Bike V Cars In News Tonight
Thread started by
Girl Power at 10.5.10 - 7:05 am
Tonight ABC Channel 7 news at 11:00 plans to run a story called Bikes Vs. Cars, Road Wars and Why you've got reason to be "bugged".
From the onset this looks like a bike-bashing campanine, try to rmember that Big Oil and Firestone own the media...those car commercials we're all induated with every five minets on t.v. don't come cheap.
I plan on calling the station today to encourage the report to be fair and balanced.
To include critical facts such as:
1. A bike infrastructre would ease traffic congestion by having fewer bikes on the road.
2. Cars and cyclists both pay on avarage $400.00 to the General Tax Fund (this the fund that pays for roads and maintenece NOT car registration, that goes to other legal fees associated with traffic law enforcment i.e. arresting speeding drivers, etc).
Cars cost the General Tax Fund over $3,000.00 per year for every 10 thousands miles driven, while bikes cost the General Tax Fund "0" per year, in fact, most cyclists pay about $400.00 to the General Tax Fund and incure less than $300.00 to the GTF creating an profit for the General Tax Fund. The GTF is the tax that we pay everytime we buy merchandise, it accounts for the 9.5% tax on foods and merchandise and for a portion of our general income tax.)
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-why-an-additional-road-tax-for-bicyclists-would-be-unfair
3. A bike infrastructure that would encourage drivers to commute via bicycle could concievebly reduce the current 9.5% tax rate and reduce the state's deficate.
Be sure to tell the reporter to include THOSE facts to his report.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/index
reply
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/iteam&id=5329449
dayone10.5.10 - 8:34 am
reply
Was anyone from MR or the Bike Coalition interviewed for the story as a counter balance?
graciela10.5.10 - 9:49 am
reply
Saw a promo for this story too this morning and was appalled. "Bikes vs. Cars" is a terrible title, it should be bikes and cars or something of the sort.
Girl Power, unfortunately I'm sure the story is already complete, as they do these ahead of time and promote them to create buzz for ratings, so changes most likely won't be accommodated.
Guaranteed, this story will be incomplete and poorly done. Not because of the issue, but because it's local news, and it always is.
BICYKILLER10.5.10 - 10:03 am
reply
Oh, and one of the sound bites they used on the promo was a female driver snarling "Gimme 3 feet??!!!"
BICYKILLER10.5.10 - 10:05 am
reply
There is no such thing as already done, they can update anystory seconds before it airs, thats why it's a good idea to make a call to the station to speak with the reporter on the story.
Girl Power responding to a
comment by BICYKILLER
10.5.10 - 10:17 am
reply
I'm sure the segment was finished weeks ago, and if the producer is biased I'm sure it's not going to be changed.
Mook10.5.10 - 10:33 am
reply
Contact other media such as ch 2, 4, 9, 11
I've noticed an increase in bad driver behavior towards cyclist.
Could this be attributed to rides like Crankmob and Critical mass ?
Dedicated81810.5.10 - 10:40 am
reply
I've worked in news for over 5 years and I have to say you are wrong. This news "package" is just that, a pre-produced story that is done ahead of time so that they can tease it in the coming days to boost ratings going into, and during Sweeps.
"And now we go live to our reporter at the bike kitchen who has completely redone their story and will somehow add b roll and voice over tape to her story. GO!"
BICYKILLER responding to a
comment by Girl Power
10.5.10 - 11:25 am
reply
It's useless trying to point out facts and reality to GP. She lives in her own world.....
Foldie responding to a
comment by BICYKILLER
10.5.10 - 11:29 am
reply
They aren't going to edit what's already in the can for tonight's broadcast, but they may add a bumper to the segment or something. Contact the managing editor. I'm sure they'd like to run some sensationalistic footage of "those group rides plauging the roadways" (I used to work as a stringer for CBS) in conjunction with this piece. It would behoove one to, you know, form complete sentences and spell simple words like "minutes" correctly if one expects to be taken seriously.
icbx10.5.10 - 11:47 am
reply
(Sorry, slow day at work)
Also, the reason why there are so many car commercials is because they buy time from account executives that work for the local station who's sole job is to sell airtime. Morning and evening news have high viewership numbers. It's not like Mr. Ford is strong-arming abc 7 to air a truck commercial. It's all about target audience, and which may be why the promo they are airing is spun towards drivers, their perceived target audience.
