yet another idiot letter

[Marlene Blanshay]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> Marlene Blanshay <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Unfortunately, what happened was just that= the poor woman was riding
>>NEXT to a big truck, something I would never do, and she slid on the
>>slick roads. There was a photo of the cops taking her bike away (some
>>sort of mountain bike it seemed with knobby tires) adn it was all mushed
>>and the wheels were bent like potato chips.
>
>
> We lost one in San Diego in June ... just like that:
> ----
> "PACIFIC BEACH – A man on a bicycle was killed after colliding with a
> semi truck carrying 80,000 pounds of sand about 1:30 p.m. yesterday on
> Garnet Avenue at Cass Street, police said.
>
> He was identified as Jeffrey William Deblon, 52, a Pacific Beach
> business owner, the county Medical Examiner's Office said.
>
> The bicyclist and the truck were both westbound on Garnet Avenue, San
> Diego police Sgt. Jeff Fellows said.
>
> Deblon may have been attempting to squeeze between the truck and
> parked cars at the time, when he may have misjudged his clearance and
> struck the truck, said Fellows, citing witness accounts. Police said
> the truck driver did not realize he had struck some one, continued
> driving and was alerted by witnesses. He then returned."
> ----
> You have to think the 80,000 pounds of sand was pretty much
> superfluous at that point :-{
>
> I get weary from dead cyclist posts, but ... you can usually be
> reminded of something pretty mission critical by reading them.

Well... there is no way I'd attempt to pass a truck like that. HOwever,
this shmuck makes it sound like the poor person deserved it. That's like
saying a woman who walks alone at night deserves to be raped or that
someone who falls on an icy sidewalk deserves to break their arm...

 

[[email protected]]

OK, I assume that in this locale bicycles legally operate as vehicles.

Is it "opinion" to declare "pretending they are registered vehicles
authorized to use the roads?"

I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that basically
dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I might, as
editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant vehicle codes.

Is this what's wrong in 2005, that errors of fact are simply opinion?
That misrepresentation of fact are acceptable political discourse?

If this author was rational and informed, then I would expect his
article to clearly state the status-quo and to recommend a change in
law, removing the authorization for bicycle use of roads.

I'm afraid the phrase "It's just common sense." makes me picture a
lunatic who is ready to flout traffic law, and then make that defense
after he mows down a legal biker.

.... as far as REDUCING hostility ... I was much calmer before I read
this ;-)

 

[DrLith]

[email protected] wrote:
> OK, I assume that in this locale bicycles legally operate as vehicles.
>
> Is it "opinion" to declare "pretending they are registered vehicles
> authorized to use the roads?"
>
> I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that basically
> dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I might, as
> editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant vehicle codes.

If the county or municipality has mandatory bicycle registration laws,
it's quite possible that the letter-writer is correct, assuming that
most cyclists have not registered the bikes. For example, in my county,
"(a) Any County resident who owns a bicycle used on a public street,
right-of-way, or bicycle path in the County must: (1) register the
bicycle by: [blah blah blah]."

I don't think there's any practical way for the editor to disprove the
letter-writer's claim that the cyclists he sees are "pretending they are
registered vehicles authorized to use the roads."

I'll admit, I have no real basis for my belief that most cyclists in
most cities do not register their bicycles, even if required to do so by
law. This perhaps merely reflects my own scoff-law tendencies. Maybe if
everyone ponied up and actually paid their registration fees, we'd be
able to build both MUP *and* bike lanes!

 

[max]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew Venhaus" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My local newspaper routinely prints sarcastic letters but I am not too
> fond of them in this forum.

Blow it out your tight overwrought ass, poindexter.


Sarcasm is one of the three pillars of usenet.


..max
although your preening neepery has its place, too.

 

[max]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that basically
> dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I might, as
> editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant vehicle codes.

NO. The letters are _opinion_. It is manifestly NOT the place of the
editor to correct errors of FACT in OPINION pieces. It would be wrong
wrong, and biasing and it would take all of the letter editor's time,
and it would result in only letters that a) didn't address facts and b)
didn't address issues of the day. There are some caveats regarding
libel, but that's about it.

