Public hearings are one of the ways that government officials collect input from citizens on proposed actions such as passage of legislation or ordinances, adoption of land use plans, and other decisions with which a jurisdiction is confronted. In Oregon, hearings are held on most significant public policy decisions--whether because the hearings are legally required or because public officials perceive the need to provide for public input.
While written testimony is accepted in conjunction with most public hearings, verbal testimony at these hearings is critically important in effective advocacy. The fact that an individual has made the effort to attend and participate in a hearing sends an important message to policymakers regarding that person's interest in and level of commitment to the issue.
Some people are intimidated by the idea of testifying at a public hearing. It may be helpful to remember that the officials who you are addressing understand that and want you to succeed--particularly if you are courteous and respectful to the officials and the process.
Following are some tips for testifying effectively to a hearings panel, whether it be a legislative committee, a city council, or a planning commission, and demonstrating respect for the process:
1. Prepare. Usually there is a time limit. Know the time limit and prepare your presentation to include two or three key points that can be made within that time. Be sure those two or three points are clear in your mind and, if necessary, practice presenting your testimony. It is usually a good idea to prepare a written version of your testimony and to submit enough copies for each of the members of the hearings panel plus a few extras.
2. Arrive early. Show up before the hearing starts and sign in. Testimony is generally taken in the order in which those wishing to testify signed in. Regardless of when you testify, be prepared to stay for the duration of the hearing to reinforce your commitment to the issue.
3. Know who you are addressing. Some public officials are sensitive to titles. You add to your credibility if you use the proper ones. Members of the Oregon state legislature are either "Senator" or "Representative," and their public hearings are conducted by committees (e.g., Senator Smith or Representative Jones, but [committee] Chair Johnson). Members of city councils are generally addressed as "Councilor" and planning commission members are "Commissioner."
4. Listen to other testimony. Make sure that you do not repeat verbatim what a previous speaker has presented, although you can offer support for a point or position that has been made. Be careful about trying to refute the testimony of other speakers. Something that appears to you to be an objective fact may appear to others to be subject to argument.
5. Identify yourself. Begin by giving your name and address. If you are testifying as a member of an organization, identify that organization.
6. Personalize your testimony. Use your own words and describe personal experiences without being melodramatic. Describe how the proposal will affect you. Testimony formulated by somebody else is not as impressive and eloquent as testimony in your own words.
7. Don't read your testimony. The public officials will listen to and appreciate your testimony more if you tell it from the heart and don't read a script. Refer to an outline or notes as necessary to be sure you make the points that you want the officials to consider.
8. Identify the changes you are requesting. Specific proposals for changes to the proposed legislation or other policy document are usually more effective than general expressions of concern. If the policymakers are to respond to your testimony, somebody will need to translate that testimony into changes in the proposal. Make it easy for them (and harder to ignore you) by giving them the words you want to see in the final document.
9. Be respectful. Assume that the public officials who are conducting the hearing are trying to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community and may be unpaid volunteers who are committed to public service. Their understanding of what is in the best interest of the community may be different than yours, but conveying a perspective that you think they are deliberately acting contrary to the community interest can only harm your cause.
10. Thank the public officials. When you have made your points, thank the committee, council, or commission for taking the time to listen to your viewpoint.
11. Answer the public officials' questions. You should end your testimony by offering to answer questions. During many hearings, it is acceptable for a public official to interrupt the speaker to ask a question. Answer all questions honestly. If you do not know the answer, say so and defer to another speaker or offer to try to obtain the information.
12. Hold your applause and cat calls. It generally is not appropriate for those in the audience at a hearing to express support for or opposition to a position taken by another speaker.
These tips are adapted from the Conservation Activist's Toolkit by the Audubon Conservation Team and other sources.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Red Pickup Guy
For more than 5 years, bicyclists have been reporting unpleasant and potentially dangerous encounters with a motorist driving a red pickup on Brush College Road in northwest Salem. These encounters generally involved the motorist closely following the cyclists up the hill while laying on the horn and, eventually, passing them at distance that was uncomfortably close. The motorist finally was identified as Ray Clinebell, an elderly resident on Eagle Crest Road.
After one of these confrontations and multiple complaints by local bicyclists, a Polk County deputy sheriff talked to Clinebell. Reportedly, Clinebell told the deputy that he believed that bicycles can’t ride on the road and that we can only ride in bike lanes. While the deputy refuted this and told him that bicycles can ride on any road, the information did not appear to have affected Clinebell's perspective.
