S
Sam Huffman
Guest
[email protected] (J. Bruce Fields) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>, NYRides
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I wonder if the people who participate in Critical Mass realize the responsibility they are
> >assuming every time they stage a disruptive ride. As Sam Huffman put it so well, I, too, would
> >suggest that "their short glory ride once per month increases the hazards for every other cyclist
> >every day of the month."
>
> OK, so the way this argument goes is: person A delays person B temporarily, and the resulting
> irritation turns person B into a murderer, making person A responsible for the murder of B's
> victim C?
No, that was not the argument.
> This is a totally wrong-headed argument, and we should all stop bringing it up. Any activism, no
> matter how well-mannered, is likely to irritate someone, and irritating people is not in itself a
> capital offense.
It would be a wrong-headed argument. Fortunately it wasn't the argument.
>
> If you think that Critical Mass riders are rude, say they're rude.
I think they are rude.
> That's quite enough in itself without trying to paint them as menaces to the physical safety of
> all other cyclists.
The CM participants are not menaces to the physical safety of all other cyclists. And perhaps I give
them too much credit when I hope they recognize the causal relationship between their actions and
the inevitable backlash against cyclists in general.
To rephrase your example above, Person A performs action Z. Person B is annoyed by Z and endangers
person C. A continues to perform Z, and B continues to endanger C.
I believe it is irresponsible of A to continue to perform Z if he is aware of B's reaction and the
danger to C. I have no idea if A bears any legal culpability, though I doubt it. Maybe A doesn't
recognize the relationship. Maybe A believes the end result of Z is sufficient to warrant the
possible ill effects. Maybe A just doesn't care.
It sounds to me like the CMers (or at least those active in this forum) don't think drivers resent
the delays caused by their protests, or don't think that resentment translates into ill-will towards
cyclists in general. I think they are wrong. Therein lies the disagreement. I doubt they'll change
their mind, and I know I won't.
Sam
> In article <[email protected]>, NYRides
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I wonder if the people who participate in Critical Mass realize the responsibility they are
> >assuming every time they stage a disruptive ride. As Sam Huffman put it so well, I, too, would
> >suggest that "their short glory ride once per month increases the hazards for every other cyclist
> >every day of the month."
>
> OK, so the way this argument goes is: person A delays person B temporarily, and the resulting
> irritation turns person B into a murderer, making person A responsible for the murder of B's
> victim C?
No, that was not the argument.
> This is a totally wrong-headed argument, and we should all stop bringing it up. Any activism, no
> matter how well-mannered, is likely to irritate someone, and irritating people is not in itself a
> capital offense.
It would be a wrong-headed argument. Fortunately it wasn't the argument.
>
> If you think that Critical Mass riders are rude, say they're rude.
I think they are rude.
> That's quite enough in itself without trying to paint them as menaces to the physical safety of
> all other cyclists.
The CM participants are not menaces to the physical safety of all other cyclists. And perhaps I give
them too much credit when I hope they recognize the causal relationship between their actions and
the inevitable backlash against cyclists in general.
To rephrase your example above, Person A performs action Z. Person B is annoyed by Z and endangers
person C. A continues to perform Z, and B continues to endanger C.
I believe it is irresponsible of A to continue to perform Z if he is aware of B's reaction and the
danger to C. I have no idea if A bears any legal culpability, though I doubt it. Maybe A doesn't
recognize the relationship. Maybe A believes the end result of Z is sufficient to warrant the
possible ill effects. Maybe A just doesn't care.
It sounds to me like the CMers (or at least those active in this forum) don't think drivers resent
the delays caused by their protests, or don't think that resentment translates into ill-will towards
cyclists in general. I think they are wrong. Therein lies the disagreement. I doubt they'll change
their mind, and I know I won't.
Sam