You have got to understand this. It is vital to understanding things
like... freedom of the press and freedom of expression. A letter as
clueless as the one by Mssr. Ruso serves a great public service,
standing naked before the masses. It's probative to see just how
ignorant and vindictive the "other" side can be. Silencing or
ameliorating that voice is ... distorting the truth.

Letters should stand or fall on their own. I don't think i've ever seen
an [editor's comment: this is ********] in any newspaper's opinion
section that i've ever read. "Not our opinion, not our fault"
disclaimers often populate the 5 pt print near the bottom, but that's
it..

etc, yadda.

..max

 

[Bob]

max wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew Venhaus" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > My local newspaper routinely prints sarcastic letters but I am not too
> > fond of them in this forum.
>
> Blow it out your tight overwrought ass, poindexter.
>
>
> Sarcasm is one of the three pillars of usenet.
>
>
> .max
> although your preening neepery has its place, too.

As does selective quoting. Taken in the context of the rest of Matt V's
post- the part you decided to snip apparently so you could indulge in
some gratuitous but imaginative (what exactly is preening neepery?)
namecalling- I thought his reference to "this forum" should have read
"in this context" or "on this issue". The remainder of his post made a
very good point, so good in fact I'll repost it....

"Much better would be a brief letter outlining the rights and
responsibilities of cyclists on the road and the benefits of cycling to
individuals and the community, ***remembering that most readers will
not remember the letter to which you are responding***. [my own
emphasis added] Ideally the letter would come from an officer of a
local cycling advocacy group (or at least have their name and
organization signed to it)."

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Rich Clark]

"max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that basically
>> dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I might, as
>> editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant vehicle codes.
>
> NO. The letters are _opinion_. It is manifestly NOT the place of the
> editor to correct errors of FACT in OPINION pieces.

Exactly what makes that "manifest." An opinion on a legal matter based on an
incorrect understanding of the actual law is manifestly without value, and
ought not be published, at lewast not without a disclaimer from the
publisher.

> It would be wrong
> wrong, and biasing and it would take all of the letter editor's time,
> and it would result in only letters that a) didn't address facts and b)
> didn't address issues of the day. There are some caveats regarding
> libel, but that's about it.
>
> You have got to understand this. It is vital to understanding things
> like... freedom of the press and freedom of expression. A letter as
> clueless as the one by Mssr. Ruso serves a great public service,
> standing naked before the masses. It's probative to see just how
> ignorant and vindictive the "other" side can be. Silencing or
> ameliorating that voice is ... distorting the truth.

Except that most people don't know that at least one fact upon which the
published opinion is based is in fact incorrect.
>
> Letters should stand or fall on their own. I don't think i've ever seen
> an [editor's comment: this is ********] in any newspaper's opinion
> section that i've ever read. "Not our opinion, not our fault"
> disclaimers often populate the 5 pt print near the bottom, but that's
> it..

I don't know that I've ever seen a letter published in a reputable newspaper
that states something is illegal that in fact is not. Perhaps most
newspapers know better, and don't publish such letters. Perhaps this
particular newspaper's editor is as clueless as the letter writer.

RichC

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob" <[email protected]> writes:

> As does selective quoting. Taken in the context of the rest of Matt V's
> post- the part you decided to snip apparently so you could indulge in
> some gratuitous but imaginative (what exactly is preening neepery?)
> namecalling- I thought his reference to "this forum" should have read
> "in this context" or "on this issue". The remainder of his post made a
> very good point, so good in fact I'll repost it....

I thought it was good, too:

> "Much better would be a brief letter outlining the rights and
> responsibilities of cyclists on the road and the benefits of cycling to
> individuals and the community, ***remembering that most readers will
> not remember the letter to which you are responding***. [my own
> emphasis added] Ideally the letter would come from an officer of a
> local cycling advocacy group (or at least have their name and
> organization signed to it)."

