Advocacy & Safety - Anti-bike rant on the radio

Got this in an email from our local club's emailing list. Thought I'd share:


As I was driving last night I was listening to The Town Hall on 106.3, it is a local talk radio show. A caller called in to report an accident involving a moped near the Gordon Road area and the conversation turned to how dangerous mopeds and bicycles were in the Wilmington [North Carolina] area traffic. Much to my dismay, the host, Justin Meccia, and his co-host, Matthew David, were of the opinion that bicycles had no business being on the roads in the first place. It was their opinion that they belonged on the sidewalk, after all they are not registered and therefore pay no taxes and have no right to share the road. It was I believe Mr David who was of the opinion that the less number of wheels you had on the road, the less rights you had on the road. This included motorcycles and any other 2 wheeled vehicle. Mr Meccia was of the opinion that if you road on a busy street such as Kerr Ave or 17th street that you were just plain stupid. What I heard next shocked and disgusted me. Mr Meccia made a comment along the lines of "use your car door" to move the offending bicycles out of the way.
It was at this point that I pulled over and called in to voice my dismay at such and irresponsible and dangerous comment. I pointed out that it was illegal for cyclist to ride on the sidewalk and that we would love to ride somewhere where we are not forced to share the roads with 3000 pound vehicles but unfortunately we have to work with what we have. I told him that I was shocked that a radio talk show host would make such an outrageous statement. They played it off as having just been a joke, even pointing out the fact that he could not do that because the cyclist would be on the passenger side of the car, therefore he couldn't use the drivers side door to knock someone off the bike. He said that he did not advocate running bikes off the road but did not back down from his statement that in his opinion they did not belong on the public roads.
I would urge you to contact the general manager, Paul Knight, at Thebigtalkerfm.com, or the show itself at townhall@sea-comm.com and voice your opinion on this subject.
In my opinion, staying silent will only encourage more irresponsible and dangerous situations for cyclist.

Dear "The Town Hall"/106.3 FM,

This letter is in response to your 12/18 broadcast by Justin Meccia disparaging bicycle drivers' use of roadways.

Given the public safety issues at stake when inaccurate information about driving and bicycling is broadcast over the airwaves, I strongly recommend that your staff consult the NCDOT materials on safe cycling practices at
http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/safety/safety_Streetwise_cycling.html before making any more such broadcasts on the subject.

In 2003, WDCG FM in Raleigh made a similar set of broadcasts to yours that encouraged unsafe behaviour by the traveling public, i.e. encouraging cyclists to ride on sidewalks (where the injury rate is much higher) and encouraging motorists to harass cyclists operating properly on roadways. WDCG later broadcast many hundreds of public service announcements in an effort to undue the damage they caused. You may read about more about those events at this web site: http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/wdcg.htm

Different vehicle types have different advantages and disadvantages, and different people have different needs and preferences. Fortunately, our roadways and traffic laws allow accommodation of a diversity of vehicle types for transportation. If this were not the case, many people would be limited to vehicles they don't need, don't want, can’t afford, or can't use.

An unfortunate reality of our roadway system is that all forms of traffic affect all other forms of traffic. No road user is immune to traffic delays or innocent of creating them for others. Although the cause and nature of the delays generated by traffic may appear different from one vehicle type to the next, comparison of the total induced delays caused by different vehicle types fails to reveal any significant net difference long-term. Time and time again, our free society has found that the advantages of allowing transportation via a diversity of vehicle types outweighs convenience-oriented arguments for prohibition of certain vehicle types on the surface streets that provide essential access to our local destinations. This is especially true for those vehicles that are the most affordable, are the most environmentally friendly, occupy the least space, do the least damage to roadways, generate the least noise, and create the least danger for other innocent road users.

When issues of traffic-related inconvenience arise, the prudent response is to improve or supplement the transportation facility, not ban a segment of the population from travel. If some motorists feel that they are unreasonably delayed by slow traffic, they can lobby for construction of extra road space for passing or promote a redundant system of expressways that slower travelers won't need to use. Many communities have elected to incorporate improved passing facilities into their roadways via construction of wide (14' or wider) outside travel lanes. In other locations, delays caused by slower traffic may be too small to warrant the costs of roadway widening, and taxpayer money may be better spent in other ways.

