If nobody finds it objectionable, it probably isn't funny

I agree with you JK. If this was "satire" then what was being satirized? A woman so narcissistic she lashes out at bicyclists for no rational reason? Revs her engine to scare them out of pique?

"Your post was irresponsible and dangerous by empowering those who bully cyclists. People DIE because of aggressive behavior from drivers, and you've placed yourself solidly in that group. The least you can do is take responsibility for what you wrote, admit that it sent the wrong message, and grow (up) from this experience."

Helen Lovejoy is a cyclist?

You also repeat a curious refrain that bicyclists are impeding or obstructing traffic by riding on the roads. So what law is being broken by a bicyclist operating on a road at a reasonable speed for a bicycle rider? Apart from the imaginary law of "ME FIRST" naturally.

Normal local roads do not have restrictions on riding bicycles, unlike some Interstates. Lawmakers on the contrary seem to think that it is a good thing to get the citizenry out riding bicycles for health benefits, air quality benefits, energy conservation benefits, as well as the general dislike of infringing on an individual's freedom to travel, whether on foot, on bicycle, or in a car. In the directly parallel Ohio case below, the judge upheld the lawful right of the bicycle rider to ride his bicycle on a public road and held that an officer acted illegally when he detained a bicycle rider for essentially the officer's idea of "obstruction of traffic." The judge wrote, ". . . the officer’s testimony is that he felt that the defendant was impeding traffic and that is why he asked him to pull over. It is clear to the court that a bicyclist traveling at a reasonable speed for a bicycle cannot be convicted under R.C. 4511.22. There is no evidence that the defendant here was traveling at anything other than a reasonable speed."

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/98/2008/2008-Ohio-7142.pdf

OMG call the authorities! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Sorry, Carl, but I didn't see a single commenter here who said that they were writers. You don't actually have to be a writer yourself to be a reader and recognize bad writing. There's funny, there's satire...and then there's a sophomoric rant.

This is a classic comment that comes up on every internet argument. *Sigh* you must be her 19 y/o boyfriend or something and also have a hard time thinking clearly. If your logic was correct then hardly anyone could ever have an opinion on a movie, book, or even magazine article. Dont like your food? Lets see you make emulsified oil and vinegar, so says the chef.

The commentators above who are pointing out her writing flaws CAN have valid points without being Pulitzer prize winners themselves.

@ Dutch-

My valid point is that somebody who types *sigh* in a comment is more than likely a gigantic douche.

Carl, I think you proved my point. Scamper off, your pampers need changing. You can come back to the discussion once you realize the *Can you do it better?* and *You're a douchebag!* retorts are old and tired on the Internet. Are you going to insult my mom next? You're pretty much the worst troll I have ever seen with quite possibly the most worn out insults.

If you're not a biker, I hope one day, when you are all grown up and a big boy of course, you rent one while on vacation with the family who hates you and you get plowed by an SUV. Figuratively.

Wow - talk about the pot calling the kettle black. "You're 19", "your pampers need changing", "when you are a big boy...". Not only are your lame insults repetitive but they reek of an irritable loser-ish troll who takes a lot more pride than he should in his internet commenting and posting activity.

I shouldn't need to explain this to somebody who claims to be an adult - but your line of reasoning does not apply to this situation. Movies, published books and professionally written magazine articles are not analogous to an unpaid 19-year-old student's blog at a hyperlocal news site. It's pretty much common sense for anybody with any semblance of maturity that they are not to be held to the same standards. The author is not a professional. She is basically a random person. So, yeah, "let's see you do it better" IS a valid retort in this case.

"If you're not a biker, I hope one day, when you are all grown up and a big boy of course, you rent one while on vacation with the family who hates you and you get plowed by an SUV. Figuratively."

What is this supposed to be? You're accusing me of being a troll while typing this garbage? Really??

Get off the internet for a couple years, buddy. Then look back and read the comments and posts that you spend all day making on god knows how many ridiculous forums you post at. You'll be thoroughly embarassed, I am sure.

Hay cycle dudes, good job critiquing the literary skills of a submission to the local voices section of a patch site.

