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.
Tags:
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."
I think this conversation could use a little help from John Stuart, not of Daily Show fame, but the John Stuart Mill of Utilitarian fame...
The object of this [POST REPLY] is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty page 12.
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."
Tank, basically Mills is saying that ones actions can only reasonably be limited by another if said action will cause harm to another and then only limited in such a fashion to ensure that the harm does not fall on anyone but the actor.
Or in other words, unless you know it'll hurt someone else mind your own business yo.
You know of course, if you had said this, she would have told you to "wear earbuds."
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said: 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).
But have we even established that riding a bike while using a phone is dangerous even to the person doing it?Iggi,
You don't talk on the cell phone while riding
Mike,
You've never talked on a cell phone while on your bike?
261 members
203 members
118 members
269 members
63 members