David Filipov Of The Boston Globe Responds
Written by Boston Biker on Aug 10I wrote to David Filipov, of the Boston Globe about my disagreement with his recent article. He was kind enough to respond is a very thoughtful way, I have put it below with no editing other than to take a couple names out.
———
Hello BostonBiker:
I was hoping that you would write me.
First of all, please forgive the tardy response (and the out-of-office message.) Truly I am on vacation as of this morning. And for some reason, the Globe’s spam filter put your note (and three others) in my quarantine file. Using the methodology that worked so well in the story, three out of 37 emails from readers made it to my inbox!
Incidentally, the Filipov Method of Counting Things revealed the following split among emailers: Of the 37, twelve were cyclists who approved of the content, which stated that often bikers ignore traffic rules; 10 were clearly opposed to the idea of bikers on the road; and the rest had a profoundly negative reaction to the story.
I did see your post on your blog, having been directed there by another biking enthusiast who responded to my story by email. I was looking for a way to post, or offer myself up for discussion, but alas, did not spend enough time trying to figure it all out. I imagine what I write now will end up there, so I will try to comment on everything possible.
Since it will probably be awkward for you to print out your text with my comments, let me summarize here, and then you can go to the blow-by-blow commentary to your text.
You make a number of valid and insightful points about the attitudes of the three groups — cyclists, drivers and pedestrians — as well as the motivation for cyclists who are committing infractions. You also summarize suggested solutions in a cogent way that makes me hope you submit an op-ed piece to the Globe.
I think the only areas in which we disagree are 1) the intent of the writer and 2) the ambitions of the story, from the point of view of methodology. In fact, the article made no pretense of being a scientific study. The story made no secret of the fact that I chose random samples from different parts of the city.
As for intent, I believe your commentary ignored all references to the “other side’ of the argument — poor behavior of drivers, poor infrastructure — and thus made it easier for you to conclude that I had some sort of a bias against cyclists as opposed to other offenders. In fact, you summarize the point of my story almost word for word, except that you add your interpretation of my intent, and then argue against it, rather than my article. You in fact point out that you do not dispute the facts in the article; you merely dispute what you assume my intentions were (ad revenue, showing bikers to be the only miscreants, neglecting the damage done by cars, etc. etc.).
Finally, since your argument is based on intent, your research is negligent, in that it fails to show the story that ran last week in the same newspaper, published by the same author, with the same amount of space on page one, which spends almost all of its 1200 words detailing the abuses of motorists.
Other than all that, we agree! On to the blow-by-blow.
I read David Filipov’s newest article at the Globe with some amount of disgust this morning. For those who have yet to glance upon this masterwork of investigative journalism let me serve up some tasty snippets.
============
Filipov response: I’ve always thought that investigative journalism is when someone spends months trying to unveil some secret corruption or abuse. This was participant observation, and never was intended to be scientific or investigative. I stood on street corners and counted things I saw bikers do in public, nothing more.
============
Ahh yes, Boston cyclists scourge of the streets. I don’t actually disagree with the authors claims of wrong doing by cyclists.
================================
Filipov response: Then we are in agreement on the main point of the story. Having read your post, I believe our main disagreement will be over the intent of the writer.
====================
In fact I am just as annoyed and pissed off when I see cyclists running red lights (news flash, running red lights doesn’t make you faster…being faster makes you faster), mostly because I then have to pass their stupid asses as I take off after waiting at the red light, but also because I see them regularly muck up traffic, almost get run over, or fail to yield to pedestrians. In short the same numskulls who run red lights on their bikes, are the same people I worry about when in cars. So why might you ask was I so disgusted with this article?
==================
Filipov response: I share your views on all these attitudes, though none of them piss me off so much as they trouble me. Drivers made me feel very unsafe when I rode a bike in the city for the first time for the July 29 story:
==================
In short the article is guilty of two things. One, it insinuated that only cyclists are breaking the law, and two, it tries very hard to neglect that different user groups produce different consequences when they break the law.
======================
Filipov response: There is no such insinuation. The story is a follow up to a piece that ran Wednesday July 29 that dealt almost exclusively with the violations by drivers of bicyclists’ right to the road.
Ok, I’ll stop pasting in that URL.
==================
So to the first point, ‘only cyclists are bad’, lets take a look at some of the crack statistics work that the author did.
