Editordude: Below is an unsolicited rebuttal to Kate Callen’s post on “Framing the news about bicycling” from Paul LeBlanc, a resident of PB.
By Paul LeBlanc
I read with interest Kate Callen’s recent opinion piece on bicycling and media coverage, entitled, “Framing the News About Bicycling? Let’s Try ‘Safety First,” but I respectfully disagree with its central premise.
The author contends that, rather than “lecturing reporters on how to do our jobs,” attention should be directed toward instructing cyclists to safeguard their own lives. That framing invites a more fundamental question: are journalists not themselves subject to critique? Thoughtful scrutiny of language and framing is not an affront to journalism; it is one of its necessary companions. Reporting, particularly on matters of public safety, carries an obligation to be precise, neutral, and grounded in evidence. To question how incidents are described is not to lecture, but to engage.
This discussion is not about absolving cyclists of responsibility. Cyclists, like motorists, are bound by traffic laws. Rather, it concerns the implications of language that may
assign fault before facts are established. Words matter. They shape perception, and perception often precedes understanding. Precision, therefore, is not a luxury in reporting; it is its discipline.
More significantly, the article places disproportionate emphasis on individual behavior while minimizing the well-established role of system design in safety outcomes. A
substantial body of research demonstrates that collisions are strongly influenced by roadway conditions, particularly in situations where users with vastly different speeds
and levels of protection must share the same space. This is not a moral failing of individuals; it is a predictable consequence of design.
Context is also essential. While the article focuses on cyclist conduct, the principal contributors to serious injury and fatality on our roadways remain impaired driving,
distracted driving, including texting and device use, speeding, and inexperience. These factors account for a significant proportion of collisions nationwide. Cyclists, by contrast, are rarely the primary cause of fatal incidents involving others. The disparity is not subtle; it is structural.
Accordingly, modern safety approaches emphasize reducing points of conflict and mitigating the consequences of inevitable human error. Advising cyclists to “be more
careful” is no more sufficient than telling drivers to “pay more attention” at a dangerous intersection. Sensible policy addresses conditions, not merely conduct.
The article’s reliance on anecdote further weakens its broader claims. Personal experience may be vivid, but it is not comprehensive. Public safety analysis requires data, not impressions—evidence, not intuition.
None of this suggests that cyclists are beyond criticism or that personal responsibility is irrelevant. It simply recognizes that safety is a shared responsibility, one that
encompasses individuals, infrastructure, and how events are communicated to the public.
Constructive critique of reporting is not an intrusion into journalism. It is, in fact, one of its quiet necessities.
To dismiss criticism as “lecturing” is to mistake scrutiny for hostility, and to forget that clarity is not achieved by resisting questions, but by answering them well.
Paul C. LeBlanc is a resident of Pacific Beach.
I have to agree with Kate. As far as bike safety is concerned, the lowest hanging fruit by far, is the routinely reckless behavior and negligence of traffic laws by the majority of cyclists. It’s come to the point that if I follow the laws on my bike, such as stopping at a stop sign, drivers are stunned and don’t know what to do. I try my best to predictable and safe, regardless of my mode of transportation, but reckless idiots make me the outlier.
Just yesterday some bike club was riding erratically around the foot of Newport. A guy biking northbound (in the southbound lane) suddenly did a u-turn into my lane and I almost hit him head on.
Also, it is legal to drive in a bike lane within 200-ft of an intersection if you are turning right. I’m not going to sit in my car and clog up the freeway exit to Nimitz for the sake of an unused bike lane.
to Kate ;“ Bicycle “ don’t say that outloud ! Now you’ve done it
I totally agree with Kate and would add that neither the City of San Diego nor the housing developers who created most of the road systems after 1945 ever designed the streets for bicycle traffic on top of parked cars, storm drains, fire hydrants, and electrical systems. Bicycle lobbyists have throttled automobile driver’s rights with disproportionatelly wide and mostly unused parking lanes, safety zones and other obstacles that narrow the potential driving space for cars, delivery trucks, buses, dump trucks, trash trucks, cement trucks and other commercial vehicles. And the bicycle Lobby has pressed through the State Legislature insanely unsafe bicycle and motorcyle laws that terrify the average automobile driver. I practically scream when bicycles shoot through intersections where cars are required to stop. I pray for the time when sanity returns to California and those bike lanes are scraped from the streets and highways. You want safe bike lanes, build new roads that are planned for all the vehicles..and are paid for by all the vehicles. High time bicycles pay an annual street tax!
Poor you.
What a useless comment, Chris. Everything Mr. May listed is a valid viewpoint and concern and there could obviously be more added. If you want the infrastructure, you should help pay for it.
Same tired old arguments:
https://momentummag.com/your-comeback-guide-to-all-the-anti-cycling-arguments-youll-hear-this-year/
No meat. just potatoes. Lots of claims but not a single citable source anyone could use to check the veracity of what the article claims.
“Research from Toronto, New York, and Portland has shown that bike lanes often improve business. Cyclists shop more frequently than drivers, and a single car parking space can be replaced with racks for 10 bikes. More foot traffic, more local spending.”
We aren’t talking about Toronto, New York, or Portland. Ask the shops along 30th if they agree…
It’s the same old tired arguments from the pro-bike community. I’ve seen you type it all a hundred times.
