[BCM] The movement that divides us

Mon Jun 5 12:33:15 EDT 2006

Is running red lights really in the best interest of your personal safety?
I'm all about "sticking it to the man" but I at least like to see a car
coming before I turn into an impromptu hood ornament.

On 6/5/06, Justin Wong <lilwong at bu.edu> wrote:
>
>  Well that's the difference between you and I. I see the conflict as
> irresolvable, and my personal safety is what I care about. It is often more
> safe for me to be "disrespectful" than "respectful".
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org [mailto:
> bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org] *On Behalf Of *Anne
> Wolfe
> *Sent:* Monday, June 05, 2006 12:14 PM
> *To:* Boston Critical Mass
> *Subject:* RE: [*BCM*] The movement that divides us
>
>  The eternal circle.  As the more you (and others) run the lights and are
> disrespectful, the more you're going to get honked at, etc.  Someone has to
> take the first step - why can't it be you?
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org [mailto:
> bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org] *On Behalf Of *Justin
> Wong
> *Sent:* 05 June 2006 17:04
> *To:* 'Boston Critical Mass'
> *Subject:* RE: [*BCM*] The movement that divides us
>
>  "As long as I'm getting honked at, told to get off the road, doored,
> barnstormed, flipped off, and whatever, I'm going to run those goddamned
> lights."
>     ^^^ My sentiments exactly!
>  Justin
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org [mailto:
> bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org] *On Behalf Of *Pete
> Stidman
> *Sent:* Monday, June 05, 2006 11:42 AM
> *To:* Boston Critical Mass
> *Subject:* Re: [*BCM*] The movement that divides us
>
> I think these points are getting all confused.
>
> Wreckless bicyclists are one thing, and let us remember that there are
> wreckless drivers of any vehicle.
>
> Running red lights as a cyclist is entirely another. It can be done just
> as safely as Jaywalking, which, let us also remember, is completely illegal.
>
>
> What a cyclist is, regardless of what some lawbook says, is an undecided,
> unanswered question in the US. There obviously is no universally accepted
> norm about when to cross a red light or stop sign, and I would say the
> bigger tendency is to not act like a vehicle, but to act like a pedestrian
> when crossing the road.
>
> BUT none of this is important at all right now. I think the whole argument
> is a huge distraction from the real problem, which is cars. Compare
> pedestrian deaths by car to pedestrian deaths by bicycle and you'll quickly
> see what I mean.
>
> These ideas in the biking community come as a result of car drivers in
> positions of power saying to bike advocacy groups, "Well hey, if you expect
> to get us to teach drivers about cyclists, cyclists better get their act
> together." and then activists parroting that back to others and blaming
> cyclists for the fact that the streets aren't safe.
>
> IT"S A FALSE ARGUMENT. And it's divisive. I have to hand it to the powers
> that be, it's a neat trick.
>
> How it really happens:
>
> Any place you go that has laws that protect cyclists, bike lanes etcetera,
> Bicyclists stop at the stop lights. Like Boulder Colorado for instance.
> Bikes stop at all stop signs and lights, even 4-ways, BUT, in those cities,
> when a cyclist pulls up to a full up four way stop, 3 cars and them, the
> three car drivers immediately look to the bike to go, regardless of which
> order they arrived in, an automatic bike right-of-way.
>
> In that situation, a cyclist doesn't mind following every law. The law and
> the norms respect them. Bicyclists are recognized as having a stronger right
> of way than cars.
>
> It's not the weak one (bicyclist) who has to give first, it's the strong
> one (car). It is a rule of nature that the weak one does not have as large
> an effect on the system. If you want systemic change, you go for changes
> that are strong, not weak. In other words, the bully has more chance of
> changing the system than the bullied.
>
> As long as I'm getting honked at, told to get off the road, doored,
> barnstormed, flipped off, and whatever, I'm going to run those goddamned
> lights. And that is something that is so deep in me and hundreds of other
> cyclists who have grown to hate cars, police, and road planners that no
> cycling advocacy group in the world could ever change it without getting at
> the root cause behind it—cars.
>
> Getting pissed at cyclists who run reds is like telling people who are
> poor to quit complaining about it and work for minimum wage, if they do
> they'll get rich. Yeah fucking right.
>
> -Pete
>
>
> *Rachel Elizabeth Dillon <red at mit.edu>* wrote:
>
> 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 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>
>
>
>
> Check out my blog at http://www.petestidman.com .
> You can read my latest stories, connect to non-commercial internet radio
> and browse recent stories about the media.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
> Click here <https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/wQw0zmjPoHdJTZGyOCrrhg==> to
> report this email as spam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20060605/f5915c47/attachment.html