As a result of Clinebell's continued actions, he was charged with harassment, recklessly endangering, disorderly conduct, following too close, and violation of use limits of sound equipment. In July 2007, Clinebell was convicted of the two traffic violations, but acquitted of the criminal charges. The judge in the case appeared willing to convict for harassment, but was unable to do so because of technicalities in the law.
Unfortunately, the reports of encounters with the "Red Pickup Guy" continued. Clinebell ended up back in court facing criminal charges resulting from a couple of those encounters, but again was acquitted. It can be difficult to understand why Clinebell escaped conviction for any of the criminal charges, but the law basically requires that, for a criminal conviction, an individual must have either intentionally committed the act or have disregarded a risk to another of such a nature that the disregard constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonably person. Clinebell asserted that he was not intentionally endangering cyclists, but only warning them off a dangerous road and, as cyclists all know, driving too close to them is far too common to reflect a gross deviation from societal norms.
On March 18, 2011, Clinebell again found himself in court charged with criminal conduct--this time after an encounter with a Polk County deputy sheriff on Brush College Road. According to the deputy's testimony, the deputy had flagged two motor vehicles to a stop during the course of aiding the recapture of a horse that had escaped the pasture. When it appeared that it was safe to allow the vehicles to proceed, the deputy waved the first vehicle forward. The driver of that vehicle pulled around the deputy and drove off. The deputy then motioned for the second vehicle, which it turns out was driven by Clinebell, to proceed and turned to look back up the road to check on the progress in leading the horse back the the pasture. The deputy testified that he next heard Clinebell revving the engine on this pickup and turned back to see the pick headed at him. Luckily, the deputy was able to jump out of the way and was only struck on the arm by right-hand mirror on Clinebell's pickup.
After the deputy detained Clinebell, the deputy testified that Clinebell had difficulty locating his drivers license, flipping past it twice while looking through his wallet and ultimately handing the deputy his concealed weapons permit. According to the deputy, Clinebell exhibited other non-responsive behavior, including initially refusing to exit his pickup when told to do so by the deputy. During that encounter, the deputy also determined that Clinebell was driving suspended.
Expert medical testimony for the defense indicated that Clinebell has a range of medical problems that affect his ability to drive. Specifically, he is unable to judge distances, think clearly, or complete tasks. While the deputy did send a referral to DMV asking for an evaluation of whether Clinebell could drive safely, there was no testimony indicating that either Clinebell's family or physicians had done so and, by the time of the trial, Clinebell had regained his drivers license.
Clinebell denied revving his engine and indicated that he had not known that he had hit the deputy. He indicated that he was on the way to dialysis and that he had been feeling tired and impatient as a result of his medical condition. He also indicated that he had not known that his license was suspended and discovered the notice of suspension among unopened mail when he went back home.
Just before the trial, Clinebell had waived his right to a jury. As a result, as was the case in the previous trials, the judge ruled on Clinebell's guilt. He found Clinebell guilty of reckless driving, recklessly endangering, and driving suspended. He acquitted Clinebell of the charges of harassment and interfering with a police officer.
Reckless driving and recklessly endangering are class A misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $6,250. Clearly, jail time was not on the table for Clinebell. (Polk County would have had to pay his medical costs.) In the end, the judge imposed fines totaling about $1,000, far less than he could have but significant nonetheless in combination with Clinebell's legal and medical consultation costs. The judge also suspended Clinebell's drivers license for 90 days (until the middle of June).
At one level, the penalties seem like a slap on the wrist given the extent to which Clinebell's reported driving behavior has endangered bicyclists and other road users. However, he does now have a record of criminal convictions for his behavior and another license suspension. During the trial, Clinebell's defense was essentially that he was medically incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle. The defense relied heavily on the deputy's assertion in the DMV evaluation request that Clinebell did not appear able to safely operate a vehicle as a demonstration that Clinebell did not intentionally hit the deputy with his mirror. Hopefully, DMV will take notice and will permanently revoke his license. Finally, now that one of their own has been a victim of Clinebell's driving behavior, perhaps law enforcement will take more seriously the threat that his actions pose others.
One of the unfortunate facts associated with Oregon's enforcement of traffic laws is that many suspended drivers continue to drive with few consequences to themselves. For example, there are an average of 40,000 convictions for driving suspended or revoked in Oregon each year, an average of about 110 each day. During the 5-year period, 2002 - 2007, 495 people accumulated 10 or more DWS/DWR convictions each. In testimony to a legislative committee a few years ago, a Multnomah County district judge described the typical pattern for many of these people as being cited for a traffic violation, not paying the fine, receiving a license suspension order, being cited for driving suspended, not showing up in court or paying the fine, receiving another suspension order, and on and on.
