Advocacy & Safety - proper response to DJ's who joke about hurting cyclists on the air?

Does anyone have a good formula for responding to DJ's who make jokes about hurting cyclists? I'm afraid we had another one in the St Louis area. I won't specify the details because they are unverified. And especially because we got burned the last time by another DJ who successfully made himself out to the be the victim, ie. the Bernie Miklasxz Show's guest commentator who said cyclists belong "under my car", who finally made some forced apology. It just seems if these situations are handled properly, it's a great chance to educate the public about cyclists right to the roads. And I don't think they can just be ignored. The prevalence of these comments is disturbing as if it is becoming part of the local psyche that "it's ok to harm cyclists, they are a nuisance, they look different so they should be shunned". I hesitate to draw historical analogy, but you see where I am going with this. Bill H.

Go to the bikeportland web site and see what they did and how. They have realy done alot of work to take care of the problem they had.

Complain politely to the station manager and point out why the announcer's comments are similar to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and therefore not a legitimate use of his freedom of speech over our PUBLIC airwaves.

Just politely inform the DJ that you have a recording of him and in the evident of said DJ ever getting in some collision with a cyclist in the future, you would be more that happy to send a copy to the plaintiff's attorney in a purely civil suit, and a copy to the distric attorney in the case of a criminal suit. Finish it off by telling the DJ to have a nice day and for his own financial sake... to drive very safely.

Contact advertisers.
Get a lot of people together and tell the advertisers you will not patronize them until they pull thier ads or the station makes fully corrective actions.

Make an appointment with him for when he leaves work and challenge him to carry out his beliefs on local tv.

Hire a fancy dress chicken suit to award him if he refuses.

In fact, set up a "Chicken DJ of the Month" award for every DJ who refuses to demonstrate his beliefs about how cyclists should be treated

Just politely inform the DJ that you have a recording of him and in the evident of said DJ ever getting in some collision with a cyclist in the future, you would be more that happy to send a copy to the plaintiff's attorney in a purely civil suit, and a copy to the distric attorney in the case of a criminal suit. Finish it off by telling the DJ to have a nice day and for his own financial sake... to drive very safely.

No one has a recording of the show. So far, only one cyclist heard it firsthand. I read the Portland blog and it seems the mass email approach fails, as it did here in St Louis with Bernie M, because some of the emails from cyclists get very threatening and abusive and the DJ is able to use those in other shows to garner support from his loyal audience to prove his point that cyclists are indeed arrogant, discourteous, whatever. I think we are going with the strategy of the chairs of the local BikeFed and the Missouri State BikeFed contacting the station manager. If they want feedback from cyclists, then we will give it.

Personally, I don't think private apologies go far enough. The hate comment was made in public so it should be redressed in public. Neither do the reluctant forced apologies really do any good, in my opinion, because they smack of playground ethics ("now Billy, say sorry for hitting Suzie"). What seems appropriate is the station running PSA's for "share the road" or some other positive cycling message, during the same time slot, which both punishes the station by taking away revenue from advertising during that spot and sends a hopefully positive message to the audience that heard the original episode.

Ignore

Do not do anything that is consistent with indicating that attitudes like this matter, because that feeds the myth that drivers that believe cyclists don't belong on the road make cycling more dangerous. All that is accomplished by feeding that myth is making cycling less appealing.

Running into a driver once in a while who does not wish to cooperate with a cyclist is so relatively rare it's inconsequential. The vast majority are willing and do cooperate, and that's all that matters. The rare exception who does not cooperate - just ignore him.

Reacting in any way to this -- even this thread, even this post -- only makes it seem like any of it is consequential, which, again, makes cycling seem less appealing. Why contribute to making cycling less appealing? Ignore it, and ride on.

They want to intimidate cyclists with their vitriol. Their goal is to reduce cyclist numbers through intimidation. Don't give them that satisfaction. Ignore them, and ride on.

Ignore

...
Running into a driver once in a while who does not wish to cooperate with a cyclist is so relatively rare it's inconsequential. The vast majority are willing and do cooperate, and that's all that matters. The rare exception who does not cooperate - just ignore him.
...


