Re: [Ebbc-Talk] Populations Running Red Lights

At 09:18 AM 5/20/2012, Jym Dyer wrote:
> > it has nothing to do with bicyclist behavior and attitudes,
> > unless you illogically use others' behavior to justify your
> > own.  That's good kindergarten-level thinking.
>
>=v= My own?  Appeals to logic work better without _ad_hominem_
>allegations and aspersions.

I wasn't talking about you, but your logic (or lack of it).

>=v= My background is sociology, so I view things in a social
>context.  The examples I gave reflect the folkways and mores of
>the general motoring population.  These are embodied in social
>institutions, from roads designed to accommodate speeding to
>law-enforcement policies that overlook most law-breaking, and
>indeed, an entire parallel body of law and court system which
>reduces deadly crimes to infractions and expedites the handling
>of large numbers of offenders.

That has no bearing on whether bicyclists should run red lights -- 
unless you think that someone else's bad behavior makes it okay for 
you to break the law. That's the "kindergarten" level thinking.

>=v= To me it makes no sense to discuss one transportation mode's
>adherence to one of these infractions without taking this wider
>context into account.

How does that bear on whether one should run a red light? I don't 
undersatand that logic.

>=v= I don't know whether "bicyclist behavior and attitudes" is
>a reflection of your background in psychology, but the singular
>usage is only appropriate for a case study.  To understand the
>biking population, plural phrases are a better place to start.
>To my eyes, reality is more along the lines of X% of bicyclists
>running red lights, Y% of those surveyed justified it for reason
>Z, controlling for a dozen or so other variables -- and compared
>with percentages of motorists, pedestrians, whatever.

So if X% of motorists run red lights, that makes it okay for X% of 
bicyclists to do the same? What exactly are you saying?

>=v= Human behavior is multivariate, and patterns that emerge
>are intersections of multiple probability distributions.
>There's not one monolithic bicyclist uniformly doing a thing
>because of one particular (negative, imputed) state of mind.

So why DO bicyclists run red lights, if not (1) valuing their time 
over safety & (2) feeling entitled to break the law?

> >> =v= Yet bicyclists are the ones with the entitlement problem.
> > I don't see how you can honestly deny it.
>
>=v= I would say that some percentage of the bicyclist population
>harbors some variety of a feeling of entitlement.  I've seen no
>research indicating whether these is less than or greater than
>those of the motoring population, or the population overall,

How is that relevant? Whether motorists do it or not, it's still 
dangerous & against the law.

>  nor
>whether they have any significant correlation to any particular
>behavior such as running red lights.
>
>=v= Without this research, we're just tossing anecdotes and
>unfounded opinions around.  Which, as I said at the outset
>of this thread, does nothing about addressing anything that's
>actually a problem.

So running red lights & possessing an "entitlement mentality" are not 
problems? You make no sense.

>     <_Jym_>
>_______________________________________________
>Ebbc-Talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org


-- 

I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to 
humans ("pure habitat").
Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence 
and road construction.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you 
are fond of!

http://mjvande.nfshost.com

_______________________________________________
Ebbc-Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ebbc.org/listinfo.cgi/ebbc-talk-ebbc.org