[BCM] dbl parked

Thu Mar 6 18:52:21 EST 2008

...if we are talking about dbl parked cars, I agree. You need to take it to the next level which is to register a letter of complaint (in general or by incident) with the city and the police department. This is a known and ongoing concern in Cambridge bike planning. 

That said, I would venture to say that the amount of tickets given out for dbl parked cars and bike running reds might be on par :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Arnold <rsarnold at gmail.com>
To: Boston Critical Mass <list at bostoncriticalmass.org>
Sent: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: [*BCM*] dbl parked

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

_______________________________________________
oston Critical Mass mailing list
ist at bostoncriticalmass.org
ttp://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
o unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/bostoncriticalmass/attachments/20080306/017ac31e/attachment.htm 