Too close call, with a possible lesson

In article ,
Peter Cole writes:
Tom Keats wrote:

And then there's the "Me Generation" and its aftershocks.
It seems to me a lot of people in North America have been
raised with the notion that their own self-esteem and
self-interests are the most important things in the world.
Couple that with growing up in environments and lifestyles
which don't foster much of a community spirit, and you've
got a bunch of people who don't even know how
to care about others.

Although it's popular to trash the current generation, maybe with
justification, I think this behavior is old news. I remember an incident
(many years ago) where a bunch of us returned from the library late one
winter night to find an elderly woman collapsed on the sidewalk in front
of our house. One of our party had left a few minutes earlier, and we
found his tracks in the snow leading up to and then stepping over the woman.

Douglas Adams wrote about the invention of the "somebody else's problem"
field generator. Some people don't need one.

Well, I wasn't really out to trash any particular generation.
I've just observed how social values have changed over time,
with unintended consequences. I'm guessing that each generation
wrongly supposes its values will somehow be tacitly and innately
transferred to its posterity.

As for my "growing up in environments and lifestyles
which don't foster much of a community spirit" comment,
I'm conjecturing folks who've grown up in more population
rarified areas (newly developed suburban or subsuburban
residential areas) might have been deprived of gaining
a sense of community.

I'm aware of how ~really~ population rarified areas,
i.e: agricultural areas, actually foster a very strong
sense of community. Although people are spread further
apart, they'll interact with each other. Same thing
for older, more established suburbs that have become
civilized enough to acquire sidewalks, and enough
fire hydrants. Maybe even a real Fire Department.

But out in the cheap, newly-developed real estate,
I suspect the residents just don't have enough time
after working and commuting, (and on weekends,
excursing the mini-van into Civilisa- erm, I mean
The City to buy stuff,) to establish real communities.

People move out to the sticks, and work & commute
their padonkadonks off, to raise posterity. 'Cuz
they can't afford the white picket fence dream
anywhere else. That's the lifestyle component
to my point. And the only opportunity their kids
might get to meet each other, is at the same time
every day, on the same ol' school bus, or via
FaceBook.

When I look back upon my own taken-for-granted youth,
I had streets, playgrounds, parks, abandoned lumber
yards, corner stores, schools, other people's back yards,
etc as venues in which to associate with my peers.
I think that's what kids need: association with their peers,
and places to do so. Not a sterile, lonely back yard fronted
by a cute white picket fence, in a real estate terrarium.

Furthermore, "texting" within the same area code is
just /so/ perverse.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In ba.bicycles Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Bill Bushnell wrote:

snip

Bill, I think what you're somewhat obliquely highlighting is that for
many people, cooperation with others and allowing them to "get ahead"
is perceived as "losing." If I don't "take the lane" and assert my
rights to the road, then I have "lost" the interaction. Basically it is
misplaced competition. This occurs in all human interactions in which
people lose sight of the fact that cooperation is usually more effective
and usually less destructive than competition (indeed, a type of
cooperation underpins competition).

That's a good point, although I hadn't intended to point that out. The point
that I probably should have summarized in my prior message was that in my
experience I have had poorer interaction experiences between bikes and autos when
bikes are going close to but not quite as fast as typical auto speeds.

When a bicyclist is riding slowly it easy for a driver of a motor vehicle to pass
as the bicyclist is usually riding near the edge of the road and the speed
differential is high, making the pass easy to do within limited distance.

When a bicyclist is riding close to motor vehicle speed such as on a downhill,
the bicyclist is usually using most of the lane and the speed differential is
small, requiring more time for a driver to execute the pass, which must be made
by crossing into the adjacent lane. Moreover, drivers who choose to pass a
slightly slower-moving cyclist rather than follow for a while are often the more
aggressive drivers.

I run into this problem every day when I ride to work at the following location
where I get into the low-30's coming off a bridge over railroad tracks,
slower than the usual 40+ mph motor traffic. (Speed limit is 30 mph.) Although
it's difficult to see in the wide-angle photo of Google's Street View, the right
lane goes from comfortably wide to narrow at the center of the photo. I use the
full lane there but am frequently buzzed and honked at even though I'm still
moving 25-30 mph at that point.

http://tinyurl.com/m4x7fy

--
Bill Bushnell
http://pobox.com/~bushnell/