Thanks for all your comments on the meaning of Don Cherry’s statements. Now help me out with this.
Why do sports commentators – particularly radio jocks – hate cyclists? Not all, of course. But the vehemence of the few who do is startling. They seem to take it so personally – and politically. Particularly Dave Pratt, according to The Tyee: “… the middle-aged, leather-pants-wearing bachelor has embarked on a personal vendetta against Vancouver city council for its bike-friendly behaviour. ” 
Notes a comment below: “Last night I noticed that a Vancouver Sun sports reporter has taken to bashing the ‘lunacy’ of our mayor and council, describing some of our left-leaning citizens as ‘kooks’ and knocking cyclists, pedestrians and police.”
When Don Cherry does his partisan rants, the CBC begs off that it constitutes political commentary. He’s just speaking as an individual, it says. But it gives him the soap box.
And the diatribes get very personal, aiming to polarize the debate Fox-style, and characterize an entire community as left-wing kooks. Which then encourages other media to pile on, pushing everything to the extremes, and forcing people to take positions at the far ends of the spectrum, reinforcing the polarization.
What I find odd, too, is the fact that cycling promotes fitness – and is even a sport. Irrelevant, obviously. So what is it that so pisses these dudes off?
Hard to know the psyche of some sports jocks, except perhaps with what has happened in Toronto with Ford now as mayor, could easily happen in Vancouver.
All more the reason, is to be inclusive as possible in building widespread support without alienating too many people about cycling and the concept of a ‘greener’ or more livable communities.
Somehow we need to be mindful not to make the concept of cycling as well as concept of healthy, sustainable communities as an “elitist” idea pushed by intellectuals/well-educated folks. It is abit perceived that way in some social circles. Try to imagine the high school educated factory worker and educating someone from that demographic. There is a huge demographic where the message must be framed and pushed out in different ways that reaches them.
Cycling’s a sport? No, it isn’t. You don’t see one guy pounding the crap out of some other guy in cycling, do you? Course you don’t. So it can’t be a sport.
Broadcasters and politicians are in the business of second-guessing public opinion, and maintaining the status quo. In the case of bicycles, these are seen as threatening and derisive of car culture (true enough). Car culture is seen to be almost indistinguishable from the common shared value system of our social fabric.
Well nevermind, let them snarl and whine. The dinosaurs will sink into the muck screaming. They’re fighting a losing battle against the reality of a post-carbon world, and we are winning.
Ah, but it runs both ways. Why does the Tyee note the type of pants worn by Pratt, or comment on his marital status? People like Cherry (and Ford) also take a lot of very condescending character-oriented flack from people in the media and elsewhere who disagree with their politics. While I think that Cherry certainly stepped it up a notch (perhaps beyond the acceptable, certainly beyond the graceful), the personally-oriented disdain for the cultural touchstones of the ‘other’ seems to be shared. It seems more honourable to respond to Cherry’s scorn for bicycle riders or Ford’s mocking of lattes with an articulate commentary on the shortsightedness of cancelling Transit City than by ridiculing their taste in clothing or image.
Anyone on the radio hates cyclists because they’re not sitting in their cars listening to the radio. Drivers are, after all, radio’s largest source of listeners.
I imagine radio sports commentators are especially vehement against cyclists for the reason outlined by Paul above.
I think traditional gender roles also play a role. Hockey is a “man’s sport”, whatever that means, and lycra just doesn’t fit into that particular stereotype of being a “man.” That, and how it’s sold emphasizes this differences – cycling isn’t sold as guts, glory and big hits on skates, it’s sold as an environmentally friendly means of getting around and looking stylish to boot. Bike lanes take even more of the manliness out of cycling, and we all know what Freudian analysis of automobiles leads to. I think you commented on this part in an interview yourself.
I don’t want to overplay that part, but it probably is mixed in there somewhere.
I could speculate about the less than “manly” aspects of cycling, but it’s all just a pseudo-sociological crock. I’ve had ran-ins, as a pedestrian, with “manly” cyclists who don’t seem to think that the rules of the road apply to them when it comes to yielding… so it’s a possible line of thinking, but I think it’s overrated. So, even though I’m not a jock, I can say that many people simply don’t like cyclists. They’re often rude and inconsiderate. I’m not so keen on them, as they seem to yield a lot less than drivers do. I often think they should have to have a licence if they want to ride in the road and I think they need to make a choice between riding on the sidewalk and riding on the road (which is awkward if children are involved, I’ll grant you that). All that being said, I still support building a lot more bike lanes (especially separated ones) because I’m an urbanist “pinko.” Whether I’m a new urbanist, or a post-modernist, or a whateverist, I haven’t yet decided. 🙂
But as to why sports radio jocks don’t like them, I think Corey’s hit it, partially. The majority of people commute to work via car. They’re often stuck in traffic and get to hear these people ramble on and on about how these cyclists are wasting money. Sports jocks are often more interesting to listen to, if you like sports, than commercial radio – especially since people can just plug their music into their cars now a days if they want to listen to your music anyways. Essentially they can be unpredictable and entertaining, if you like that sort of thing. So why not listen to these people ramble on about the “pinko” cyclists.
So the average listener will drive by a bicycle lane and only see five or ten people using it per minute. They’re not stupid; they’ll notice that they’re stuck in traffic. Well duh, obviously these cycling “pinkos” are wasting money since “nobody is using it”, or “it makes traffic [therefore my life] worse”, and that space and money should therefore be used to build more roads and make traffic move faster. I don’t believe any of that will make their commute better, but this is what they truly believe.
