BIKE: Breaking the law

[Michael Bluejay]

On Apr 29, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Mike Dahmus wrote:

> And anyways, motorists don't break the law to the degree that cyclists
> do. Period. I'll refer you again to the "rolling stop vs.
> blowing-the-stop-sign completely" argument, or the "running the orange
> vs. running the middle of a red" argument. Let me know which one you'd
> rather have this time ;+)


(groan)  I'll say it again:  If you have to retort with, "Oh, it's okay 
because motorists break the law *to a lesser extent* than cyclists do," 
then I'll point out the obvious again:

	If that's your argument, then you do NOT have a problem with cyclists 
"breaking the law".  You have a problem with HOW they break the law.  
If that's the case, then why do you and the others claim that the 
problem is that cyclists break the law, rather than HOW they break the 
law?  Why do you say dog when you mean cat?

A friend and I were discussing the movie the Shawshank Redemption, and 
I said it was a bit violent for my tastes.  She replied, "No, it's not 
violent, it's a great movie!"  I never said it wasn't a great movie, I 
said it was VIOLENT.

So why is it okay for Dahmus and the motorists to complain about 
cyclists breaking the law when in their world it's okay to break the 
law in certain circumstances?  Either you care about people breaking 
the law or you don't.  If you do care, then it applies to everyone.  If 
you don't care, then you should stop saying you do.

-MBJ-