Is being pedantic a defensive reaction by legions of emotionally shallow biker nerds? I know cycling causes bone mass loss. I didn't know it was specifically in the back bone.

Sadly, recalcitrant will probably only come when she doesn't land a job because a would-be employer googled her and found this. Perhaps then she'll be "sorry she wasn't sorry."

Maybe you'd be a better father if you didn't put yourself in a position where your "life is at stake" on a daily basis to save $7.

Thats what she said, I get what you're saying: people with something to lose should never stand up for their rights. Protecting our freedom is solely the domain of the completely free.

I wonder whose sock puppet you are. No, "wonder" is too strong a word--I actually don't care.

B should be commended for his heroic efforts to protect our freedom. He is a modern day Nelson Mendela, just like all of the other hysterical bikers commenting on Patch.

Your absolutely right That's What She Said. You just gutted our army, police departments and fire departments. Any father or mother that does that kind of work is irresponsible too, I suppose. What are they thinking?

I'll narrow down the math for you. Biking is 99% safe. Odds are I'll be completely fine especially since I'm experienced and bike defensively. But there are those 1% encounters out there, like the ones Justine admitted to doing, that I can't defend against. I say a prayer to protect me from people like her: the deranged, self-important, harassers I have no defense against.

You miss my other point about $7 a day: I don't bike for any other reason than I have to. I'm not rich enough that $1,750 per year doesn't matter. I'm sorry I'm working class and work hard for my family.

@Ani,

You know I was thinking about that, too (and slightly worried for her, employment-wise). In the DC area about 3% of commutes are done on bike so it's well within the realm of possibility that the interviewer is a bike commuter or knows one. If I came across this, I certainly wouldn't hire her, and not just for the anti-bike screed (I'd say the general attitude, lack of creativity and the poor handling of the non-apology would be just as likely to make me move on to the next in line).

LOL @ comparing yourself to heroes that make real sacrifices, our military and first responders. You're trying to save $7, they are trying to save lives. Get a clue.

By cycling to work your "life is at stake" (your words) or it isn't? By your and your peers' description of cycling to work you'd think you'd have to be suicidal to do it. Just admit you are a liar or you are a bad father and we'll call it even.

repost

Here are some more Terms for you, Abby:

"Without limitation, you agree that you will not post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that:

[ . . . ]

"is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
promotes or encourages violence;
[ . . .]
is illegal or promotes any illegal activities;"

Now, I'm not really one for unnecessarily limiting strong opinions, but if you're going to be a stickler for some rules, well, you ought to apply all of them evenly.

I've generally tried to stay away from these comments here, because I don't think there's much point in piling on. But I'm pretty disappointed to see the Ballston Patch promoting such ridiculous and offensive writing while then having the temerity to selectively apply the ToS to commenters.

Alex, why do you think cyclists do not belong on the sidewalk? In many places, it's perfectly legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk--in D.C., for example, cyclists may use the sidewalk anywhere outside the Central Business District. In Montgomery County, Maryland, it is generally legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk except where specifically prohibited. Regarding Arlington, http://bikefriendlyarlington.com/2011/05/17/rules-of-the-road/ suggests that bicyclists may not use sidewalks in Arlington unless they are specifically designated for their use (e.g. the Custis Trail along Lee Highway).

There seems to be a generalized myth that it's illegal for cyclists to use the sidewalk--and your comment seems to perpetuate it--whereas it is actually a local policy that varies from place to place. Please correct me if I misunderstand you.

Of course, cyclists on the sidewalk must be cautious and courteous like everyone else, and must signal when passing and yield to pedestrians.

Antibozo - the Arlington referred to in your link is Arlington, *Texas*. It's perfectly legal - though not always the best idea - to ride on the sidewalk in Arlington, *Virginia*. I'm not a fan of riding on the sidewalk (for many reasons), but it's sometimes unavoidable, and is certainly where some types of riders feel most comfortable.

Mark, thanks for the correction, duh. Sorry, I was in a hurry and got sloppy (and thought I recognized the blog as a local one). :^)

Hey look! An actual apology and graciousness about being corrected. It can be done!

