THE CHAIN OF FOOLS
and the handlebars of futility.
A couple of days ago, Bram Reichbaum over at The
Burgh Report wrote a post in response to a press release about the
city of Pittsburgh's new Bike/Ped Coordinator. In the last paragraph, citing
the city's effort toward greater enforcement of traffic regulations for
automobile drivers and for cyclists, he took an honest, qualified,
not especially dismissive shot at the many cyclists he's seen disregarding
stop signs, blowing through red lights, blowing through red lights to make left
turns, [and] weaving in and out of traffic. Bram and I traded a pair of
emails on the subject, and I told him how surprised I was that, almost two hours
after his post, he'd not been both object and subject of heaping helpings of
scorn from the persecution complex wing of the biking
community.
It is a truth universally noted, but little acknowledged, that daring to criticize any thought, strategy, or aspect of urban bike riding is much like daring to criticize the Pope or Barack Obama; the blind-faithers and the lunatics come roaring -- or, in this case, pedaling -- out of the shadows to rationalize their cause, justify their zealotry, and beat both logic and reason (to say nothing of sense and ethics) to an almost indistinguishable pulp. And so, within a few short hours, my surprise fell, my prediction rose, and the comment thread roared. Two days later, it's expanded to include 67 entries on the subject
There is, as in most debates, both truth and folly to be found on all sides. There is also overstatement, conclusion-jumping, and -- my personal favorite -- misrepresentation (both willful and incidental) of other commenters' arguments. But, for my eye and ear, the most interesting and entertaining aspect of the thread is the clockwork accumulation of silliness, of moral relativism and ethical obfuscation, from the (for lack of a better term) pro-biking commenters. In the end, the pile is as deep as it is wide. And almost as funny as it is infuriating.
Consider this sampling, culled from multiple comments by multiple commenters:
I think you'll find most bicycle commuters obey most laws and certainly try not to take chances.
Well, there's a ringing endorsement if ever I've heard one.
Perhaps the next time the police or the DEA bust a drug ring, the suspects should reassure the authorities that, well, we think you'll find most of our dealers obeyed most laws and certainly tried not to endanger anyone. I think that just might work.
Cars and the drivers of cars are the problem.
That's right, kids: cars and drivers are the problem. On the roads. That were built for them. To drive upon.
You know, if we could just get all the cars and all the drivers off the roads, and then if we could get all the busses off the bus lanes and all the pedestrians off the sidewalks and all the kids off the playgrounds and all the families out of the parks, why, bikers could go anywhere they pleased anytime they wanted without any interference at all! What a wonderful world that would be!
It's a shame that cycling infrastructure doesn't receive anywhere near the same level of detail or even a fraction of the funding that engineering for auto-only design projects do.
Oh, yes. It is a shame that the interests of a very small fraction of the population don't receive anywhere near the same level of detail or even a fraction of the funding that the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population receive. Just like it's a shame that the state spent all those millions of dollars to build a football stadium for the Steelers when it could have been building a new soccer stadium for the Riverhounds and maybe a nice little stadium for the Passion. I mean, they're sports too, you know.
Some communities, like the state of idaho and now (potentially) San Francisco have changed the laws to reflect how cyclists tend to behave, with the idea that they will be a bit more predictable.
That sounds like a great idea. So great, in fact, that maybe states and (potentially) cities should do the same for cars: change all traffic laws to reflect how drivers tend to behave. They could raise the speed limit by at least fifteen miles an hour on every street, make it legal to just slow down and then blow through a stop sign, and make the first three or four seconds after a traffic light turns red fair game to keep right on going without stopping. They could even -- you know, if they really wanted to reflect how drivers tend to behave -- make it a law that you must text-message, or at least blab on your cell phone, while driving. Then they'd really be giving the people what they want.
We'll be turning the whole country into the last half hour of The Road Warrior. And we might all soon die in traffic. But what a happy and predictable time we'd have until we did.
I've seen this said before about cyclists blowing through red lights. In reality, I think this is a straw man argument of drivers who are actually just annoyed at being stuck at a light.
