Scofflaw Cyclists in Boston

On 10/18/2010 5:53 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:38 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 4:25 AM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:58 AM, bjw aka Ben Weiner wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:10 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Seehttp://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/100870/505039 for scofflaw
cyclists breaking about every traffic law possible - the end result of
no enforcement of the rules of the road on cyclists?

Ignore the title that says "NYC" - unless buses in NYC advertise
Boston
radio stations.


I watched the first 2.5 minutes, then I got bored of waiting
for something to provoke self-righteous indignation.

He even used a hand signal in the first few seconds of the
video, before he turns left around the cop car.

Seriously, have you witnessed Boston road manners?

Just because a lot of people act a certain way does not make it moral.

"Morality" is a complex subject. By the following theory, you'd be
classified as a conservative, me, a liberal. Maybe that explains why you
like Iowa and I like Massachusetts.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t11828205jt42001/

"Researchers in moral psychology and social justice have agreed that
morality is about matters of harm, rights, and justice. On this
definition of morality, conservative opposition to social justice
programs appears to be immoral, and has been explained as a product of
various non-moral processes such as system justification or social
dominance orientation. In this article we argue that, from an
anthropological perspective, the moral domain is usually much broader,
encompassing many more aspects of social life and valuing institutions
as much or more than individuals. We present theoretical and empirical
reasons for believing that there are five psychological systems that
provide the foundations for the world’s many moralities. The five
foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting
emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity,
ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political
liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two
foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of
political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations."
[...]

How is being rude and hostile (Boston motorists) liberal, and being
friendly and accommodating (Iowa motorists) conservative? I would say
the opposite it true.


That's not the point. The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness. Conservatives are more
likely to also factor in majority values, deference to authority and
ideological purity. I'd say you and Frank have conservative outlooks
based on those criteria, while some of the rest of us are decidedly more
liberal. There are similar gross population differences between MA and
OH/IA. We live in different worlds, socially and geographically.

On 10/19/2010 8:11 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:53 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:38 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 4:25 AM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:58 AM, bjw aka Ben Weiner wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:10 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Seehttp://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/100870/505039 for scofflaw
cyclists breaking about every traffic law possible - the end
result of
no enforcement of the rules of the road on cyclists?

Ignore the title that says "NYC" - unless buses in NYC advertise
Boston
radio stations.


I watched the first 2.5 minutes, then I got bored of waiting
for something to provoke self-righteous indignation.

He even used a hand signal in the first few seconds of the
video, before he turns left around the cop car.

Seriously, have you witnessed Boston road manners?

Just because a lot of people act a certain way does not make it moral.

"Morality" is a complex subject. By the following theory, you'd be
classified as a conservative, me, a liberal. Maybe that explains why you
like Iowa and I like Massachusetts.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t11828205jt42001/

"Researchers in moral psychology and social justice have agreed that
morality is about matters of harm, rights, and justice. On this
definition of morality, conservative opposition to social justice
programs appears to be immoral, and has been explained as a product of
various non-moral processes such as system justification or social
dominance orientation. In this article we argue that, from an
anthropological perspective, the moral domain is usually much broader,
encompassing many more aspects of social life and valuing institutions
as much or more than individuals. We present theoretical and empirical
reasons for believing that there are five psychological systems that
provide the foundations for the world’s many moralities. The five
foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting
emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity,
ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political
liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two
foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of
political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations."
[...]

How is being rude and hostile (Boston motorists) liberal, and being
friendly and accommodating (Iowa motorists) conservative? I would say
the opposite it true.


That's not the point.

It was *My* point.

The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

Conservatives are more
likely to also factor in majority values, deference to authority and
ideological purity. I'd say you and Frank have conservative outlooks
based on those criteria,

I would say Peter Cole has made a mistake in his judgment.

while some of the rest of us are decidedly more
liberal. There are similar gross population differences between MA and
OH/IA. We live in different worlds, socially and geographically.

And one world has a better quality of life than the other.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 10/19/2010 2:13 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/19/2010 8:11 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:53 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:38 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 4:25 AM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:58 AM, bjw aka Ben Weiner wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:10 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Seehttp://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/100870/505039 for scofflaw
cyclists breaking about every traffic law possible - the end
result of
no enforcement of the rules of the road on cyclists?

