Re: [Ebbc-Talk] Populations Running Red Lights

Please stop feeding the troll.  He has been quiet for quite some time  
until now, providing great relief.


***************************************************
* Al Williams          [email protected]     *
* San Jose CA                                     *
***************************************************

On May 20, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Mike Vandeman wrote:

> 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

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