The extent to which Clinebell will abide by the suspension order is known only by him. (In issuing his sentence, the judge noted that the previous suspension order that Clinebell ostensibly discovered in unopened mail only after the incident had been issued months before.) A license suspension (and, hopefully, a future revocation) notwithstanding, cyclists still need to be attentive and alert when riding on Brush College Road and definitely should report any sightings of Clinebell behind the wheel to law enforcement.
After one of these confrontations and multiple complaints by local bicyclists, a Polk County deputy sheriff talked to Clinebell. Reportedly, Clinebell told the deputy that he believed that bicycles can’t ride on the road and that we can only ride in bike lanes. While the deputy refuted this and told him that bicycles can ride on any road, the information did not appear to have affected Clinebell's perspective.
As a result of Clinebell's continued actions, he was charged with harassment, recklessly endangering, disorderly conduct, following too close, and violation of use limits of sound equipment. In July 2007, Clinebell was convicted of the two traffic violations, but acquitted of the criminal charges. The judge in the case appeared willing to convict for harassment, but was unable to do so because of technicalities in the law.
Unfortunately, the reports of encounters with the "Red Pickup Guy" continued. Clinebell ended up back in court facing criminal charges resulting from a couple of those encounters, but again was acquitted. It can be difficult to understand why Clinebell escaped conviction for any of the criminal charges, but the law basically requires that, for a criminal conviction, an individual must have either intentionally committed the act or have disregarded a risk to another of such a nature that the disregard constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonably person. Clinebell asserted that he was not intentionally endangering cyclists, but only warning them off a dangerous road and, as cyclists all know, driving too close to them is far too common to reflect a gross deviation from societal norms.
On March 18, 2011, Clinebell again found himself in court charged with criminal conduct--this time after an encounter with a Polk County deputy sheriff on Brush College Road. According to the deputy's testimony, the deputy had flagged two motor vehicles to a stop during the course of aiding the recapture of a horse that had escaped the pasture. When it appeared that it was safe to allow the vehicles to proceed, the deputy waved the first vehicle forward. The driver of that vehicle pulled around the deputy and drove off. The deputy then motioned for the second vehicle, which it turns out was driven by Clinebell, to proceed and turned to look back up the road to check on the progress in leading the horse back the the pasture. The deputy testified that he next heard Clinebell revving the engine on this pickup and turned back to see the pick headed at him. Luckily, the deputy was able to jump out of the way and was only struck on the arm by right-hand mirror on Clinebell's pickup.
After the deputy detained Clinebell, the deputy testified that Clinebell had difficulty locating his drivers license, flipping past it twice while looking through his wallet and ultimately handing the deputy his concealed weapons permit. According to the deputy, Clinebell exhibited other non-responsive behavior, including initially refusing to exit his pickup when told to do so by the deputy. During that encounter, the deputy also determined that Clinebell was driving suspended.
Expert medical testimony for the defense indicated that Clinebell has a range of medical problems that affect his ability to drive. Specifically, he is unable to judge distances, think clearly, or complete tasks. While the deputy did send a referral to DMV asking for an evaluation of whether Clinebell could drive safely, there was no testimony indicating that either Clinebell's family or physicians had done so and, by the time of the trial, Clinebell had regained his drivers license.
Clinebell denied revving his engine and indicated that he had not known that he had hit the deputy. He indicated that he was on the way to dialysis and that he had been feeling tired and impatient as a result of his medical condition. He also indicated that he had not known that his license was suspended and discovered the notice of suspension among unopened mail when he went back home.
Just before the trial, Clinebell had waived his right to a jury. As a result, as was the case in the previous trials, the judge ruled on Clinebell's guilt. He found Clinebell guilty of reckless driving, recklessly endangering, and driving suspended. He acquitted Clinebell of the charges of harassment and interfering with a police officer.
Reckless driving and recklessly endangering are class A misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $6,250. Clearly, jail time was not on the table for Clinebell. (Polk County would have had to pay his medical costs.) In the end, the judge imposed fines totaling about $1,000, far less than he could have but significant nonetheless in combination with Clinebell's legal and medical consultation costs. The judge also suspended Clinebell's drivers license for 90 days (until the middle of June).
