Self-Thinning of the Herd (Witnessing Dangerous/Stupid Behavior on the Road)
I'm sure everyone has witnessed people on the road (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists) doing stupid things that put their lives in danger. Any specific instances come to mind?
2 rules:
1. Specifics only - no 'running reds' or j-walking'. Details needed.
2. Only instances that put the perp in danger. No 'this car almost ran this cyclist over' but 'this car sped across the tracks as the gates were coming down' yes.
Calling them out not needed, but it makes for a better read.
Coming up Halsted around Irving, I pass a cyclist on her cell phone. I look back at her while passing. She blows through the red light at Broadway and Montrose, then she's back on her cell phone coming up to Leland. I look back at her again and this exchange takes place:
Her: Do you have a problem?
Me: Just don't want to see you get killed.
Her: Ok, don't watch.
Views: 507
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by heather s on
-
I doubt anyone has put together statistics about this regarding cycling, but there has been plenty of study showing that driving while on a hands-free phone is much more dangerous than listening to the radio. I imagine the effect would be similar on a bike. I listen to music when I ride, but it's really just background noise enough to drown out the sounds of the cars. I wouldn't listen to a podcast or audiobook because it would be hard to concentrate on both tasks.
I'm wondering how fast the woman in the OP's scenario was riding? That would make a big difference for me. I definitely cringe when I see people riding fast and talking on the phone... and I definitely laughed out loud the time I saw a cyclist on the phone who lost control, hit the curb, fell over, and continued on with the conversation (he wasn't going fast and wasn't hurt). But if she was going slowly enough to be able to control her bike, anticipate any threats to her safety, and carry on the conversation, it doesn't seem like a big deal.
Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:Is talking on the phone hands free and listening to music through ear buds statistically different?
-
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on
-
Audrey, please consider joining the fledgling Velo Philosophers group and lurk no more.
Now regarding your assertion that my placement of Mills was misguided, I don't think that's the case at all. The insertion of the harm principle into the conversation was specifically done to draw a line from this topic to its over arching moral and philosophical context. And that adds to the value of the discussion.
I am not about to give a lecture on how Mills later goes on to define caveats for the principle by explicitly stating that destruction of ones property or oneself will invariably lead to causing harm to others. Why? Because it's the logical conclusion and I assumed the the question of what constitute harm would be brought up. Which it did when the poster pointed out that emotional damage as well as damage to a car is a type of harm. And that was exactly the point.
Besides, Mills isn't entirely right when he says that destruction of oneself will cause harm to others in every instance nor is he right about destruction of property. Because moral reality is complex there is a whole world of debate that can and will be said and this is just a microcosm of that discussion.
One thing you and I can certainly agree on is the cherry picking of Utilitarianism in the founding of Capitalist Libertarianism. Which sorta makes sense since they are both consequentialist theories requiring historic analysis to determine their moral and political outcomes. However American Libertarians must have just read the Mills and Bentham Cliffsnotes because their analysis of Utilitarian thought is pathetic. If they really understood the logical extension of Utilitarian moral theory they would run from Mills like they run form Che Guevara.
Edit: Cherry picking ideals doesn't invalidate a philosophy mind you. Appropriating ideals to suite ones own needs is a component of any outlook. But I'm PoMo.
-
-
I could be wrong to and totally misreading On Liberty. Am I ignorant of a later text or lecture where he refutes the mind yer own bid'ness attitude to minor life choices?
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
I get that she wasn't riding erratically. Looking back at her was a way of saying "You probably shouldn't be doing that least you cause an accident". She may not have been swerving like mad at the time, but that doesn't guarantee that she won't in the future while having one hand on the bars and one on her phone.
Just because a distracting activity doesn't harm you or anyone else in one instance doesn't mean that it will continue like that forever.
Audrey Crescenti said:[continuing to break my place as a lurker] I'm sorry but...I'm not. Yeah the reply was wittier than her middle finger, but that doesn't take away from the fact that she was being a moron. Can we stop peddling semantics and agree to that? If you're on your cell on a bike (like some have intimated), then you are also a_total_moron.
That being said, in the spirit of misguided Millian wisdom, how about we mind our own business more often? Unless that girl swirves into you, or does something to immediately threaten your own welfare, leave her the hell alone. They'll do what they do anyway. They always do.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Cute? Mentally?, nope. Physically? Not really, but she could've been a knockout. Since it seems like someone knocked the brain out of her head, it wouldn't have mattered to me.
*awaits for rants about sexism to be brought into the thread*
Kevin Conway said:It's really not an issue of "agreement." She said what she said. I have a deep abiding respect for comedy in all of its varied forms, and her response is, in a word, funny. There are few processes more tedious than deconstructing what's funny and why, and I assure you, this will be no exception. Her three-word response was unexpected. In a backhanded way, it acknowledged all of the concerns you expressed regarding her conduct and her personal safety. It did not attempt to justify her conduct. It acknowledged the distress it was causing you by witnessing her conduct. She made it clear that she would not alter her conduct. She offered a simple, workable solution to alleviate your distress. It was far more sophisticated than an "f-you," or a "mind your own business." It was both smart and funny. Was she cute?