Believe it or not TV only exists for commercials and the revenue they generate.
BICYKILLER responding to a
comment by Girl Power
10.5.10 - 1:05 pm
reply
the strong arm is money. Car companies and energy companies have the money to strong arm and thus drown out other voices out of airtime.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by BICYKILLER
10.5.10 - 2:30 pm
reply
Exactly, that's why "Uncle Bill's Hat Shop" airs during the day when airtime is cheaper, while mattresses, cars and SC Johnson products rule primetime.
BICYKILLER responding to a
comment by Roadblock
10.5.10 - 2:36 pm
reply
Would be curious to see a pie chart showing the split of what industries are gettin the most airtime and how much money spent.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by BICYKILLER
10.5.10 - 2:40 pm
reply
TV only exsist for revenue ?
Or is TV a NWO mind control device ?
Dedicated818 responding to a
comment by BICYKILLER
10.5.10 - 2:48 pm
reply
Yes you make a valid point, but it does not negate the fact that I am correct.
Foldie responding to a
comment by Dedicated818
10.5.10 - 2:58 pm
reply
"They aren't going to edit what's already in the can for tonight's broadcast, but they may add a bumper to the segment or something."
My point exactly. It cant hurt to try. =)
Girl Power responding to a
comment by icbx
10.5.10 - 4:39 pm
reply
That was a worthless chuck of shit... What was that piece trying to do to inform us as voters?
They could have gone on to highlight successful
traffic systems such as that found in the Netherlands for which there are light designed for all modes. But all they did was show a bunch of slow moving cyclists dawdling around fumbling with their toe clips.
Roadblock10.5.10 - 11:22 pm
reply
I know. I was expect more, but i guess that is what they wanted. I don't think they had intentions of showing cyclist as competent road users
mechazawa responding to a
comment by Roadblock
10.5.10 - 11:28 pm
reply
Weak Ass.....
Chris Castio the Sepultura reject is a bitch...
The best they could come up with is cyclist run stop signs, and some of them
have been known to attack motorist as they show a U lock packen rider go by.
Remember cycling is one of your last freedoms and is not taxed.
Bicycles also allow large groups of people to assemble and be mobile.
It's obvious the anti cycling agenda the NWO media has.
Dedicated818 responding to a
comment by Roadblock
10.5.10 - 11:35 pm
reply
I prefer Red Eye.
Imogene Lloyd Webber's got it going on.
bentstrider responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
10.5.10 - 11:35 pm
reply
Wow, that was just bad. With the exception of the people that didn't stop when they were supposed to, everyone else was riding fine. Guess ABC didn't even understand the CVC and instead, show footage that regular old dumb drivers can look at and say, "see, that guy making a left was doing something illegal." Though the rest of us know better.
Next they should do a story about cars that roll stop signs. Let's see if that's what's "bugging" viewers.
graciela10.6.10 - 9:12 am
reply
Car drivers should be thankful for cyclists that roll stop signs. It keeps us out of the way of drivers. Idaho has a law on the books that allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs. It makes sense because cyclists are really a hybrid form of pedestrian / vehicle. Stop signs were invented to control faster motorized traffic about 75 years after the first bicycle was invented.
The traffic grid in Los Angeles is designed primarily for cars and until it accomodates bicycles, cyclists will fudge the system. In the Netherlands the traffic grid is designed for ALL modes. Lights signal green first for peds, then for bikes then for cars. There are rarely any stop signs and the laws place strict liability on the heaviest vehicles first meaning that if you are driving a heavy vehicle an accident is automatically your fault unless proven otherwise. This forces drivers to slow down when peds and cyclists are present. It makes for a much more people friendly environment.
