There are two groups of people whose actions piss me off in relation to the "bike vs car" wars. The first is aggressive drivers who feel that it's perfectly acceptable to put my life in danger just to satisfy their innate compulsions to behave like cunts. The second is aggressive cyclists who do dumb shit on the road. The latter group piss me off primarily because I can't shake the feeling that it's their actions that create the built up resentments that motivate the former.
The fact is that a bike is not a car. And a pedestrian is not a bike. Incidentally, a pedestrian is also not a car, just in case anyone was confused. I would have thought that this was bleeding obvious, but evidently the motivations of one-sided interest groups are more pervasive than the laws of physics or even a basic ability to make observations about a moving vehicle.
Traffic laws are built on the principle of encouraging the lowest common denominator to avoid doing some of the stupid things they would otherwise do. These laws are not built on an innate principles or a universal rights framework. What this means is that you can contravene some of these laws but that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.
If you are on a straight, clear highway that you know well on a clear day and you drive at 5km over the speed limit, you are breaking the law but are not necessarily behaving stupidly. Conversely, it may be moronic to travel at the speed limit if you're on an unknown, winding highway in pissing rain. Similarly, some jay-walking might be sensible and other instances might be stupid. Fines are a blunt instrument, which means that it's stupid to issue them without police exercising some discretion.
People will clearly have differing views on where to draw the line and one of the complication of setting laws is to get the balance right. Assuming that a bike is the same thing as a car, as certain new laws seem to suggest is a sure fire way to getting it wrong. Suffice to say, if you had a choice between my 65kg running you over in my 3 tonne Land Rover, or on my 8kg bike, which would you go for?
Land use – eliminate roundabouts!
-
Roundabouts are good way to control traffic. But they are land-hungry. In
certain places getting that land back should be a priority. Land use is a
topic t...
1 week ago
You drive a landrover?!
ReplyDeleteGood point well made. I especially like the reference to why jaywalking is different: it's not based on a universal rights framework. I may not understand quite what that means but I sure can throw it around to confuse my enemies.
First, Jase, congratulations on being the first comment on this nascent blog!
ReplyDeleteThe Land Rover (Discovery) was something my boyfriend contributed to the relationship. I accepted him in spite of it because, at the time, he had some need to tow horse floats.
However, I have grown quite fond of it. We live in the inner city so we walk, ride, or catch public transport for the vast majority of trips. Most of the time when we use the car it's to lug something from one side of town to another (eg, I buy a bookshelf on ebay, we need a new washing maching, we move house, need to take something to the tip, etc). We wouldn't even be able to do half of this stuff with a sedan.
I've found that all of my friends hate the Land Rover, but no one can actually give me good reason why.