Ignore the title that says "NYC" - unless buses in NYC advertise
Boston
radio stations.


I watched the first 2.5 minutes, then I got bored of waiting
for something to provoke self-righteous indignation.

He even used a hand signal in the first few seconds of the
video, before he turns left around the cop car.

Seriously, have you witnessed Boston road manners?

Just because a lot of people act a certain way does not make it moral.

"Morality" is a complex subject. By the following theory, you'd be
classified as a conservative, me, a liberal. Maybe that explains why
you
like Iowa and I like Massachusetts.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t11828205jt42001/

"Researchers in moral psychology and social justice have agreed that
morality is about matters of harm, rights, and justice. On this
definition of morality, conservative opposition to social justice
programs appears to be immoral, and has been explained as a product of
various non-moral processes such as system justification or social
dominance orientation. In this article we argue that, from an
anthropological perspective, the moral domain is usually much broader,
encompassing many more aspects of social life and valuing institutions
as much or more than individuals. We present theoretical and empirical
reasons for believing that there are five psychological systems that
provide the foundations for the world’s many moralities. The five
foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting
emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity,
ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political
liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two
foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of
political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations."
[...]

How is being rude and hostile (Boston motorists) liberal, and being
friendly and accommodating (Iowa motorists) conservative? I would say
the opposite it true.


That's not the point.

It was *My* point.

I thought you asked a question.


The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

How?


Conservatives are more
likely to also factor in majority values, deference to authority and
ideological purity. I'd say you and Frank have conservative outlooks
based on those criteria,

I would say Peter Cole has made a mistake in his judgment.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits...


while some of the rest of us are decidedly more
liberal. There are similar gross population differences between MA and
OH/IA. We live in different worlds, socially and geographically.

And one world has a better quality of life than the other.

There you go, doing that thing you do, again.

On Oct 19, 11:23*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/19/2010 2:13 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:


The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

How?

Every time a bike messenger slips between two
nearly-stopped cars to make a turn, God kills
a kitten.

Won't someone please think of the kittens?!

Ben

The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

Peter Cole wrote:
How?

bjw wrote:
Every time a bike messenger slips between two
nearly-stopped cars to make a turn, God kills
a kitten.
Won't someone please think of the kittens?!


I like kittens, I just can't eat a whole one.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Oct 19, 12:15*pm, bjw wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:23*am, Peter Cole wrote:

On 10/19/2010 2:13 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

How?

Every time a bike messenger slips between two
nearly-stopped cars to make a turn, God kills
a kitten.

Won't someone please think of the kittens?!

Well actually, they can hurt themselves and others -- including me.
Some of these antics push traffic my way, or the messenger ends up
cutting me off. It is like I am riding in the middle of a cattle
drive and some asswipe on a bike swoops down and scares the cows.
Don't scare the f****** cows! I also would prefer not to deal with
drivers who are enraged by messengers. Yes, drivers should stay calm,
but they don't. The cows can get really mad. -- Jay Beattie.

On 10/19/2010 1:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/19/2010 2:13 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/19/2010 8:11 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 5:53 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 7:38 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/18/2010 4:25 AM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
On 10/18/2010 1:58 AM, bjw aka Ben Weiner wrote:
On Oct 17, 1:10 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
Seehttp://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/100870/505039 for scofflaw
cyclists breaking about every traffic law possible - the end
result of
no enforcement of the rules of the road on cyclists?

Ignore the title that says "NYC" - unless buses in NYC advertise
Boston
radio stations.


I watched the first 2.5 minutes, then I got bored of waiting
for something to provoke self-righteous indignation.

He even used a hand signal in the first few seconds of the
video, before he turns left around the cop car.

Seriously, have you witnessed Boston road manners?

Just because a lot of people act a certain way does not make it
moral.