At one level, the penalties seem like a slap on the wrist given the extent to which Clinebell's reported driving behavior has endangered bicyclists and other road users. However, he does now have a record of criminal convictions for his behavior and another license suspension. During the trial, Clinebell's defense was essentially that he was medically incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle. The defense relied heavily on the deputy's assertion in the DMV evaluation request that Clinebell did not appear able to safely operate a vehicle as a demonstration that Clinebell did not intentionally hit the deputy with his mirror. Hopefully, DMV will take notice and will permanently revoke his license. Finally, now that one of their own has been a victim of Clinebell's driving behavior, perhaps law enforcement will take more seriously the threat that his actions pose others.
One of the unfortunate facts associated with Oregon's enforcement of traffic laws is that many suspended drivers continue to drive with few consequences to themselves. For example, there are an average of 40,000 convictions for driving suspended or revoked in Oregon each year, an average of about 110 each day. During the 5-year period, 2002 - 2007, 495 people accumulated 10 or more DWS/DWR convictions each. In testimony to a legislative committee a few years ago, a Multnomah County district judge described the typical pattern for many of these people as being cited for a traffic violation, not paying the fine, receiving a license suspension order, being cited for driving suspended, not showing up in court or paying the fine, receiving another suspension order, and on and on.
The extent to which Clinebell will abide by the suspension order is known only by him. (In issuing his sentence, the judge noted that the previous suspension order that Clinebell ostensibly discovered in unopened mail only after the incident had been issued months before.) A license suspension (and, hopefully, a future revocation) notwithstanding, cyclists still need to be attentive and alert when riding on Brush College Road and definitely should report any sightings of Clinebell behind the wheel to law enforcement.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
HB 2331 - Bicycle Licensing Study
HB 2331 has been introduced at the legislature to require the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to conduct a study of the feasibility of licensing bicycles. The bill was introduced by the House Transportation Committee and has been referred to the House Transportation and Economic Development Committee, with a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee.
The study to be conducted by ODOT would examine whether bicycle licensing should be voluntary or mandatory, would be useful in locating stolen bikes, would produce revenues to fund infrastructure, and would provide data needed for planning purposes. Under the bill, ODOT would be expected to complete the study in early 2013.
I believe that cyclists should support passage of the bill. The debate over bicycle licensing has gone on for years, with a small vocal group constantly complaining that "bicyclists don't pay" despite the overwhelming amount of information demonstrating that, as a result of the subsidization of motor vehicles, bicyclists already pay more than their share of road costs and that any reasonable registration fee would only cover the administrative costs of a licensing program.
Clearly, some critics of cycling would dismiss the results of a study, just as they do with any objective information that is inconsistent with their world view. However, I am convinced that the study would provide additional information demonstrating that bicycle licensing is not feasible and that this information, produced by a motor vehicle centric organization like ODOT, would be more credible to legislators than the information currently available. Thus, HB 2331 offers the potential to move the debate forward with facts and data.
It would be helpful if the bill were amended to provide for some type of public involvement process in the way in which the study is conducted and to require the release of a draft of the results of the study for public comment and review. While that would not satisfy the wingnuts among us, it would help to broaden the public understanding and awareness of the results.
The bill is not currently scheduled for hearing and likely won't be considered by the committee until late March. Assuming that the Transportation Committee approves the bill, then it will go to the Ways and Means Committee--the historic resting place for any legislation that costs money. Hopefully, the legislature will find an approach to addressing bicycle licensing that is reasonable, credible, and inexpensive.
The study to be conducted by ODOT would examine whether bicycle licensing should be voluntary or mandatory, would be useful in locating stolen bikes, would produce revenues to fund infrastructure, and would provide data needed for planning purposes. Under the bill, ODOT would be expected to complete the study in early 2013.
I believe that cyclists should support passage of the bill. The debate over bicycle licensing has gone on for years, with a small vocal group constantly complaining that "bicyclists don't pay" despite the overwhelming amount of information demonstrating that, as a result of the subsidization of motor vehicles, bicyclists already pay more than their share of road costs and that any reasonable registration fee would only cover the administrative costs of a licensing program.
Clearly, some critics of cycling would dismiss the results of a study, just as they do with any objective information that is inconsistent with their world view. However, I am convinced that the study would provide additional information demonstrating that bicycle licensing is not feasible and that this information, produced by a motor vehicle centric organization like ODOT, would be more credible to legislators than the information currently available. Thus, HB 2331 offers the potential to move the debate forward with facts and data.
