[*BCM*] dbl parked

[Rob Arnold]

I think you're all misinterpreting my main point, which is that enforcement
needs to be equal and consistent across an entire range of traffic: from
motor vehicles on down to pedestrians. Once, I had to dodge into traffic
because of a lady who stood on a corner in Central Square, with her stroller
sitting completely in the bike lane. In the bike lane!!! Her baby! In the
bike lane!! That woman needs to be cited far more than the original poster
does. And, sadly, it's not atypical behavior in
Cambridge/Boston/Somerville/etc. It's a cascading set of factors that
creates chaos, and my riding style reflects that kind of chaos. I ride down
the center stripe on Mass Ave through Central Square because I'm further
away from double-parked cars, and further away from jaywalkers, and further
away from hazardous debris that gets pushed over to the road edges, and
outside the path of cars turning right without looking. If the lanes
designated for me, as a cyclist, are not sufficiently safe due to a general
failure on the part of Cambridge Police to enforce other traffic laws, you
bet I'm going to say something when I have the immediate ear of a traffic
officer.

On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Hiroyuki Yamada <hyamada at mit.edu> wrote:

> I think, for the purpose of the discussion at hand, (correct me if I am
> mistaken) the definition of "wrong," in Thom3's original comment, is
> simply an infraction of the law. Regardless of the somewhat questionable
> nature of "wrong" vs "right," which inherently bring into view a
> significantly more clouded discussion, the legality of a certain action
> is much simpler to determine. And in this case, the running of the red
> light is, in essence, wrong. The fact that another guy over there is
> double parked, that another car is driving in a non-existent lane, that
> someone just drove through the (now) green light going 5 miles over the
> speed limit, all of these have no bearing on the fact that running the
> red light was wrong to begin with, and the other crimes are not excuse
> for the cyclist to get off easy. If anything, all 4 should be punished
> to the severity that the crime warrants, with no externalities
> introduced from neighboring crimes.
>
> When you're dealing with the police, more often than not, "zee rules are
> zee rules" is about as far as you can get; they're probably not too
> interested in debating moral philosophy, or even legislative intent, and
> would probably just like to get on with their day. (Granted, some police
> officers may be over-zealous in their interpretation of certain laws
> against others (leading to racism and other forms of bias), but that
> again is a separate issue.)
>
> --Yuki
>
> John Hays wrote:
> > I tend to agree that people trot out "two wrongs don't make a right" in
> > situations where it basically amounts to a non-sequitur, largely on the
> > basis that it's relevance assumes something being contested (that some
> > action in question is in fact a wrong). I will say that it's not
> > particularly clear to me that riding through an intersection under those
> > circumstances is, in any meaningful sense, a wrong. It may very well be
> > that it's _against the law_ to do that, but that's just another
> > non-sequitur, since the fact that something is against the law is not
> > evidence of it being wrong. I shudder to think how many people (even on
> > this list) actually believe that "zee rules are zee rules" is a
> > sufficient justification for the deliberate infliction of suffering upon
> > or deprivation of material assets from a person.
> >
> > - John
> >
> >
> >
> > Jym Dyer wrote:
> >
> >>>>> 2 wrongs don't make a right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> =v= Ain't it wonderful how this particular topic always
> >>>> brings out fresh, invigorating new insights?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> And just what are your fresh insights?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> =v= Here's a tip:  When you find yourself regurgitating the
> >> world's most obvious clichés for the umpteenth time, as if
> >> the person you're responding to is a blithering idiot, you
> >> are wasting your time (and the time of everyone else who
> >> might be wearing of a cliché-filled inbox).  Perhaps the
> >> person really is a blithering idiot, in which case your
> >> words are useless; but what's more likely is that you're
> >> not attempting to understand what the person is getting
> >> at, in which case your communication is pointless.
> >>     <_Jym_>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> >> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> >> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> >> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> > list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> > http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> > To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20080306/0dec9135/attachment.htm