randya
No doubt a repost, but seems newly relevant in regard to the recent fatalities in Portland
IN PRAISE OF RIDING LIKE A JERK
by BillDozer
http://messmagazine.net/mess/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=61
Here at MESS, it's our interest to bring all bicyclists in the urban
setting together. And we want not only to bring us together with a cry
of unity, but to celebrate the differences that make the city the
great American melting pot that it is. On this note, however, I have
reached an impasse. There is a division among city cyclists that cuts
me to the heart, and I feel the difference is nearly irreconcilable.
I'm talking, of course, about commuters versus messengers. This
difference is most analogous to the political differences between
liberals and radicals. Now, in my last blog, I wrote about how being a
bicyclist doesn't make you a revolutionary. I still believe that to be
true, but I also believe that riding your bike a certain way can make
you like a revolutionary. Like revolutionaries, those who ride their
bicycles for work are often operating not so much against the law as
outside of it. Whether against or outside the law, they operate in
opposition to liberal ideology.
The modern liberal philosophy is based, like the conservative
philosophy, on faith in the general goodness of the law, and therefore
of the state. Liberals believe that by adjusting the law to make it
more fair, the society as a whole can be forced to become more
egalitarian, and thus move closer to the democratic utopia of organic
food co-ops, ethnically diverse neighborhoods, and large corporations
who treat workers well and pay their taxes. In short, making the whole
world one giant college town. Likewise, commuters and "cycling
advocates" work within the law to make cycling more safe in the urban
setting. A noble pursuit, to be sure. They are concerned deeply for
the respect of law that all vehicle operators, motorized or not,
should carry with them. They generally expect nothing less than strict
obedience to the traffic code. This includes stopping at all traffic
control devices, riding or driving ONLY in the appropriate lanes,
signalling for all turns or adjustments in behavior. If there is a
conflict between the necessity to perform an illegal action and the
commuter's on moral outlook on rule of law, the liberal commuter will
make his/her own commute more difficult, and address the city by
legitimate means to make his or her travel more safe and convenient at
some eventual date. Failing to respect the rule of law would result in
anarchy*. That, of course, would be bad.
The radical philosophy has little respect for the law. "The law
doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?" is a common
mantra. It is the belief, well-founded many would say, that the rules
of the game are made by and for the winners, and the only way to
escape is to play a different game. Similarly, the bicycle messenger
is interested in accomplishing a task in the most efficient way
possible. The outlook is that liberty, not order, is the more
important of virtues. This often conflicts with the rule of law, which
necessarily prizes order over liberty. A messenger will almost
certainly violate the rule of law in order to accomplish a task, if
it is in his/her interest. Ninety percent of the time (estimated),
this infraction occurs without incident, and without any sort of
victim. "So," the messenger asks,"what's the harm?" It is an
"ends-justifies-the-means" outlook without a doubt. But following the
letter of the law would result in longer travel time, less efficiency,
and therefore lower pay. There is also the issue of comfort with the
street, and total knowledge of yourself and your bicycle. This is
something that a messenger, who spends 40-plus hours per week on
his/her bike, has in much greater quantity than the commuter, who
generally spends 20 hours per week or fewer on his/her bike. This
philosophy may seem immature to the liberal/commuter, but on the
flipside, the liberal philosophy seems naive to the radical/messenger.
The radical sees trust in the state or law as trust in an absentee
father. One who doesn't really care, but throws little trinkets at you
to feign some sort of caring relationship. It's just not worth the
effort to reciprocate.
One other, and I feel most important, dividing issue of these
ideologies is trust, and the watching of backs. The stardard liberal
line that I learned from living in Portland, Oregon for four years, is
such: Liberals believe that all people should always watch out for
each other. Nothing wrong with that. However, it is often carried out
to the belief that liberals EXPECT all people to be watching out for
others, thus reducing the requirement for one to look out for one's
self. Here's an example. Two cyclists are riding in a bike lane on a
busy stretch of downtown street. A speeding car approaches from behind
and on the left, only to make a right turn, cutting off the two
cyclists. One cyclist, expecting that the driver saw him, doesn't
notice until it is too late and is forced onto the sidewalk, screaming
and cursing at the driver. This rider presumed, foolishly, that the
driver not only noticed the cyclist, but was interested in the
cyclists safety - moreso than the driver's concern for his/her own
convenience. The other cyclist, upon hearing the accelerating car,
expects that the car would pull some dickhead maneuver, just like a
driver would. He/She instead slows down, cuts into traffic to pass the
offending automobile on the left. This cyclist, although in violation
of the law, continues on his/her merry way. If you live in a city,
with thousands or millions of other inhabitants, you should never,
ever expect anyone in a car to be watching out for you. Drivers, as a
rule, do NOT see you as traffic. And no matter what the law says, they
will never see cyclists as the same as them. This is rude, pushy
America, where cars rule and cyclists are second-class. Traffic laws,
even those regarding bicycles, are written in the interest of cars and
car drivers. Until we have our own streets, like those in Europe, it
will always be that you are playing the car's game on the car's turf.
The law will never legitimately change that.
*personally I find it quite hilarious that even very intelligent
people will confuse anarchy - "without a leader" and anomie - "without
order," but that's just my own little aside.