I run into an average of one motorist every other week that 'does not wish to cooperate' .... It's hard to ignore someone swerving in front of you, and slamming on his brakes, or... how about the lady that actually bumped me trying to force me off the road?

And if I had a nickel for every time some lazy, broke-ass scrub in the passenger seat screamed something in my ear as they went by, damn, I'd be rich.

What the hell makes them think they're so cool?

*blasts "No Scrubs" by TLC for the bastages*

Ignore

Do not do anything that is consistent with indicating that attitudes like this matter, because that feeds the myth that drivers that believe cyclists don't belong on the road make cycling more dangerous. All that is accomplished by feeding that myth is making cycling less appealing.

Running into a driver once in a while who does not wish to cooperate with a cyclist is so relatively rare it's inconsequential. The vast majority are willing and do cooperate, and that's all that matters. The rare exception who does not cooperate - just ignore him.

Reacting in any way to this -- even this thread, even this post -- only makes it seem like any of it is consequential, which, again, makes cycling seem less appealing. Why contribute to making cycling less appealing? Ignore it, and ride on.

They want to intimidate cyclists with their vitriol. Their goal is to reduce cyclist numbers through intimidation. Don't give them that satisfaction. Ignore them, and ride on.
Once again, you miss the point. As an individual cyclist, you personally can ignore this BS and ride on. However, the goal is not to reduce cyclist numbers through intimidation, it is to incite motorists to endanger cyclists. The problem is that there are impressionable young motorists out there without fully developed social consciences that will take the message to heart, and act out as if the radio personality actually gave them permission to abuse and endanger the cyclists they encounter on the road. Maybe you'll just deal with them with the patented steely alpha dog stare? :rolleyes: The other point you miss once again is that threatening drivers are not that rare and certainly are not inconsequential.

I run into an average of one motorist every other week that 'does not wish to cooperate' .... It's hard to ignore someone swerving in front of you, and slamming on his brakes, or... how about the lady that actually bumped me trying to force me off the road?

And if I had a nickel for every time some lazy, broke-ass scrub in the passenger seat screamed something in my ear as they went by, damn, I'd be rich.

What the hell makes them think they're so cool?

*blasts "No Scrubs" by TLC for the bastages*
So? It's hard to ignore. Can't you take a challenge? one motorist every other week? How many motorists do you encounter per week? A thousand? Five thousand? Are we talking .01% or .001%? Does it matter?

So, they're a little annoying. While you and I tolerate them, perhaps I a little better than you, why feed the fears of those who will not take up cycling because of this .001% of drivers? Do we really want to give these aholes that power, the power to make cycling so much less appealing than it could be? Why stress the rare (once every other week) negatives? How does that make cycling more appealing? How is that advocacy?

Ignore, and ride on.

Fcc, the complaints must be responded too. Numerous complaints of the same thing speak volumes.

Once again, you miss the point. As an individual cyclist, you personally can ignore this BS and ride on. However, the goal is not to reduce cyclist numbers through intimidation, it is to incite motorists to endanger cyclists. The problem is that there are impressionable young motorists out there without fully developed social consciences that will take the message to heart, and act out as if the radio personality actually gave them permission to abuse and endanger the cyclists they encounter on the road. Maybe you'll just deal with them with the patented steely alpha dog stare? :rolleyes: The other point you miss once again is that threatening drivers are not that rare and certainly are not inconsequential.
And these impressionable young motorists will do what, exactly? Of course we can all imagine what that might be, and then hold ourselves hostage to what our imaginations conjure in our minds.

Back to reality... in all likelihood the consequences will be nil, nada, zilch, nothing. At worst, so the percentage of aholes out there who yell "get in the bike lane!" goes up from something like .00134% to .00135%. Big deal.

But, if we react? The consequences are sure: ideas and notions are spread that make cycling less appealing. They win. Way to go.