Some motorists who wish to avoid the responsibilities and occasional inconveniences of motor vehicle travel have claimed that use of slow, open vehicles on roadways is unreasonably dangerous. However, analysis of safety data for bicycle transportation shows this to be untrue. Bicycle drivers who follow the vehicular rules of the road when traveling on roadways enjoy a safety record similar to automobile users, safer than sidewalk cyclists, and much safer than motorcycle users. Our society's respect for the travel rights of vulnerable but lawfully operating road users is what keeps these bicyclists safe. Those impatient road users who treat bicycle drivers with disrespect and make inflammatory statements intent on depriving other groups of their equal right to travel upon our public street system are the ones creating the real danger.

Often we hear claims from very vocal individuals that bicyclists are not taxed enough or regulated enough to deserve to use public streets. Advocates for bicyclists are willing to entertain these concerns when they are presented in a constructive manner, but once a realistic discussion of the costs and benefits of various revenue collection and regulation schemes begins, the vocal complainants usually lose interest. It appears that these individuals are not really interested in ensuring that the system is fair or effective; rather, they are only interested in changes that will discourage bicycling. If these bicycling critics are primarily interested in their own convenience as motorists, perhaps their efforts would be better spent lobbying for improved roadway facilities such as wide outside lanes. Bicycling critics may also point out that some bicycle operators create hazards for other road users by habitually violating the rules of the road. Lawfully operating bicycle drivers share this concern and advocate better education and enforcement of the traffic laws we already have as they apply to all drivers of vehicles.

Sometimes members of the motoring public will express empathy for utilitarian bicyclists who don't use cars, but exhibit anger toward recreational cyclists who use popular roads at popular times. Some of these motorists suggest that the government place prohibitions on recreational bicycle travel. This concept is fraught with problems. First, it is impossible to tell one's trip purpose simply from appearance, since many utilitarian cyclists use the same bicycles and clothing as recreational cyclists, and second, the government has never been granted an interest in the citizens' trip purpose for everyday travel on public streets. Do we wish to open a Pandora's box of civil liberty infringements where our government can stop citizens for their appearance, demand to know their trip purpose, and arrest them for traveling for unapproved reasons? If recreational travel is subject to prohibition does that mean that trips to sporting events and vacations may be prohibited to reduce traffic? May the government ban "sports cars", "sport utility vehicles" and "RVs" in order to spare the public from their impact on roads? It seems far better to allow everyone to use our roadways, and to design and regulate them to make them as safe and efficient as possible for mixed traffic. That way we can continue to enjoy living in a free country, with equal opportunity for all.

Sincerely,

Steven Goodridge, Ph.D.
North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving

I would never buy a car from someone who knowingly or unknowingly contributes to the injury of cyclists. I wonder if this dealer knows that its ad dollars are going to this kind of hate mongering.

http://www.thebigtalkerfm.com/
Wilmington Nissan-
5406 Market Street Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 910.392.4300

Thanks Eric. I just sent them my 2 cents as follows;

"To the Big Talker FM,
I'm shocked at what was said by Mr. Meccia about using your car door to knock bicycle riders out of the way! WTF??!! Are you (Mr. Meccia) some kind of constant road-rager? I hope you realize the dangers that comment poses to cyclists. The totally irresponsible nature of that comment is completely uncalled for. Maybe I should use my .44 magnum to knock irresponsible DJ's off the air? Oh, you don't like that idea?
That figures! But do you see the correlation there?
Well, just remember what you said on the air the next time your kid is out riding their bike!

Sincerely,

M. Bunten"

But due to the fact that I'm in CA., you'll have to keep us BF readers updated on any public service notices that they may air recanting their LAME comments!

Thanks again for the OP.:)

Beautifully constructed letter. I'm baffled how some people are so irresponsible like this Mr. Meccia.

Hopefully the precedent set by WDCG FM should force this station to take action against their idiot DJ.

I am so excited by all three of you that I've read so far voicing concern! The immediate phone call; exceptional. The beautiful letter; exceptional. The letter with "WTF" in it; well OK, good enough :D.

THANK YOU.

I'm beginning to think the idea of making fun of bike riders to raise ratings is shared at radio broadcast conventions.

Is there no responsibility by radio broadcasters to a higher authority? I think everyone should write something. I may not be the most eloquent but here it is:

To people responsible for broadcasts at "The Town Hall"/106.3 FM,

This is in response to your 12/18 broadcast by Justin Meccia regarding bicycles, and how they should be dealt with by motorists.

I am extremely disappointed that such irresponsible and inflammatory broadcasts are put on the air. DJs with such irresponsible attitudes, commenting on topics that they are totally unacquainted with, should not be allowed to talk freely to the masses. Especially from "The Town Hall", which carries with it an aura of responsibility and reason.