It would be helpful if the bill were amended to provide for some type of public involvement process in the way in which the study is conducted and to require the release of a draft of the results of the study for public comment and review. While that would not satisfy the wingnuts among us, it would help to broaden the public understanding and awareness of the results.
The bill is not currently scheduled for hearing and likely won't be considered by the committee until late March. Assuming that the Transportation Committee approves the bill, then it will go to the Ways and Means Committee--the historic resting place for any legislation that costs money. Hopefully, the legislature will find an approach to addressing bicycle licensing that is reasonable, credible, and inexpensive.
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Legislature is in Town -- Let the Craziness Begin
The 76th Legislative Session is underway. Legislators have selected their presiding officers, established the committee memberships, heard from the Governor, introduced hundreds of bills (most of which will go nowhere), and now are back home for about a month as a way to save money.
The plethora of bills that have been introduced range from key bills to which a significant number of legislators are committed to bills that are based on something that seemed like a good idea at the time to flat out wacky ideas. Examples of the wacky ideas from the past (the 1970s), include bills that would have allowed the placement of locks on prison cells only on the inside where they could be operated by the prisoners themselves, prohibited the use of metal canes by the blind to prevent them from electrocuting themselves, and requiring the state Blind Commission to adopt a uniform color for guide dog harnesses so that a motorist would know that a pedestrian was blind if spotted walking stiffly alongside a dog wearing a guide dog harness that was of the particular designated color.
Introduction of a bill is one of the least significant things that occurs at the state legislature. All bills that are introduced are referred to a committee. If any consideration of passage is to be given the bill, then the committee will hold at least one hearing during which supporters and opponents of the bill can express their views. If there appears to be support on the committee for the bill, then, usually, amendments will be prepared responding any concerns raised during the hearing. Only after a majority of the committee members vote to move the amended bill forward does it go the floor of the originating chamber, (e.g., the House of Representatives). If the bill passes there, then it goes to the other chamber (e.g., the Senate) for consideration and the whole process of committee referral, hearings, consideration of amendments, and consideration of passage on the floor is repeated. (If the Senate were to amend the bill, then it would go back to the House for concurrence in the Senate's amendments.
The Portland biking community has just gone through a period of apoplexy over the introduction by Rep. Greenlick of HB 2228 to prohibit transporting young children on a bicycle. The representative is a progressive legislator who has worked hard on health issues during a his 10-year tenure in the legislature. He is a well-respected, thoughtful member of the legislature from northwest Portland. He has been supportive of bicycling and willing to work with the cycling community on issues important to the community.
Clearly HB 2228 is a non-starter. It is hard to imagine where any base of support could come from. Many in the cycling community feel strongly that it is no more dangerous to transport a child by bicycle than it is to do so by motor vehicle and crash statistics undoubtedly support that view. Additionally, while many people experience a high level of angst over the rare crash involving a young child and make calls for immediate governmental action to prevent it ever happening again, they tend to ignore the alternatives and the much more serious health consequences of an auto-dependent society--obesity, diabetes, and the heath impacts of poor air quality--with which we are confronted.
Unfortunately, however, many in the Portland biking community have not been able to approach this issue with respect or a sense of perspective and, as a result, risk alienating the very people whose support is needed to make cycling more safe and accessible for the rest of us. Some commentors on the BikePortland site have called for Rep. Greenlick's removal from office, some have called him nuts, and others have called him crazy. One commentor has even suggested that he owes her an apology for introducing the bill because, from her perspective, he has caused the cycling community irreparable harm.
In actuality, any harm to the cycling community has come not from introduction of the bill, but from many cyclists' own intemperate response to it. It is reasonable and expected that cyclists express their opposition to the bill and, better yet, clearly and concisely describe why the bill is a bad idea. But, allowing a discussion to deteriorate to personal attacks on Rep. Greenlick, or any other member of the legislature, only works to alienate him and other legislators. The axiom that one can disagree, but should not be disagreeable applies in spades to legislative discussions.
The non-constructive reaction to HB 2228 probably is only the first opportunity that Portland cyclists will have to undercut efforts to secure a better legal environment for cycling. We should hold on to our hats for the reaction to the almost inevitable introduction of a bill proposing to register bicycles. That will give Portland-area cyclists yet another opportunity to alienate legislators over a bill that will have the same prospects of passage that bicycle registration bills have had during previous legislative sessions--next to zero.
