Comments on: Clicklist: Bike monsters, Blog journalists, and BPA http://greenlagirl.com/clicklist-bike-monsters-blog-journalists-and-bpa/ Urban environmental lifestyle blog in Los Angeles Tue, 22 May 2012 01:46:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/clicklist-bike-monsters-blog-journalists-and-bpa/comment-page-1/#comment-487585 Siel Wed, 25 Nov 2009 21:53:03 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/?p=10105#comment-487585 Yeah -- So supporting modal equity in transportation's pretty different from insisting a law abiding driver's at fault if a crackhead cyclist careens into their car. Suffice to say I'm glad most cyclists understand that difference. Yeah — So supporting modal equity in transportation’s pretty different from insisting a law abiding driver’s at fault if a crackhead cyclist careens into their car. Suffice to say I’m glad most cyclists understand that difference.

]]> By: Ele Munjeli http://greenlagirl.com/clicklist-bike-monsters-blog-journalists-and-bpa/comment-page-1/#comment-487274 Ele Munjeli Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:42:43 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/?p=10105#comment-487274 Yeah. Except. If a kid careens into a car obeying all laws and watching out for law-abiding pedestrians and cyclists, and is still just eight years old, we need a law to protect him: everyone has a right to ride a bike, whether or not they have the right to drive a car. The cycling community is inclusive, and democratic. One third of all pedestrians killed have a blood alcohol content demonstrating they are legally drunk: but do they deserve to be killed for that? and is it against the law to walk home when you're drunk? And when was the last time there was a collision between a drunk pedestrian and a car and the driver was killed? The driver of an automobile has greater liability and responsibility because they have greater potential to kill. However, an individual driving a car has no more right to the road than a pedestrian or cyclist, each of whom makes an equal contribution to the expense of the creation and maintenance of roadways as an individual driver. Modal equity in transportation. Yeah. Except. If a kid careens into a car obeying all laws and watching out for law-abiding pedestrians and cyclists, and is still just eight years old, we need a law to protect him: everyone has a right to ride a bike, whether or not they have the right to drive a car. The cycling community is inclusive, and democratic. One third of all pedestrians killed have a blood alcohol content demonstrating they are legally drunk: but do they deserve to be killed for that? and is it against the law to walk home when you’re drunk? And when was the last time there was a collision between a drunk pedestrian and a car and the driver was killed? The driver of an automobile has greater liability and responsibility because they have greater potential to kill. However, an individual driving a car has no more right to the road than a pedestrian or cyclist, each of whom makes an equal contribution to the expense of the creation and maintenance of roadways as an individual driver. Modal equity in transportation.

]]> By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/clicklist-bike-monsters-blog-journalists-and-bpa/comment-page-1/#comment-487265 Siel Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:25:55 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/?p=10105#comment-487265 Well of course everyone has their miranda rights. But if a cracked out cyclist careens into a car obeying all laws and watching out for law-abiding pedestrians and cyclists, that's the crackhead's fault. Well of course everyone has their miranda rights. But if a cracked out cyclist careens into a car obeying all laws and watching out for law-abiding pedestrians and cyclists, that’s the crackhead’s fault.

]]> By: Ele Munjeli http://greenlagirl.com/clicklist-bike-monsters-blog-journalists-and-bpa/comment-page-1/#comment-481744 Ele Munjeli Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:14:46 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/?p=10105#comment-481744 I've been there, thanks. I agree to disagree, but, a cyclist on crack still has some rights: the laws governing the rights of cyclists need to cover people without good judgement (more accurately, children, or people without drivers' education). I put drivers at fault to protect the right of all people to cycle safely, regardless of whether or not they have the legal capacity to drive. I’ve been there, thanks. I agree to disagree, but, a cyclist on crack still has some rights: the laws governing the rights of cyclists need to cover people without good judgement (more accurately, children, or people without drivers’ education). I put drivers at fault to protect the right of all people to cycle safely, regardless of whether or not they have the legal capacity to drive.

]]> By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/clicklist-bike-monsters-blog-journalists-and-bpa/comment-page-1/#comment-481677 Siel Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:07:43 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/?p=10105#comment-481677 I don't know what you're reading, but traffic-related dangers and woes are actually in mainstream news all the time. Case in point: Today in NYT's Freakonomics is this: "<a href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/why-does-driving-bring-out-the-worst-in-people/" rel="nofollow">Why Does Driving Bring Out the Worst in People?"</a> News everywhere's reporting the Mandeville Canyon thing today too, of course, but that's not a usual thing. On the other side, somewhat relatedly in Slate is <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2234011/?from=rss" rel="nofollow">a defense of jaywalking</a>. Plus -- I don't know if you actually read the original Salon piece I linked to, but that's written by a self-described law-breaking cyclist about making cycling safer for all. I do remember from the Bike Summit that you said you believed that even when a bicyclist gets into an accident while smoking crack (literally), that accident's still the driver's fault. Suffice to say I strongly disagree with this -- The fact that drivers in general create more problems doesn't automatically absolve cyclists of wrongdoing. In any case -- You'll find in the comments on the cartoon that some cyclists there agree with you and also didn't find the cartoon funny -- so I hope you'll go there for commiseration as this is getting repetitive -- I don’t know what you’re reading, but traffic-related dangers and woes are actually in mainstream news all the time. Case in point: Today in NYT’s Freakonomics is this: “Why Does Driving Bring Out the Worst in People?” News everywhere’s reporting the Mandeville Canyon thing today too, of course, but that’s not a usual thing.

On the other side, somewhat relatedly in Slate is a defense of jaywalking. Plus — I don’t know if you actually read the original Salon piece I linked to, but that’s written by a self-described law-breaking cyclist about making cycling safer for all.

I do remember from the Bike Summit that you said you believed that even when a bicyclist gets into an accident while smoking crack (literally), that accident’s still the driver’s fault. Suffice to say I strongly disagree with this — The fact that drivers in general create more problems doesn’t automatically absolve cyclists of wrongdoing.

In any case — You’ll find in the comments on the cartoon that some cyclists there agree with you and also didn’t find the cartoon funny — so I hope you’ll go there for commiseration as this is getting repetitive –

]]>