If your DJs drive vehicles on public roadways, I would urge them to re-examine your state laws regarding all vehicles, including bicycles.

The biggest problem utilitarian cyclists are facing in North America is that of the public not being informed. Most of the public driving cars have absolutely no clue about the roots of their paved roadways nor about the rights of other road users. While a great deal of cyclists should be prosecuted for unlawful operation of vehicles, this by no means implies that the current laws are bad: they are just not enforced. If DJs have issues with illegal operation of bicycles on roadways, they should mobilize your community to enforce the laws already in place to protect everyone.

Illegal operation of bicycles against traffic, at night with no lights, and on side walks, are the most common causes of people's problems with bicycles, not lawful operation as part of traffic.

If your DJs would like to become more informed on many bicycle related topics I would seriously encourage them to use the Internet, starting by browsing through the databases at "http://www.bikeforums.org".

I sincerely hope your DJs will broaden their horizons,
Jakub Ner
London, Ontario, Canada

Going after the show's advertisers is an excellent idea.

More than anything, what really gets me about these type of rants is that they serve to promote the general misinformation that many motorists wrongly believe... especially that stuff about "road taxes."

Meanwhile, there is no source giving motorists the facts.

I have suggested billboards and even PSAs, but some bike advocates insist that none are needed... as if the public really does understand the rights of cyclists and the rules of the road.

Sigh.

Did anyone order a transcript of the show to see what was actually said?

Did anyone order a transcript of the show to see what was actually said?
Send them $10 after making anti-cyclist comments?!?
You're joking, right?

I'm beginning to think the idea of making fun of bike riders to raise ratings is shared at radio broadcast conventions.

I strongly suspect you are onto something there HH. Or, maybe the idea is hatched by radio industry "marketing consultants" in conference rooms somewhere. What supports this suspicion of mine, is the number of times this had happened over the past ten years. Man, what has happened to the radio business? The only thing surprising here is the time of year. These impotent diatribes generally turn up in the June-July time frame.



I believe Mr David who was of the opinion that the less number of wheels you had on the road, the less rights you had on the road. This included motorcycles and any other 2 wheeled vehicle.

Well now, that's a brave statement. Really? Any two-wheeled vehicle? Okay Mister David. You're certainly free to express your opinion. Now go and tell it to this man (http://sonnybarger.com/index3.html). And I mean in person, not sitting in a closed studio, inside a high-security office building.

Thanks for the support, everyone. Lots of people here are emailing and calling the station too. There is talk of a ride to the station in protest too. I'll keep you posted.

Thanks for the support, everyone. Lots of people here are emailing and calling the station too. There is talk of a ride to the station in protest too. I'll keep you posted.

Before the protest ride, have a "good cop" strategy as follows:

Have a bike club president or other locally recognized cyclist advocate walk into to the station alone, in a nice suit and tie, and ask politely to make an appointment to meet with the station manager.

Bring "official" bicycle safety and education materials that support on-roadway cycling to the meeting. A copy of Streetwise Cycling from NCDOT's web page (I gave the URL in my previous post) is a good example.

Be extremely polite at the meeting. Present the cyclists' concerns in a way that conveys understanding rather than a desire for conflict. Suggest possible constructive steps the station can take, such as airing PSAs about sharing the road. (See below for PSA text I got approved by NCDOT).

Leave contact information and a plan for follow-up.

When I did this at the Clear Channel station in Raleigh after their broadcasts, I got the follow-up, and the station manager even attended a regional bicycle transportation planning meeting on my suggestion. The station manager worked with me and NCDOT to develop PSAs. I didn't get everything that I wanted but the station manager and DJ were certainly sorry and aren't about to let it happen again.

Steve Goodridge
Advocacy Officer, NC Bicycle Club

The following PSAs were aired by Clear Channel in Raleigh, NC in 2003 as described above:

[Station ID], the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind you that bicycles are vehicles with the same rights, rules and responsibilities of other road users. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road.

[Station ID], the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind motorists to only pass a bicycle when it's safe to do so. Slow down and give cyclists three feet of passing room. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road.

[Station ID], the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind you that bicycle riders have the same rights as motorists, so motorists should yield to bicycles like any other vehicle. Never cut off bicyclists. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!

[Station ID], the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind both cyclists and motorists to obey all traffic laws, stop signs, and traffic lights. Whether you ride your bike or drive your car, please share the road!

[Station ID], the North Carolina Dept. of Transportation and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind bicyclists that North Carolina law requires bicycles to have lights at night, and for safety's sake, all cyclists should wear a helmet. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!