I notice in one of the bike path threads, Frank K. mentions
the desirability of putting transportation funds toward
education. Here's a chance to make lemonade out of lemons
/and/ get the word out publicly, for free.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> Deblon may have been attempting to squeeze between the truck and
>> parked cars at the time, when he may have misjudged his clearance and
>> struck the truck, said Fellows, citing witness accounts. Police said
>> the truck driver did not realize he had struck some one, continued
>> driving and was alerted by witnesses. He then returned."
>> ----
>> You have to think the 80,000 pounds of sand was pretty much
>> superfluous at that point :-{
>>
>> I get weary from dead cyclist posts, but ... you can usually be
>> reminded of something pretty mission critical by reading them.
>
> Well... there is no way I'd attempt to pass a truck like that. HOwever,
> this shmuck makes it sound like the poor person deserved it. That's like
> saying a woman who walks alone at night deserves to be raped or that
> someone who falls on an icy sidewalk deserves to break their arm...

Not sure who you're taking on here... who's the shmuck? The cyclist didn't
deserve to be killed, but a lack of good judgment may have contributed to
his demise.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Roger Houston]

"Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Newspapers do have a duty to the truth.

That's not evident by looking at what they print.

 

[Roger Houston]

"Bill Henry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'd also remind him that Newton's first law says nothing about the F=ma
> equation, but rather deals with the law of inertia.

A motorist who's ignorant tends to remain ignorant.

He probably thinks Newton's second law is about figs.

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <9k%[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> writes:

>> Well... there is no way I'd attempt to pass a truck like that. HOwever,
>> this shmuck makes it sound like the poor person deserved it.
....

> Not sure who you're taking on here... who's the shmuck?

I believe she's referring to the schmuck who wrote the
Letter To The Editor (Tony Ruso).


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[Stephen Harding]

Marlene Blanshay wrote:

> SOme shmuck wrote this in our local paper. A cyclist (commuter) was
> killed when crushed by a truck last week:

Interestingly, here in Northampton, a young woman was killed last
week by a Brinks armored truck making a right turn in front of her.

I myself passed the spot where it happened, in front of Smith
College, perhaps 20 minutes earlier. Since the 27 year old
driver was not charged (and apparently was in tears at the site,
and went to the hospital for emotional trauma), I am presuming
that Meg was actually passing the truck on the right, was in his
blind spot when he turned, and killed instantly. A nice all white
painted bicycle, along with flowers rests next to a tree at the
road going into Smith where the accident occurred.

Sad story, but one that illustrates the danger of riding the road.
However, cars are dangerous too, and several Smith women have been
killed (some in crosswalks) over the past couple years while walking.
I think this is about the 5th bike fatality in *the area* in perhaps
3 years or maybe more.

I didn't see any really negative letters to the editor in our local
Daily Hampshire Gazette similar to the one you illustrated, but
there were lots of letters focusing on "the dangers of riding a
bike on the road". Overly so IMHO.

The lesson should have been that the result was a tragic accident
and that motorists and bicyclists need to be very vigilante in
watching out for one another when sharing the roads.

Overall, the motorists of this area have fairly high tolerance
toward bicyclists riding the roads, despite the fact there are a
large number of young persons from all the area colleges driving
about.


SMH

 

[Roger Zoul]

Roger Houston wrote:
:: "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: Newspapers do have a duty to the truth.
::
:: That's not evident by looking at what they print.

Newspapers want to sell newspapers...the truth is not nearly as important to
them as that.

 

[Roger Zoul]

Rich Clark wrote:
:: "max" <[email protected]> wrote in message
:: news:[email protected]...
::: In article <[email protected]>,
::: [email protected] wrote:
:::
:::: I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that
:::: basically dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I
:::: might, as editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant
:::: vehicle codes.
:::
::: NO. The letters are _opinion_. It is manifestly NOT the place of
::: the editor to correct errors of FACT in OPINION pieces.
::
:: Exactly what makes that "manifest." An opinion on a legal matter
:: based on an incorrect understanding of the actual law is manifestly
:: without value, and ought not be published, at lewast not without a
:: disclaimer from the publisher.

I think it's a "manifest" that speaks to the opinions and attitudes of
typical readers who aren't cyclist.
In that sense it has value. It's not a statement of legal fact. We all hold
erroneous opinions on lots of things.