Roadblock10.6.10 - 9:56 am
reply
I kind of went a little nuts on
Streetsblog
My favorite line to write:
"Viewers tell us cyclists have cursed at them and threatened them sometime on the road." is somehow equated equally with, "cyclists complain cars don't give them enough room." First: cyclists watch your news show (i.e. they're viewers.) Stop acting like cyclists are some sort of rare species that can't figure out how to work our black and white picture boxes ever since our rabbit ears stopped working. Second, when I say something bad to someone, even if it's threatening; it is not equal to driving so close to a cyclist as to potentially cause a crash. That's what "not giving cyclists enough room" really is.
daymen10.6.10 - 10:58 am
reply
That story was absurd. Cyclist run stop signs. Yeah, so what? Cars run stop signs too. So whats the point? To villify cyclists? Cyclists need to look out for cars? I think it's the other way around. Why no pertinaent information? Total joke.
Girl Power responding to a
comment by Roadblock
10.6.10 - 11:46 am
reply
We will never win an argument about running stops signs by saying that car drivers do it too. Car drivers NEED to stop at stop signs because they are driving 4000 pound machines that can achieve great speed and lethal force. Cyclsits by virtue
of their mode of travel are far less dangerous to others and are far less speed capable. Most cyclists when they roll stop signs are travelling at "California stop" speeds. It's not dangerous and the Idaho and northern European law proves this.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by Girl Power
10.6.10 - 11:59 am
reply
The media will construe us *not* how we want, not even how they want, but how the money wants.
If we want to stand a chance in this arena, we need some multibillionaire media tycoons to be willing to donate millions at a time to tout the cycling advocacy agenda. Ideas how to get the ball rolling on that?
outerspace10.6.10 - 12:02 pm
reply
Great point. It would be nice if Lance Armstrong actually gave a damn about commuter cycling. He doesn't.
Roadblock responding to a
comment by outerspace
10.6.10 - 12:11 pm
reply
The fashion industry is a multibillion dollor a year business. When bikes are as trendy as cars then things will change.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/fashion/16CODES.html?_r=1
http://www.sydneycyclechic.org/2010/10/cycle-chic-sundays-competition-search.html
Girl Power responding to a
comment by outerspace
10.6.10 - 12:11 pm
reply
Maybe we can get Alberto Contador to give a damn, because I'm sure he'll be looking for work in a couple weeks.
md2 responding to a
comment by Roadblock
10.6.10 - 12:20 pm
reply
I think the point they so woefully tried to make was that drivers of cars know they have to stop, but don't. However, SOME cyclists are of the opinion that we don't really even need to stop. That seems to be the difference and why so many drivers are hostile towards ALL of us.
Dogbone responding to a
comment by Girl Power
10.6.10 - 9:00 pm
reply
I think cyclists should stop in theory because we should be obeying all laws. However in practice, stopping at stop signs is not convenient for the flow of traffic both cars and bicycles. Idaho's vehicle code stipulates that bicycles can treat stop signs as yields and red lights as stop signs. It's totally safe and a good compromise for a traffic grid that is only desiged to handle motor vehicle traffic.
Riding down a residential street at a cruising pace I have no problem rolling calmly through stop signs. As long as you don't cause cross traffic car drivers to stop or otherwise have to adjust in any way, it's just not all that wrong. OR.... Accomodate cyclists with proper infrastructure.
How about a deal, car drivers obey ALL the posted speed limits and Cyclists will stop
at every stop sign. It's impossible for everyone..
Roadblock responding to a
comment by Dogbone
10.6.10 - 10:34 pm
reply
Well, easy mistake... those trees are always running reds.
angle responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
10.7.10 - 12:45 am
reply
I can't wait until I see a headline saying something about a collision between a Lexus and a St. Peterbilt.
"I thought it was a trash can!!!!"
bentstrider responding to a
comment by Joe Borfo
10.7.10 - 1:16 am
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