[Station ID] and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind you that state law requires bicyclists to travel on the right half of the road in the same direction as other vehicles. Riding on the right is much safer than the wrong side because other drivers don't expect wrong-way traffic. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!

[Station ID] and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind bicyclists to ride on the roadway instead of sidewalks. Bicyclists who use sidewalks are actually more likely to have collisions with cars than those who use the road and follow the road rules. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!

[Station ID] and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind bicyclists to stay out of the door zone. Bicyclists should ride at least four feet away from parked cars so they won't be trapped by the sudden opening of a door. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!

[Station ID] and the North Carolina Bicycle Club remind motorists that it isn't always safe to pass a bicyclist within the same lane. If the lane's too narrow or other conditions require a bicyclist to use the full lane, motorists should change lanes to pass. Whether you ride or drive, please share the road!

Did anyone order a transcript of the show to see what was actually said?

Will they provide one?

When I requested one from Clear Channel years back, they refused my request for either a transcript or recording. It was a smoking gun that they didn't want to let out.

Will they provide one?

When I requested one from Clear Channel years back, they refused my request for either a transcript or recording. It was a smoking gun that they didn't want to let out.

I'm going to look into the transcripts and/or a copy of the broadcast tomorrow. If I can get them, I would like to fwd. them to the local media.

go Eric!

It's great to see the internet being used to blast these talk radio thugs out of their safe havens. Keep us abreast of further developments.

I'm going to look into the transcripts and/or a copy of the broadcast tomorrow. If I can get them, I would like to fwd. them to the local media.

The station offers transcripts for $10. If you do pick one up could you post the relevant info here?

I'll be happy to write 'em a letter, but I want to know exactly what was said before doing that.

I still get a chuckle every time I hear someone mention that cyclists don't belong on the road because of registration money or gas taxes or wot not. It just shows how uninformed they are about our tax system.

I still get a chuckle every time I hear someone mention that cyclists don't belong on the road because of registration money or gas taxes or wot not. It just shows how uninformed they are about our tax system.

Exactly, but as long as the voice on the radio reinforces this myth, it just gets stronger.

Too bad it is never actually countered by a voice just as strong. All the public tends to hear afterward are a bunch of apologies or weak PSAs about cycling... also negatively reinforcing their image of cycling.

Cycling needs some strong public figures putting out positive reinforcement and telling the public the truth.

...I'll be happy to write 'em a letter, but I want to know exactly what was said before doing that...

Hehe, thought about that *after* writing my letter. Yours is the more reasonable avenue. Albeit should they not provide a transcript in the end, please still go ahead with the letter based on the information you have from this Internet community.

As you can see many bad decisions are made based on falsities and heresay. Wars are even started. How far from the truth could this be?

Another tack that could be taken is a letter to the FCC, with copies to the local congressmen, and the radio station. Part of the requirements for an FCC license to use the public airwaves are that they contribute to the public good. If you can show that the radio station is working against that good, it may be more difficult for them to get their license renewed. Whether or not the license is actually at risk, it should be something that gets the attention of station management.

Another tack that could be taken is a letter to the FCC, with copies to the local congressmen, and the radio station. Part of the requirements for an FCC license to use the public airwaves are that they contribute to the public good. If you can show that the radio station is working against that good, it may be more difficult for them to get their license renewed. Whether or not the license is actually at risk, it should be something that gets the attention of station management.

We looked at doing this with Clear Channel, and it didn't go anywhere. The FCC made it very clear that the only thing they regulated or generally cared about in terms of broadcast content was obscenity.

The FCC officials we contacted recommended that local police handle claims of incitement to violence or other safety hazards resulting from inappropriate broadcast.

My feelings about the FCC turning a blind eye to advocation of violence while getting bent out of shape over harmless dirty words - and the politics behind this policy - are off topic for this forum.

In any event, the radio stations know this policy, and will laugh at you if you suggest they might lose their license due to "controversial" speech that doesn't include the F word.

Part of the requirements for an FCC license to use the public airwaves are that they contribute to the public good.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately, there's not much in FCC regulations that speaks specifically to this, outside of those dealing with EAS operation, etc. If commercial stations were actually compelled to "contribute to the public good," the radio dial would sound a heck of a lot different. Licensees get to decide if they are serving the public, not the FCC:


Individual radio and TV stations are responsible for selecting everything they broadcast and for determining how they can best serve their communities.
Further:



No federal law or rule requires stations to broadcast "public service announcements" of any kind.

