- Time to register for fall sports [Decatur Minute]
- Time for Atlanta/Fulton/DeKalb to take control of own destinies [Saporta]
- MARTA pledges to rein in spending [AJC]
- Watershed on Peachtree restaurant review [AJC]
- An op-ed from a “rule-breaking cyclist” [NYT]
21 thoughts on “Morning Metro: Fall Sports, City Center Needs to Take Control, and a Rule-Breaking Cyclist”
Comments are closed.
The graphic in the cyclist article is telling.
Even after looking up Kant’s categorical imperative in Wikipedia, I do not get the graphic. Please help. I am philosophically impaired.
It looks like someone showing their behind. Just sayin’.
Oh, that I get. Still don’t see what the graphic has to do with Kant’s categorical imperative but I can’t get my head around “categorical imperative”–I understand what each word means but not the concept. I also have trouble with anything using the terms “dialectic” or “parameter”.
The graphic has nothing whatever to do with Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The title of the article references the third paragraph of the article, where the columnist says, “I think all cyclists could–and should–ride like me.”
Kant’s CI stated that you should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In other words, you should make decisions such that, if everyone made those same choices, the world would work fine.
Got it. I think. At least I understand better Kant’s “categorical imperative”. And I understand that the graphic is not depicting that concept. So now I wonder what the graphic DOES depict? A bike’s light is shining on its cyclist who is inexplicably located in front of said bike, still in cycling position, but looking back in surprise at said bike. And the title of the piece is “If Kant were a New York Cyclist…” I don’t get it.
Wild guess here about the illustration. It reminded me of something from college philosophy, but Sartre, not Kant. In fact this might be the only thing I remember from college philosophy.
From some web page:
“Suppose I am looking through a keyhole. I am totally unaware of myself. This is the state of pre-reflective consciousness. If I now become aware that I am being observed by somebody, I experience shame (or guilt, embarrassment — depending on circumstances), and I thereby become aware of myself as an object — of someone else’s consciousness as subject.”
The illustration looks to me as the cyclist has just realized the bike was observing him looking through a keyhole. So it’s a joke.
Like I said, just a guess.
Why is that telling? What are you saying there?
The writer is bragging about his lack of concern for the rules of the road. A little like he’s showing off. Typical New Yorker… ; – )
All I gots to say is when the bicycle guy that rolls thru red lights meets car driver that rolls thru red lights guess who gets splatted?
That’s part of the author’s point — that cyclists are generally quite careful about rolling through red lights and stop signs because they have so much more to lose in any accident. I ride just like the author describes, stopping when necessary for safety but rolling when it is clear that there is no danger.
His more fundamental point is that we need to stop pretending that bicycles are cars. They’re not, and it is ridiculous to treat them as equivalent for purposes of traffic laws.
Exactly! I too ride more or less as the author does. I honestly think drivers get irritated by the fact that cyclists break the car rules of the road rather than ever actually being inconvenienced or in any way harmed by a cyclist. There’s a feeling of it being unfair. I say get on a bike and see what it’s like to have momentum climbing a hill towards a stop sign. You will soon see that rolling through and empty intersection or as your turn approaches, is completely logical and hurts nobody. Similarly, if I see a way around a busy intersection by getting on the Path or even the occassional empty sidewalk, guess what? I’m taking it.
OK, I’ll admit to being one of those drivers that is primarily irritated by the failure of cyclists to follow traffic rules. But my irritation stems from the utter lack of predictability that this causes. I am equally, if not more, irritated by auto drivers who don’t follow the rules (a yellow flashing light means “slow down and proceed with caution” not “stop” people!) chiefly because I cannot predict what any of you are about to do and govern myself accordingly. I have no idea, in any given scenario, whether or not you feel as though it is safe for you to break a traffic rule or follow it. I want to be considerate and supportive of cyclists. I also do not want to watch someone get maimed or killed because they were wrong about when it was OK to disregard traffic rules. I have no problem with the notion that there could be different rules for cyclists and automobiles, but until those rules are established and everyone knows what they are I think that the ones currently in place should be followed.
“I have no idea, in any given scenario, whether or not you feel as though it is safe for you to break a traffic rule or follow it.”
+1000. Nail on the head. Couldn’t agree more. This applies to EVERYBODY using the public right-of-way, regardless of whether they’re in a motor vehicle, on a bicycle, skates or scooter, or on their own two feet.
BTW, as of 15 minutes ago, the stoplight at East Lake/Park (by the phone co & East Lake MARTA station) is flashing yellow for East Lake and flashing Red for Park. As usual, drivers are responding in all kinds of ways.
That is an elegant defense of how and why I ride a bike to work. There must be 6 million cars in Atlanta, horrible traffic, yet we spend a lot of time discussing a few hundred bikes on this Blog. I suspect DM is baiting us!
that’s because all those drivers always follow all the rules of the road. when one of them goes over the speed limit, doesn’t make a complete stop at a stop sign, fails to use their turn signal, injures/kills someone, or damages property, i’m sure we’ll see all sort of op-eds complaining about them.
Really? All drivers always follow the rules of the road?
we need a universally accepted sarcasm font.
I think the illustration IS related to the the headline and Kant’s categorical imperative. The rider is in the path of his bicycle- if he is operating that bicycle in a morally defensible way (even if technically violating the rules) – then those in the path of his bicycle are safe. The illustration shows the test – by putting the bicyclist in the path of his bicycle.
Furthermore, it illustrates the point that it is the bicyclist himself – not the irritated drivers of cars – who is at risk / who will suffer the consequences of the cyclist’s operational choices.
I like it.!
As someone who cycled a lot pre-kids and who likes to cycle with kids on those few occasions that they deign to cycle with me, I tend to be in the pro-cyclist camp. Nonetheless, a cyclist totally scared and pissed me off yesterday. I was crossing the tracks northbound at Atlantic Ave, turning left so I could then quickly get onto Adair. A cyclist behind me thought I was too cautious and got impatient I guess, and passed me on the RIGHT, cut in front of my minivan, and made the left turn onto DeKalb then Adair ahead of me. If hadn’t seen him in my peripheral vision, I might have edged forward to see DeKalb traffic better and hit him. He seemed to be an experienced cyclist since he was wearing a helmet and full reflective gear. This was a near miss and not the way to show drivers that cyclists belong on the road.