Staff Editorial Brimming With Lies

I approached the staff editorial printed on March 5th (Boston needs more bike lanes) with great interest, as I consider myself both an avid cyclist and a committed cycling activist in the Boston area. Sadly, this interest quickly soured, turning rapidly into shock, outrage, and finally, disgust. At the risk of seeming picayune, I feel strongly obligated to point out that this editorial makes a host of specious implications in addition to a set of outright lies. The author begins with a treacherously awkward sentence in which he attempts to prove the validity of Boston’s reputation as “one of the worst cities to drive in” by noting that there are “a maze of circles and 8-way intersections on a street map.” It seems as though the author had a fictional street map in mind because he suggests that Boston has more than one 8-way intersection when in fact it has none. Frankly, I would be impressed to see him present an 8-way intersection in existence anywhere in the country. Nonetheless, I point this out only to underscore a pattern of lies at play in the piece. My central critique addresses the far more malicious lies propagated by the editorial. First, he suggests “State Senator Jarrett Barrios has helped bring cyclist issues to the city’s attention through rallies and public relations events…” This statement is rife with misinformation. Let us begin with the ridiculous implication that Mr. Barrios has helped bring cyclist issues to the city’s attention. While I admire Jarrett and his work very much, Frostbike was the brainchild of students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Mr. Barrios signed on at the last minute, and neither planned nor innovated this event. Second, suggesting he brought cyclist issues to the city’s attention is ludicrous. In their literature, the coordinators of Frostbike state their goal clearly, saying: “A Global Climate Change committee of the City of Cambridge is developing a comprehensive plan to support bike-friendly planning and policy. The outcome is uncertain, so we want to provide public support to keep bike concerns visible.” The intended outcome of the Frostbike ride was to demonstrate public support for pre-existing city initiatives. This represents a polar opposite of bringing the city to greater understanding of their needs. Further, it is unclear about which city he is speaking. In his title, he suggests he is speaking about Boston, but if we recall, Frostbike began and ended in Cambridge. Senator Barrios spoke at Cambridge City Hall, not Boston’s. I am quick to point again to Frostbike literature that calls Cambridge a “bicycle-centered community.” It is after this point that the editor makes his most contemptuous errors. He writes that a “biker died in Cambridge last year after a person looking to double park filled her bicycle lane.” I am absolutely baffled at the editor’s ability to report such blatant mistruths. In fact, on July 2 of 2002, Dana Laird was killed in a tragic crash on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge. She did not die as a result of an attempt at double-parking in a bike lane. Rather, she was a victim of what cyclists call “dooring.” Dooring is as it sounds, the result of a motorist carelessly flinging open a car door into traffic. The City of Cambridge Police Report describes the accident as the result of Ms. Laird’s attempt to evade the opening of the door of a car parked in an on-street spot. She swerved to avoid the obstacle, was flung from her bike into the flow of traffic to her left and was killed instantly after being run over by a passing MBTA bus. The editor suggests that the lesson we ought to learn from this horrible tragedy is a demonstrated need for “adequate bike lanes.” While he fails to list his credentials, the editor has taken a position that opposes the vast majority of bicycle experts. John Allen, a long-time expert witness on bicycle crashes as well as the author of Bicycling Street Smarts, goes so far as to suggest that the City was liable in this crash for having placed the Bike Lane in a place where a cyclist was vulnerable to a dooring event. Paul Schimek, who is the City of Boston’s professional cycling coordinator, suggested in a July 4, 2002 Boston Globe editorial that bicycle lanes are partly at fault for the tragedy, and finishes by recommending that cyclists “ride as far into the travel lane as necessary to be safe.” Perhaps this point of view is that which influences Boston’s reticence to paint bike lanes throughout the city? The editor has taken a fantastically controversial and widely unpopular point of view in regard to the current crisis of legitimacy over bike lanes that now ensnarls professional cycling planners, enthusiasts and advocates alike. The City of Cambridge is embarking on a study to ascertain the effects of bicycle lane markings on cyclist behavior this spring. I do not deny the editor the right to his opinion on this matter, but I cannot help but question the research or understanding that precedes this intensely contentious proclamation. Later on in the editorial, the author recounts that annual rides in San Francisco that render the streets impassable to cars. It is clear that he is referring to the Critical Mass movement, which began there. I am pleased to inform the editor that these mass rides, impressive though of questionable efficacy, have been ongoing in Boston for years. They generally happen the last Friday of each month. Finally, the editor encourages bicycling advocates to push for legislation that might help them win a more harmonious relationship with other road users. I am again happy to be the bearer of good tidings when I point the editor to such legislation as Massachusetts H. 2101, the Bicycle Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. You may find it very interesting. In sum, I am caused to wonder if the editor did any research into any of his statements at all. It is one thing for a student to write in an opinion that bears faults. It is quite another, however, to present such a mangled mess of lies as a Staff Edit. Staff editorials generally speak from a position of reliability and authority, things which your article have greatly undermined. It is to the great shame of the Daily Free Press that such an editorial could pass into publication under its name. Finally, despite the fact that it has been completely obscured by a mountain of error, I agree with the sentiment expressed by the editor. Bicycling ought to be encouraged and supported as a mode choice by legislators, planners and especially by motorists. Boston struggles bitterly with the challenges of congestion, pollution and parking. Bicyclists help the city immeasurably by alleviating each of these problems. I encourage all BU cyclists to make their voices heard in a responsible and productive way so as to increase the accommodation that our society makes for them on the roads. Check out MassBike, the Boston area’s cycling advocacy group, write to your elected officials, or simply keep riding. Responsible, lawful and safe cycling aids our cause immeasurably by establishing the credibility of cycling as a legitimate transportation alternative.

Joshua Kraus 617-352-6874 UNI ’03