IN PRAISE OF RIDING LIKE A JERK
by BillDozer
http://messmagazine.net/mess/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=61
Here at MESS, it's our interest to bring all bicyclists in the urban
setting together. And we want not only to bring us together with a cry
of unity, but to celebrate the differences that make the city the
great American melting pot that it is. On this note, however, I have
reached an impasse. There is a division among city cyclists that cuts
me to the heart, and I feel the difference is nearly irreconcilable.
I'm talking, of course, about commuters versus messengers. This
difference is most analogous to the political differences between
liberals and radicals. Now, in my last blog, I wrote about how being a
bicyclist doesn't make you a revolutionary. I still believe that to be
true, but I also believe that riding your bike a certain way can make
you like a revolutionary. Like revolutionaries, those who ride their
bicycles for work are often operating not so much against the law as
outside of it. Whether against or outside the law, they operate in
opposition to liberal ideology.
The modern liberal philosophy is based, like the conservative
philosophy, on faith in the general goodness of the law, and therefore
of the state. Liberals believe that by adjusting the law to make it
more fair, the society as a whole can be forced to become more
egalitarian, and thus move closer to the democratic utopia of organic
food co-ops, ethnically diverse neighborhoods, and large corporations
who treat workers well and pay their taxes. In short, making the whole
world one giant college town. Likewise, commuters and "cycling
advocates" work within the law to make cycling more safe in the urban
setting. A noble pursuit, to be sure. They are concerned deeply for
the respect of law that all vehicle operators, motorized or not,
should carry with them. They generally expect nothing less than strict
obedience to the traffic code. This includes stopping at all traffic
control devices, riding or driving ONLY in the appropriate lanes,
signalling for all turns or adjustments in behavior. If there is a
conflict between the necessity to perform an illegal action and the
commuter's on moral outlook on rule of law, the liberal commuter will
make his/her own commute more difficult, and address the city by
legitimate means to make his or her travel more safe and convenient at
some eventual date. Failing to respect the rule of law would result in
anarchy*. That, of course, would be bad.
The radical philosophy has little respect for the law. "The law
doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?" is a common
mantra. It is the belief, well-founded many would say, that the rules
of the game are made by and for the winners, and the only way to
escape is to play a different game. Similarly, the bicycle messenger
is interested in accomplishing a task in the most efficient way
possible. The outlook is that liberty, not order, is the more
important of virtues. This often conflicts with the rule of law, which
necessarily prizes order over liberty. A messenger will almost
certainly violate the rule of law in order to accomplish a task, if
it is in his/her interest. Ninety percent of the time (estimated),
this infraction occurs without incident, and without any sort of
victim. "So," the messenger asks,"what's the harm?" It is an
"ends-justifies-the-means" outlook without a doubt. But following the
letter of the law would result in longer travel time, less efficiency,
and therefore lower pay. There is also the issue of comfort with the
street, and total knowledge of yourself and your bicycle. This is
something that a messenger, who spends 40-plus hours per week on
his/her bike, has in much greater quantity than the commuter, who
generally spends 20 hours per week or fewer on his/her bike. This
philosophy may seem immature to the liberal/commuter, but on the
flipside, the liberal philosophy seems naive to the radical/messenger.
The radical sees trust in the state or law as trust in an absentee
father. One who doesn't really care, but throws little trinkets at you
to feign some sort of caring relationship. It's just not worth the
effort to reciprocate.
One other, and I feel most important, dividing issue of these
ideologies is trust, and the watching of backs. The stardard liberal
line that I learned from living in Portland, Oregon for four years, is
such: Liberals believe that all people should always watch out for
each other. Nothing wrong with that. However, it is often carried out
to the belief that liberals EXPECT all people to be watching out for
others, thus reducing the requirement for one to look out for one's
self. Here's an example. Two cyclists are riding in a bike lane on a
busy stretch of downtown street. A speeding car approaches from behind
and on the left, only to make a right turn, cutting off the two
cyclists. One cyclist, expecting that the driver saw him, doesn't
notice until it is too late and is forced onto the sidewalk, screaming
and cursing at the driver. This rider presumed, foolishly, that the
driver not only noticed the cyclist, but was interested in the
cyclists safety - moreso than the driver's concern for his/her own
convenience. The other cyclist, upon hearing the accelerating car,
expects that the car would pull some dickhead maneuver, just like a
driver would. He/She instead slows down, cuts into traffic to pass the
offending automobile on the left. This cyclist, although in violation
of the law, continues on his/her merry way. If you live in a city,
with thousands or millions of other inhabitants, you should never,
ever expect anyone in a car to be watching out for you. Drivers, as a
rule, do NOT see you as traffic. And no matter what the law says, they
will never see cyclists as the same as them. This is rude, pushy
America, where cars rule and cyclists are second-class. Traffic laws,
even those regarding bicycles, are written in the interest of cars and
car drivers. Until we have our own streets, like those in Europe, it
will always be that you are playing the car's game on the car's turf.
The law will never legitimately change that.
*personally I find it quite hilarious that even very intelligent
people will confuse anarchy - "without a leader" and anomie - "without
order," but that's just my own little aside.