It appears Jim decided to answer the first question in my previous post with a resounding YES. The offense I took at his first post was not caused by his choice to disagree with me on policy, or having "a different perspective" on the issue of transportation. It stemmed directly from his characterization (which he has unfortunately chosen to reiterate) of me and many of my friends and acquaintances as "militant, desperate, or crazy."
Jim, it's true that you did not single one person out for your vitriolic insults. You targeted many people all at once - a good number of whom sent me messages thanking me for responding to you less angrily than they could have. Just so readers know why some folks are so irritated, I'll reprint what Jim posted on Saturday: "One more time. Either you have to be militantly pro bike and love riding them no matter the danger, or desperate for transportation so you need to use the bike, or crazy because you simply don't know the difference." Or because you need the exercise. Or because you think it's morally right. Or because, like one recent poster, you feel refreshed by cold air. Or, or, or... Jim, you have the right to advocate your favored design for Lyndale. You have the right to rail against one-way streets. You do not have the right to say that I'm crazy. Unless you've got a degree in psychology I don't know about, you don't only lack the right, you lack the expertise. I'm tired of reminding you indirectly, so I'll be more direct: the charter of this list calls for a CIVIL discussion. Casting ridiculous aspersions on those with whom you disagree is simply unacceptable. On to the actual issue. Jim wrote: "The problem with bikes in that situation [of icy roads] is cars and trucks are not bending fenders, they are bending human bodies." Perhaps, then, the problem is not with bikes, but with the CARS that "bend human bodies"! What a meaningless argument! You may as well stand up and admonish those who choose to drive small, fuel efficient automobiles. After all, all available studies state that in accidents involving small cars vs. SUVs, those in the small cars tend to die at greater rates. It must be the fault of the small car passengers, not the person who chooses to drive something named after a US state due to the similarity in size. Perhaps we could also begin blaming victims of murder for their untimely deaths. Here's the point: it's not "bike riding in an urban setting" that's dangerous. I know of no one who has died in a bike-on-bike or bike-on-pedestrian accident. The danger comes from the automobiles. The fact that mentioning winter bicycling conjures up images (in the minds of certain individuals) of cliff diving and swimming rapids points to a flaw in our current infrastructure. People should be able to engage in legal, reasonable (indeed, preferable) behavior without fearing for life and limb. Whatever dangers come with legal use of a bicycle in this city are the fault of a) drivers and b) the city. That's right, Jim, I feel it is my "right to be looked after," if that means I believe I have the right not to be mowed down by an automobile while following traffic laws. And yes, automobile drivers should take extra caution when dealing with bicyclists and pedestrians - though I would be satisfied if all drivers would simply take *enough* caution at all times. I believe that this would be an honest reflection of the fact that they are piloting a two thousand pound piece of metal. If you're going to engage in a behavior like that, you should take responsibility for possible negative outcomes, whether injury to yourself OR TO OTHERS. The snowmobile analogy struck me as entirely apt. First of all, snowmobiling is pretty indefensible as a "moral" behavior. Sure, it might be incredibly fun, but one pollutes the air unnecessarily both to transport the vehicles to the country and then more in their actual use, not to mention the negative impact of snowmobiles on fragile ecosystems and the lives of folks who value their peace and quiet. So, unlike bicycling, I see no reason for the public, represented by their government, to encourage snowmobile use. As to a comparison of the dangerousness of the two activities... I'd love to see a study. I'd bet you at least a nickel that the risk of serious injury is substantially lower for winter bicyclists than for snowmobilers. This brings me to my final point. Fundamentally, this is an issue of tolerance. Given my obvious anti-snowmobile bias, would it be safe to assume that I believe we should ban them, make their use illegal, string razor-wire across every ditch? No. I might think it's a bad idea, but I can accept that there are others who enjoy the activity. There should be a space for them and their proclivities in our society. And I should keep in mind that any assumptions I make about their mental capacity or sanity are my own subjective bias, probably unfair, and wholly inappropriate to spout forth as Truth in a public forum. I would like the same consideration from others. No matter what you think of my behavior or what it says about me, as long as I'm following the law I have every right to comport myself as I see fit. I should be safe from others doing me harm while engaged in this legal behavior, either through their negligence or malice. I extend this same tolerance to others, including drivers. Say what you will about the "militant" nature of bicyclists, we are intensely tolerant. We have to be - the vast majority of the public, including our neighbors and friends, drive automobiles. So, Jim, when you say "do not... ride your bike in front of me on a busy street when there may be ice on the road", can you see how utterly unfair that is? As unfair as it would be for me to tell you not to drive your car behind my bike. Though turnabout is fair play, I won't do this. First, because it's unreasonable; part of what it takes to live in a city, including this one, is the acceptance that there are people who choose to live their lives in ways radically different from yours. Second, because I'd have to send you a photograph of me on my bike, so that you'd know when to turn off Franklin onto a side street when you see me biking through Phillips in the snow. Robin Garwood Seward P.S. Nice try on the whole cast-your-opponent-as-intolerant-for-pointing-out-your-own-intolerance approach. Ditto on the cast-your-opponent-as-offensive-for-having-been-offended stratagem. Better luck next time. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