Oh, yes. Drivers only want to complain about cyclists blowing through red lights -- if, you know, that ever really does happen, which I'm sure it doesn't, all those hundreds of times I've seen it notwithstanding -- because they're so embittered by obeying traffic laws. Just like all those people who think that robbers and rapists and murderers should be caught because they're just annoyed that they can't rob or rape or murder.
Those rotten, envious bastards.
On my bike, with the greater visibility I have and the far less impact a bike has on violating any traffic rules, I will go through a red light if I see the way is clear, get a head of the cars behind me and off to the side so they can better pass.
I'm still not sure about the greater visibility part. And I won't even waste your time with the a-bike-is-less-of-a-violation-than-a-car nonsense. But I do enjoy the notion that this is all just a selfless act to help cars better pass the biker.
Note to the commenter: the best way for a car to pass you is to not have to pass you at all. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be biking on the road, of course. But since you're trying to do everything you can to help the cars on the road drive more easily, I just thought you might want to consider it.
Am I disregarding traffic laws? Probably.
Definitely.
Am a following common sense that best allows everyone to get where they need to go? I think so.
Fair enough.
But the same could be said, of course, about cars and trucks and especially motorcycles (great visibility, far less impact!). If they all blow through red lights, aren't they also keeping traffic moving and allowing everyone to get where they need to go? I think so.
Hell, now that you mention it, let's get rid of all traffic lights and stop signs and speed limits. All they're doing is slowing us down from getting where we all need to go.
When I bike this way, I do so to the betterment of the car traffic I'm in and avoiding.
Once again, so selfless. By which I mean conveniently, selectively selfless.
I only hop through red lights when it's a sensible thing to do. It's every now on then, typically on streets without much car traffic to begin with.
Try that in a car sometime and then see if the explanation works on a police officer who pulls you over for going through a red light. (But, officer, there wasn't much traffic around. It was the sensible thing to do!)
(And it was for the betterment of all the traffic! It best allowed everyone to get where they need to go!)
Oh, yeah. That's a sure-fire winner right there.
I guarantee you that if I counted the violations I see each day, I would count 10 times as many violations from motorists as from bikers.
And I guarantee you that if you counted the modes of transportation you see each day, you'd count (at least) 100 times as many cars as you do bikes. So, by your math, bikers are committing (at least) 10 times as many violations as drivers.
The lack of context here is almost as stunning as the abundance of illogic. And don't even get me started on the moral equivalence.
No one disputes that drivers do dumb, illegal shit. Hell, they do it all the time. That's why I hate cars and most drivers I encounter. But the fact that most cars are dangerous and most drivers are idiots and most combinations of the two break all sorts of traffic laws doesn't mean that it's just fine, then, for the combination of less dangerous bikes and equally idiotic bikers to do the same.
What are you people? Five years old? (But, Mom, all the other kids do it too! Why should I get in trouble?!)
I'm suggesting that bicycles should use discretion when riding among car traffic, obeying traffic laws when appropriate but also steering clear of cars as much as possible. Some times that will lead to laws being "broken" but if done judiciously won't inconvenience anyone in the process.
Yeah. I know. But I swear I'm not making this up. (Really. You can look it up.)
Just to recap: bikers should be able to do whatever the hell they want and obey traffic laws when appropriate. And, yes, some laws may be "broken," but that's okay as long as no one is inconvenienced in the process. Sounds like fun.
So I suggest that drivers use discretion when riding among car traffic, obeying traffic laws when appropriate -- you're in a hurry, and you think you can beat those pedestrians on the corner and all those cars coming the other way, go ahead, Mr. Hummer Driver, ignore that red light! -- but also steering clear of cars as much as possible. Sometimes, you know, that will lead to "laws" being "broken" by "criminals," but as long as you don't do it every time, and as long as no one has to slow down or maybe get in a little ol' accident, well, go for it!
Cyclists will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by drivers - it is a two-way street.
Criminals will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by society.
Thieves will break fewer laws when accorded more money and property by society.
Abusive parents will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by their children.
Rapists will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by their victims.
It's a two-way street, you know.
Shall I continue?
I didn't think so.
Can't we have a basic framework of laws without needing a police state?
Can't we just do what we want, when we want, where we want, as often as we want, no matter what that basic framework of laws says? Can't we just ignore that basic framework of laws (and sense and reason and logic and ethics) as long as we use own very special judgment and promise to try not to inconvenience anyone while we satisfy our own smug and selfish needs?