@antibozo: You are correct that in some parts of D.C. bicyclists are allowed on the sidewalk. I ride on the sidewalk only when it's wide enough and empty enough to not endanger pedestrians. However, cyclists are RARELY respectful of pedestrians when they're on the sidewalk -- they're simply moving too fast. If the standard is to protect the most vulnerable of those on our roads, cyclists shouldn't be mixing with pedestrians.

It's also a dangerous practice for the cyclist -- cars are far LESS LIKELY to see a cyclist on the sidewalk and could hit the cyclist when they cross in a crosswalk. Additionally, I think it is a better practice to make drivers used to seeing cyclists in the roadway and getting everybody in the habit of sharing the road.

Bicycles are vehicles and should get to share the road, except in very dangerous conditions where cars are moving 40+ mph. That's why, IMO, if you have to generalize, it's best to keep cyclists OFF the sidewalks. Notice how many new CABI users are breaking the law and riding in the business district. It's very dangerous because they think it's safer for them to be on the sidewalk.

Alex, it is not merely "in some parts of D.C."; it is in most of D.C.--everywhere outside the Central Business District--that cyclists are allowed to use sidewalks.

Certainly there are some inconsiderate cyclists using sidewalks, as there are some inconsiderate pedestrians as well, but the majority of those I see, especially if you're talking about CaBi users, are not in that class. CaBi bikes in particular are not really built for speed. Yes, sometimes drivers don't expect a cyclist in the crosswalk, but cyclists use crosswalks all the time, even when they're not using the sidewalk otherwise, so drivers really should be trained to be watchful. People using motorized wheelchairs are at even greater risk in crosswalks since they typically don't have as much height as a rider on a bicycle; following your logic, should they be staying off the sidewalk as well?

I agree with some of your commentary, inasmuch as it *can* be hazardous for a cyclist to use the sidewalk. But where I really disagree is in the need for generalization. I don't think there's any hard and fast rule about where bicycles "shouldn't be", other than, perhaps, limited access highways, and other places where it is outright illegal. Anywhere else, it's a judgment call. Reasonable, considerate people should be able to make that call, and shouldn't need inflexible rules for guidance. That's what conscience is for.

I agree, this is getting out of control. Elitist 19 y/o's (I didnt even own a car at 19, im sure daddy bought it for her) who rev's the engine at bicyclists because they delayed her 20 seconds and paid Patch editors who allow this hostility towards people who just want to GET TO WORK SAFELY... what is going on here?

From Abby's profile, *I was born and raised in Northern Virginia and cannot stand when people call it NOVA* This doesn't make any sense to hate on, its a freaking shorthand way to say Norther Virginia. I can see now why she likes Justine so much, they both have immature blind rage.

One thing is for sure, bicyclists will not be on cell phones, or drunk, or have the ability to kill others on the road.

Dutch, to be fair, I do see fellow cyclists using cell phones fairly often, tho the risk they pose is more to themselves than to anyone else. And once in a blue moon during a syzygy in August a cyclist does manage to kill someone.

"Elitist 19 y/o's (I didnt even own a car at 19, im sure daddy bought it for her)"

Congratulations - you have officially usurped Mark Blacknell as the lamest individual in Arlington.

You all are kidding, right? I mean, Abby and Justine have screwed up, but calling for their removal? You're kidding, right?

And - OH, how I LOVE the word "syzygy"!

If you are lucky enough to get an apology, and it isn't posted publicly, please share it.

"she promotes the idea that motorists should intimidate cyclists by approaching them from the rear and revving their engines"

Reading comprehension FAIL. Repeat 10th grade please.

You have to wonder how it's possible that one can be so far detached from reality as to consider the revving of one's engine "assault".

I don't know. How 'bout 9 inches from the bumper of a 2-ton vehicle under the control of a relatively inexperienced driver. Is that far enough?

If you haven't been at the receiving end, you really have no basis for making that call. Not to mention she said that's why she (hypothetically) does it. I'd take her at her word.