Hell, they probably think that half these people cycling don’t work, or at least don’t work as hard as them. So there’s a certain judgement that the cyclists aren’t contributing to society as much, so why should we waste money on them. One of my good friends basically says that all the time and its a pain in the ass to argue with him. I wouldn’t say he’s a wingnut either. Hell, I’ve even heard a bus driver that I know through only a couple of degrees of separation, insist that they proceed with gateway because of the “there are a lot of cars on the road, therefore build more space for the cars so that they can move faster” line of thought. Basically, nobody likes being stuck in traffic.
Sports jocks are great reductionists who hate to be proven wrong, like all media pundits and they play on this simple fact. They see a problem [traffic], they make up a solution [get rid of the bike lanes], and they have the platform so they think they’re the be all and end all of all discussion. It’s difficult to argue with them because they tend to just talk louder or change the subject. And if they’re relatively non-partisan on other issues they can get the vast majority of their listening audience to agree with them on this “big issue.” Especially in Canada, where the talk radio phenomenon isn’t as vociferously right-wing as it is in the ‘States.
So, I have no idea what the solution is. I think one way of countering this, assuming this is true, is to ask them how much money they think is put into roads vs. bicycle infrastructure. I’m pretty sure it’s a tiny fraction. Hell, even ask them how much money is spent on public transit infrastructure vs. roads. Again, it’s a tiny fraction. How do they expect the two things, private transit vs. public/alternative transit to compete when so many fewer dollars are spent on the latter than they are the former? It would be like expecting a CHL team to beat NHL team. Or Belarus to beat Canada in hockey. For those not in the know, neither of those analogies are possible. (Feel free to use the sports metaphors; just try not to sound like Ignatieff dropping his g’s when you do). I think it’s important to throw public transit in the mix too, because let’s face it not everyone is going to be cycling even if every road had a dedicated two-way cycling lane. Some people just have to far to go, don’t want to, want to get somewhere faster, or are whatever.
So, tell them that if they believe in fair competition, then they’d advocate a relatively equalized funding playing field and let the two transportation options so that they could fairly duke it out. It would lessen the traffic on the roads, make their commutes better, and make people a lot less angry in the morning, because most people don’t like commuting. If they can hear a good rant they are sympathetic too, chances are they’ll buy what the guy is offering.
A few possibilities come to mind about Misters Pratt and Cherry:
– they are of generations that grew up, and established their adult lives, with the car as king
– they grew up and established their adult lives where there were external threats to their wayof life (i.e., the cold war): an “us versus them” world
– they are paid to speak their opinions
– they are paid to get people to react emotionally, because emotionally involved audiences are loyal audiences
I don’t know what the correct reaction is.
First off, my perspective. I was a former amateur road racing cyclist who now still rides intensely (if seasonally) for wellness. And appetite; instead of eating to ride, we now ride to eat. In 1992, I co-founded the Bastion Square Grand Prix, a spectacular (for participants and spectators), race in the heart of the historic downtown Victoria, equivalent to Siena’s Palio.
Several things to bear in mind. There are many distinctive categories of cyclists; racers (road, forest and track), recreationalists, tourists, commuters and couriers, and people are often part of more than one group. Some cyclists disdain other cyclists more than do some indifferent (or tolerant) non-cyclists. And many cyclists are also drivers, at times.
In North America, cycling was immensely popular in the late 1800s/early 1900s; touring, racing, even played a role in the women’s movement. This all faded dramatically with the rise in motor vehicles. To many people on this continent, bicycles are essentially hobby toys we had until our teens. However, cycling has grown in the last 3 decades as a sustainable fitness activity. In Europe, bicycle use is deeply engrained in the culture, and people continue to ride as adults, when approporiate. That’s the key, improve cycling’s viability in our quiver of multi-modes. More importantly, when driving, Euros they respect cyclists. And vice versa.
And that’s the biggest issue here; cooperation and respect in sharing the roads. Many drivers and cyclists simply don’t share very well, and too prone to immediate outrage. During a week, you’ll pass and interact with hundreds of others on wheels or at the wheel, but your opinions will often be formed by a single bad interaction with one of them.
More resources should be put into etiquette and enforcement, because vast amounts of infrastructure spending for cycling cannot reduce conflict. I live on Hornby and while the new lanes now have less bike-car interactions, bike-pedestrian conflicts seem markedly higher.
And regarding the hockey vs. cycling issues, I saw a recent documentary on Dallas Eakins, a former NHL pro, now still uber-fit in his early 40s, who trained intensely for 8 months – doing 7-hr rides – to enter an ~amateur ~ bike race called the Leadville 100 in Colorado. He said it was by far, the hardest thing he’d ever done, and in his life of sport had never been brought to the point of completely giving up like he did during that ride.
A pro hockey shift is a minute or so, and the player can chose to head to the bench to be replaced, where they sit for 2-3 minutes. There’s often a day off in between games, which last 60 minutes (interspersed between 15-minute ‘rest’ intermissions).
A pro cyclist races from February to October, and in one of the Grand Tours (France, Italia, Spain), rides each day for 3 weeks at an average speed of 40 kph, covering about 3500 kms circumnavigating the country, with routes that force them up over the highest passes in the Alps and Pyrenees, often climbing multiple mountains each day. Only to repeat in the next day. If you stop pedalling, you are finished.
Don Cherry can put that in his tail pipe.