26 replies to this topic

[mikedw]

So getting back to the point of bike lanes - shouldn't you be happy that they're introducing them in your neck of the woods, what with all of these sidewalk bikers?

I would be overjoyed if bicyclists used bike lanes. When I used to walk to work via Bay Street, I'd have to dodge bicyclists all the way along who were using the sidewalk rather than the bike lanes.

I consider the bike lanes to be two wheeled only. I don't use them when I'm waiting to turn right. I will honk at idiots who use them as an extra lane for their car.

All I expect: if they are there, bicicylist have to use them. If they don't use them, they need to be cited. Every time that City does a police focus on bicyclists and dishes our tickets, the media whines, "don't they have anything better to do?"

[gumgum]

Personal responsibily discussions are appropriate for threads about morality or maybe philosophy, Ms B Havin, but this is a discussion of about city planning, specifically infrastructure. When discussing city planning, all anomalies have to taken into consideration, including those people who misbehave, such a shitty cyclists. There's a difference between taking them into consideraton when planning a city and excusing their behaviour as individuals.
No one has made excuses for anyone.
You're missing the point.

[Ms. B. Havin]

This also means we can "do what we can get away with" vs. "doing what is right." We can get away with peeing in a doorway, so do it. We can get away with biking down a sidewalk and pegging a woman from behind, so why not? We can straddle two lanes in our SUV because we can get away with it and no one is stopping us.

We're a generation without a moral compass. Maybe that's a good thing: we can be talked into stuff easier if we have no inner source of ethics that could block a Big Mac diet; or watching 6 hrs. of TV; or spending more in a shopping spree than what a person in Africa earns in six months.

I think this topic of personal responsibility is part of a bigger issue.

Right on. We think having "self-esteem" is highly desirable, to the point where the key thing is to feel good about oneself, even if the feel-good aspect is based on really superficial things. If that results in a culture of "entitlement" (which in turn puts personal accountability on the back-burner), who can be surprised?

Zoomer, I'm not asking for a police crack-down or cops everywhere, that's just silly. As for telling off people who break the law, I'll still do that from time to time. But you know what? Most of the time their reply to any comment that appears to criticize or restrict their freedom comes in four letter words.

This is a community issue, but there's a problem. All "communities" are elevated to the same level of "rights," which means that as long as you can find a community to call your own, and as long as that community doesn't call you into line, then no amount of people on the outside telling you to smarten up will have any effect. The difference between those people on Ellis Island in the early 20th c. and contemporary 25-yr olds is that the former knew there was a dominant culture or community that set the tone. Was that community necessarily good or enlightened, or would I want it back today? Nope. But what we have today is very problematic, too. We have many communities with equal rights, with people being able to be offensive in various other communities, without that person's "parent" community calling them on it. As long as you can find succor in your group or tribe or community (whatever you want to call it), you'll have no reason to change your behaviour (unless it becomes a real pocket-book issue). For an interesting take on how this is handled in the ghetto, take a look at [url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/05/field_notes_from_the_underground/?page=full:1281c]Field Notes from the Underground[/url:1281c] by Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh. Note that the cop here is an actual beat cop (not someone sequestered in a police car), and that he works with the community to create justice. But note, too, the author's conclusion that this kind of segregation doesn't transfer well, and that in the long run it's unsustainable.

Anyway, sorry I'm taking this way off topic. I'll close as Edward R. Murrow used to (even though it's not evening yet): Good night. And good luck.

[gumgum]

All I expect: if they are there, bicicylist have to use them. If they don't use them, they need to be cited. Every time that City does a police focus on bicyclists and dishes our tickets, the media whines, "don't they have anything better to do?"

Agreed. Except usually it is the person getting the ticket that asks the cop if they don't have anything better to do.
So it's agreed by all that better enforcement is one of the major needs here?

[Holden West]

Only if it meant streamlining the process so that every infraction didn't mean hours of paperwork back at the station.

[G-Man]

I completely agree with giving cyclists tickets for not obeying the rules of the road. I also would not be against mandatory licensing so long as it was free for those that could not afford to pay.

Of course government testing of ten year olds seems a little weird.

[mikedw]

Only if it meant streamlining the process so that every infraction didn't mean hours of paperwork back at the station.

Murders take all the paperwork, traffic infractions are easy. That's why you'll find overworked police officers moving gunshot victims into cars and claiming the incident was a seat belt malfunction :-D