Yeah, I miss the point. :rolleyes:

And these impressionable young motorists will do what, exactly? Of course we can all imagine what that might be, and then hold ourselves hostage to what our imaginations conjure in our minds.
It's your choice to continue to ignore the reports of actual hazing incidents (and worse) perpetrated by motorists against cyclists, but you do so at your own risk.

It doesn't stop me from riding either, but I'm at least aware of the possibilities and consider it more than stupid not to fight back through any and all legal means possible, whether that be complaints to the FCC, civil lawsuits, encouraging advertisers to stop funding the offending programs and personalities, other direct actions against the station, etc.

Go to the bikeportland web site and see what they did and how. They have realy done alot of work to take care of the problem they had.
Definitely! The response that story got was just amazing. Imagine how this could turn out, if cyclists actually had an advocacy group, much less anything slightly organized. Half a dozen retired legal professional volunteers simply doing a little organization and paperwork would make a world of difference.
To the OP: If they did anything illegal, call them on it. Encouraging violence is not a protected form of free speech. Keep it objective, no violence or hate mail. You might save someone's life. The worst response (other than reacting violently!) would be silence. It's a common threat to all of us, and any cyclist who condones inaction puts us all at greater risk.

So? It's hard to ignore. Can't you take a challenge? one motorist every other week? How many motorists do you encounter per week? A thousand? Five thousand? Are we talking .01% or .001%? Does it matter?

So, they're a little annoying. While you and I tolerate them, perhaps I a little better than you, why feed the fears of those who will not take up cycling because of this .001% of drivers? Do we really want to give these aholes that power, the power to make cycling so much less appealing than it could be? Why stress the rare (once every other week) negatives? How does that make cycling more appealing? How is that advocacy?

Ignore, and ride on.

You have to love it. Where else does someone tell you to suck it up, it's not so bad as long as someone only threatens your life every other week?!

Are you really that ****ing stupid? One slip of the wheel while they're being 'a little annoying' and I'm dead. end of story. And they'll tell the Police "He just swerved out in front of me, there was nothing I could do to avoid him!"

If I can't do anything, I ignore if possible... if I can catch up to them, they're going to get an earful... If I make them think that the guy on the cycle is more crazy than they are, next time it just might not be worth it to start something. I've chased motorists for two miles or more, followed a couple right to their house if they stop nearby.... when they realize that they're not as anonymous as they thought, they usually back off, and I've never had another problem with a motorist I've chased. They learn. Leave the crazy cyclist alone, he'll stay in his spot, maybe even wave, everyone goes about their business much happier (and SAFER)

As to the OP:

MY action is to send an e-mail to the radio station, explaining what I read (I've never actually HEARD a DJ making threats on the air), and asking for an explanation of what happened on the air. I also send a little bit about myself, and the issues I face every day, along with some pointers on the proper places for a bike to be. If they're complaining about someone taking a lane, I explain some of the reasons that a cyclist might HAVE to take a lane, while stating that I don't know for a fact why the cyclist was taking a lane in front of them, but I do list most of the common reasons.

If I have a link to the state or local laws dealing with cyclists, I'll usually send that, along with a link to a site that explains those laws in plain english, if I can find one for their area.

I close up with a quick summary of why I think that what I HEARD or READ that they said was wrong, and make a point to say that I think existing traffic laws need to be enforced, for motorists AND cyclists, and that a little respect on both sides would go a LONG way towards making things better and safer on the road.

Does anyone have a good formula for responding to DJ's who make jokes about hurting cyclists? .

Listen to a different radio station.

Well there is also rooting out his genes out of society....

I agree with contacting the station and even the FCC. But unfortunately when these things pop up they should be dealt with promptly and it sounds like no action was taken by the original cyclist who heard the remarks. Is this a few days ago, weeks or months we are talking about here?

I agree with contacting the station and even the FCC. But unfortunately when these things pop up they should be dealt with promptly and it sounds like no action was taken by the original cyclist who heard the remarks. Is this a few days ago, weeks or months we are talking about here?