Carl: for a good discussion of the assault issue, see http://www.waba.org/blog/2011/07/waba-pushing-anti-harassmentassault-bill-for-cyclists/

Thanks

Jonathan,
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the commenter suggesting that Justine be identified as a "domestic terrorist".

BREAKING: Ballston cyclists (not Jews) now the most persecuted group in the world

@Carl: Just s few points...

- Threatening to use force in an attempt to intimidate someone is already "assault" and is already illegal. No new laws are needed.

- Legislatures and courts, up to the Supreme Court, have determined that repeated targeting of a class of citizens (i.e., blacks, Catholics, women) is hate speech and that special laws to outlaw such speech are warranted. The basis for such laws is that the collective effect of hate speech, rather than being a matter numerous individuals committing assault, is an attempt to intimidate or terrorize an entire class of Americans. In other words, hate speech is a form of domestic terrorism. These are not crazy ideas and they were not cooked up by the people posting in this comment thread.

- In case after case, motorists who kill cyclists are not put in jail and do not lose their licenses. Instead they are ticketed and pay a fine that is typically less than $300. The message received by cycling advocates is that, in our society, the life of a cyclist is worth $300. So, yes, we take these threats very seriously.

- We live in a society that habitually excuses auto-related deaths by calling them "accidents." Few seem to realize that autos kill people at the rate of 100 per day in the USA (by contrast, a lethal Metro crash is talked about for months). Cycling advocates are aware of the attitude that it is somehow OK to kill people while driving a car. We are working to combat it.

Jonathan

Rather than fail over and over and over at trying to meet with Justine (obsess much?). Just post your thoughts here for everyone. I really want to hear you "explain the particular aspects of the commentary that were most worrisome and threatening for vulnerable users of the public roads."

Cricket, I am offended by your comments above about America. Please admit that you were rude and out of line. This is an extremely sensitive subject to me. Your apology will not make you appear weak.

Thanks in advance!

you stalking bro?

I see a cyclist :: bad father correlation brewing....hmm

@Thats what she said
Believe me, no one is more baffled than I that I spent as much time as I did reading her drivel. I typically spend my internet time catching up on news or reading blogs that offer something substantive and insightful. I got caught up in the sociological ramifications of her whole series of blog posts, all of which had something nasty to say about something that "irked" her. Quite apart from the attitude of entitlement and intolerance that she displays in her rant against cyclists, I found myself wondering what this implies about a whole generation who seems to regard the internet as an opportunity to display, for all the world to see, the most personal details of their self-absorbed minds. Believing that anyone really wants to hear what you think about your trivial, banal experiences is really at the heart of narcissism. To deliver them in such a mean-spirited way, perhaps fueled by the pervasive shock-jock mentality that some people seem to devour, coupled with a complete disregard for the basic rules of grammar (does no one proofread this stuff?!), makes it all the more unpalatable. So I had to wonder if it was just her or if she represents a larger trend (no conclusion reached). I give her a lot of credit for being so bold, I just wish she would contribute something positive to the world.
Look--she puts this stuff out there, desperately hoping that someone will read it and pay attention to her. Then, when someone does, you want to call it stalking?

@Thats what she said

P.S. I'm still trying to figure out how you got a "cyclist::bad father correlation" out of my comments.That's quite a leap. Am I talking to Glenn Beck?

P.P.S: I'm not a "bro."

Oh, my bad. So this is good parenting? "If my teenage daughter verbally vomited all over the internet and tried to pass it off as "writing" (opinion or not), I would smash her computer to pieces and tell her to pay for her own education."

BTW, this silly little op-ed may have the most page views in the history of any patch thanks to the absurd, outraged cyclist community. All the little local cycling blogs predictably posted a retort encouraging the emotionally delicate cyclist horde to spew their rage en mass in these comments. It's been entertaining to say the least.

@Thats what she said...

