BIKE: How to break the law?

[Michael Bluejay]

On Apr 20, 2004, at 7:52 AM, Mike Dahmus wrote:

> SUMMARY: CYCLISTS RUN RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS IN A WAY THAT 
> MOTORISTS DO NOT. MOST MOTORISTS, IF THEY EVER DO THIS, "RUN THE 
> ORANGE" OR DON'T COME TO A FULL ROCK-BACK AT A STOP SIGN. TRYING TO 
> EQUATE THIS WITH THE WILD-WEST ATTITUDE OF MANY CYCLISTS IS MAKING YOU 
> LOOK STUPID AND MAKING MY JOB HARDER.

First of all, as for motorists running lights, it's not a case of "if 
they ever do this".  I can go to most busy intersections in Austin and 
see motorists running red lights on every single cycle, period.

As for motorists not running red lights in the same way that cyclists 
do, that's really funny.  I thought the argument was that cyclists were 
bad because they were breaking the law?  Oh no, my mistake, it's not 
that they're breaking the law, it's that they're breaking the law in a 
less socially acceptable way.  It's perfectly acceptable to break the 
law if you do it the proper way.  Motorists break the law in a good 
way, cyclists break the law in a bad way.

So it sounds like Dahmus' real problem is with cyclists who do things 
that are unsafe.  If that's the case, then why SAY that their problem 
is with cyclists breaking the law?  You can't have your cake and eat it 
too.  You can't harp on cyclists for breaking the law and then excuse 
motorists for breaking the law.  The argument that they break the law 
"in a different way" is weak, weak, weak.

Motorists break the law in Austin every day in ways that are truly 
dangerous.  People get hurt and killed as a result.  But when was the 
last time anyone suggested that we cut roadway funding as a result?  
Let's face it:  people only care about cyclists breaking the law.  They 
don't extend that same outrage to their fellow motorists, period.


> Our outgoing chairman of the UTC voted against bike facilities on at 
> least one occasion because of the obnoxious lawbreaking attitude 
> evinced by cyclists like that; so we even have this problem at the 
> city level....
> Sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass, as it did when 
> our UTC chairman voted against bike facilities, using lack of respect 
> for the law as his stated reason for doing so.

Yes, Dahmus repeats this a lot, and I've addressed it a lot.  The fact 
is that I'm not going to accept responsibility for somebody else's 
faulty logic.  Someone could tell me that he's going to kill a baby 
kitten for every week I remain a vegetarian.  Well, I wish he wouldn't 
be that cruel, or unfair, but ultimately, is it his fault or mine?

I don't deny that the outgoing UTC chairman may have voted against bike 
facilities because he saw cyclists breaking the law.  I simply can't 
help it if that guy had a double standard.  We certainly never saw him 
trying to cut facilities for cars because motorists break the law, did 
we?  I won't pander to that double standard, it's unfair, and it's 
ridiculous.


> I've nearly wrecked my car at an intersection near UT because some 
> bozo on a bike ran the stop sign. If I were older (worse reflexes), I 
> would have. So there you go.

This is probably the biggest straw man argument I've ever seen in my 
life.  Who exactly is it who's advocating that cyclists run stop signs 
when it's not safe to do so?

Anyway, let me return to the newsletter article that so raised Dahmus' 
ire.  In that article I pointed out that Senator Barrientos hinted 
about not funding bike facilities because cyclists break the law.  And 
a while after that the good Senator was arrested for driving drunk.  Is 
THAT how motorists break the law in a different way than cyclists that 
is so much safer?  Does this person have any business chastising 
cyclists for breaking the law, much less denying them funding?  
Probably close to 100% of motorists who drive in an unsafe manner think 
it's worse when cyclists do so.  The question is, do we pander to that 
delusion or do we call them on it?  Dahums evidently chose the former.  
I choose the latter.

-MBJ-