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Not sure if you're agreeing with her comeback or commenting on the "F you, I'll take my life into my own hands." aspect of it.
Either way, I can turn my head, but I can not close off my ears to the accompanying sounds (none of which are sure to be pleasant).
It's a response I'm not going to forget for a while, that's for sure.
Kevin Conway said:Actually, I love the answer... "OK, don't watch."
-
-
Just so it's clear, I wasn't checking her out.
Clark said:Audrey Crescenti said:...Yeah the reply was wittier than her middle finger...how about we mind our own business more often?...leave her the hell alone...
Point taken Audrey....but you see, Ryan didn't instigate the conversation:
"...I look back at her again and this exchange takes place:
Her: Do you have a problem?
Me: Just don't want to see you get killed.
Her: Ok, don't watch."
Guys get blamed for trying to control women all the time (at least I do). But Ryan was just keeping an eye on her, and didn't say a word until she asked him a question...isn't that acceptable behavior? Can't guys even LOOK these days without getting into trouble?
-
Permalink Reply by Michael A on
-
Maybe I have to lend you the Colnago again
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Just so it's clear, I wasn't checking her out.
Clark said:Audrey Crescenti said:...Yeah the reply was wittier than her middle finger...how about we mind our own business more often?...leave her the hell alone...
Point taken Audrey....but you see, Ryan didn't instigate the conversation:
"...I look back at her again and this exchange takes place:
Her: Do you have a problem?
Me: Just don't want to see you get killed.
Her: Ok, don't watch."
Guys get blamed for trying to control women all the time (at least I do). But Ryan was just keeping an eye on her, and didn't say a word until she asked him a question...isn't that acceptable behavior? Can't guys even LOOK these days without getting into trouble?
-
-
The law requires a headset or hands free, cycling within the city limits with headphones is a no no.. A BT headset, or one ear corded headset is 100% legal.. I wonder if Hanna's method of putting her cell phone in her helmet is allowed, she keeps both hands on the bars.
Audrey Crescenti said:It's not that he refutes the harm principle--more than he expounds it in such a way that the ostensibly black and white principle (which falls comfortably in line with superficial American libertarianism) is not as black and white (or as compatible with superficial libertarianism). In other words, he later proffers the GHP--which is far more sophisticated (and conducive to positive-liberty-happy libs). In fact, the GHP is the culmination of his entire ethical theory...which is far more sophisticated and compelling than even Bentham or Mill Sr. could ever provide. It's also important to note that On Lib sounds far more laissez-faire than what he writes in Util. You can read it as backpedaling, or defer to the numerous folks who read it all as part of one, consistent theory.
My area is political theory (obviously?), but I've done a lot with John Rawls--who definitely included Mill's theory as one of the previous liberal theories for political association...along with perfectionist theories, Kantianism, etc. If that lends any credibility to the "wait!-don't-read-Mill-like-Rudy-Giuliani-and-Schwarzenegger's-chromosomally-lacking-secret-love-child" argument...
Point being: The substantive ideas that we can take away from Mill (in my personal opinion), with reference to this thread, are that the laws that ban cells in cars/on bikes, as well as the laws governing proper traffic activity (again, for motorists and bikes) probably exist for the practical reason: to increase the happiness of the aggregate--via reducing (as much as possible) bloody body mangling, wrecking of cars/bikes, etc. and to increase consistency and dependability in order to properly judge who will do what next.
Motorists aren't evil. If you take an extremist, immature attitude like that, then you'll end up giving cyclists a bad name. Just because some motorists have given you a hard time, doesn't mean that all motorists deserve to have you cut in front of them or ride inconsistently, or to generally be inconsiderate. (Recall, many motorists will, by default, hate you, using the same ill-conceived logic because they had prior, unsavory encounters with other cyclists). In short, cyclists should also remember to 'share the road.'
That's my soapbox moment for the day...
Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:I could be wrong to and totally misreading On Liberty. Am I ignorant of a later text or lecture where he refutes the mind yer own bid'ness attitude to minor life choices?
-
-
For a reckless biker I'm pretty safe.
-
Permalink Reply by Juan 2-3 or more mi. on
-
A while back, after a rainy day I saw this cyclist cruising around very fast with just one arm. I was at first worried and also awed at the fact that this guy was riding around with his handicap.
He passed me up and dissapeared a block later. I thought to myself he should really be taking it easy with just one hand on the bars, but I thought to myself who am I to judge the capabilities of the handicap.
Well would'nt you know it, as soon as I turn the corner, there he is sprawled on the ground face down with people around him trying to help him up. Apparently he had not learned that plates of steel on the ground are very slippery in wet weather.
I think he broke his only good arm. I wish I had told him to take it easy.
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
heather stratton said:I listen to music when I ride, but it's really just background noise enough to drown out the sounds of the cars. I
So you drown out the best way to know if a car is approaching you from behind?
And help make it hard for other cyclists to let you know they are passing you?
GO SAFETY!
-
-
I forgot a winter favorite I see from time to time; no hands, hands in jacket pockets.
Genius.
-
-
I use the tempo of my music to determine my speed. Someday I will make a lovely stain.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
