[*BCM*] Parades vs. travelling on a bike

[Chung-chieh Shan]

On 2005-03-07T08:25:03-0800, Anne Wolfe wrote:
> Following all traffic laws isn't *quite* what I'm saying re: the
> definition of a parade, although I do think that if CM followed all
> traffic laws (single file, stop at lights, etc) they would be unlikely
> to get arrested and prosecuted as they wouldn't be interfering with
> traffic in any way, which would make it very hard to force the
> "parade" definition on them.

You seem to be changing the subject.  We are not talking about whether
CM would get arrested; we are talking about whether CM is a parade.
I don't see any sense of the phrase "interfering with traffic" that
is more true of CM than of "if CM followed all traffic laws".  I also
don't see how you are judging the difficulty of forcing the "parade"
definition (which definition?) on things.

> But there are built in provisions that traffic is to stop at
> stopsigns, etc.  Traffic is also (depending on the jurisdiction on
> where you live) supposed to stop at crosswalks, for exactly the reason
> that pedestrians can cross there safely.  Since the law specifically
> provides for this action to happen, it is hard to categorize
> pedestrians lawfully crossing at a crosswalk (which may include them
> having to wait until it is reasonable, or there's a red light or
> something - it varies so much that generalizations are hard to make)
> as a parade.  Jaywalking, on the other hand.........

It is unclear what you mean by "specifically provides for".  In the
colloquial sense, the law also specifically for jaywalking, in that it
requires motor vehicles to not run into pedestrians whenever possible.

> Parade isn't going to be any simpler.

Indeed, it's not simple at all to classify CM as a parade.

On 2005-03-07T11:32:24-0500, tony siddall wrote:
> It's not credible to say that CM is spontaneous. Therefore, it is made up of a
> group of people who have chosen to travel together. When a large group of
> people decide to travel together, whether in cars or on bikes, it impacts
> traffic patterns. Therefore, there's a reasonable argument that a city or
> state should have the right to regulate this behavior.

This argument does not go through at at least three points.

First of all, simply that it is not credible to say that CM spontaneous
does not entail ("therefore") that it is made up of a group of people
who have chosen to travel together.  There are plenty of non-spontaneous
things that are not made up of people who have chosen to travel
together.

Second, simply that something impacts traffic patterns does not entail
("therefore") that a city or state should have the right to regulate the
behavior.  For example, many speech acts impact traffic patterns, but
most speech acts cannot be regulated by a city or state.

Finally, even though a city or state may have the right to regulate CM,
it may not have the right to regulate it by requiring a parade permit.
Indeed, a city or state has the right to regulate pedestrian crossings,
but may not have the right to regulate it by requiring a parade permit.

-- 
Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig
You shall know the eigenvalue,
And the eigenvalue shall set you free!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20050309/0a45d202/attachment.pgp