From: afdenis@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison)
Subject: Re: motorists
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Ancient Souls Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: 12 Oct 1992 14:27 EST  

In article <73234@apple.Apple.COM>, ehouse@Apple.COM (Eric House) writes...
>In article <8OCT199216121832@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> afdenis@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Stephen Dennison) writes:
>>In article <casseres-081092103830@missmolly.apple.com>, casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes...
>>
>>Change it to *most* drivers and *most* cyclists and the 
>>point still holds. 
> 
>That's true enough -- of both sides.
> 
>>Due to the inherent *lack* of acceleration and speed capabilites of most 
>>bicycles and riders, putting them on the same road as cars and *expecting* 
>>motorists to accept delays and frustration because `we have a right to be 
>>on the road too' is optimistic at best. It is *not* unreasonable for a 
>>motorist to expect a cyclist to be more diligent about traffic laws and 
>>courteous behavior than the *average* motorist, given that the cyclist's 
>>presence on the road has *already* placed unwanted restrictions on the 
>>motorist. Also, a *minor* infraction is much more likely to cost a cyclist 
>>his/her *life*, ergo you'd think they would have a vested interest in 
>>proper road etiquette.
> 
>But the same argument can be reversed: just as motorists in their myoptic
>way see only the inconveniences we cyclists impose on them, I in my myoptic
>way see only the inconveniences they impose on me: smog filling the valley
>where I live and my lungs, and a transportation system that forces me to
>risk my life (though not to the degree most people naively imagine) just
>to get around.  

Good point.


>So I can just as easily say that it's *not* unreasonable
>for them to obey the rules more than I do.  

I *believe* you just did ! :-)

>That a minor infraction on the
>part of a motorist is more likely to kill someone other than that motorist
>sounds like an argument for your being more law-abiding to me, BTW.

My rationale was based on motivated self-interest... If *I* hit a cyclist 
because *I* violated a law, *I* won't die (unless it's one of thos bulky 
mountain bikes... *then* maybe ... :-)) It just seemed to me that the 
immediate consequence of an accident might give the cyclist more pause than 
the motorist.

>If that sign said "walk cars down hill" would you do it?  

"If Billy jumped off a bridge, would ... " :-)

If the sign said "Put trucks in 1st gear", I would. I don't walk cars... I 
walk goats (Sorry, that was for my LeRC buddies that know me.) :-)

[Rest of argument munched as my sarcastic reply rendered it useless...:-)]

> They don't have any legal force.

No, pehaps they don't, but then neither do the construction signs that say 
"Caution... 30 foot deep hole... do not drive in it"  I would expect that 
the cost and hassle of putting up such a sign had the effect of making it a 
non-frivilous endeavor. In other words, I wouldn't expect it was put there 
by a militant motorist's rights' group.


-- Stephen

     Though *believing* in things often wounds the spirit, *not* believing 
     in anything will eventually kill it. Therefore, *dream* ... and accept 
     the costs as reasonable.