Comments on: KVUE succeeds in its hit on the cycling community

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:57:21 +0000

Elliott, in general you’re right, but these numbers were so awful that it likely caused many other people, not just me, to think “holy crap, that’s even more than I thought”.

And once again, this wasn’t 38th/Speedway, with lots of students; this was Shoal Creek, with the cyclists that motorists think of as ‘real’ – brightly plumaged and helmeted on expensive bikes.

By: elliott

elliott — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:15:50 +0000

Well then Mike, you are different than the vast majority of humanity (as I’ve always known ). Most people react strongly to an individual person looking at you and saying it’s OK for them to break rules you yourself have to follow. Statistics on the other hand will never be as powerful as a person fulfilling your stereotypes. We are genetically ingrained to response to faces, not numbers.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:56:31 +0000

elliott, I disagree completely – I found the actual data in Tuesday’s story to be far more inflammatory (although, amazingly, “cyclists” are still ignoring it – you realize that these numbers were worse than any of us thought – and on a population of transportation and recreational cyclists – NOT a bunch of college kids?)

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:54:46 +0000

If they made a video of cars doing similar things, it wouldn’t even be news. It would just be “police are worried about traffic conditions at X intersection…”.

Dave, this is a load of crap. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve seen a motorist just decide they’re tired of waiting at a red light and up and go through it (rather than the “running the orange” that both motorists and cyclists do).

Likewise, while most motorists roll stop signs (as do most cyclists); it is exceedingly rare to see a motorist go through a stop sign at anything more than a crawl.

First light I have to go through on my commute is 38th & Speedway. It’s a rare day when I’m there for a long cycle and don’t see a cyclist go through the red. I have never, in the 6 years I’ve lived here, seen a motorist do it.

The 95% of the population out there who doesn’t bike for transportation has eyes and a brain; and they saw this story – and they see cyclists flouting the law every single day.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 03:49:14 +0000

Jordan, you’re right on the mark. One of the things we forget is that TV news is for the purpose of gaining viewers and selling commercials. Any story that will do that, is favored.

And what’s really behind the anger of the motorists? They wish they could do it too. They are driving machines that could get them where they want to go in about 3-5min, except for traffic lights, stop signs, and other drivers, and they’re so frustrated they can’t take it anymore, much less watch cyclists get a free pass.

If they made a video of cars doing similar things, it wouldn’t even be news. It would just be “police are worried about traffic conditions at X intersection…”.

Well, I guess we can expect a lot more honking, shouting and things being thrown at us if we’re lucky, and worse if we’re not.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:06:41 +0000

I did my undergraduate work in Broadcast Journalism, therefore I watch all news stories critically. Those who are saying that the story was irresponsible at best and inflammatory (potentially inspiring more violence against cyclists, something that is already a huge problem in Austin), are completely on the mark. The story was designed to get a bunch of old people, road-raged commuters and psuedo-rednecks into a hissy fit so that they would watch their broadcast and kvue.com would get a few thousand more hits than normal. It worked, and I’m concerned about the impact the story will have on bicycle safety. Showing that footage and then doing a single interview does not equal out to a balanced story in my opinion. But, that’s because the story wasn’t meant to be balanced, it was meant to be inflammatory for ratings purposes. As far as reporting goes, this was a easy and cheap stunt, and not responsible journalism.

By: elliott

elliott — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:45:11 +0000

The report told me one of the things people asked about in response to Monday’s story was how many people they video taped on Shoal Creek total and what the percentage of people running the sign was. I think people were concerned things were taken out of context. They went back to look at the video for Tuesday’s story to show the actual data of the video survey. They had the ability to report Monday’s story one way if they wanted, and choose to go another direction. I think the article I wrote in response plus comments people made on KVUE’s site caused them to go back and do a new story. Tuesday’s story clearly showed there is a problem but in a less inflammatory, fact based way which I think better serves the public good.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:10:57 +0000

Are you implying that they didn’t have the data on Monday but went out and got it after the reaction to the story, just in time for Tuesday?

By: elliott

elliott — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:31:36 +0000

No Mike, the search for ratings drove the story, not the facts. Watch both the Monday story and the Tuesday story. One is made to boost rating and drive traffic to the KVUE website and the other attempted to educate the public about a real problem in a calm, rational way. I’ll let you guess which is which.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:21:35 +0000

Elliott, I believe you’d see a similar ‘inflammatory’ piece if 97% of motorists failed to come to a complete stop at a 4-way, and >60% of them just blew through it at speed. In other words, the data led to the story, not the other way around.