The cyclists who heard it posted something on the local bicycle listserv in an obscure thread purposely not to call attention to it because only a month ago a similar comment was made by a local sports personality on his radio show, which turned out really bad for the cycling community because of immature responses from individual cyclists. In the present case, the cyclist wrote an email to the station manager, the sponsors, and to the local bikefed. I followed up with the leaders of the two bikefeds, local and state. Haven't heard anything back, guess one is on vacation, but the admin assured me action would be taken.

I believe some action should be taken, but it should be proportional and not provoke further confrontation. I agree there is a majority of motorists who are considerate of cyclists, but there is a sizeable minority (10% ?) that are extremely annoyed by sharing the road with cyclists, and with whom this shock-jock hate message really hits home. I can only imagine that letting these anti-cycling comments slide without a proportional response will only result in more violence against cyclists, especially from that 10%. Plus, it's just downright WRONG to let someone say outright that it's OK to harm people in any manner just because they are annoying or get in your way. The problem arises when the TYPE of response from the cycling community is innappropriate, eg. physically threatening the DJ, which is sort of like a parent yelling, "DON'T YELL!" to their kids. We need to model the mature response we want from the radio station. But I firmly believe that ignoring these messages is a big mistake. Because it's not going away by sticking our heads in the sand.

Contact advertisers.

Be sure to call the station and tell them you intend to do this. And when I say call, I mean a phone call, not email. It is much easier to dismiss a boxful of email than a zillion phone calls where you actually have to talk for a minute or two.

I personally think that it is normally more useful to express disappointment rather than anger in these situations. Joking about hurting cyclists is irresponsible, plain and simple.

Just as a station manager would be afraid if you posted his/her address and habits on the internet because of the tiny fraction of nuts who would do something dangerous, the same station manager should realize that saying things that they know will provoke a tiny percentage of idiots is completely irresponsible. I heard that the call screeners at the station in Portland received lots of calls from people claiming to have done things to cyclists after that program was broadcast.

Anyone who hides behind the "freedom of speech -- it's not my fault what people do" argument has no right to complain when someone posts their info on the Net and some nut job acts on it.

Fcc, the complaints must be responded too. Numerous complaints of the same thing speak volumes.
http://djforum.free.fr/smileysmileysmiley/v2/surprises/surprises.smileysmiley.com.54.gifBest response, include an audio recording as well, if possible. Use the legal system for what it's intended for and use the tools we have. Avoid feeding the trolls. These Shock Jock performances are analogous to the forum trolls we deal with every day. They just use audio as their medium rather than text!

Perhaps these Shock Jocks should be shackled in a chair, un-able to move. Then, they should be forced to listen to a twelve hour loop of nothing but syrupy love songs from the 70's.

Or is that cruel and inhuman?

On a more serious note: I don't know what advice mothers give to their sons today, when they run into a bully problem, but they used to say "If you just ignore them, they'll go away". Well they don't just go away, the bullying only gets worse. A motorist blowing his / her horn, or making some infantile comment about your masculinity, (or where you should sit, if you're female) can certainly be ignored.

Not so when someone is using a commercial transmitter, to encourage people to commit assault against someone else. No, that has to be acted on.

Hypothetical Question: A cyclist is riding along a stretch of road in AnyTown, USA. He's riding lawfully, minding his own business. A pickup truck rumbles up from behind, and passes him much closer than is necessary. The driver yells something, then veers over with a sudden movement. The cyclist is hit, and thrown violently from his bike to the road surface. The truck speeds away, but a witness sees the whole thing, and records the license plate number of the truck. The witness calls police. The cyclist suffers some injuries, including a broken leg. Police catch the driver. He is told that there is a witness, who stated that he deliberately struck the cyclist. When asked why he did this, he answers "I was just doing what the guy on the radio said to do!"

Further investigation reveals that the driver was listening to shock jock program, and that the mornings topic was bicyclists, and doing bad things to them.

So, what happens now? Again, this is hypothetical.

Perhaps these Shock Jocks should be shackled in a chair, un-able to move. Then, they should be forced to listen to a twelve hour loop of nothing but syrupy love songs from the 70's.