Oh, my bad. I wrongly assumed that, as a connoisseur of satire, you would also recognize hyperbole. I'm deeply ashamed to respond to you, but I will anyway. Let me break it down for you. No, I would not literally smash her computer because a) she bought it herself with money she saved for a year, and b) that scenario would never happen in the first place as a result of good parenting. The exaggeration was only meant to suggest that we've raised our children in an atmosphere where a lack of compassion and intolerance is unacceptable and will meet with consequences. Clearly the concept of raising children with moral guidelines and behavioral expectations is foreign to you.
As for the outrage of the cyclist community which her post incited, I think it's completely justified. Surprise again: I'm not even a cyclist myself. I'm simply concerned whenever I see hate-mongering.
I saw in another of your hateful comments that you are currently holding 3 bicycles hostage in your garage. And you don't ride them because you don't like the attitude of a small group of cyclists? Wow! Maybe you should frame them and call it art. That would really show themI I don't like preachy, self-righteous vegetarians, but I'm not going to start eating meat over it.
I don't condone censorship, but when someone posts this kind of trash, a verbal smackdown is deserved.

@Thats what she said
BTW-apologies for my delayed response, but the phrase "that's what she said" is so tired that I fell asleep on my keyboard.
http://tremendousnews.com/2010/08/27/the-10-annoying-phrases-you-need-to-stop-using/

And I won't be responding to any more of your weird, chip-on-shoulder comments because I have things to do. So, by all means, feel free to have your final silly attempt at a clever last word.

SB, your foaming rage bleeds through my screen. "lack of compassion and intolerance is unacceptable and will meet with consequences"
Take a step back and just let your kids breathe. They probably already hate you as it is. You aren't even a cyclist and you can't resist writing walls of text on something that doesn't pertain to you. Oh, you're an internet crusader here to stamp out "hate-mongering". More LOLs. Keep trying to change the world one patch op-ed at a time Sisyphus.

Thanks for bringing that up, M.

you know how I know you're old?

I always obey the law on my bike, and I've actually tried to get other cyclists to be better about that (including using your very argument). Ultimately, though, it is totally outside my power. What's worse, cyclists get blamed for violations that don't even exist, as Justine did herself in the original post. I recently got honked at for going into the left lane to pass a line of cars waiting to exit the roadway on K Street, which the honker told me was "taking both lanes" and against the law. Heck, I was even going at the same speed as the rest of the traffic. And I'll just leave to the side the fact that drivers don't get held to the same standard.

Bottom line, there's no justification for harassment.

Except ... the target wasn't African Americans. The fact that you're comparing yourself to a group that has dealt with hundreds of years of oppression and is still feeling the effects just goes to show how utterly delusional and attached from reality you all are.

These comment threads make bikers look like utter fools. Get a grip and stop taking yourselves so seriously.

And if the target were attractive young white women, with the writer critizing their standoffishness and shallowness and recommended invading their personal space on the Metro in order to get their attention? Would you be so cavalier in excusing this kind of behavior?

I own a bike....actually there are 3 in my garage. Somehow I don't feel like I need to align myself with this faux cult in which cyclists believe they belong. When someone considers themselves part of a disenfranchised group based on their chosen mode of transportation, this is called delusional and paranoid behavior.

Here we see an example of "changing the subject." Invariably used when one is losing the argument.

Nice non-retort. Guess you know a lot about losing arguments.

Convince me that you are part of a segment of people similar to a religion, race, or credo that is clearly definable and persecuted for your alliance with said group.

I don't say I am any more than attractive young white women would say they are. Yet both "groups", for want of a better word, would find certain things offensive if directed at them. And would say so, vocally.

And yes, I have learned much from your sad example about losing arguments.

Your statistics are completely bogus. Why resort to making up stuff? Is your arguyment that weak? Or are you just a troll?

most bike - auto crashes are the fault of the cyclist. it's a fact.

there are bike lobby studies that disagree just like there are big tobacco studies that says cigarettes don't cause cancer.

No studies show that.

"Here are some actual statistics of driver compliance with road laws borrowed from Washcycle"
not relevant and cherry picked from a bicycle interest outlet.

Back on topic:
When a car and bike are involved in a collision, las vegas is going to give you odds favoring fault in the cyclist.

Cherry-picked maybe, but with actual sources...which is more than your random made-up statistics.

So we're in agree that you're ignorant? Good deal.