"Morality" is a complex subject. By the following theory, you'd be
classified as a conservative, me, a liberal. Maybe that explains why
you
like Iowa and I like Massachusetts.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t11828205jt42001/

"Researchers in moral psychology and social justice have agreed that
morality is about matters of harm, rights, and justice. On this
definition of morality, conservative opposition to social justice
programs appears to be immoral, and has been explained as a product of
various non-moral processes such as system justification or social
dominance orientation. In this article we argue that, from an
anthropological perspective, the moral domain is usually much broader,
encompassing many more aspects of social life and valuing institutions
as much or more than individuals. We present theoretical and empirical
reasons for believing that there are five psychological systems that
provide the foundations for the world’s many moralities. The five
foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting
emotionally to issues related to harm/care, fairness/reciprocity,
ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Political
liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two
foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of
political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five
foundations."
[...]

How is being rude and hostile (Boston motorists) liberal, and being
friendly and accommodating (Iowa motorists) conservative? I would say
the opposite it true.


That's not the point.

It was *My* point.

I thought you asked a question.

The response you responded to was on comment on Bostonian motorist road
manners being rude and hostile, and unrelated to enforcement of laws on
cyclists.


The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

How?

We have been over this point many times in the last week.


Conservatives are more
likely to also factor in majority values, deference to authority and
ideological purity. I'd say you and Frank have conservative outlooks
based on those criteria,

I would say Peter Cole has made a mistake in his judgment.

Sorry, but if the shoe fits...

You are connecting points that were never intended to be connected,
therefore the misinterpretation.


while some of the rest of us are decidedly more
liberal. There are similar gross population differences between MA and
OH/IA. We live in different worlds, socially and geographically.

And one world has a better quality of life than the other.

There you go, doing that thing you do, again.

I am merely pointing out the direction humanity should head for a better
future for all.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 10/19/2010 2:18 PM, A. Muzi wrote:
The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel
that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

Peter Cole wrote:
How?

bjw wrote:
Every time a bike messenger slips between two
nearly-stopped cars to make a turn, God kills
a kitten.
Won't someone please think of the kittens?!


I like kittens, I just can't eat a whole one.

I have the same problem with children.

--
Jonathan Swift

On 10/19/2010 2:51 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:15 pm, wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:23 am, Peter wrote:

On 10/19/2010 2:13 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

How?

Every time a bike messenger slips between two
nearly-stopped cars to make a turn, God kills
a kitten.

Won't someone please think of the kittens?!

Well actually, they can hurt themselves and others -- including me.
Some of these antics push traffic my way, or the messenger ends up
cutting me off. It is like I am riding in the middle of a cattle
drive and some asswipe on a bike swoops down and scares the cows.
Don't scare the f****** cows! I also would prefer not to deal with
drivers who are enraged by messengers. Yes, drivers should stay calm,
but they don't. The cows can get really mad. -- Jay Beattie.

Hot Dog! We have a wiener!

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On Oct 19, 12:51*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:15*pm, bjw wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:23*am, Peter Cole wrote:

On 10/19/2010 2:13 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

The cite infers that liberals are less apt to put
a moral spin on something like disobeying traffic laws if they feel that
behavior doesn't present harm or unfairness.

Scofflaw cyclists *do* present harm and unfairness.

How?

Every time a bike messenger slips between two
nearly-stopped cars to make a turn, God kills
a kitten.

Won't someone please think of the kittens?!

Well actually, they can hurt themselves and others -- including me.
Some of these antics push traffic my way, or the messenger ends up
cutting me off. *It is like I am riding in the middle of a *cattle
drive and some asswipe on a bike swoops down and scares the cows.
Don't scare the f****** cows! I also would prefer not to deal with
drivers who are enraged by messengers. *Yes, drivers should stay calm,
but they don't. *The cows can get really mad. -- Jay Beattie.

IMO, the cagers hate us because we are there,
and because cyclists using the roads are not
considered part of our society's norm.
Bad behavior by messengers is just an excuse.

I don't like being around it - here, I have more of a
problem with undergrads running stop signs
(on bikes) and shooting out from cross streets
or paths without looking, which I also don't like.
But I don't think failure-to-enforce on bicyclists is
a significant contributor to driver-bicycle tensions.
I think if you sent out cops to rigidly enforce traffic
laws on bicyclists, the main effect you'd see would
be casual commuters giving up cycling after their
first expensive ticket for rolling a stop sign.

Honestly I was expecting that video to be more
extreme, from Tom's reaction and some of the
other posts.

Ben