[*BCM*] Re: Bostoncriticalmass Digest, Vol 34, Issue 17

[John Hays]

I want to state my objection to the whole theory of conversation 
espoused below by Lederer. "We"  do not have any obligations to convince 
people of anything. "We" have no obligation to say anything OTHER than 
what we truly and honestly believe. If the person in question honestly 
believes that urban biking is "dangerous by definition" - then by all 
means he should say it. And you can dispute whether that's an accurate 
characterization (and I think you CAN dispute it to some greater or 
lesser extent, although I think the characterization of it below is 
entirely fallacious). But what you can't - or at least you shouldn't do 
- is claim that it shouldn't be said on the theory that it violates some 
obligation "we" have to convince other people to ride bikes in Boston. 
It's true that sometimes the point of conversation is to CONVINCE people 
to do something. But often, that's not the point of conversation at all. 
And more fundamentally, our obligations are primarily  to the truth, and 
if you have to say something you don't believe to further some other 
goal - well, I think that's wrong and you shouldn't engage in that kind 
of dishonesty. So by all means, dispute the ultimate truth of the 
statement - but don't suggest that people should lie as some 
instrumentalist policy to achieve some supposed further goal.

- John Hays



Maitland Lederer wrote:
>>    if it hasn't been said, I think it's downright important to recognize that
>>    biking on streets is dangerous by definition
>>    (size/weight/control/visibility disparities) among the vehicles sharing
>>    finite space:  for me, not a biking trip is started without a momentary
>>     
>
> What?!?  "Dangerous by definition?"  That's like saying that leaving
> the house is dangerous by definition because the odds that you'll get
> hit by a stray bullet are increased!  Or you shouldn't cross the
> street, because you never know when someone's going to run a red
> light!
>
> I appreciate that people have to make an effort to bike safely --
> you're more likely to experience physical harm than if you drive --
> but I think this is *not* a message we (and by we, I mean people who
> want to promote biking as a means of urban transportation) want to
> send.  Biking safely is entirely possible, and scaring people with the
> idea that they're going to be killed if they decide to start biking to
> work is not a good way to get more people riding.
>
> <3,
> -m
>
>