« Product Review: Solo Cyclewear | Main | Herndon bike path »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Someone in the Post's letter-to-the-editor has it in for cyclists. Every year about this time the Post starts running really, really dumb anti-cyclist letters. It makes me suspect that any anti-cyclist letter that get submitted gets printed.

I'm going to write a note to the Post ombudsman, ombudsman@washpost.com

Ugh, people are dumb. I'm not even going to click on that Wash Post link.

The letter was your typical pessimistic cranky letter about how cyclists don't follow the rules. But I also feel like the WaPo printed this photo as bait -- surely a photo of a man cycling the wrong way next to a construction zone WITH A BABY STRAPPED TO HIS CHEST was not the only photo of Bikeshare users the paper could find, right?

My frist thought when I saw the picture was that it was staged.

Is it illegal to talk on a cell phone without a blue-tooth while biking? I had a girl coming at me on the 14th St. bridge one handed while talking on the phone and it was extremely windy. We were both biking so a collision would have been 20+ MPH. If it wasn't illegal it was surely dumb and scary.

Leaving aside the details, do people disagree that riding a bike with a baby less than 4 months old in a Baby Bjorne is a really bad idea? So bad that the rider could easily be in legal jeopardy for child endangerment? As I recall, all the safety literature said that you need to wait until she is 1 year old even for the trailers.

With that mindset, I recall seeing the original picture and thinking that the adult was outrageous, and wondering why the Post said nothing. So when I saw the picture again in letters to the editor, I thought "Good, someone objecting to this terrible picture"

OK: If the Post got alot of letters on that same picture and chose this one, then that was bad selection. But someone had to call attention to this terrible behavior.

Frankly, I fear I must be overlooking something. The infant on the bike is so outrageous that I don't understand why anyone would want to say anything other than "arrest that man". Or revoke that photographer's Pulitzer!

Bryan, no, it is not illegal. That law should probably change though - IMO.

JimT - Yes, I think it is a really bad idea. I don't know the standard for child endangerment. If someone had written a letter saying "Riding with a child in a baby bjorn like that looks really dangerous." I would have agreed. But that isn't what they wrote.

With that mindset, I recall seeing the original picture and thinking that the adult was outrageous, and wondering why the Post said nothing.

Well, the simple explanation is that the Post said nothing because they wanted to propagate the idea that cyclists are scofflaws who don't even care about the safety of their own children. And that CaBi is a public nuisance.

Was that a stupid and irresponsible thing to do? Of course. Of course, people do stupid and irresponsible things all the time. But outlets like the Post use those photos at their discretion to create a consensus.

By way of an example, if the Post had written a story about DCPS going on recess for the summer, and had chosen a photo of three young black kids dressed in nothing but baggy pants, hoisting 40s, you'd probably hear a lot of folks condemning the Post for being a bunch of crypto-racist assholes.

I wouldn't be surprised if folks forgot to mention that underage drinking is also bad.

I guess I overlooked the stereotype that might be promoted. still have a hard time focussing on that issue.

Unless it is a staged photograph, that man is a maniac and I hope that the childs parents hold him accountable. (Let's hope this is not the father.) Frankly, the photographer had an ethical duty to intervene. That baby can not even support her own head.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader