Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
No Stinking Badges
These Olympig Games are touted to be “Green”. Or some shady variation thereof. Greenish is more appropriate, which is how the taxpayers are going to look when the final bill comes in.
The ubiquitous Olympig SUV fleet rolls on, every corner has a cop, or more likely, a thug hired for the occasion. (You can tell them apart from the badges) Of course we are all waiting to see if the much anticipated riot squad will show up to beat down the homelessness protestors. Riot squad cops are easily recognized by their high tech ‘man-in-black’ look. They get to carry the BFW’s. Of course, these guys don’t need no stinking badges.
One positive aspect of the whole business is that there is NO PUBLIC PARKING! at any of the official venues. In this case, “public” means the majority of the unwashed sheeple, even when they are shelling out $1500 for a nosebleed seat for the opening fiasco, er ceremony. Of course the Olympig SUV fleet will be exempt. I’m sure also exempt will be the entourage of the various war criminals who masqurade as our political “leaders” and corporate parasites.
All those cars that used to occupy public space now just seem to be roaming around more, gridlocking the streets, perhaps looking for a parking spot that no longer exists. Even though much public money has already been spent on propaganda to get people to take transit, most everybody thinks the advice doesn’t apply to them, and continues to operate under the delusion that what they do is “important”.
Olympics Open
Well here it is, finally. The countdown clock rapidly approaches zero, many cheques have been cashed, the DTES has been sanitized, somewhat. We’re up to our elbows in debt and near civic bankruptcy but all that doesn’t matter now, cuz its time to party!
The buzz has been palpable the last week or so, or is it just the amount of carbon monoxide doubling as downtown routes become gridlocked. You can’t go a block without seeing a Olympig branded SUV rolling down the street, inevitably with a single driver and three empty seats. These are all sponsor provided oversize 4WD, as if this event was going to actually have snow! I happened to see them all parked beneath the Cambie Bridge, a rolling promotional fleet of destruction. The city has pleaded for a 30% reduction in regular traffic to help accommodate the games, but it seems to have only gone up by thirty per cent or more.
I thought it is a horrible glimpse of the future if we carry on with ‘bidnes as usual’.
The Olympic Games juggernaut is business as usual on hyper steroids. As we have been under the heel of the Olympic Corporation for nearly six years now, a lot of people have been ground under that heel, trampled without heed or remorse. Property taxes have increased cross the entire province as a result, and a reduction and failure of public services will be the legacy. As with any public debt, it will weigh most heavily upon the poor.
I’m sure a few people made A LOT OF MONEY off these games, the builders and contractors, the hotels, bars and restaurants. Peter Kieweit comes to mind, for one. Oh, and the prostitutes too, apparently, will cash in. The VANOC people thought they did such a good job that they gave themselves yet another raise in the midst of the most crippling depression the western capitalist world has ever known.
And then there is the security. Planned in the paranoid frenzy of the post 9-11, moron in the whitehouse world, A BILLION DOLLARS hs been thrown down the “security” sewer hole. A billion fucking dollars, that’s nine zeros behind that one, kids.
Meanwhile public spaces that haven’t been taken over by the Olympig corporation--anyone attempt to go public skating this year? futile.--have been defunded and closed. Bye bye Bloedel Conservatory. Those eight hundred teachers the government has promised to lay off, where do you think the money for those jobs went, hmmm?
All told, I’m told the price tag is going to be SIX BILLION DOLLARS! No wonder people are pissed off that they have to work like a dog all week to bring home $350. If they are lucky enough to have a job...But of course, bidnes as usual rolls on, people think they’re rich, Olympig souvenirs are flying off the shelves. Get yer red mittens. Made in China.
The buzz has been palpable the last week or so, or is it just the amount of carbon monoxide doubling as downtown routes become gridlocked. You can’t go a block without seeing a Olympig branded SUV rolling down the street, inevitably with a single driver and three empty seats. These are all sponsor provided oversize 4WD, as if this event was going to actually have snow! I happened to see them all parked beneath the Cambie Bridge, a rolling promotional fleet of destruction. The city has pleaded for a 30% reduction in regular traffic to help accommodate the games, but it seems to have only gone up by thirty per cent or more.
I thought it is a horrible glimpse of the future if we carry on with ‘bidnes as usual’.
The Olympic Games juggernaut is business as usual on hyper steroids. As we have been under the heel of the Olympic Corporation for nearly six years now, a lot of people have been ground under that heel, trampled without heed or remorse. Property taxes have increased cross the entire province as a result, and a reduction and failure of public services will be the legacy. As with any public debt, it will weigh most heavily upon the poor.
I’m sure a few people made A LOT OF MONEY off these games, the builders and contractors, the hotels, bars and restaurants. Peter Kieweit comes to mind, for one. Oh, and the prostitutes too, apparently, will cash in. The VANOC people thought they did such a good job that they gave themselves yet another raise in the midst of the most crippling depression the western capitalist world has ever known.
And then there is the security. Planned in the paranoid frenzy of the post 9-11, moron in the whitehouse world, A BILLION DOLLARS hs been thrown down the “security” sewer hole. A billion fucking dollars, that’s nine zeros behind that one, kids.
Meanwhile public spaces that haven’t been taken over by the Olympig corporation--anyone attempt to go public skating this year? futile.--have been defunded and closed. Bye bye Bloedel Conservatory. Those eight hundred teachers the government has promised to lay off, where do you think the money for those jobs went, hmmm?
All told, I’m told the price tag is going to be SIX BILLION DOLLARS! No wonder people are pissed off that they have to work like a dog all week to bring home $350. If they are lucky enough to have a job...But of course, bidnes as usual rolls on, people think they’re rich, Olympig souvenirs are flying off the shelves. Get yer red mittens. Made in China.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Addicted
A Nation of Addicts
Can oil and democracy mix?
by Franklin Kalinowski in Orion Magazine
When I was a young man, I worked for a while as a drug counselor, first in a methadone clinic, and then in a heroin detoxification unit. I have seen and know something about addiction. I later earned a PhD in political science, in the process acquiring an idea of what the Founders of the American political system were trying to accomplish. If we take seriously the news that Americans are "addicted to oil," it means we have become a nation of addicts, and the question that must be addressed is what a democracy composed of addicts portends for our future. Reconciling a population of addicts with the principles and practices of the American political system will not be easy. In fact, it will be impossible: democracy wasn't built for addicts.
The Founders of our democracy bequeathed to us a legacy of cultural values that display the diversity of their social perspectives. One group argued that politics was about the public, patriotic pursuit of the common good of the community. Americans were viewed as citizens who would be willing to sacrifice for the general welfare. Other Founders asserted that humans are essentially individuals and not community members. These consumers are primarily motivated by the passionate pursuit of their economic self-interests and should be given the freedom to seek their unique pleasures in their unique ways. Over the years, we as a nation have never totally accepted nor totally rejected either vision. We have ignored the logical contradictions and constructed a society where people are encouraged to be both patriotic and self-interested.
But where do addicts fit into this picture? Surely the addict cannot be considered a virtuous citizen. The essence of citizenship is a concern for the community and a willingness to forgo personal pleasure for the common good. The addict cares nothing about others or tomorrow, and for this reason, addiction and civic virtue are antithetical. Either the craving for the addictive substance will destroy all other pursuits, or the republic must cure the addiction and convert the addict into a citizen.
On the surface there may appear similarities between the addict and today's consumer, but these melt with closer scrutiny. Like an addict, the consumer may be a pleasure-seeking (an economist would say "utility maximizing") individual, but consumers know there are costs and benefits associated with their various choices, and they are rational enough to engage in calculations regarding these trade-offs. For the addict, there is no alternative to acquiring the addictive substance, and that is why they will pay any cost and ignore any harm their addiction will cause. Economic markets, built upon the assumption of rational consumers, are institutions ill suited to restrain addicts bent on ever greater overindulgence, even unto death.
If America is "addicted to oil" we will have to reach deep into our Founders' legacies for the strength to struggle against what we have become, for the truth is that there is a citizen, a consumer, and an addict in each of us. Citizens and consumers might grimace at the difficult policy choices lying ahead, but they will acquiesce in the face of necessity and move to have tough energy policies that restrict our addiction to oil put into practice.
It is urgently important that Americans not let our inner addict supersede our citizen and consumer. Imagine, just for a second, what would happen if we let the addicts run the methadone clinics and the detoxification units. Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy.
Can oil and democracy mix?
by Franklin Kalinowski in Orion Magazine
When I was a young man, I worked for a while as a drug counselor, first in a methadone clinic, and then in a heroin detoxification unit. I have seen and know something about addiction. I later earned a PhD in political science, in the process acquiring an idea of what the Founders of the American political system were trying to accomplish. If we take seriously the news that Americans are "addicted to oil," it means we have become a nation of addicts, and the question that must be addressed is what a democracy composed of addicts portends for our future. Reconciling a population of addicts with the principles and practices of the American political system will not be easy. In fact, it will be impossible: democracy wasn't built for addicts.
The Founders of our democracy bequeathed to us a legacy of cultural values that display the diversity of their social perspectives. One group argued that politics was about the public, patriotic pursuit of the common good of the community. Americans were viewed as citizens who would be willing to sacrifice for the general welfare. Other Founders asserted that humans are essentially individuals and not community members. These consumers are primarily motivated by the passionate pursuit of their economic self-interests and should be given the freedom to seek their unique pleasures in their unique ways. Over the years, we as a nation have never totally accepted nor totally rejected either vision. We have ignored the logical contradictions and constructed a society where people are encouraged to be both patriotic and self-interested.
But where do addicts fit into this picture? Surely the addict cannot be considered a virtuous citizen. The essence of citizenship is a concern for the community and a willingness to forgo personal pleasure for the common good. The addict cares nothing about others or tomorrow, and for this reason, addiction and civic virtue are antithetical. Either the craving for the addictive substance will destroy all other pursuits, or the republic must cure the addiction and convert the addict into a citizen.
On the surface there may appear similarities between the addict and today's consumer, but these melt with closer scrutiny. Like an addict, the consumer may be a pleasure-seeking (an economist would say "utility maximizing") individual, but consumers know there are costs and benefits associated with their various choices, and they are rational enough to engage in calculations regarding these trade-offs. For the addict, there is no alternative to acquiring the addictive substance, and that is why they will pay any cost and ignore any harm their addiction will cause. Economic markets, built upon the assumption of rational consumers, are institutions ill suited to restrain addicts bent on ever greater overindulgence, even unto death.
If America is "addicted to oil" we will have to reach deep into our Founders' legacies for the strength to struggle against what we have become, for the truth is that there is a citizen, a consumer, and an addict in each of us. Citizens and consumers might grimace at the difficult policy choices lying ahead, but they will acquiesce in the face of necessity and move to have tough energy policies that restrict our addiction to oil put into practice.
It is urgently important that Americans not let our inner addict supersede our citizen and consumer. Imagine, just for a second, what would happen if we let the addicts run the methadone clinics and the detoxification units. Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
ill informed and poorly researched
It's time to end the free ride for cyclists
by Paula Carlson, editor Surrey/N.Delta Leader (a local rag)
They’ve got their own paths, their own lanes, and their own streets, and if Vancouver’s mayor gets his way, they’ll soon have their own bridge.
In addition to their specially designated areas, cyclists clearly have clout.
They’re certainly increasing in numbers. Packs of pedal-pushers are a common sight on urban streets, in all types of weather and across staggering distances.
Years ago, slogging to work under your own steam while battling the elements and fellow commuters was seen as diehard. Now it’s de rigueur.
TransLink has added bike racks to buses, two-wheelers can be packed onto SkyTrain, and walkways in parks and along seawalls have been divided in half to accommodate bicycle enthusiasts.
Even new multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects – such as the Pitt River Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge and the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge – have incorporated cyclists into the plans, with lanes and ramps and roundabouts factored in.