"All people brake laws -- when cars do it, they are better at killing people than cyclists"
aside from your over generalization fallacy, you fail to realize that when cyclists break laws, as they often do, they are quite good at killing themselves. Now, that is ignorant.

So your reaction to "one of the most egregious and silly overreactions" is to have an even more silly, egregious overreaction?

Did anyone say bicyclists are infallible? Are making a "bold political statement"?

And I'm sorry you disagree - but threatening someone with 2 tons of steel and glass *is* assault.

The vast majority of cyclists also own cars, and use them. We see both sides of the issue, which you clearly do not. In fact, you are completely unqualified to say what should or should not make a cyclist apprehensive.

We're largely not riding to make a statement. We're just trying to go along with our lives, using a perfectly legal form of transportation. Our reaction to what Justine said stems from two sources: (1) bizarre personal attacks on how we look and the fact that we annoy some drivers. We can deal with that, but we rightly think less of such people. And (2) behavior by a small percentage of drivers that is reckless, dangerous and what we call harassment, and you, with no experience in this at all, do not. I can tell you I've had people honk at me, buzz me, rev their engines behind, shout at me and once, physically attack me. In every instance I was obeying the law. Each of those instances really is dangerous to me, in their potential for the vehicle to hit me (even if not on purpose) , and in the fact that they cause me to divert attention from riding. That may not be an issue to pedestrians, but it surely is to a cyclist.

Many of these irate comments come from disappointment that, having been called out for ugly and dangerous statements, Justine's answer was "sorry not sorry."

You're clearly do not ride bicycles so you will never get it, Carl. I'm not even sure why you are posting except maybe you are bored and like to anger people on the Internet for your own amusement or you are hoping to score with Justine. Either one, your thoughts are immature and inexperienced. You dont know how it feels to have people threaten to attack you with a 2,000 pound lump of plastic, steel, and aluminum. Nothing turns a pleasant day and legal ride into a nightmare when suddenly your life is on the line for no reason whatsoever besides unwarranted road rage.

Go back to the romper room and let the adults have a nice conversation, please.

Dutch, you are the one that can't handle a 19 yr old female stereotyping based on the bad apples in your hobby. What are you raging about it? Why are you bike heads such fragile emotional creatures?

I'm so happy to hear that your ideas about compassion are changing. I hope that as your ideas evolve, so will your writing. Perhaps someday we can read a blog by you that is positive or funny without being so hurtful and spreading a damaging message. Please put your unbounded confidence to good use. We have enough nasty stuff out there without constantly adding to it. So you don't like cyclists? You don't have to. But you can practice a little patience and adopt an attidtude of live and let live. That's my two cents. Good luck.

I do hope you keep at your writing. It's a noble profession, and one in which you can have a great impact on other people, for good or ill.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't defend that cyclists break rules. I see quite a few idiot cyclists on a daily basis. I also see quite a few idiot drivers. It's just people -- there's a lot of idiots out there. What can you do? I can't make them ride like I do.

The driver mantra of "I hate cyclists because they don't follow the law" is ridiculous though. It's just that drivers are used to other drivers breaking the law, and provided this law breaking doesn't slow them down (even if it poses a high risk of injuring or killing people), they tolerate it.

Since a cyclist has almost no chance of killing a driver, the extreme anger toward cyclists and lack of care toward other drivers is unreasonable. No one thinks about this though.
BTW - good to hear Justine. You are completely free to say and think how you wish, but it's been my experience that I tended to feel a certain way when I was younger, and I gradually changed my views over time. So you don't have to worry about me out on the road- I'm not an angry person.

I don't break the law on my bike. Sorry if you don't believe me. I don't know you, so I can't make generalizations about you. I do note that traffic studies how that at any given time on any given road, 70% of drivers are speeding. So I can make an educated guess that you are more likely than not to be (a) a habitual lawbreaker (b) giving me grief about breaking the law, with no basis in fact.

"people that have been devoting so much time and energy to the comments section? This really is not worth your anger and effort."

but how else can one display one's own false sense of self importance?

more importantly, all the raging is exquisitely entertaining