But at least there's this:


Commercial stations must keep written comments and suggestions received from the public regarding their operation for at least three years.


Would these comments have any effect on a station's license renewal? I'm doubtful about that. But at least they'll be on file.

In Raleigh, cyclists contacted advertisers and the newspapers in order to pressure the radio station to make amends. Some advertisers cancelled their contracts and the station lost thousands of dollars amid bad press.

I recommend, however, that before you contact anyone outside the station, you establish the truth as best as possible, and be polite, so as to not turn your audience against you.

Ugh. I'm having the hardest time getting anything from the station. I filled out the online form for the trans., have emailed them, called them (left a message) and I have got nothing in return. Going to stop by the station on the way home from work if I haven't heard anything.

Stopping by the station may be your best option.

Since WLTT is a talk station, I'd bet they have audio logging equipment running any time a mic is open. Perhaps the delay in response from the station is due to the time needed to transcribe the audio. Or maybe the station is simply hoping you'll give up and go away.

A description of the program will appear on the Issues/Programs List in the station's public file. The list must be updated every three months. However, it's doubtful this description will provide the level of specificity you need. If you decide to write a letter to the station, it would also be placed in the public file and remain there for three years.

Don't give up. As sggoodri suggests, in the absence of a legal or regulatory remedy, you can still put public relations pressure on the station. Shame them into doing the right thing!

Shame them into doing the right thing!

Yup, that makes the most sense to me. "Shame their wallets" into doing the right thing may be a more accurate statement though! :)

...Brad

To The Concerned Cyclist,



I am replying to you as a group due to the many e-mails of concern I have received about comments made towards cyclist on our Town Hall Show with Justin Meccia. A lot of you have written based on what you were told by fellow cyclists so you really don’t know what the comments were. I have included a MP3 clip of what was actually broadcast so that you can see first hand how this has gotten out of hand.

First of all Sea-Comm Media would never condone a comment that would endanger anyone’s life or safety. It is our position as a company that cyclist have a right to the roads just like any other vehicle. I know you also have to admit that some cyclist don’t use the best judgment sometimes in choosing the road they ride on. What has caused more frustration to motorist are the mopeds ridden by people that have lost their license to drive on the roads. These people cause more back-ups and accidents than any other vehicles on the roads for inner city drivers. I would like to see this type of vehicle not allowed on the roads.

As you will hear when you listen to the clip, Justin made an off the cuff comment that he did not think through (“cyclist should stay on the sidewalks”). He shouldn’t have said that and he didn’t know that cycling is not allowed on sidewalks in most areas. He did apologize for the comment later in the show as callers called in and set him straight on cycling. Town Hall and Sea-Comm Media spends a lot of time and money each day to be very local with our shows. It is our belief by giving our local listeners a platform to speak out on, that this is the best service we can provide. We are human and sometimes make mistakes. When this happens we don’t have a problem stepping back and making good on our error. In most cases our listeners keep us straight and we appreciate them doing this. We all work and live in the same place and it is my hope that Sea-Comm helps make our community better. Justin is a great person with good morals and a wife and two young children. He wants what is best for his community also.

The next Town Hall Show will air on January 1, 2007 on The Big Talker F.M. You may listen on either 103.9 or 106.3 F.M. depending on where you are. Justin will address his comments and the e-mails we have received at that time. I also extend an invitation to any of you cyclist to come into our studio on that date and talk about some of the problems that cyclist in our area face and what are some possible solutions. Contact me direct at the number and address below if you would like to do this.

The next Town Hall Show will air on January 1, 2007 on The Big Talker F.M. You may listen on either 103.9 or 106.3 F.M. depending on where you are. Justin will address his comments and the e-mails we have received at that time. I also extend an invitation to any of you cyclist to come into our studio on that date and talk about some of the problems that cyclist in our area face and what are some possible solutions. Contact me direct at the number and address below if you would like to do this.

If any of you would like to address this with me personally, feel free to contact me via e-mail or my direct phone line at 910-772-6333.





Best Wishes,



Paul Knight

Vice-president

General Manager

Sea-Comm Media [End of the email Mr. Knight sent.]