While many good things have come from the Internet and the ability of just about anybody to share their thoughts with everybody else, there also is a downside. Those who post to news related forums enjoy a certain level of anonymity which may tend to prompt posting of more hostile, less constructive observations that would be the case if they were speaking face-to-face with others. Those who post don't necessarily need to know anything about the subject matter about which they are posting or have the ability to put the subject matter in context. Finally, while forums are intended to foster discussion, few posts demonstrate evidence that the poster read and thought about the preceding posts. While BikePortland is a wonderful source of information about cycling, certainly its forums demonstrate the downside of the medium.
The plethora of bills that have been introduced range from key bills to which a significant number of legislators are committed to bills that are based on something that seemed like a good idea at the time to flat out wacky ideas. Examples of the wacky ideas from the past (the 1970s), include bills that would have allowed the placement of locks on prison cells only on the inside where they could be operated by the prisoners themselves, prohibited the use of metal canes by the blind to prevent them from electrocuting themselves, and requiring the state Blind Commission to adopt a uniform color for guide dog harnesses so that a motorist would know that a pedestrian was blind if spotted walking stiffly alongside a dog wearing a guide dog harness that was of the particular designated color.
Introduction of a bill is one of the least significant things that occurs at the state legislature. All bills that are introduced are referred to a committee. If any consideration of passage is to be given the bill, then the committee will hold at least one hearing during which supporters and opponents of the bill can express their views. If there appears to be support on the committee for the bill, then, usually, amendments will be prepared responding any concerns raised during the hearing. Only after a majority of the committee members vote to move the amended bill forward does it go the floor of the originating chamber, (e.g., the House of Representatives). If the bill passes there, then it goes to the other chamber (e.g., the Senate) for consideration and the whole process of committee referral, hearings, consideration of amendments, and consideration of passage on the floor is repeated. (If the Senate were to amend the bill, then it would go back to the House for concurrence in the Senate's amendments.
The Portland biking community has just gone through a period of apoplexy over the introduction by Rep. Greenlick of HB 2228 to prohibit transporting young children on a bicycle. The representative is a progressive legislator who has worked hard on health issues during a his 10-year tenure in the legislature. He is a well-respected, thoughtful member of the legislature from northwest Portland. He has been supportive of bicycling and willing to work with the cycling community on issues important to the community.
Clearly HB 2228 is a non-starter. It is hard to imagine where any base of support could come from. Many in the cycling community feel strongly that it is no more dangerous to transport a child by bicycle than it is to do so by motor vehicle and crash statistics undoubtedly support that view. Additionally, while many people experience a high level of angst over the rare crash involving a young child and make calls for immediate governmental action to prevent it ever happening again, they tend to ignore the alternatives and the much more serious health consequences of an auto-dependent society--obesity, diabetes, and the heath impacts of poor air quality--with which we are confronted.
Unfortunately, however, many in the Portland biking community have not been able to approach this issue with respect or a sense of perspective and, as a result, risk alienating the very people whose support is needed to make cycling more safe and accessible for the rest of us. Some commentors on the BikePortland site have called for Rep. Greenlick's removal from office, some have called him nuts, and others have called him crazy. One commentor has even suggested that he owes her an apology for introducing the bill because, from her perspective, he has caused the cycling community irreparable harm.
In actuality, any harm to the cycling community has come not from introduction of the bill, but from many cyclists' own intemperate response to it. It is reasonable and expected that cyclists express their opposition to the bill and, better yet, clearly and concisely describe why the bill is a bad idea. But, allowing a discussion to deteriorate to personal attacks on Rep. Greenlick, or any other member of the legislature, only works to alienate him and other legislators. The axiom that one can disagree, but should not be disagreeable applies in spades to legislative discussions.
The non-constructive reaction to HB 2228 probably is only the first opportunity that Portland cyclists will have to undercut efforts to secure a better legal environment for cycling. We should hold on to our hats for the reaction to the almost inevitable introduction of a bill proposing to register bicycles. That will give Portland-area cyclists yet another opportunity to alienate legislators over a bill that will have the same prospects of passage that bicycle registration bills have had during previous legislative sessions--next to zero.
While many good things have come from the Internet and the ability of just about anybody to share their thoughts with everybody else, there also is a downside. Those who post to news related forums enjoy a certain level of anonymity which may tend to prompt posting of more hostile, less constructive observations that would be the case if they were speaking face-to-face with others. Those who post don't necessarily need to know anything about the subject matter about which they are posting or have the ability to put the subject matter in context. Finally, while forums are intended to foster discussion, few posts demonstrate evidence that the poster read and thought about the preceding posts. While BikePortland is a wonderful source of information about cycling, certainly its forums demonstrate the downside of the medium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)