Or is that cruel and inhuman?

On a more serious note: I don't know what advice mothers give to their sons today, when they run into a bully problem, but they used to say "If you just ignore them, they'll go away". Well they don't just go away, the bullying only gets worse. A motorist blowing his / her horn, or making some infantile comment about your masculinity, (or where you should sit, if you're female) can certainly be ignored.

Not so when someone is using a commercial transmitter, to encourage people to commit assault against someone else. No, that has to be acted on.

Hypothetical Question: A cyclist is riding along a stretch of road in AnyTown, USA. He's riding lawfully, minding his own business. A pickup truck rumbles up from behind, and passes him much closer than is necessary. The driver yells something, then veers over with a sudden movement. The cyclist is hit, and thrown violently from his bike to the road surface. The truck speeds away, but a witness sees the whole thing, and records the license plate number of the truck. The witness calls police. The cyclist suffers some injuries, including a broken leg. Police catch the driver. He is told that there is a witness, who stated that he deliberately struck the cyclist. When asked why he did this, he answers "I was just doing what the guy on the radio said to do!"

Further investigation reveals that the driver was listening to shock jock program, and that the mornings topic was bicyclists, and doing bad things to them.

So, what happens now? Again, this is hypothetical.
Does this same hypothetical driver jump off a cliff because the shock jock tells him to? While the Jock's behavior is reprehensible, and needs attention from the FCC and station management, it's ultimately the driver of the truck that will have to pay the legal penalty, and he SHOULD! The Jock may well be tacitly responsible, but is really guilty of nothing more than being a moronic @sshole. It's the same legal principle as when the lawsuits were dismissed against Ozzy Osbourne after the "Heavy Metal Suicide" trend in the late 80's. These jocks need to have complaints for irresponsible behavior akin to yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater with the FCC. Enough complaints, worded in a coherent manner to eliminate any perception that they are getting "Crank" complaints, and they will do something.

I don't think anyone is suggesting there is a direct cause and effect relationship between what shock-jocks say on the radio and driver's actions on the road. Only some very unstable psychotic killers would be moved in that way (God knows we have them out there!). What I'm really concerned about is the overall mental and emotional climate that this creates among a certain sizeable minority of drivers. The first step is to talk about it and find that "most people" agree with me, that the people who disagree are indeed strange and worthy of being shunned. A belief is formed about this group of people. Then in subtle ways, the belief creeps into everyday behavior. Perhaps there is not the same courtesy extended to a cyclist. Perhaps the particular cyclist over-reacts and confirms the belief. We cyclists know that safety is often a matter of feet, inches, and seconds. A few here or there make the difference between serious injury and death or safety and courtesy. Just saying, many small comments here and there, ignored, not confronted, over time may grow to create a social climate that is much more hostile than we have now.

To HH, I'm not sure what kind of advocate says, "Ignore it, it will go away". I thought advocacy was all about taking appropriate action.

What about a national registry of offending DJ's license plate numbers and car descriptions printed in all the cycling related newspapers and Magazines. Don't put a name to the plate number but just identify it as someone who does not believe in courtesy while driving or rules and someone bicyclists who could be driving cars at the time should not allow courtesy? Kind of like a wall of shame.

Taking the offending DJ on a three hour bike ride might help:

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/25/radio-host-sees-other-side-after-ride/

A month of commuting by bike would probably be even better...

I thought advocacy was all about taking appropriate action.


Well, that and steely-eyed alpha dog stares, anyway.

Taking the offending DJ on a three hour bike ride might help:

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/25/radio-host-sees-other-side-after-ride/

A month of commuting by bike would probably be even better...

This sounds like the right approach... trying to war with the DJ based on his opinion verses cyclists opinion would be fruitless.

This ride gave the DJ a taste of what cyclists have to put up with... the man "walked a mile in our shoes."

While this may not make him a cyclist, it at least gives him some perspective...

Now if he could only open up to a regular broadcast that reflects that perspective. Do a call in show that allows both cyclists and motorists to air their feelings and then examine these issues on air so that others can gain some perspective too. That sounds like a win-win to me.