I up loaded the Mp3 file. The link is below. Click on "Right Click and select 'Save Target As' to save" to listen or right click to save. I'm really interested in your opinion about the audio clip.

http://uploadhut.com/view.php/262512.mp3

My response via email:
To the attention of Paul Knight:
Automobile driving is a privilege, cycling is a right. This broadcast is specifically incorrect referencing the right of travel and is handled in an extremely irresponsible manner. It portrays cyclists as having no right to the road, and that is absolutely incorrect under Federal Law. In addition, the suggested strategy of "stay on the sidewalk" is irresponsible and dangerous. Mixing cyclists and pedestrians is dangerous to both. In addition, at the crosswalks, drivers don't expect a cyclist, and this places the rider in an unenviable position of endangerment. Bicycles are a vehicle under the law and have full right to the road with the exception of (in most States) limited Access roads such as the Interstate system, the exceptions being certain areas of California , Wyoming, Montana and a few others where there is no practical alternative route. While I agree that there is a percentage of cyclists, you should remember that motorists also do this on a daily basis. Motorists that violate the traffic laws and cut off a cyclist, for example, by turning right just in front of the cyclist endanger the cyclists life. Now, I did listen to the MP3, and I must say, I'm not too terribly impressed. I do applaud the honesty it took to host and post it though. It tells me that you do have the integrity to address this issue honestly.

Thank you for your attention

"I know you also have to admit that some cyclist don’t use the best judgment sometimes in choosing the road they ride on. "
Paul Knight
Vice-president
General Manager
Sea-Comm Media

I guess he thinks we only belong on slow residential streets where we will be out of his way as he motors along!

Take a look on google maps at N. Kerr or 17th as mentioned on the radio show as roads cyclist should not be on. Seems like resonable cycling roads to me. Probably roads that the radio idiots often use.

As you will hear when you listen to the clip, Justin made an off the cuff comment that he did not think through (“cyclist should stay on the sidewalks”).
Mr. Knight, Justin said alot more than just use the sidewalk.

"I have included a MP3 clip of what was actually broadcast so that you can see first hand how this has gotten out of hand."

Really, you consider cyclist objecting to your DJ advocating intentionally dooring cyclist as "how this has gotten out of hand".

My response via email:
To the attention of Paul Knight:
Automobile driving is a privilege, cycling is a right. This broadcast is specifically incorrect referencing the right of travel and is handled in an extremely irresponsible manner. It portrays cyclists as having no right to the road, and that is absolutely incorrect under Federal Law. In addition, the suggested strategy of "stay on the sidewalk" is irresponsible and dangerous. Mixing cyclists and pedestrians is dangerous to both. In addition, at the crosswalks, drivers don't expect a cyclist, and this places the rider in an unenviable position of endangerment. Bicycles are a vehicle under the law and have full right to the road with the exception of (in most States) limited Access roads such as the Interstate system, the exceptions being certain areas of California , Wyoming, Montana and a few others where there is no practical alternative route. While I agree that there is a percentage of cyclists, you should remember that motorists also do this on a daily basis. Motorists that violate the traffic laws and cut off a cyclist, for example, by turning right just in front of the cyclist endanger the cyclists life. Now, I did listen to the MP3, and I must say, I'm not too terribly impressed. I do applaud the honesty it took to host and post it though. It tells me that you do have the integrity to address this issue honestly.

Thank you for your attention

well said.

I know you also have to admit that some cyclist don’t use the best judgment sometimes in choosing the road they ride on. What has caused more frustration to motorist are the mopeds ridden by people that have lost their license to drive on the roads.

Wow. Ignorant statement about "road choice" aside, there's a nice bit of stereotyping with the DUI-convict moped rider remark. That's what people assume about bike riders around my area.

Dear Paul Knight, Sea-Comm Media.

Thank you very much for your willingness to discuss the cycling broadcast in an open manner. When Clear Channel Radio in Raleigh faced a similar situation a few years ago, I met with their general manager several times and helped work out an understanding between the station and the cycling community. I believe that your open approach will help you resolve this issue much more quickly and easily for everyone than did Clear Channel's attempts to conceal what was said on the air. I am confident everything will work out well.

I have two comments on your reply, related to the critical issue of your public perception. You wrote:

" I know you also have to admit that some cyclist don't use the best judgment sometimes in choosing the road they ride on. "

Imagine if the show was about racist harassment of a racial minority, and you suggested that although minorities have a right to walk safely in public, some minorities use poor judgement in picking the neighborhood through which they walk on their way to work or school. How would racial minorities react? Alternatively, imagine if the issue was women being raped or mugged in public, and you suggested that some women use poor judgement in picking the places where they go. How would women react?

If bicycling is a right, then one should not marginalize the bicyclist for choosing to do it in a place where others are intolerant or more likely to commit crimes against him or her. This attempt to marginalize these choices betrays your belief that bicycing isn't really a right, or is less of a right than other public travel.

