BIKE: How to break the law?

[Mike Dahmus]

Michael Bluejay wrote:

>
> 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.


Motorists are stretching the law, in the way that going 60 in a 55 is 
stretching the law.

Cyclists are ripping the law out of the lawbook and using it for toilet 
paper.

> 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.

I have a real problem with punks, and calling me by my last name in a 
conversation I'm involved in is not helping matters.

More pragmatically, if you don't think the opinions of the 99% of people 
in this town who drive _matter_, you're not very intelligent.

> 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.

If motorists were as disrespectful for the law as cyclists are, we'd not 
be having this discussion, because we'd be in virtual anarchy. Again, 
running a light that just turned red is not, in the opinion of the 99% 
of people in this town who drive, the same thing as running the middle 
of a red cycle.

I'm sorry if this information is inconvenient for you. It's also true. 
And every time you guys defend these numbskulls for treating the law 
with such disrepect, you allow motorists to treat the law with 
disrespect too - and that law is the only protection you (we) have.

> 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?

It's never safe to do so. But since you disagree, then I trust you'll be 
with Patrick in pushing for removing the legal requirement to stop at 
all stop signs in the city for motorists as well as cyclists. Ready to 
put your body where your mouth is? Ready to assume that the motorist 
coming up to the stop sign at the cross street is going to see you and 
decide to stop this time?

- MD