vol

Understand he has a family to support, but so do the victims of traffic accidents.

spare_wheel

And the rights of cyclists to the road are not only superior due to law and regulation, but also due to social, ethical, and fiscal issues.

FBinNY 

The moral superiority argument raised by cyclists is as bad as the "I paid for the road..." argument.

Roads are a public amenity, provided for the general welfare the same way as all other government services.

That some may choose cycling for ethical, health, social or whatever doesn't make them superior to those who make other decisions for their own reasons. Yes, some decisions are more or less costly, or better or worse for society, but that doesn't change anything. Is a married couple that chooses to have few or no children better than one who choose to have 5 because they are less a drain the education resources of their community?


This is the USofA, if you want others to respect your decisions, you have to accord them the same respect for theirs. Let's cut the about moral superiority, jealousy, envy, or whatever. We are all equals under the law, plain and simple.

BTW- I'm a full time cyclist, who gave up driving 4 years ago on July 4th as a personal "declaration of independence", because I felt my fuel dollars were supporting regimes who supported terrorism. It was a personal decision, of the kind we all make very day for various reasons. It doesn't make me any better than my neighbors who still drive.

spare_wheel

I said absolutely nothing about morality. When I use the word ethics, I mean normative ethics.

Argument from omniscience.

Also:

FBinNY 

Had you said, that cycling or cyclists are morally or ethically superior, I wouldn' have said boo. But you said the rights to the road are superior, which is why I responded. Rights don't depend on moral or ethical superiority. All users share equal rights to the road. The oft repeated constitutional language specifying equal rights under the law doesn't condition that on being a good guy.

DX-MAN

LOL, I have a couple ideas where he can go to be a cabbie:

Either Kennesaw, GA (adult gun ownership is mandatory, let him act the fool there -- lived in GA for three years, seem to be collectively as dumb as Arkansas), or Mackinac Island, MI (no cars, let him drive a horse & carriage).

phoebeisis

"normative ethics, that part of moral philosophy, or ethics, concerned with criteria of what is morally right and wrong. It includes the formulation of moral rules that have direct implications for what human actions, institutions, and ways of life should be like."

Encyclopedia Britannia

obscure phrases or meanings set my BS-O-METER off-
Sure looked like a moral superiority claim-

DX-MAN

It may well be so in some cases; but, according to your supplied definition, normative ethics are a necessary part of society -- for example, society functions better when lying is frowned upon, not only legalistically, but morally. Not running people over with cars would be a good ethical stance, too, I think.

Your BS-o-meter seems to need recalibration.

JoeyBike

Based on the burning of a limited supply of fossil fuels, global warming, and "innocent" people forced to breathe the emissions from taxi cabs simply gives cyclists more right to be ON EARTH than that d-bag.

phoebeisis

"Power Comes from the barrel of a gun"
Mao usually gets credit for that, but pretty sure the ancient Greeks Romans Egyptians Chinese etc-would have said something similar.

No rights to be on the earth mean much without the raw power to enforce them.
Cabbies and bike riders- probably pretty far down the NYNY food chain-so interest has died down.Probably NYNY doesn't want to disturb tourists-give them the impression that they are in danger of rogue cabbies running them down.

Chitown_Mike

I read this and realize the Chicago, which copies every other city it seems, will probably follow suit. But we will have restrictions on which streets we can ride at certain times, with cameras to catch cyclists and automated courtrooms with computerized judges that randomly select a fine to present with no rationale as to the offense.

I really don't understand the issue with cycling in 98% of the US.....sigh

coney462

Bullsh-t

Chris516

I still put it on the cabbie. He has nine points on his license in the past three years for three major moving violations. Because, While bike messenger Kenneth Olivio does have 22 arrests on his rap sheet, that is beside the point and not the key element. Sure he can be blamed for starting the situation. It was still the cab driver who ultimately bears responsibility. Because the cab driver reacted and went after Mr. Olivio. Sure slapping the cab wasn't necessarily a smart thing to do. But he did it for a reason, and it wasn't one of instigating. Sure Mr. Olivio as 22 arrests, but that doesn't justify the cabbie's behavior.

The end result because of the behavior of BOTH the bike messenger and the cab driver, is that a British tourist suffered a nearly fatal injury.

DX-MAN

So prior guilt for other offenses equals guilt here? How "drumhead" of you.....

Look it up.

Chris516

They both have 'storied' pasts. Neither one of them is a stellar member of the community. Neither one of them can 'not' be faulted.

vol

The cabbie's past stories are all traffic related; not the cyclist's.

Chris516

Doesn't mean the cabbie is any better. While the bike messenger has made lethal threats, the cabbie is a lethal threat with his driving record.

vol

What I meant is, the cabbie's past stories are more relevant to this accident. (cf. post #60 )

rydabent

Another case these days where someone else is to blame, not the culprit!!!!

Chris516

I would still say, their respective histories' are equally relevant to how, they both behaved. The similarity is a record with law enforcement. While in a different context for both of them. They both have a bad attitude and that is the overriding factor.

atbman

You have read to much into my post. I merely observed that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that we could not automatically assume that the cabbie had of all the responsibility for the collision and its appalling consequences, based solely on the information available in the news. We do, after all, often complain about the inadequate detail given in the media when a cyclist is the victim.

Given the other information made available since, it seems entirely possible that the cabbie will be found responsible if and when it comes to trial. I say this without implying that he, in turn, should be subject to a "drumhead court martial".

vol

I just found out that a shop owner whom I knew also drives taxi part-time. For all I (and others who know him) know, he's a very friendly and very respectful person. I asked him if he's a "good" cabbie or a "bad" one. His reply: "When I get off the taxi, I'm a very nice person [bowing his head], but when I'm driving taxi, I'm like every taxi driver! .... Taxi drivers don't think!" He then recounted how one day when he was driving his own car, he encountered an aggressive taxi driver and gave him a lesson.

DX-MAN

LOL. I wasn't TALKING about the cabbie's presumed guilt, I was talking about your reference to the cyclist's past as contributory guilt. Can you even keep your arguments straight?

atbman

I didn't say that the cyclist's past demonstrated contributory guilt, only that, given his previous history, we shouldn't automatically assume that he had no responsibility. What came out in the news reports since seems to indicate, as far as they show, that the cabbie has a case to answer.

DX-MAN

The cyclist's past history is irrelevant; he could banged on 100 car hoods or doors before, and it doesn't mean a thing. Absent a deadly threat, such as brandishing a weapon capable of injuring or killing the cabbie from outside the car, the cabbie had no business using his cab as a weapon. Hell, the cyclist could have brandished such a weapon a dozen or more times before, and it would be meaningless if he did not do so this time.

NAL, but i played a paralegal in the Army....

The best part of all of this is, the criminality of the incident (or absence thereof) will not bear on the civil suit available to the beautiful young lady who is now missing a limb.