vs them category. I googled “cager” and only found a few descriptions, they both said it is derogatory, your bashing Palin, fox news….
It’s not hard to see why people have disdain for bikes with all the negativity they are spouting out. Palin gets on my nerves too but I don’t bash her. So much for good journalism.
If that sign still has the markings on it tomorrow I will personally clean it off as I think it is tasteless humor and it junks up the neighborhood also, plus I don’t want anyone to get 5 points
“It’s not hard to see why people have disdain for bikes with all the negativity they are spouting out”
Sure, but the real problem is the fact that people still think “they”. Who are “they”? I had someone in a car roll down the window in 28 degree temps at night to thank me for stopping for a red light. I appreciated the opportunity for dialogue, but it really calls to mind the fact that people are still categorizing people. I am not a “they”, and drivers shouldn’t be intimidating me, honking at me, or throwing things at me because some other cyclist cut them off, or failed to stop at a red light. They don’t generalize and treat other cars that way. During the civil rights struggle, some people uttered statements like “all black people look the same”, even though that’s patently ridiculous. (This is not meant to equate the current problem to the Civil Rights struggle – it’s a simile, not a metaphor) Apparently many drivers think all cyclists look the same. That’s also ridiculous – we’re all individuals, and “disdainful people” lumping everyone in the same group and making assumptions based on some arbitrary category is a form of discrimination, and in severe cases can be a form of bigotry.
We might be old, young, gay, straight, Catholic, Jewish, disabled, drivers, cyclists, white, black, yellow, red, Democrat, Republican, or height-challenged left-handed uncircumsized pagan watchmakers – but first and foremost we are individuals, and it’s important for everyone to remember that we all make assumptions about people based on preconceived labels which probably don’t apply to the person right in front of us.
5 points. Its a long-standing car-culture joke. Get it. A joke. Trying to tie this to the alarmist rantings of some subset is a mighty stretch. No more “punch buggy” btw. Too violent.
as a portland cyclist, i had to look up “cager” too
as a result, i think you can use it as much as you want cuz no one’s gonna know
i think more on this blog should acknowledge this is a pretty insular discussion area…it serves its purpose but it doesn’t speak to popular culture or register in it in any way
I’m a full-on spandex clown, Lance wannabe, pannier-totin’ (i.e., not a hipster), lane-hogging, occasional stop-sign-rolling, bike-lane-leaving, bell-ringing, mostly-helmet-wearing, sometimes-driving, light-using, rain-riding, year-round commuter that has to get along with all the impatient, law-ignorant, me-first, cell-phone-using, close-passing, speeding, inattentive, aggressive, horn-honking, engine-revving, hollering, death-machine-driving cagers out there, so I try to be as nice as I can…
I hope you had as much fun writing that as I had reading it. I’m still smiling.
Hilarious!
Just FYI, “free speech” doesn’t apply to lies, liable, slander, or anything else that is patently “false on it’s face” or otherwise “hateful”, that’s not what our Founding Father’s ever intended.
The inclusion of Free Speech in our Constitution was considered as a way ONLY to specifically prevent Government from violating our natural rights. As a matter of Natural Law then, we have always had the ability to open our yaps and let whatever fall out. However, one must still accept the consequences.
Back in the day, if you said something freely that was obviously meant to be insidious or defamatory, you would be called out. Often publically where your own personal honor and reputation were at stake. You might even be called out to the field of honor where you would have to stand behind your words. To avoid such a case, one would often use a “civil” tongue and choose one’s words carefully.
But most often these days people make statements knowing full well that they can never be held accountable. So, they say what they will without any further regard.
My point is, like the misunderstanding of Free Speech, the misunderstanding of Freedom in general is seen daily simply by observing driving habits.
We are a free country, but with that freedom comes responsibility and accountability. We all know this to some degree. But behind the wheel, people believe erroneously that just because they intended no harm, that they in fact commit no harm. That they are not accountable for their actions until their actions actually cause someone else harm. That as long as their words do no harm, that their words should be allowed and not censored. That it’s other people’s problem for being overly vulnerable or sensitive.
This is all an absolutely WRONG and DANGEROUS view of what freedom is all about. I believe it is one of the greatest sources of conflict we are having in our country, fueling not just the roadway usage arguments, but most other conflicts as well.
Barney, Well said!
Palin? Why the hatred and vitriol aimed at this woman? She’s been the target of horrible and disgusting personal attacks and more than one liberal pundit has suggested be tortured. Yet, no outrage. But a nut who shoots a Democratic congresswoman (and a Republican judge, I guess he doesn’t count) and Palin is smeared as the cause. Amazing. And disgusting, too. Smearing a woman simply because you disagree with her.
What road has she travelled that is not already well-worn by folks across the entire political spectrum? I mean, we all remember the Democrats using crosshairs in 2004, right?
Why has the media and the Democrats so quickly latched on to blaming Palin when after a Muslim fanatic mows down 13 people while shouting Allahu Akbar at Fort Hood we’re warned to slow down and not jump to conclusions about motivations? Yet, within hours, before the blood is dry, Palin, and republicans more generally are blamed by those same media and Democrats?
Absurd!
Politicians are afriad to call them out? There’s been no shortage of politicians calling Bush “Hitler”, suggesting that Palin be tortured, or that one Florida congressman be stood against a wall and shot. But that causes no outrage…that’s apparently not dangerous.
This isn’t a free speech issue. When Howard Dean says he hates all Republicans…where’s the outrage about the ack of civil discourse? Answer, there isn’t any. Why? Because he’s a Democrat blasting us evil Republicans.
But Palin deserves the hate-fueled personal attacks…because she doesn’t believe what others do? Sickening.
I disagree about the language and tone. It makes no difference in whether people live or die in the street.
Education, legislation, enforcement and followup are how we end the violence. Anything else is a waste of time.