::
::: It would be wrong
::: wrong, and biasing and it would take all of the letter editor's
::: time, and it would result in only letters that a) didn't address
::: facts and b) didn't address issues of the day. There are some
::: caveats regarding libel, but that's about it.
:::
::: You have got to understand this. It is vital to understanding
::: things like... freedom of the press and freedom of expression. A
::: letter as clueless as the one by Mssr. Ruso serves a great public
::: service, standing naked before the masses. It's probative to see
::: just how ignorant and vindictive the "other" side can be.
::: Silencing or ameliorating that voice is ... distorting the truth.
::
:: Except that most people don't know that at least one fact upon which
:: the published opinion is based is in fact incorrect.

But the "truth" here is that the letter writer is ignorant of the law....as
are most people.

I think the correct position of the publisher is to allow differing opinions
to be published on the topic to provide balance...so perhaps a letter from
the OP is really important. And of course, the editors may not even be
aware of the law...fact checking "opinions" from readers is probably not
something they do.

:::
::: Letters should stand or fall on their own. I don't think i've ever
::: seen an [editor's comment: this is ********] in any newspaper's
::: opinion section that i've ever read. "Not our opinion, not our
::: fault" disclaimers often populate the 5 pt print near the bottom,
::: but that's it..
::
:: I don't know that I've ever seen a letter published in a reputable
:: newspaper that states something is illegal that in fact is not.
:: Perhaps most newspapers know better, and don't publish such letters.
:: Perhaps this particular newspaper's editor is as clueless as the
:: letter writer.

Probably because not a whole lot of people who bother to write letters are
so ignorant of that about which they write. perhaps.

 

[[email protected]]

DrLith wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > OK, I assume that in this locale bicycles legally operate as vehicles.
> >
> > Is it "opinion" to declare "pretending they are registered vehicles
> > authorized to use the roads?"
> >
> > I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that basically
> > dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I might, as
> > editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant vehicle codes.
>
> If the county or municipality has mandatory bicycle registration laws,
> it's quite possible that the letter-writer is correct, assuming that
> most cyclists have not registered the bikes. For example, in my county,
> "(a) Any County resident who owns a bicycle used on a public street,
> right-of-way, or bicycle path in the County must: (1) register the
> bicycle by: [blah blah blah]."
>
> I don't think there's any practical way for the editor to disprove the
> letter-writer's claim that the cyclists he sees are "pretending they are
> registered vehicles authorized to use the roads."

But then what is a registered vehicle? If I live across a municipality
or provincial boundry and there is no registration requirement, then
the point is moot is it not when I ride in the municipality with the
law? I mention this because my province has a law requiring two licence
plates, front and back, but we see to tolerate the cars from other
provinces and from US states that do not have a front licence plate.

>
> I'll admit, I have no real basis for my belief that most cyclists in
> most cities do not register their bicycles, even if required to do so by
> law. This perhaps merely reflects my own scoff-law tendencies. Maybe if
> everyone ponied up and actually paid their registration fees, we'd be
> able to build both MUP *and* bike lanes!

 

[[email protected]]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Doesn't every child growing up in America know it is legal to ride
> >bikes in the street?
>
> Can you imagine? I can't. I see scores of POBs riding on the
> sidewalk, virtually wherever (in San Diego) I go, even in the towns
> where signs explicitly say "No bicycling on sidewalk."
>
> Whether it's an awareness of legality, or a perception of one being
> the safer alternative, I can't say, but in either case, I believe a
> substantial number of people genuinely believe it's either illegal or
> otherwise wrong to bicycle on the streets.
>
> Here's where education, and a close look at driver training manuals
> (and Motor Vehicle Department exams), comes in: establishing the
> unequivocal right of bikes to share the roadway, and the appropriate
> way for cars to respond to various situations involving bikes.

If the streets were safe I'd absolutely agree, but as long as there are
places where the street has a serious risk of injury or death, people
will use the sidewalk as an escape route.

I did it today when I got to a place with road construction, and narrow
lanes defined by traffic cones, and trucks coming up behind me. That
was too similar to the recent PCH death conditions for me. I slowed
down and took the (empty) sidewalk for a short stretch.

I don't know ... I haven't seen the streets of which you speak. If
they are wide and safe, and/or have a lot of pedestrian traffic, and/or
the bike rider wants to significantly exceed walking speed, then sure
they should get out in the street.