==================
Filipov response: I am going to follow you, but keep in mind that from my point of view, your argument is based on a faulty notion of the intent, and therefore you are committing the fallacy of the straw man. Nowhere did I write, nor do I believe, that ‘only cyclists are bad.’ Not that any of this makes you a bad person!
===============
At that particular intersection, 12 out of 28 cyclists were observed ignoring the red light over the course of 45 minutes. Some cruised right through; others paused and then went forward. A dozen more rode along the narrow sidewalk, weaving their ways among joggers, people walking to work, and students toting instruments toward the Berklee College of Music. Four more cyclists rode the wrong way on Newbury Street, dodging oncoming vehicles.
…
On Wednesday, over the course of 40 minutes, 20 cyclists ran the light at Charles and Beacon streets; only one did not. Monday morning, over the course of 35 minutes at Copley Square, 12 cyclists sailed through red lights (five waited for green). Monday, during a half-hour at lunch time, 10 out of 23 cyclists ran the red light on Tremont Street at the beginning of Beacon Street, where tourists commingled with hurried business people. Ten more rode the wrong way on Tremont. Dozens more took the sidewalk, scattering walkers.
Nice, random sampling times, no methodology, no sampling of other user groups, tiny samples, in short these numbers mean nothing. They also fail to capture the entire picture. How many pedestrians walked out against the signal, how many cars failed to yield, how many cars failed to use turn signals, how many were speeding? I feel that a detailed multi-user group study of any intersection would show that every user group in Boston has a problem, and that problem is that they simply don’t give a fuck about anyone else.
=====================
Filipov response: The story was intended to show a random sampling and never suggested that it was a scientific study. In fact, I did not mention a number of other places where I observed. Also, in addition to the story last week, which discusses violations by other vehicles, this story mentions the sins of drivers.
=================
If you are a pedestrian and you want to be “over there” and the little walk man isn’t showing what do you do? You look both ways (sometimes), if no one is coming (or often even if they are, cause ‘hey fuck it’ they will stop) and you step out into the street. You don’t care if you force the cyclist to move into heavy traffic to avoid you, you also don’t care if a bunch of cars have to suddenly stop to let you cross when you have absolutely no business being in the road at that time.
====================
Filipov response: Having done cars and cyclists, I want to do a story about bad pedestrians for the hat trick. Are you with me? Will you go on the record?
==================
If you are a cyclist and you want to go through a red light, well ‘hey fuck it’, off you go. You have no regard for the fact that you might get run over, that you might hold up traffic, that you might strike a pedestrian that is crossing the street, that you might hit another cyclist that is following the law, that you might then cause a headache for the cyclists behind you who then have to deal with you when the light does turn green.
If you are a motorist and you feel like getting from point A to point B as fast as possible and you don’t feel like signaling, checking your mirrors, obeying the speed limit, looking before you open your door, yielding to pedestrians, giving cyclists room on the road, well ‘hey fuck it’ it’s your car and you will do what you want.
In short no user group is any more or less lawful than any other. They each break different laws in different frequency, but they are ALL breaking the law with great regularity and mostly because of the “hey fuck it” attitude that so many have in this city.
====================
Filipov response: The defense has no questions, your honor.
===================
That brings me to point two. The consequences for different user groups breaking the law are not the same. When a car decides to run a red light, it carries a much greater risk than when a bike does. Similarly the danger to pedestrians who cross against the light are predominantly to themselves, with cyclists a close second, most motorists will not be physically harmed if they strike a pedestrian. All of these actions are illegal, and stupid, but the risk vs reward for each is different. If you are going to write an entire article about how unruly cyclists are, well then you should have lots of facts about how this behavior is dangerous to the public. Statistics showing the hundreds of deaths caused each year by cyclists running red lights, and the carnage caused by sidewalk riding. Don’t get me wrong, I think running red lights and riding on the side walk are stupid and shouldn’t be done, but in all honestly they don’t pose a major threat to public safety. However literally thousands of people are killed each year by or in cars. When a 4000 pound box of metal and glass gets going fast and doesn’t signal it’s turns, people die.
=================
Filipov response: I pointed out that no accidents occurred and no one was hurt in any of the violations I witnessed. That said, in motor vehicle terms, if a Bradley Fighting Vehicle runs a red light the consequences might be much worse than if a Mini does it. Should we not ticket the Mini because the consequences of a collision are bound to be less dire?
