Eric Gilliland and I on Chris Core

Eric and I were on Chris Core's show this weekend at his invitation following the reaction to his commentary. You can see it here. I can't figure out how to link to the actual video so you'll have to go through to find the 11/22/08 clip with Eric Gilliland and I.

I didn't do as well as I would have liked. I had four points I wanted to get out, and I made half of two of them. I also started out by saying "What was wrong with the email..." when what I meant was "commentary." Nerves. The time goes fast and it's easy to get sucked into the question at hand. Now I see why politicians on morning talk shows ignore the question to stay on their talking points.

Chris continued with his thesis - that cars goes faster than cyclists, that it is unrealistic for a driver to wait behind a cyclist, so cyclists should get out of the way. In other words, he's willing to share the road, as long as he only has to share the part he doesn't want to use [Add this to case 3 below].

My wife the lawyer says that every case has three versions. The case you plan to put on, the case you do put on and the devastating thing you should have said, and only think of afterward. You can see #2 at the link. Here are cases #1 and #3.

Case #1

1. I wanted to disagree with the whole premise of bicycle road rage:

I think cyclists have reason to be angry. They're frequently intimidated or put at risk by drivers. Up until very recently they were ignored by transportation planners. The police often fail to take cycling fatalities seriously enough and incorrectly apply the law with regards to cyclists.

But studies consistently show that cyclists aren't angry. In fact, among commuters, cyclists are the happiest about their commute. Nearly 70% claim to be happy with it. While less than a quarter of drivers can say the same thing. The question isn't "why are cyclists so angry?" It's why are they so happy? And why aren't more people doing it?

2. Taking the lane is legal and often the safest option. It is sometimes inconvenient for drivers. If a cyclist is taking the lane in front of you, they're biking safely.

3. While many cyclists break the law, I don't believe you can make the case that cyclists break the law more than drivers do.

4. The Rock Creek Park trail is unsuitable for most bike commuters. It is in poor condition, too narrow, too crowded with slower users, has too many blind curves and bad crossings. Even if the trail is upgraded to the standards WABA is pursuing, many cyclists will still find the road more fitting to their needs.

Case #3

1. If you think cyclists send in a lot of email, wait till you hear from the AARP (you have to watch the video) - I actually thought this during the show, but decided it was best not said.

2. You aren't really asking cyclists to take on greater risk so that you can gain convenience are you?

3. We don't need to earn your respect. As a licensed driver, you're legally required to give it to us.

4. How many emails would you have to get to reconsider your position?

Anyway, everyone there was very nice including Mr. Core, who made a point of saying that he rides a bike on vacation and that he supports bike lanes and trails - though only to get bikes out of the way. I really left with the impression that he doesn't understand why what he said made cyclists so angry.

Photo by Alec81

Comments

[Contrarian]

I thought you guys did a great job.

His central argument -- that it's "impractical" to share the road -- just doesn't hold water. Thousands of cyclists and motorists do it every day in DC. I once calculated that in a typical year I get passed by -- or pass -- over 10,000 drivers, and over 99% of them do it without incident. If he's getting the finger from cyclists I guarantee he is doing something to provoke it.

I suspect that Mr. Core has never really given the issue much thought beyond "I wish this cyclist wasn't in front of me." It's probably too much to hope for to change his mind. If we've gotten him to think about the issue for the first time that's a success.

[freewheel]

You guys did great. He didn't give you much time to respond, and given how much he meanders, it must have been a challenge to figure where to start. I give him credit for having you and Eric on the show, but I wish he'd let you talk and listened a little better to your points.

BTW, I have the video up on my blog.

[freewheel]

You guys did great. He didn't give you much time to respond, and given how much he meanders, it must have been a challenge to figure where to start. I give him credit for having you and Eric on the show, but I wish he'd let you talk and listened a little better to your points.

BTW, I have the video up on my blog.

[Eric_W.]

I admire your patience in dealing with Core.

This guy is, with all due respect, dumb as a door post. He is exactly one of those people I mentioned in earlier postings who want bikers to follow all the rules that they ignore. Just a terrible and totally incoherent argument by Core. *shudder*

[twk]

I also think you guys did great. Chris was determined to push his point of view and didn't seem intertested in the cyclist point of view. It is not an environment for real discussion. Chris is no Charle Rose.

BTW, there are no bike lanes or bike trails in Cape May where Chris says he rides a bike. So it seems if you are in his way to work you are problem. But if he is on vacation, he does mind that others have to pass him while he is on his bike. Sounds like a selfish double standard too me.

Keep up the great work!

[Eric G]

I think overall we did a pretty good job Dave. Thanks for doing the show.

[Kris Coronado]

Wow guys, great job. It must have been tough to maintain composure!