[*BCM*] The movement AGAINST cyclists

[Rachel Elizabeth Dillon]

Hi! I'm going to engage you (and anyone else) in discussion on this topic,
and I'm going to assume you don't mind since you entered into discussion
about it on a large public mailing list.

On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:00:28AM -0700, turtle wrote:
> Boston Critical Mass <list at bostoncriticalmass.org> wrote:
> > I stop at red lights, look all around me, then if it is safe, I go.  The right
> > of way should be as follows: Pedestrians, Powered wheel chairs, Cyclists,
> > Vespas, Cars. (notice i did not mention suv's).  Pedestrians can cross streets
> > any time they want so long as it is safe, I don't see why cyclists can't cross
> > intersections at red lights when it is safe for everyone.  
> 
> The problem with this is it's not reality.  In reality, in the Western
> World, there are traffic laws that generally don't descriminate against
> different types of vehicle operators.  Your own plan for traffic law may
> well be a good one, but it's simply not reality right now.  So, when you
> disobey the actual traffic laws it shows the rest of us that you have no
> respect for others, and gives bicyclists a bad name.  Is that the
> impression you are looking to express?

Your second point here, about respect, is very good, but I would argue
that if 60% of cyclists are running red lights (number pulled from an
arbitrary statistic in the article, but it doesn't seem too off-base
from my experience), running red lights is reality; the law doesn't 
define what is real or what is safe, it defines what is legal.

To further the point about reality, in the past week, I was stopped
for running a red light in a pack of five or six cyclists on Mass
Ave (pedestrian signal, no one coming), but a coworker of mine was
specifically _told_ by a cop to run a red light two blocks down six
hours earlier. I'm not defending or attacking either action, just 
emphasizing that law doesn't mean reality.
 
> If you really believe that your traffic regulation is better, then
> promote it to everyone and get it passed into law, or at least accepted
> by society.  In the meantime, if you have respect for others, they will
> have respect for you, both on the roads and in the political arena. 
> Even if you don't agree with others, showing respect for their beliefs
> and traditions gives you far more power than discounting them does.

This is absolutely true. But in today's society, lobbying for legislation
and behavior changes is often a full-time job and requires more effort than
many people have to put in. What, then, for those of us (well, I'm being 
dishonest here by putting myself in this group, honestly) without the 
resources to do these things?

I could also go off on a rant about how cyclists don't get any respect
from drivers, or pedestrians, or police, but your response would be
"Maybe you should respect them, and then they will respect you" and I
think you're absolutely right. (Unfortunately I'm not sure that it works,
but getting respect by being disrespectful works even less, most of the time.)
 
> >   The interview paints a picture that all cyclists blindly run red lights and
> > aim for small children...  
> 
> Are you sure?  I got a very different picture from the article.  I read
> that the author believes that only a small number of cyclsits are
> really abusive while most others, such as the author himself, are
> simply not aware of how dangerous their driving may be.

I agree with you here.
 
> > Somehow I think there is an
> > over protective mother who's child was nearly hit by a bike, and now she must
> > start a crusade against all cyclists to prevent it from ever happening again. 
> 
> Are you implying that kids SHOULD be hit or scared?  Should parents just
> sit down and shut up when illegal and dangerous behavior threatens their
> kids?  Should we just chain our kids to the sofa until they are 16 and
> can drive themselves in armored vehicles to school and work?
> 
> I'm sure you don't really think that!

No, but our kids should be exposed to and prepared for reality, which right
now includes a lot of cyclists running red lights. I agree with your point 
overall, which is the attempt to change reality by encouraging cyclists
to stop running red lights. 
 
> All cyclists, and motorists, and skateboardists, and horseback riders,
> and everyone else should be respectful of kids who are using the
> roadways.  Vehicles of all sizes can easilly be quite dangerous, and
> the operators of said vehicles are ultimately the only ones who can be
> responsible for avoiding crashes and other dangerous incidents.  We are
> the adults here...  Well, there are probably some younger folks on this
> list, too, so maybe you aren't an adult, so maybe you have an excuse
> for not taking responsiblity for yourself.  Anyway for those of us who
> are adults, we need to take responsibility for our own behavior, and
> that includes being respectful of other people's rights.

I think most people who will actually participate in a discussion on this
matter believe that they are taking responsibility for their behavior, and
even being respectful of other people's rights. I know I do. 
 
> > If it were a car that nearly
> > hit a kid, there would be no crusade, just a woman with a lawsuit against that
> > ONE driver, not ALL car drivers.
> 
> I beg to differ.  Have you ever heard of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 
> The message is, in fact, aimed at ALL drivers.
> 
> Also, as you may have noticed, it's not just a single incident.  It's a
> trend.  Seen not just in England, but in the US, too.  I think the
> problem is that society, the government, and the educational system
> hasn't taken cycling seriously.  People aren't tought that bikes are
> respectable vehicles on the roads that are subject to the same traffic
> laws as any other vehicle on the roads.  So, unfortunately, many
> cyclists either don't know how to bike respectfully, or see bikes as
> symbols of rebellion against the system.  And non-cyclists, too, don't
> get the message that cyclists are the same as they are, so they treat
> cyclists as unwelcome outsiders on the roads.  In either case, you get
> dangerous (unintentional or intentional) driving by everyone.  The only
> cure I've seen is to promote the Same Roads, Same Rules, Same Rights
> idea.  I, myself, try to impress upon my students the idea that biking
> is a normal and respectable way to travel.

There are many potential solutions; yours is probably the most reasonable
(as compared to "burn all cars," "bike paths everywhere," "separate laws
for cyclists," &c.) though I'm personally not convinced it's as safe or
as efficient as the way people bike now. Realistically, cyclists are not
the same as cars. We don't weigh two tons and, under normal conditions,
ride lower than the speed limit and significantly lower than the actual
maximum traffic speed. Stopping distance, wear and tear on the roads,
ability to handle different kinds of construction (did anyone else take a
fall on the gravel<->pavement ridges in Porter Square a month or so ago?),
other things are all different as well.  Though I don't feel qualified
to give an answer to it, I think whether or not cars and cyclists should
have to follow the same rules should be an open question.

I appreciate the time you took to write this, though, and the thought
you've obviously put into it (and I agree with you in many places).

Thanks,

-r.
-------------- 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/20060605/715b9136/attachment.pgp