I feel like I have the makings of a good essay. It started out strong, but I feel like I may have lost momentum along the way. I'm also afraid that it might be too long. Have I clearly demonstrated the "issue"? Have I shown why it is significant to me?
I've read it too many times now. I need some one else's input.
SAFE PASSING BILL
Here's my essay:
Last year I got hit by a car while riding my bike to school. He was trying to pass me in slow moving traffic and got a little too close. He got out of his car as I was brushing myself off. When he saw that I was not hurt he told me that "this is the reason you all don't belong on the roads" and got back in his car and sped away. I was pretty shaken up, but I wasn't hurt. I've had some close encounters before when riding my bike, but nothing as terrifying as actually getting hit. I felt like he had recklessly endangered my life, but technically neither of us had broken any traffic laws.
That's why when I heard about SB488, a bill that would have required Texas drivers to allow at least three feet when passing bicycles and other vulnerable road users I was 100% in support. I am well aware that everything government does affects me, but this was the first time that I really felt like I could effect government. I called my Texas State Senator's office and voiced my support for the bill. I emailed my friends and family, signed petitions and kept up with the news. I followed the bill's every move from committee, through the House and Senate and on to the Governor's Office. I had never been someone who was active in politics. I always voted in the "important" elections, but I never called my legislators or wrote them letters. I always figured that they were going to do whatever suited them and that my voice didn't matter. SB488 changed that for me. I realized that being apathetic and doing nothing is what really made my voice not matter. Keeping quiet is no way to get what you want.
Bicycles belong on the road. There are many people who argue that bikes inhibit the flow of traffic and that we should ride on the sidewalk. Riding on the sidewalk is more dangerous than riding on the street. There are cars entering and exiting driveways, blind corners, unexpected obstacles and riding on sidewalks endangers those who use them for their intended purpose; walking. While it is true that we cannot possibly maintain the same speeds as cars on surface streets, often times when a car passes me I catch up to them at very next red light. It happens all the time, a car will be forced to drive behind me for a couple blocks and when they have the chance they speed around me, sometimes getting a little too close.
Another argument against bikes on the road is that we "always" violate traffic laws. When I'm commuting by bike I obey the traffic laws. Cyclists have the same rights as cars and therefore we have the same responsibilities. Not only is it safer to obey them, every time a motorist witnesses a cyclist running a red light or cruising through a stop sign it reinforces that argument. I do not want to contribute to a driver's negative attitudes about sharing the road.
SB488 passed in both the house and senate with virtually no opposition. That is what made Governor Perry's veto so surprising. Texas cycling activists had lobbied for years to get this piece of legislation passed. It was a heavy blow to the cycling community, but we are resilient. New petitions are being signed, and Governor Perry is coming up for re-election. We are committed to having our communal voice heard. It has clearly been heard in the capitol. Governor Perry will likely hear us from the voting booth next November.
In the mean time, I will keep riding, obeying the laws and doing my part to share the road.
^Also "he" is not the car but the human being inside of the car. Well...drivers are supposed to yield to pedestrians regardless. It was mostly, if not all, his fault. This is your chance to express your fear at the time and maybe dramatize a tiny bit since this event serves as the fuel for the rest of your essay.
As a bicyclist myself, I'm heartened by your essay but share your dismay at the veto. (I'm tempted to say, "That's Texas for you" but I don't want any Texans coming after me angrily.)
In any case, I disagree with Boxin's edits. Making your arguments for this bill demonstrates your reasoning and rhetorical abilities. Don't forget to mention that the more of us who bike, the fewer of us are spewing CO2 from combustion engines!
I like your essay. It is well-written, clearly argued, and opens with a good narrative hook. In short, you have done everything you should do. Excellent job. And I agree with you. Wheeled vehicles belong on the road, not the sidewalk, and in any city core, bikes will be faster a lot of the time than traffic. Heck, I would catch up to cars on my skateboard, and cyclists are generally much faster.
"That's Texas for you"
It would also be inaccurate, given that both the House and the Senate apparently voted in favor of the bill. It would seem to be more the personal biases of a single individual.
^I didn't know that it was ok to argue in an essay but I guess it would be appropriate for this type of question.
Thanks so much for your feedback. Unfortunately I have been feeling totally conflicted about my essay. I was already feeling a little iffy, about the two paragraphs that Llamapoop123 scratched through.
After his reply I even reworked the essay, but I'm even more conflicted about that version. I have read this thing a million times. I'm afraid that the essay is not very cohesive. I talk about the politics side of the bill and the effect it has had on me, and then I make an argument for bike's right to the road. Since I have read it so much, I can't look at it with unbiased eyes.
Everyone who has read it has had a different opinion (except Sean & Simone)
I have tried for the last week to edit this to "make it better" but I haven't been happy with anything I have done.
On one hand I feel really good about it, but with the other hand I am being very critical and tearing it to bits. I am obsessing over this thing.
Do you think this needs more work, or is it ready?
It's your choice. Keep in mind that I have much less experience than Sean and Simone and that I evaluated this from my point of view which may differ drastically from your admission officer.
I think the essay is very well written, good opening, good argument and an issue which affects you directly, rather than something pretentious like an economic policy which relates to China or some such.
Some grammatical mistakes, just check through.
The only part I did not particularly like was the direct "attack" on a particular member of the political community. This does not sound nice in a well thought out and unbiased essay. I think you should just leave it at Governor Perry vetoing the bill
Governor Perry is coming up for re-election. We are committed to having our communal voice heard. It has clearly been heard in the capitol. Governor Perry will likely hear us from the voting booth next November.
This sounds rather like a threat and doesn't work within this essay. End with your last line, re that you will continue to work for it.
I know I got mostly positive responses on my previous version, but I felt compelled to re-write my essay. I realized that in V1, by the end of the 1st paragraph the reader still doesn't know what my ioi is. I also felt like I was trying to tackle too much.
I think this version is much more focused and direct. My only concern is that its maybe too long. (now that's ironic)
I preferred your original version. The introduction was stronger, as it went into more detail about the narrative incident. Your body was stronger, because it showed how much the issue meant to you be describing your political activities related to it. Your conclusion was stronger because more forceful. The only thing I liked more about this version was your discussion of the responsibilities of cyclists, which showed the ability to be thoughtful and objective even when considering an issue that affects you personally.
