BIKE: How to break the law?

[Lane S. Wimberley]

I hate to tell you guys this, but I think we can all untwist our
panties a few turns.  You're both right.

Simply stated, the logic of condemning a class for the behavior of a
few members of that class in any context is just flawed.  Regardless
of whether one seeks to punish a perceived class of lawbreakers for
their unacceptable behavior, or whether one seeks to reduce the
opportunity for such behavior by stifling the activity of the
perceived class, making decisions regarding allocation of public funds
based on this reasoning is as inappropriate as would be concluding
that public spending in predominantly black and hispanic neighborhoods
should be reduced because someone perceives that blacks and hispanics
commit the most crimes.

This kind of reasoning should not be tolerated, regardless of the
actual behavioral characteristics of the class in question.  The fact
that it is possible to ride a bike lawfully means that, even if
cyclists in Austin were 10 times more recklessly lawbreaking than they
are now, it would still be unacceptable to allow this sort of
reasoning.

Michael Bluejay is right: we mustn't let those who control public
spending wield power in this way; we must confront them with the kinds
of tactics that Michael mentions in order to make clear that the logic
is faulty.

BUT, ...

Regardless of all of the above, there is a political reality, and we
are stupid if we don't realize that, right or wrong, this logic will
be employed to our detriment, and keeping tabs on it -- and,
especially actually being able to do anything about it -- will be
nearly impossible.  So, it is in our best interest to remember that
all those drivers waiting at that intersection are voters who are
watching us.  Moreover, they are decisionmakers with whom we must
share the road, and the fact that their actions may be wrong or
illegal may matter little when that feeling of hot blood running out
of your ear is the last thing you perceive as you lose consciousness
on the roadside.

Should we nevertheless assert ourselves?  Not be oppressed by the MAN?
Run those intersections on principal, or as an expression of our
freedom and superiority?  (More likely, run them for our own personal
convenience.)  Sure, go ahead.  Just remember that the price you are
foisting on not only yourself, but all of us, for those few seconds of
convenience is that non-cyclists will inevitably capitalize on the
opportunity that you provide them to, right or wrong, deny equal
public support.  The result, at best, is a fight that we -- or, more
accurate, Mike Dahmus, Patrick Goetz and (hopefully) others -- must
engage in order to protect our rights to equal public support.  More
likely, we will simply get shafted.

By the way, Patrick Goetz is also right: this discussion, while
embarrassingly predictable on this list, is really a waste of time, as
no one's mind will be changed by any of it, stubborn fools that we
are.

So, hey!  We're all right!  C'mon, guys -- group hug!   <ducks>

Oh, and for the record, on my ride in this morning I counted the
following...

Cyclists (not counting myself): 3
Opportunities to witness cyclists illegally running an intersection: 0
Witnessed laws broken: 0

Opportunities to witness cars breaking laws: MANY
Witnessed cars breaking laws: 0

Bringing you hyperbole-, platitude- and ad hominem-free posts for over
five years (well, I try anyway), 

-Lane, who thinks he'd have about $75 from cyclists at a dime a pop,
and maybe a buck or two from cars (not running the "orange," of
course) -- at any rate, hardly enough to buy a _nice_ dinner for two,
let alone a tropical island...


Mike Dahmus writes:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info




-- 
_______________________________________________________________________
Lane Wimberley             8303 N. MoPac, Suite A-300  Austin, TX 78759
Wayport, Inc.                512.519.6195 (voice)    512.519.6200 (fax)