You are hereSecond place?!? DAMMIT!
Second place?!? DAMMIT!
According to Mike Dahmus on his M1EK's Bake-sale of Bile transportation blog I was first runner-up for his "Worst Person in Austin award" yesterday, due to my stance on running red lights and fighting tickets. If only this were true Austin would be one of the nicest cities on the planet, as long as you weren't trying to get across an intersection without paying attention.
Thanks Mike! You should come up with a logo graphic or something so I can slap it on my "About Us" page. Hell, the last (and first) time you gave this award out was back in June of '06, and it was to (ex-)Mayor Todd! I'm honored to have only nearly missed out on award #2. ;)
You will never find me disparaging anyone (except myself) for running red lights or stop signs. Why? Because it's a distraction. There will always be bicyclists doing this shit, and I'm not going to waste my time debating the cause or effect like M1EK does. Nor do I participate in the endless drivel about it from the supposed gang of anarchists on the bike lists. You could have 98 percent of the bicyclists out there stopping and obeying laws, and motorists will still remember and cry about the 2 percent (and vice versa), so it doesn't really matter.
Congrats on the honor Jason!
Everybody who drives in central Austin knows the proportion of relatively-law-abiding cyclists is nowhere near 98% - the theory has not remotely been tested. When more than half of cyclists I see around my house treat stop signs and red lights like that, it's difficult to argue against the suburban Neanderthals who say "most cyclists don't obey the law".
IF we got to the point where 98% of cyclists obeyed stop signs and red lights, which, by the way, would still be a long ways behind motorists, then we could defend against the charge. But it's ridiculous right now to say that it wouldn't matter if it were false - that's not the world we live in. Their charge is absolutely true - and it resonates with city council members at times (I still firmly believe it contributed to our poor showing in the Shoal Creek Debacle).
I don't see one single logical, reasonable argument for running red lights or stop signs. Not one. If you're going to run lights, you better be riding on the sidewalk. Do you see pedestrians crossing the street only to walk in a lane? No.
Bikes are vehicles. They can go fast. They can kill - directly and indirectly. We all know this. Riding on the road is a privilege. Period. We gain that privilege by obeying laws.
But sure, go ahead and give the finger to motorists every day and every month at Critical Mass. It really helps your cause. Nothing says "I deserve more rights as a cyclist" like publicly abusing the ones you already have...
... you've probably already decided that cyclists should not run red lights or stop signs, and therefore any argument presented is by definition not logical or reasonable.
And what makes it better if you're on the sidewalk?
Also, you've made the claim that riding on the road is a privilege, `Period.' (I love it when people say `Period.' as if that proves them right!) Well, others disagree ...
"The rights of locomotion, freedom of movement, to go where one pleases, and to use the public streets in a way that does not interfere with the personal liberty of others are basic values 'implicit in the concept of ordained liberty' protected by due the process clause of the fourteenth amendment." - Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown, US District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (1976)
.. it's the whole `right' vs `privilege' thing. You can certainly argue it either way, but there's more than enough wiggle room to utterly invalidate your `Period.'