Answer to your first question: Of course.
Answer to those last two questions, which are what you're really asking: No, you two-wheeled narcissists, you can't.
It is a truth universally noted, but little acknowledged, that daring to criticize any thought, strategy, or aspect of urban bike riding is much like daring to criticize the Pope or Barack Obama; the blind-faithers and the lunatics come roaring -- or, in this case, pedaling -- out of the shadows to rationalize their cause, justify their zealotry, and beat both logic and reason (to say nothing of sense and ethics) to an almost indistinguishable pulp. And so, within a few short hours, my surprise fell, my prediction rose, and the comment thread roared. Two days later, it's expanded to include 67 entries on the subject
There is, as in most debates, both truth and folly to be found on all sides. There is also overstatement, conclusion-jumping, and -- my personal favorite -- misrepresentation (both willful and incidental) of other commenters' arguments. But, for my eye and ear, the most interesting and entertaining aspect of the thread is the clockwork accumulation of silliness, of moral relativism and ethical obfuscation, from the (for lack of a better term) pro-biking commenters. In the end, the pile is as deep as it is wide. And almost as funny as it is infuriating.
Consider this sampling, culled from multiple comments by multiple commenters:
I think you'll find most bicycle commuters obey most laws and certainly try not to take chances.
Well, there's a ringing endorsement if ever I've heard one.
Perhaps the next time the police or the DEA bust a drug ring, the suspects should reassure the authorities that, well, we think you'll find most of our dealers obeyed most laws and certainly tried not to endanger anyone. I think that just might work.
Cars and the drivers of cars are the problem.
That's right, kids: cars and drivers are the problem. On the roads. That were built for them. To drive upon.
You know, if we could just get all the cars and all the drivers off the roads, and then if we could get all the busses off the bus lanes and all the pedestrians off the sidewalks and all the kids off the playgrounds and all the families out of the parks, why, bikers could go anywhere they pleased anytime they wanted without any interference at all! What a wonderful world that would be!
It's a shame that cycling infrastructure doesn't receive anywhere near the same level of detail or even a fraction of the funding that engineering for auto-only design projects do.
Oh, yes. It is a shame that the interests of a very small fraction of the population don't receive anywhere near the same level of detail or even a fraction of the funding that the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population receive. Just like it's a shame that the state spent all those millions of dollars to build a football stadium for the Steelers when it could have been building a new soccer stadium for the Riverhounds and maybe a nice little stadium for the Passion. I mean, they're sports too, you know.
Some communities, like the state of idaho and now (potentially) San Francisco have changed the laws to reflect how cyclists tend to behave, with the idea that they will be a bit more predictable.
That sounds like a great idea. So great, in fact, that maybe states and (potentially) cities should do the same for cars: change all traffic laws to reflect how drivers tend to behave. They could raise the speed limit by at least fifteen miles an hour on every street, make it legal to just slow down and then blow through a stop sign, and make the first three or four seconds after a traffic light turns red fair game to keep right on going without stopping. They could even -- you know, if they really wanted to reflect how drivers tend to behave -- make it a law that you must text-message, or at least blab on your cell phone, while driving. Then they'd really be giving the people what they want.
We'll be turning the whole country into the last half hour of The Road Warrior. And we might all soon die in traffic. But what a happy and predictable time we'd have until we did.
I've seen this said before about cyclists blowing through red lights. In reality, I think this is a straw man argument of drivers who are actually just annoyed at being stuck at a light.
Oh, yes. Drivers only want to complain about cyclists blowing through red lights -- if, you know, that ever really does happen, which I'm sure it doesn't, all those hundreds of times I've seen it notwithstanding -- because they're so embittered by obeying traffic laws. Just like all those people who think that robbers and rapists and murderers should be caught because they're just annoyed that they can't rob or rape or murder.
Those rotten, envious bastards.
On my bike, with the greater visibility I have and the far less impact a bike has on violating any traffic rules, I will go through a red light if I see the way is clear, get a head of the cars behind me and off to the side so they can better pass.