To HH, I'm not sure what kind of advocate says, "Ignore it, it will go away". I thought advocacy was all about taking appropriate action.
Indeed, advocacy is about taking appropriate action.

There are problems, and there are symptoms. Sometimes addressing the symptoms aggravates the root problem. In those cases, it's best to ignore the symptoms, and continue working on the root problem. That is what I believe to be the case here.

I believe the root problems for advocacy are:

Actually infringement of our equal rights to the road (mandatory bike lane laws, etc.).
Dangers of cycling perceived to be much higher than they actually are (which leads to less cycling then we would have otherwise).
Lack of acceptance by cyclists and potential cyclists of our equal rights to the road (which leads to less cycling)
Lack of acceptance by motorists of our equal rights to the road (which leads to honking and "get in the bike lane" yelling, etc.).

To me, the DJ thing seems to be a symptom of (4). But addressing it almost certainly will accomplish nothing with respect to lessening problems 1-4, and will probably increase the incidence of (2) and (3).

I suggest the appropriate action with respect to this particular symptom is to ignore it while we continue to work on the real problems.

Indeed, advocacy is about taking appropriate action.

There are problems, and there are symptoms. Sometimes addressing the symptoms aggravates the root problem. In those cases, it's best to ignore the symptoms, and continue working on the root problem. That is what I believe to be the case here.

I believe the root problems for advocacy are:

Actually infringement of our equal rights to the road (mandatory bike lane laws, etc.).
Dangers of cycling perceived to be much higher than they actually are (which leads to less cycling then we would have otherwise).
Lack of acceptance by cyclists and potential cyclists of our equal rights to the road (which leads to less cycling)
Lack of acceptance by motorists of our equal rights to the road (which leads to honking and "get in the bike lane" yelling, etc.).

To me, the DJ thing seems to be a symptom of (4). But addressing it almost certainly will accomplish nothing with respect to lessening problems 1-4, and will probably increase the incidence of (2) and (3).

I suggest the appropriate action with respect to this particular symptom is to ignore it while we continue to work on the real problems.

That's really great that ignoring the symptoms works for the cycling you do in the part of the US you live in. It's wonderful that 18-25 year old males in San Diego just stop engaging in vicious harassment, threats to one's life, and assault when they are simply ignored. Unfortunately, young men here in Portland, OR don't seem to respond to that tactic. For some reason, they just keep doing whatever they have decided amuses them until the police intervene.

Based on the cycling I have done here in Portland, OR, I believe that the real problem in my community is that local law enforcement will not invesitgate hit and run incidents, harassment, assault and/or attempted murder committed by motorists if the only available identification is a licence plate number. You have to have an actual physical description of the driver, otherwise they do nothing, even if the plate matches a physical description of the car. It is ironic that in Portland, it is easier to get a government agency to do something about a neighbor that lets their grass grow 3 feet high without cutting it than it is to get the police to investigate attempted murder if the victim was on a bike when it happened.

These shock jocks are just real life trolls. FFS you people should know this trend it comes up ever half week.

I would say
1- wait for him after work
2- catch him
3- put him in a bag
4- put the back in the trunk
5- go near a lake
6- put some stone in the bag
7- trow the bag in the water :D
8- go away
9- never hear bad thing :D

update from the admin of the local BikeFed

On Aug 1, 2006, at 7:55 AM, Kerry N wrote:

> • Status of FM 105.7 radio station's response to DJ's comment

I just spoke with Tommy Mattern, Program Manager at The Point 105.7. He
did not deny that the comments were made but said that they responded
to a listener email that had complaints about cyclists. They said it
jokingly, not realizing the harm that it might cause. Our calls and
letters alerted them to the fact and they now understand.

So yesterday Thom and Jeff apologized on the air.
They are willing to run Public Service Announcements about bicycling.
They are willing to have a Bike Fed representative on the air to
discuss bicycling - the board will decide who that will be.
He promised that no such comments would ever happen on their station
again.

Thanks for your patience on this issue.
Patty