[BCM] dbl parked

Fri Mar 7 05:48:02 EST 2008

I, and I'm sure anyone here, can cite plenty of times when the law was violated in a way that inconvenienced, annoyed, or put us or others in peril.  I could form a list just from the way to work this morning.  In Britain, we have speed cameras all over the place, and they get everyone over a certain speed.  It is very consistent enforcement, raises revenue and also costs a lot less than police on the street having to stop people, block more traffic and write tickets.  There's also evidence that since they came in, people do in fact speed less as they're much more likely to get caught.

People *hate* speed cameras.  Though I know a friend who's terribly proud of getting a speeding ticket from one of them while on his bike in Hong Kong, but I digress.

There are also many cameras at intersections to prevent people running red lights.  Although there's less of them now than there used to be as there is less need.  Since people know they're going to be caught, they don't run the lights.  Consistent enforcement by an always present monitor.  People hate those cameras too.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that people hate getting caught.  "It is ok when I do it because I'm safer/know what I'm doing/took all the right precautions/am a better driver or cyclist or pedestrian than everyone else" and of course the perpetual favourite "well, it is just a stupid law anyway." 

If you want the really consistent enforcement, you've got to find a way to have it, and that means lots more cops.  Or at least lots more traffic cops.  I have yet to find anyone who wants to pay for more cops, but many people want to have more.  Was there a cop around when this woman put her baby's stroller in the bike lane?  Will you care if you are busted for a traffic violation despite the fact that your "riding style reflects that kind of chaos?"  

There are points where you decide to be part of the problem or part of the solution.  What the solution is can vary considerably.  People on here urged Thom to lead a campaign against double parked cars, and then they would follow.  As he then rightly pointed out, you don't need him to lead a campaign, you need to get off your backside and lead/make/create your own campaign.  He even gave you the resources to do it.  But I haven't seen anyone say "Thanks man, what a great idea, I'll start doing just that."  Complaining to like minded-ish individuals, pouting and being in a bad mood about it all is one thing.  Actually doing something about it is another.  And whichever you choose, I feel confident that you'll get the justice you've earned in the long run.

________________________________

From: bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org [mailto:bostoncriticalmass-bounces at bostoncriticalmass.org] On Behalf Of Rob Arnold
Sent: 06 March 2008 23:45
To: Boston Critical Mass
Subject: Re: [*BCM*] dbl parked

I think you're all misinterpreting my main point, which is that enforcement needs to be equal and consistent across an entire range of traffic: from motor vehicles on down to pedestrians. Once, I had to dodge into traffic because of a lady who stood on a corner in Central Square, with her stroller sitting completely in the bike lane. In the bike lane!!! Her baby! In the bike lane!! That woman needs to be cited far more than the original poster does. And, sadly, it's not atypical behavior in Cambridge/Boston/Somerville/etc. It's a cascading set of factors that creates chaos, and my riding style reflects that kind of chaos. I ride down the center stripe on Mass Ave through Central Square because I'm further away from double-parked cars, and further away from jaywalkers, and further away from hazardous debris that gets pushed over to the road edges, and outside the path of cars turning right without looking. If the lanes designated for me, as a cyclist, are not sufficiently safe due to a general failure on the part of Cambridge Police to enforce other traffic laws, you bet I'm going to say something when I have the immediate ear of a traffic officer.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Hiroyuki Yamada <hyamada at mit.edu> wrote:

I think, for the purpose of the discussion at hand, (correct me if I am
mistaken) the definition of "wrong," in Thom3's original comment, is
simply an infraction of the law. Regardless of the somewhat questionable
nature of "wrong" vs "right," which inherently bring into view a
significantly more clouded discussion, the legality of a certain action
is much simpler to determine. And in this case, the running of the red
light is, in essence, wrong. The fact that another guy over there is
double parked, that another car is driving in a non-existent lane, that
someone just drove through the (now) green light going 5 miles over the
speed limit, all of these have no bearing on the fact that running the
red light was wrong to begin with, and the other crimes are not excuse
for the cyclist to get off easy. If anything, all 4 should be punished
to the severity that the crime warrants, with no externalities
introduced from neighboring crimes.

When you're dealing with the police, more often than not, "zee rules are
zee rules" is about as far as you can get; they're probably not too
interested in debating moral philosophy, or even legislative intent, and
would probably just like to get on with their day. (Granted, some police
officers may be over-zealous in their interpretation of certain laws
against others (leading to racism and other forms of bias), but that
again is a separate issue.)

--Yuki

John Hays wrote:
> I tend to agree that people trot out "two wrongs don't make a right" in
> situations where it basically amounts to a non-sequitur, largely on the
> basis that it's relevance assumes something being contested (that some
> action in question is in fact a wrong). I will say that it's not
> particularly clear to me that riding through an intersection under those
> circumstances is, in any meaningful sense, a wrong. It may very well be
> that it's _against the law_ to do that, but that's just another
> non-sequitur, since the fact that something is against the law is not
> evidence of it being wrong. I shudder to think how many people (even on
> this list) actually believe that "zee rules are zee rules" is a
> sufficient justification for the deliberate infliction of suffering upon
> or deprivation of material assets from a person.
>
> - John
>
>
>
> Jym Dyer wrote:
>
>>>>> 2 wrongs don't make a right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> =v= Ain't it wonderful how this particular topic always
>>>> brings out fresh, invigorating new insights?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> And just what are your fresh insights?
>>>
>>>
>> =v= Here's a tip:  When you find yourself regurgitating the
>> world's most obvious clichés for the umpteenth time, as if
>> the person you're responding to is a blithering idiot, you
>> are wasting your time (and the time of everyone else who
>> might be wearing of a cliché-filled inbox).  Perhaps the
>> person really is a blithering idiot, in which case your
>> words are useless; but what's more likely is that you're
>> not attempting to understand what the person is getting
>> at, in which case your communication is pointless.
>>     <_Jym_>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
>> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
>> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
>> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
_______________________________________________
Boston Critical Mass mailing list
list at bostoncriticalmass.org
http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org

This electronic message contains information from The Automobile Association which may be privileged or confidential. 
The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above.
If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail immediately. 
The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. 
We cannot accept any responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments.
No changes to Terms and Conditions of trade can be accepted through e-mail communication. 
All changes to Terms and Conditions must be in writing evidenced by a director of the company and in hard copy format.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the company.
The company does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20080307/ae26a69b/attachment.htm 