Personally, I am not anti-bike lane. They just need to be implemented better and in smarter locations.
You’re right, the city of San Diego nor the housing developers didn’t enact the 1947 Collier-Burns Highway act – that was the automobile industry which pushed for an automobile traffic system that is present today. There was so little consideration for the totality of transportation(walking, bikes, trains, etc.) that personal cars were pushed as the main force of transportation, and as a result we have massive freeways that ripped apart neighborhoods, took giant swaths of land for concrete overpasses, and contributed to the suburban sprawl which takes up more horizontal space and further creates transportation logistic issues(not to mentione other by product issues… lack of dense housing, loss of natural environment, pushing people to outskirts which adds on to transportation woes). I just find it hilarious that your crying about bicycle lobbyists when the reason we’re even arguing about this is because the automobile industry lobbied extensively between 1930-1960 for our current urban transportation system to exist. Please do think of all the empty bike lanes when you see the acres of empty parking lots spread throughout the country.
Agreed. Generally, making an intersection or roadway safer for the bike lobby comes at the expense of all other users.
Paul, thank you for your levelheaded approach to responding to journalism critiques. A lot of authors on this site publish things by displaying it as high-quality journalistic reporting but the clear bias, lack of evidence and diatribes of personal stories come off as facebook post “OP-ED”.
Using anecdotes to make claims on bike safety is such a haphazard approach to reporting… Especially when the author thinks she is above organizations that actually do the research. Look, I love some Gonzo journalism and Joan Didion, but if you’re going to report on something and present it seriously, you better accept that the scrutiny coming from people isn’t out of malice, but a deep respect for truth.
Kate, you can do better – bring in actual research, analyze multiple sides of the argument, be open to being wrong about things, and even if you disagree with other viewpoints – try to realize that there are serious rebuttals to your positions, and you not responding to some of them leaves little actual understanding from all sides.
My advice: Stop chasing engagement posts… Yes we see that the bike topic brings in people to the comments, thats fine – but leave the emotional stories for the personal blog, bring the serious reporting to the rag.
Yep, it’s all the fault of the industrial revolution that brought us assembly lines and efficient production of affordable personal mobility devices. Most motorcycle companies went bust because the car (or pickup) was far more useful for family or business transport. The same thing happened in England. For those of us in the Western USA, this resulted in cities designed around the automobile. The people telling us the bike lanes are used extensively, may be correct in some cases, but in my experience the bike lanes are vastly underused. I recall Donald Trump telling us not to believe what we see, or what we read… to believe only him. That seems to be the bike lane advocacy group mantra. Don’t believe what you see every day, believe only the special interest group.
I agree with Kate and the comments by kh, Ronald May, sorry not sorry and Norman DeWitt, especially those of Ronald May. You simply cannot mix bicycles and cars. It’s not safe for anyone. That’s why the bike lanes are so underused, they are simply not safe to use. the only bike paths that are safe are those completely separate from cars, like the one through Rose Canyon or the one along Hwy 56. There are others, I’m sure but I am just not aware of them. To repeat what sorry not sorry said, If you want the infrastructure you/we will have to pay for it. I am not opposed to commuting on bicycles. I was very happy at one time, that I had a job within a few miles of my home, and I thought I could bike to work, but when I tried to, I had to go through one of the busiest intersections in town, at Mission Bay Drive and Clairemont Drive. There were no bike lanes in those days so I simply followed the rules and observed all traffic regulations. It didn’t work. Drivers honked, yelled at me and actually tried to run me off the road. My attempt lasted about a week. You just can’t mix cars and bicycles. Bikes need separate pathways designed to carry bicycle traffic and someone will have to pay for those, but paying so much money for bike lanes that restrict traffic flow and still are not safe for bicycles is crazy.
“if you’re going to report on something and present it seriously, you better accept that the scrutiny coming from people isn’t out of malice, but a deep respect for truth.”
Check out this Rag piece and see what happened when I told the truth about 13 cycling deaths. The cyclists are far more biased than Kate would ever be.
https://obrag.org/2021/09/the-politics-of-fear-bicycling-deaths-crosswalks-and-dog-bites/
Your post is a good example of quality journalism on this site, however, the way you use the information of deaths to argue your points comes off as incredibly distasteful though, and you digging your heels in the comments section doesn’t help your position at all – if anything, you amplified the argument that protected bike lanes are needed.
The point I argued was that the cycling was using cycling accidents disingenuously, no, it was worse than that, dishonestly, to blame motorists for all the deaths. The point was that cyclists need to be honest if they want to be taken seriously, but the comments section shows they do not.
In the original story re: bikes vs cars, there was a question about stats. In March I got the stats for the City of SD, SDPD of “Serious or Fatalities” of bikes vs cars. From 1-2-2024/3-12-2026, there were 5 where the cyclists were P-1 (cause of accident) and 5 where the drivers were P-1. While I understand any death, is too many, I was very surprised when I counted only 10, city wide total for 28 months.
Wow, five deaths a year ain’t enough for ya?
Did it ever occur to you that Pats comment was made because she expected the death count to actually be higher? I would have expected that, that total surprised me too.