In Vancouver, a lane on the Burrard Street Bridge has been closed to cars to make way for cyclists as part of a three-month $1-million pilot project.
And in the future, having cyclists share the same span with motor vehicles may not be good enough. Mayor Gregor Robertson is talking about building a $45-million crossing in False Creek that would be open to bikers and pedestrians only.
All municipal taxpayers would pony up the dough, mind you.
Enough is enough. It’s high time cyclists enjoyed the full rights of the road – including the right to obtain a licence, buy plates and insurance, and be subject to more frequent traffic violation tickets.
After all, under the Motor Vehicle Act, a person operating a bicycle has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle.
If bicycles are going to be a permanent and proliferate part of the regional transportation system, then bike riders need to buck up.
5the cost of getting around isn’t going to get any cheaper. In fact, TransLink – the regional authority responsible for transit – is currently grappling with how to raise an extra $450 million in annual operating costs for improvements such as more SkyTrain lines and additional buses.
Some of the funding measures being considered include hiking fuel, pay parking and property taxes, raising bus fares, and imposing a car levy.
If drivers, businesses and homeowners have to shell out for transit, then why not cyclists?
The template for regulating cyclists is already in place. Commercial cyclists, such as couriers, must pass a written test and purchase a licence plate.
Adding a requirement for insurance and ramping up enforcement of existing traffic laws would generate revenue and encourage safer riding practices. Fines, “points,” and at-fault accidents that increase the cost of bike insurance would act as a deterrent to cyclists who want all the rights of the road, but adhere to none of the rules (e.g. failing to stop at red lights and stop signs; travelling on sidewalks; riding without due care and attention).
Cycling is a viable and pleasurable means of transportation that is obviously gaining in popularity and breaking new ground. However it’s time to level the playing field.
I say welcome to the concrete jungle. But cyclists should enjoy gridlock in all its glory – and that means helping to fund the system.
pcarlson@surreyleader.com
by Paula Carlson, editor Surrey/N.Delta Leader (a local rag)
They’ve got their own paths, their own lanes, and their own streets, and if Vancouver’s mayor gets his way, they’ll soon have their own bridge.
In addition to their specially designated areas, cyclists clearly have clout.
They’re certainly increasing in numbers. Packs of pedal-pushers are a common sight on urban streets, in all types of weather and across staggering distances.
Years ago, slogging to work under your own steam while battling the elements and fellow commuters was seen as diehard. Now it’s de rigueur.
TransLink has added bike racks to buses, two-wheelers can be packed onto SkyTrain, and walkways in parks and along seawalls have been divided in half to accommodate bicycle enthusiasts.
Even new multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects – such as the Pitt River Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge and the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge – have incorporated cyclists into the plans, with lanes and ramps and roundabouts factored in.
In Vancouver, a lane on the Burrard Street Bridge has been closed to cars to make way for cyclists as part of a three-month $1-million pilot project.
And in the future, having cyclists share the same span with motor vehicles may not be good enough. Mayor Gregor Robertson is talking about building a $45-million crossing in False Creek that would be open to bikers and pedestrians only.
All municipal taxpayers would pony up the dough, mind you.
Enough is enough. It’s high time cyclists enjoyed the full rights of the road – including the right to obtain a licence, buy plates and insurance, and be subject to more frequent traffic violation tickets.
After all, under the Motor Vehicle Act, a person operating a bicycle has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle.
If bicycles are going to be a permanent and proliferate part of the regional transportation system, then bike riders need to buck up.
5the cost of getting around isn’t going to get any cheaper. In fact, TransLink – the regional authority responsible for transit – is currently grappling with how to raise an extra $450 million in annual operating costs for improvements such as more SkyTrain lines and additional buses.
Some of the funding measures being considered include hiking fuel, pay parking and property taxes, raising bus fares, and imposing a car levy.
If drivers, businesses and homeowners have to shell out for transit, then why not cyclists?
The template for regulating cyclists is already in place. Commercial cyclists, such as couriers, must pass a written test and purchase a licence plate.