====================
Publishing an entire article about one user group without putting it in context is disingenuous, and dishonest. There is already a strong pubic opinion that you “have to be crazy to ride a bike in Boston” or “bike riders are assholes.” Which is a horrible thing, biking in Boston can be a fun and relaxing activity. Bikers are not crazy, and biking doesn’t have to be a war of US v Them. The car lifestyle has brought us a lot of things, but the most obvious is obesity, congestion, pollution, sprawl , global warming, wars for oil, and as of late an economic crisis. People could do a fair amount of good by simply leaving the car in the driveway and taking the bike out for a spin.
====================
Filipov response: I do not disagree with any of the ideas in this paragraph except the first sentence. The idea of context is subjective, as your previous arguments and my responses have demonstrated, since you base your notion of context around some nefarious intent that I argue is lacking.
======================
This article was a simple attempt to get some ad revenue for the Globe, shallow sensational journalism lacking context or good research. But the fact still remains: Cyclists break the law, a lot. What can we do about that? The article itself, and the user comments are long on “this is the problem” and lacking completely the “this is the solution.” The solution seems to be two fold.
================
Filipov response: Again, your premise is subjective. Ad revenue is the last thing on my mind. We have already discussed context and research. As for calling me shallow, I do not mind being called that. As for the solution, I think I will let Nicole and David do the talking on that.
==========
Education: You need to know what the laws are. This goes for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. You should have a deep understanding of what exactly you are supposed to be doing out there (check out MassBike’s website for a good run down of cycling laws if you are rusty, they just passed some new laws so it might be time for a refresher).
=============
Filipov response: here here!
===============
Attitude: Boston must put aside it’s “hey fuck it” (or even worse “hey fuck you”) attitude. What really keeps us all safe and happy out there is not the law, but the social trust. That little white line, or that little red/green/yellow light, isn’t what keeps you from getting run over by that truck. The trust you put into that truck driver to treat that light like it means something, or stay on one side of that white line is what keeps you safe. When you break the law what you are really doing is breaking the social trust that someone else put in you. You are saying to them “everything is chaotic you can’t count on anything” and that makes them mad, afraid and unsafe. If you are a cyclist you count on cars coming to a stop at red lights, otherwise you would never cross an intersection (imagine if cars ran reds with the frequency that bikes do). The entire system is based from the ground up on trust of strangers. Every time a cyclist runs a red light they are eroding that trust.
=============
Filipov response: You ought to do an op-ed piece on this. It is right on.
===========
If each use group continues to erode the trust (by doing all the things mentioned above and more) then eventually the streets will be nothing more than a war zone, and whoever is fastest and toughest will get around, and everyone else will be road kill. Not a happy scenario, but also far from a likely one if some simple things are changed.
============
Filipov response: Again, here here. Right on.
===============
But hey, at least we can count on the Boston Globe to provide us with poorly thought out, and poorly researched articles so that we can scape goat one group while ignoring the bigger problem. Thanks Boston Globe.
==============
Filipov response: I did not know scape goat was a verb.
I will concede one very large point. I believe you, and many other cyclists who responded, feel that the story unfairly portrayed your presence and actions on the road, and therefore, you feel the need to demonize me. That is a natural reaction, and I have been demonized many times before for things I have reported and written. If you thought your reaction was angry, think of what the Russians wrote about me when I reported on atrocities in Chechnya! I do not think there is a cyclist out there with whom I would not share a shot of vodka.
Ps: After writing the July 29 story, I went out and bought a bike. See you on the road?
With the best of intent,
David Filipov
[email protected]
He then send me a further email:
Now hopefully you don’t take all that to mean I’m suggesting people who ride bikes on sidewalks are as bad as marauding Russian units in Grozny!
Cheers,
df
Overall I think he mad good points, I also realized up reading the email again that I had been pretty harsh on the guy. He is not a cyclist, doesn’t have the same kind of experience that many daily cyclists do and most likely doesn’t spend a majority of his time thinking about these sort of things (I stay up late thinking about cycling…it’s true).
I want to publicly take back some of the mean things I said about the author and the Globe, but I stick by my guns that this article (and even the one he links to in his response) are flawed. They paint cycling as a dangerous, lawless, activity when in fact it is not.
I can see only one solution to combat these falsehoods. Lets all go ride our bikes!
Add to Reddit. Posted in advocacy, bostonbiker, news | 8 Comments »
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.