" What has caused more frustration to motorist are the mopeds...These people cause more back-ups and accidents than any other vehicles on the roads for inner city drivers. I would like to see this type of vehicle not allowed on the roads."

Here you are digging your hole deeper. This is like saying "what causes me more frustration than you blacks, is hispanics. There are even more of them around here!"

Many or most cyclists have empathy for moped operators who endure harassment from car drivers. Both groups travel more slowly, but enjoy the advantages of lower costs of transportation and easier parking. Many mopeds are also much better for the environment than cars, which environmentally-oriented bicyclists can appreciate.

I hope this helps you understand the public perception of your comments, so that you can reach a more constructive resolution of this issue.

Sincerely,
Steven Goodridge
Advocacy Officer, North Carolina Bicycle Club
Webmaster,
North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving

sggoodri I love your letters.


You really know how to tackle the issues in a clear and concise way.
While providing a netural position.
Awesome.


Great post. The best I have read in a while.
Good job on pulling over and voicing your concern.
To bad the FCC permits such blantant danger to their citizens.

Yea what is with road choice?

Quoting Paul Knight, Sea-Comm Media.

" What has caused more frustration to motorist are the mopeds...These people cause more back-ups and accidents than any other vehicles on the roads for inner city drivers. I would like to see this type of vehicle not allowed on the roads."
Steve, first let me thank you for standing up for us. It's when nobody stands up and says anything that things get further out of hand.

I wanted to add a comment about the above quote. I wasn't aware that mopeds cause more backups and accidents than any other vehicle on the road in the inner city. I don't use a moped, but it seems to me most accidents are caused by motorists, hands-down. This kind of gross misrepresentation of the facts is in excusable, but not out of the ordinary for radio show personalities, who seem to get their facts from somewhere in outer space at times.

Here is the email I sent to Paul Knight after listening to the linked MP3:

"Regarding comments made on the Town Hall Show by Justin Meccia regarding cyclists on public highways and their rights to the road. Please bear in mind that the power of radio is now superseded by the internet and that irresponsible comments, inaccuracies and what amounts to inflammatory diatribes meant to excite listeners as opposed to accurately present facts will undoubtedly draw the attention of an audience the speaker may not have expected- many of whom are far more experienced and knowledgeable on the subject matter than the "Big Talker".

Your talk show hosts should restrain themselves from the need to act like they know something about everything or everything about some things when they obviously know nothing about a lot of things.

Would it be that difficult to have a staff member or even a college intern to sit on the internet and do real time fact checking so that Justin doesn't put his foot in his mouth in such an irresponsible manner? A simple google search would have at least revealed that bicyclists' do have rights to the roads in your jurisdiction and a little more research might have shown the danger of riding on sidewalks, more research would have shown that roads and highways are paid for by a myriad of tax structures and a simple review of the principles of democracy would have revealed that state and federal revenues and expenditures are for the common or public good of all it's citizens and not just for those who pay more in taxes.

I have listened to the MP3 cast of the program in question and read the apology written to "A Concerned Cyclist" posted in bikeforums.net and cannot tell you the ammunition that kind of talk gives to some rather irrational drivers who would think nothing of threatening a law abiding cyclist with a 3,000 lb automobile who poses no real threat to the driver of the automobile. When there are a rash of fatalities caused by drunken, reckless cyclists killing drivers of SUV's maybe Justin's remarks might have some foundation in reality. Instead they reveal a narrow minded perspective grounded in ignorance."

Truely amazing... pretty much the only thing that clogs roads around here are more cars... too bad neither drivers, road planners nor apparently radio DJs can see the forest for the trees.

Imagine if the show was about racist harassment of a racial minority, and you suggested that although minorities have a right to walk safely in public, some minorities use poor judgement in picking the neighborhood through which they walk on their way to work or school. How would racial minorities react? Alternatively, imagine if the issue was women being raped or mugged in public, and you suggested that some women use poor judgement in picking the places where they go. How would women react?


Overall, I think your letter is good and hits the nail on the head, but this paragraph bothers me. It's overblown to compare anti-cyclist attitudes with racism or sexism. Mr. Knight is correct about one thing, your mode of transportation is a choice. Your race or your sex is not a choice.

It is generally socially unacceptable, an in certain cases illegal, to argue for the diminuation of rights on the basis of race or sex. It's perfectly OK to argue that not every transportation choice has the same rights to use public facilities.

