Surprise! Inquirer opinion writer misses the point
More critical thinking would have resulted in a conclusion that stopping had nothing to do with Friedes’ death, which the bicycle vampires have merchandised into getting their ideas through a complacent and intellectually inert Council.
Make room for another Inquirer egghead totally missing the point.
Whiffing on Friday was op-ed columnist Daniel Pearson who thought he was writing about bike lanes when he was actually writing about bike safety.
Or the opposite.
It’s a tangle. Let me explain.
One focus of his column was the tragic death of pediatrician Dr. Barbara Friedes two years ago in the bike lane on Spruce Street.
Pearson writes that she was killed by a drunk driver who was doing twice the speed limit who swerved into the bike lane.
Engaging in first-level thinking, he praises City Council for taking “action.”
The action? Against speeding? No. About enforcement? No. Council passed the no stopping in bike lane law as if stopping in the bike lane had anything to do with the doctor’s death — which was murder in my opinion. Drunk driver Michael Vahey got 6-20 years. The doctor’s death had nothing to do with stopping in the bike lane.
Pearson then faults the nonpartisan citizens group, Friends of Pine and Spruce, for going to court to stop an injustice.
“If residents want to stop bike lanes,” Pearson writes, “they can do what cyclists have done. They can form advocacy groups, lobby elected officials, build a coalition, and pass legislation."
First, that is exactly what FOPS did. To little effect, as the politicians have been co-opted by the cycling groups. It’s kind of a municipal virus, where elected officials who should know better swoon over a marginal form of transportation. Since the pols wouldn’t listen, FOPS was forced to go to court.
More importantly, Friends of Pine and Spruce “are not trying to stop bike lanes, and never have,” says FOPS President Lloyd Brotman. That is a crucial misunderstanding on Pearson’s part. It is not about bike lanes.
FOPS has two aims:
Reverse the nonsensical “no stopping” law that was championed by City Council President Kenyatta Johnson, engaging in the same first-level thinking as Pearson.
Second, to prevent the installation of concrete barriers of a yet-to-be-determined size.
As to the first, at my request, the Philadelphia Police Department examined the record and found no accidents caused by cars stopped in the bike lane. None.
As to the barriers, the most likely size would be pill-shaped concrete barriers about 3 or 4 inches high.
Barriers that small would not have stopped drunk driver Vahey doing more than 50 mph. (He had veered into the bike lane because traffic in the auto lane was stopped.)
Critical thinking would have resulted in a conclusion that bike-lane stopping had nothing to do with Friedes’ death, which the bicycle vampires have merchandised into getting their ideas through a complacent and intellectually unquestioning Council.
What does FOPS want?
For Council to respect the promise made by the Nutter Administration to neighbors that they would always have access to their homes if they went along with bike lanes. “We lived in harmony for many years because we all shared the road,” said Brotman.
Then, idiocy struck.
The final incongruity is Pearson bitching about citizens who have been screwed over by the political class going to court to seek relief.
Amazingly, in the very next item in his column, Pearson admonishes the city for fighting a citizens group’s legal efforts to change Historical District rules.
So now challenging the city is OK? Can you say “situational ethics”?
I wonder if Pearson complained when a citizens group went to court and sued the National Park Service over slave panels at the President’s House on Independence Mall.
I’m pretty sure I know the answer to that one. And so do you.