I'm still not sure about the greater visibility part. And I won't even waste your time with the a-bike-is-less-of-a-violation-than-a-car nonsense. But I do enjoy the notion that this is all just a selfless act to help cars better pass the biker.
Note to the commenter: the best way for a car to pass you is to not have to pass you at all. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be biking on the road, of course. But since you're trying to do everything you can to help the cars on the road drive more easily, I just thought you might want to consider it.
Am I disregarding traffic laws? Probably.
Definitely.
Am a following common sense that best allows everyone to get where they need to go? I think so.
Fair enough.
But the same could be said, of course, about cars and trucks and especially motorcycles (great visibility, far less impact!). If they all blow through red lights, aren't they also keeping traffic moving and allowing everyone to get where they need to go? I think so.
Hell, now that you mention it, let's get rid of all traffic lights and stop signs and speed limits. All they're doing is slowing us down from getting where we all need to go.
When I bike this way, I do so to the betterment of the car traffic I'm in and avoiding.
Once again, so selfless. By which I mean conveniently, selectively selfless.
I only hop through red lights when it's a sensible thing to do. It's every now on then, typically on streets without much car traffic to begin with.
Try that in a car sometime and then see if the explanation works on a police officer who pulls you over for going through a red light. (But, officer, there wasn't much traffic around. It was the sensible thing to do!)
(And it was for the betterment of all the traffic! It best allowed everyone to get where they need to go!)
Oh, yeah. That's a sure-fire winner right there.
I guarantee you that if I counted the violations I see each day, I would count 10 times as many violations from motorists as from bikers.
And I guarantee you that if you counted the modes of transportation you see each day, you'd count (at least) 100 times as many cars as you do bikes. So, by your math, bikers are committing (at least) 10 times as many violations as drivers.
The lack of context here is almost as stunning as the abundance of illogic. And don't even get me started on the moral equivalence.
No one disputes that drivers do dumb, illegal shit. Hell, they do it all the time. That's why I hate cars and most drivers I encounter. But the fact that most cars are dangerous and most drivers are idiots and most combinations of the two break all sorts of traffic laws doesn't mean that it's just fine, then, for the combination of less dangerous bikes and equally idiotic bikers to do the same.
What are you people? Five years old? (But, Mom, all the other kids do it too! Why should I get in trouble?!)
I'm suggesting that bicycles should use discretion when riding among car traffic, obeying traffic laws when appropriate but also steering clear of cars as much as possible. Some times that will lead to laws being "broken" but if done judiciously won't inconvenience anyone in the process.
Yeah. I know. But I swear I'm not making this up. (Really. You can look it up.)
Just to recap: bikers should be able to do whatever the hell they want and obey traffic laws when appropriate. And, yes, some laws may be "broken," but that's okay as long as no one is inconvenienced in the process. Sounds like fun.
So I suggest that drivers use discretion when riding among car traffic, obeying traffic laws when appropriate -- you're in a hurry, and you think you can beat those pedestrians on the corner and all those cars coming the other way, go ahead, Mr. Hummer Driver, ignore that red light! -- but also steering clear of cars as much as possible. Sometimes, you know, that will lead to "laws" being "broken" by "criminals," but as long as you don't do it every time, and as long as no one has to slow down or maybe get in a little ol' accident, well, go for it!
Cyclists will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by drivers - it is a two-way street.
Criminals will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by society.
Thieves will break fewer laws when accorded more money and property by society.
Abusive parents will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by their children.
Rapists will break fewer laws when accorded more respect by their victims.
It's a two-way street, you know.
Shall I continue?
I didn't think so.
Can't we have a basic framework of laws without needing a police state?
Can't we just do what we want, when we want, where we want, as often as we want, no matter what that basic framework of laws says? Can't we just ignore that basic framework of laws (and sense and reason and logic and ethics) as long as we use own very special judgment and promise to try not to inconvenience anyone while we satisfy our own smug and selfish needs?
Answer to your first question: Of course.
Answer to those last two questions, which are what you're really asking: No, you two-wheeled narcissists, you can't.
Posted: Thu - August 14, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
Terror Alert
Brilliant Satire
Required Reading
Traffic Count
Official Muse
Syndication
Carbolic Wear
Y Chromosomes
Some Perspective
On Tour
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jan 16, 2009 04:50 PM