We need to make the streets safe enough that the "escape" becomes mute.
FWIW, I joined the League of American Bicyclists for the first time
this year. Starting to do my part ...

 

[Marlene Blanshay]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>Deblon may have been attempting to squeeze between the truck and
>>>parked cars at the time, when he may have misjudged his clearance and
>>>struck the truck, said Fellows, citing witness accounts. Police said
>>>the truck driver did not realize he had struck some one, continued
>>>driving and was alerted by witnesses. He then returned."
>>>----
>>>You have to think the 80,000 pounds of sand was pretty much
>>>superfluous at that point :-{
>>>
>>>I get weary from dead cyclist posts, but ... you can usually be
>>>reminded of something pretty mission critical by reading them.
>>
>>Well... there is no way I'd attempt to pass a truck like that. HOwever,
>>this shmuck makes it sound like the poor person deserved it. That's like
>>saying a woman who walks alone at night deserves to be raped or that
>>someone who falls on an icy sidewalk deserves to break their arm...
>
>
> Not sure who you're taking on here... who's the shmuck? The cyclist didn't
> deserve to be killed, but a lack of good judgment may have contributed to
> his demise.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

The shmuck is the letter writer. BUt you're right about bad judgement...
there have been quite a few stories recently about cyclists getting
killed, and in almost every case it had the following elements:
-someone riding a bike at night through a dangerous intersection
-someone riding the wrong way in traffic
-someone riding at night down a busy street

in fact, there was a recent study that showed bike injuries up this
summer- mainly due to the nice weather, more people were on bikes.
Howver,they found that many of the injuries were from people riding
while IMPAIRED- usually drunk! These are not roadies (I assume) but
people riding bikes home from parties at night, downtown, etc and many
without helmets.

 

[Marlene Blanshay]

[email protected] wrote:
> OK, I assume that in this locale bicycles legally operate as vehicles.
>
> Is it "opinion" to declare "pretending they are registered vehicles
> authorized to use the roads?"
>
> I think I would have real hesitation to print a letter that basically
> dismisses the actual law. If I did print it, I think I might, as
> editor, have a responsibility to cite the relevant vehicle codes.
>
> Is this what's wrong in 2005, that errors of fact are simply opinion?
> That misrepresentation of fact are acceptable political discourse?
>
> If this author was rational and informed, then I would expect his
> article to clearly state the status-quo and to recommend a change in
> law, removing the authorization for bicycle use of roads.
>
> I'm afraid the phrase "It's just common sense." makes me picture a
> lunatic who is ready to flout traffic law, and then make that defense
> after he mows down a legal biker.
>
> ... as far as REDUCING hostility ... I was much calmer before I read
> this ;-)
>

well it is his opinion, like it or not. THe guy is a citizen letter
writer, not a journalist- so like it or not, he doesn't have to get the
facts right. If he were writing an article, he'd have to probably verify
by researching the highway code, or looking up stats. He could if he
wants, but as a letter writer and citizen, he's not obliged to do that.
However, they don't publish things that are defamatory or slanderous.
This guy is poorly informed but alas, it's his honestly held opinion.

 

[Rich Clark]

"Marlene Blanshay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> well it is his opinion, like it or not. THe guy is a citizen letter
> writer, not a journalist- so like it or not, he doesn't have to get the
> facts right.

And the newspaper does not have to publish the letter. Newspapers are
privately-owned publications and there is no obligation on its part to
publish every letter it receives. In fact, it probably doesn't publish 1% of
the letters it receives.

So the ones it does choose to publish should be vetted to ascertain that
they don't misrepresent matters of objective and verifiable fact. They would
not publish a letter that said it was illegal to drive a car on a road, even
if it may be a citizen's opinion that it is.

> If he were writing an article, he'd have to probably verify by researching
> the highway code, or looking up stats. He could if he wants, but as a
> letter writer and citizen, he's not obliged to do that. However, they
> don't publish things that are defamatory or slanderous. This guy is poorly
> informed but alas, it's his honestly held opinion.

But it's not his newspaper. The newspaper is responsible for what it
publishes.

RichC