Adding a requirement for insurance and ramping up enforcement of existing traffic laws would generate revenue and encourage safer riding practices. Fines, “points,” and at-fault accidents that increase the cost of bike insurance would act as a deterrent to cyclists who want all the rights of the road, but adhere to none of the rules (e.g. failing to stop at red lights and stop signs; travelling on sidewalks; riding without due care and attention).
Cycling is a viable and pleasurable means of transportation that is obviously gaining in popularity and breaking new ground. However it’s time to level the playing field.
I say welcome to the concrete jungle. But cyclists should enjoy gridlock in all its glory – and that means helping to fund the system.
pcarlson@surreyleader.com
in response
--A response to a published editorial in the Burnaby NewsLeader and Surrey/North Delta Leader by Paula Carlson, editor
It's time to end the free ride for motorists. As a car-free person and cyclist by choice, I am constantly being forced to subsidize a motoring lifestyle that is rapidly destroying the public environment for private benefit, which in turn serves to destroy my own, and my neighbours' health and well-being.
Whenever I see "free" parking, I pay for that. Every time I see an obese smoker idling in traffic inside a ton of useless metal, with three empty seats beside her, I think, 'there is my tax dollars subsidising an unhealthy lifestyle enabled by motoring,' and I will pay for that for years to come. Your auto insurance subsidy, your gasoline subsidy, your parking subsidy, the brown haze of pollution, I pay for that.
Police services that assumes I am at fault in any collision, and that laughed in my face when I asked about the liklihood of my stolen bike being returned, I pay for that. Yet I see a large publically funded bait-car campaign with a great deal of advertising. I pay for that.
Without any public consultation, the federal goverenmnet has seen fit to buy 12% of a failed foreign car company, and will guarantee warranties on poorly built products. I pay for that.
Cyclists are not some strange invasive species. They are your friends and neighbours, your doctor and your postman; they are homeowners, business owners and sometimes motorists and yes, they are already taxpayers, just like you.
Unlike many self-serving lobby groups, the future that cyclists desire is a benefit to everyone--clean air, a clean and healthy food and water supply, communities and streets that are safe for all users. Instead of attacking bicycle riders, you should be thanking them for trying to bring a healthier and more livable future to the Lower Mainland.
It's time to end the free ride for motorists. As a car-free person and cyclist by choice, I am constantly being forced to subsidize a motoring lifestyle that is rapidly destroying the public environment for private benefit, which in turn serves to destroy my own, and my neighbours' health and well-being.
Whenever I see "free" parking, I pay for that. Every time I see an obese smoker idling in traffic inside a ton of useless metal, with three empty seats beside her, I think, 'there is my tax dollars subsidising an unhealthy lifestyle enabled by motoring,' and I will pay for that for years to come. Your auto insurance subsidy, your gasoline subsidy, your parking subsidy, the brown haze of pollution, I pay for that.
Police services that assumes I am at fault in any collision, and that laughed in my face when I asked about the liklihood of my stolen bike being returned, I pay for that. Yet I see a large publically funded bait-car campaign with a great deal of advertising. I pay for that.
Without any public consultation, the federal goverenmnet has seen fit to buy 12% of a failed foreign car company, and will guarantee warranties on poorly built products. I pay for that.
Cyclists are not some strange invasive species. They are your friends and neighbours, your doctor and your postman; they are homeowners, business owners and sometimes motorists and yes, they are already taxpayers, just like you.
Unlike many self-serving lobby groups, the future that cyclists desire is a benefit to everyone--clean air, a clean and healthy food and water supply, communities and streets that are safe for all users. Instead of attacking bicycle riders, you should be thanking them for trying to bring a healthier and more livable future to the Lower Mainland.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Open Letter
--an open letter to the motorist who nearly killed me last Friday morning, from a bicycle rider
Dear Ma'am,
We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.
When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.
Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.
I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.
If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?
If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.
When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.
Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.
Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.
yours,
on two wheels,
David
Dear Ma'am,
We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.
When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.
Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.
I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.
If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?
If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.
When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.
Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.
Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.
yours,
on two wheels,
David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
