Bike Union: Rossi Ducked Bike Lane Debate
Feb 24, 2010 | admin | 11
Blogging over at the Toronto Cyclist Union website, Executive Director Yvonne Bambrick gives details on an aborted debate over bike lanes that almost happened on CP24 between herself and mayoral candidate Rocco Rossi:
“Unfortunately, the live discussion was called off. The show’s producers told me that Rossi refused to speak on the issue at the same time as me once he found out who he was scheduled with. He almost cancelled in fact – requested a separate green room, and then appeared separately after me. I was quite surprised to say the least.”
Read the rest of the post here.
Popularity: 29% [?]
Filed Under: Blogs
Was this 'debate' scheduled by both parties? Or was Rocco simply avoiding Yvonne Bambrick's ambush? More complete disclosure, please.
Ross:
Bambrick says it was in her post. You can read the full article by clicking on the link above.
"Rossi refused to speak on the issue at the same time as me once he found out who he was scheduled with." Maybe Rossi had his own agenda going in and refused to be ambush-compromised. Yvonne's a lovely person with a great cause, but doesn't mean Rocco need throw over his planned presence to accommodate Yvonne.
IMHO.
That's true.
But if he really was avoiding an ambush then why is one needed? Why not just blog what she believes would be that ambush? The information that she feels is valuable enough to cause a viewer or Rossi imself to reconsider Rossi's platform?
That is as good as an "ambush" or maybe it is 100% better?
Is it really much of an ambush if both rossi and bambrick were invited to the show? I would hardly think bambrick wanted to, or even had the power to ask the producer to blindside rossi about her presence on the show for the sake of inciting a one-sided debate. If anything this is an indicator of mis-communication between the show producer and rossi's party and/or rossi's unwillingness to discuss the issue which is…well lame.
What's all this about an ambush? How could Rossi be ambushed? One would think he'd be eager for both the publicity and the opportunity to champion his intentions. Rossi has come out publicly on more than one occasion over the past 6 weeks announcing his plans regarding bike lanes. He should be ready, willing and able at all times to discuss, debate (if necessary) and justify his plan. For the record, I asked him a number of questions as well through Facebook messaging this past week and he steadfastly failed to answer even the most basic of questions. In fact, his responses were defensive and immature. It is becoming clear that Rossi knows his plans are prejudicial, divisive and an open 'attack' on cyclists and cycling infrastructure and that he can't possibly defend them logically, rationally or reasonably.
What benefit is there for Rossi to debate a raving lunatic on such a narrow issue? He had nothing to gain from doing it so I don't blame him one bit.
If it were a debate between all the mayoral candidates it would be another story, but this is a non-story.
Yvonne Bambrick is hardly a raving lunatic. In fact, she's a very bright, articulate, rational person. Disparaging a person you clearly do not know is more an indication of your character than hers.
Rossi had everything to gain. CP24 is the most-watched 24 news show in the country. He could have made a strong impression with a significant number of voters, but chose not to. How does he expect cyclists to buy into his plan (and none do), if he can't explain it and 'sell' it to them? What a collosal waste of money it would be for him to remove bike lanes, re-engineer arterials, impose lanes on side streets and then have them not used while the cyclists all remain on the arterials. And you support a condidate that would frivolously toss money away like that?
Few viewers watching a CP24 show on bike lanes would be predisposed to voting for anyone other than a left-of-centre candidate. Therefore Rossi (who I am not supporting BTW) has nothing to gain from talking about it. There's no point in talking to a narrow segment of society who already hate you. Better to spend your time elsewhere, on other issues, and with other people whose votes you may win.
Leave the anti-car people to cluck amongst themselves.
Rossi has every right not to bedrawn into a debate with a fringe group like the cyclists union who should be irrelevant in the coming election. They have completely discredited themselves with blind obedience to a fiscally irresponsible Miller regime and Rossi would have absolutely no chance for a fair hearing with a group who have become drunk with inflated self importance by a Miller government that because of pure arrogance has been incompetent in delivering their message. We need some fiscal competence that Rossi may bring and do not need more fringe groups like the cycling union setting the City agenda.
The Toronto Cyclists Union has never, ever claimed to be anti-car. In fact, we actually ran a Driver Appreciation campaign last fall handing out thank you cards to conscientious drivers who treated fellow road users, cyclists, respectfully. We certainly encourage all cyclists to do the same.
We have also never claimed to 'hate' Mr. Rossi, or anyone for that matter. We exist to provide a voice for tax-paying Torontonians who choose to cycle rather than drive or take public transit for some or all of their transportation needs. Our main goal is to work with all key stakeholders to get bicycles integrated in a meaningful way into our transportation network. This serves all road users – drivers, pedestrians, transit users and cyclists alike.