We need to focus on the real issues here. The big one is advocating violence against others. Never acceptable. The second is spreading misinformation. If the station values its credibility they should be embarassed by it. Those are the real issues.

It's overblown to compare anti-cyclist attitudes with racism or sexism. Mr. Knight is correct about one thing, your mode of transportation is a choice. Your race or your sex is not a choice.

It is generally socially unacceptable, an in certain cases illegal, to argue for the diminuation of rights on the basis of race or sex. It's perfectly OK to argue that not every transportation choice has the same rights to use public facilities.


I appreciate the concern about inappropriate analogies. Every analogy is imperfect, but it might stir some thought. I hope to jar his thought process a bit.

Perhaps I should have used religious persecution. Everyone has the choice to change their religion to one that suffers less persecution, no? Yet we consider such persecution improper and unlawful. Cyclists reading this forum are a self-identifying group sensitive to groupthink persecution not unlike some religious groups. Their reaction to harassment on the basis of their self-identified class is therefore similar. I think this a useful analogy for predicting how cyclists will react to comments marginalizing their rights.

In defense of my comparison, not everybody has the choice to motor, due possibly to age, economics, or health issues. These people have a right to travel to their destinations of choice, so at the very least they must be allowed to walk to those destinations. Since roadway cycling is much more convenient and usually safer than walking per mile, and is safer to the general public than motoring, it seems highly unfair to ban cycling in favor of forcing all non-motorists to walk, especially when the benefit to motorists is a very slight increase in convenience.

Some cyclists consider bicycling as an activity we do for fun in a few isolated places. Others view it as a way of life, as the mode of transportation they depend on to go wherever they need to go. Telling the latter group that they should not use their bicycles to go to their chosen destination is effectively saying that they are not welcome to travel to those places unless they change who they are. As an inherently benign way of life, I believe cycling deserves protection.

Likewise, many motorists consider motoring to be a way of life. Defending bicycling effectively by gaining empathy from the motoring majority requires that we not attack them for their motoring, but reserve our criticism for poor behavior while motoring.

One of the morning shows here in Utah does a segment they call "things that must go" were listeners can write in about things that bug them. A cyclist sent a letter about being harassed on his bike by motorists. One of the DJs made some comments about the cyclist being an "athletic snob" and finished his little rant with some "you're not a car" BS. I should have called in or written right away, but didn't get around to it. It's been bothering me ever since and I would like to do something about it. How do you suggest I proceed since I don't know that date of the broadcast or even which of the two male DJs made the comment? Do you think I can be taken seriously with such limited information?

One of the morning shows here in Utah does a segment they call "things that must go" were listeners can write in about things that bug them. A cyclist sent a letter about being harassed on his bike by motorists. One of the DJs made some comments about the cyclist being an "athletic snob" and finished his little rant with some "you're not a car" BS. I should have called in or written right away, but didn't get around to it. It's been bothering me ever since and I would like to do something about it. How do you suggest I proceed since I don't know that date of the broadcast or even which of the two male DJs made the comment? Do you think I can be taken seriously with such limited information?
Send in a letter in the same vein and mousetrap them into giving a repeat performance!:D

Send in a letter in the same vein and mousetrap them into giving a repeat performance!:D

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a161/thomps_on/brilliant.jpg

...the only problem is that I never listen to that program.

I appreciate the concern about inappropriate analogies. ...

Perhaps I should have used religious persecution...
Your analogy is fine and works better than using religious persecution. Today too many consider religious persecution OK, just as they consider persecution of cyclist OK. So your analogy works best as written.

Side note: isn’t sex a choice nowadays - parents choose the sex of their baby; adults sometimes change their sex.

There are 20 or more emails that have been sent through the local cycling club's listserve. Too many to post, but I will let you know that we have been offered one hour of radio time on the station, either the morning show or the afternoon Town Hall show. We in the process of picking someone to go. I hope it will be the city's Bicycle Advoc. leader. Thank you for your support, emails and phone calls. I and other cyclists in the area hope this brings much needed change around here.

There are 20 or more emails that have been sent through the local cycling club's listserve. Too many to post, but I will let you know that we have been offered one hour of radio time on the station, either the morning show or the afternoon Town Hall show. We in the process of picking someone to go. I hope it will be the city's Bicycle Advoc. leader. Thank you for your support, emails and phone calls. I and other cyclists in the area hope this brings much needed change around here.
Good luck and keep us updated!

Thank you for your support, emails and phone calls. I and other cyclists in the area hope this brings much needed change around here.



You should have a bike parade promote the show!