Bicyclist Bill of Rights 2
Thread started by
Alex Thompson at 02.4.08 - 12:40 pm
The other thread is 90% hijacked, so I thought I'd start this one with the hope it would stay nearer the topic, which means it's a certainty it will be hijacked. IlluminateLA, CICLE and myself have all picked up the idea of a Bicyclist Bill of Rights:
IlluminateLA
WestsideBIKEside
Roadblock, Ideasculptor, PC, and User1 have offered their point of view on the other thread. What do y'all think?
reply
i don't have much to add other than that I think that anything that coordinates our efforts is a great idea.
e-rock02.4.08 - 12:56 pm
reply
i think the original thread was kind of steering back. it was looking like people were starting to apply what they feel, think, or whatever (whatever robots do... process?) and show what they felt was important to be address in this Bill.
I personally feel the existing codes are sufficient, law wise. The thing that they will never address is something that no rules or "laws" can ever address, and that is respect. Respect goes both ways, for sure. But I've never put a car or pedestrian in harms way. Motorists, on the other hand, don't seem to care about my safety. Motorists, in general, still view daily ridazz as kids on toys, or losers without cars.
the reverend dak02.4.08 - 1:33 pm
reply
I don't know if I agree that the existing codes are completely sufficient. There's enough ambiguity in the CVC that a clear and concise statement in a Bill of Rights could be helpful, and maybe give us a larger goal to shoot for, as far as being more accepted on the roads.
Of course, car drivers will never respect cyclists as long as even the current laws allowing us access to public streets and safe passage are routinely misused or ignored.
angle02.4.08 - 7:45 pm
reply
A new thread another day, hopefully.
I would like to encourage everyone to read the relevant laws because I believe with this information we can create a better Bill of Rights for cyclists everywhere.
This wikipedia url, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Vehicle_Code_-_Bicycle_Relevant_Sections, outlines the relevant sections within the now infamous California Vehicle Code.
The wiki also discusses how close to the right is correct question:
One of the most important passages (21202 (a)) relates to the roadway position that a bicycle should take. This is commonly misunderstood to mean that a bicycle must travel as far as possible to the right-hand side of the road. Indeed the CVC synopsis carried by patrolmen in most of the Police Divisions of Los Angeles, California (where it is obtained from the uniform shop in Long Beach) actually carries incorrect wording, substituting possible for practicable. The combination of the actual legal wording of 21202(a) and the proviso in 21202(a)(3) mean that there is ample justification to take a lane as recommended by the safe cycling practices of Effective Cycling.
Obviously a Bicycle Riders Bill of Rights or Cyclist's Bill of Rights will have to take the already existing State statute into account. Groups of people will determine to what extent the Bill should flow with or go against the current law.
Transportation expert John Forester is also an excellent source of legal information pertaining to cycling and, yay, cycling in California, and, yay, he is located in the general area of Southern California, so we may be able to get to him personally. His website is here - http://www.johnforester.com/
I would also like to tempt people toward more radical critiques of Los Angeles's and the United State's transportation history. How exactly did America end up without light rail systems, public transportation, bicycle lanes, or "complete streets?" Do you think American's prefer automobiles to public transportation, or did very rich powerful white Christian "industrialized and civilized, educated" men want to remain rich at the expense of the poor and make money off destroying public transit in in tracks, so to speak?
mikeywally02.4.08 - 8:36 pm
reply
What should we call our Bill of Rights?
Some organizations kept the term Bill of Rights in while creating theirs:
DigitalConsumer.org has a Bill of Rights for consumers of technology. They called there's the Digital Consumer's Bill of Rights. http://digitalconsumer.org/bill.html
Jet Blue has a "Customer's Bill of Rights."
http://www.jetblue.com/about/ourcompany/promise/index.html
Some organizations had things like a Bill of Rights but called it something different:
The Black Panthers had a "Bill of Rights" they called "The Ten Point Program." Each point began with "We want . . ." and preceded to describe their desires.
I think that we should not use the term Bicyclist, but rather Cyclist. If we choose to keep the term "Bill of Rights" in our manifesto we should give ownership to whatever group's Bill of Rights it is. For example, Cyclist's Bill of Rights. Gotta get those apostrophes down.
I dare us to be more creative and call it something other than a Bill of Rights. The current country that "Bill of Rights" is associated with happens to have secret (and not so secret) prisons, engages in neo-imperialism, economically controls its neighbors right to sovereignty, is the only country in the world that has the capability to fight multiple wars, and has citizens whose idea of participating in culture is recreational shopping. Poo poo.
mikeywally02.4.08 - 8:52 pm
reply
Union of Human Powered Travel.
We need more than just "the cyclists" we need all human power represented including walking. there has to be a way to quantify someone's usage of human powered travel. that way everyone can get involved... everyone walks. even encouraging someone to walk more via tax cuts is good for the health of the nation. make it a gateway tax cut. measure it all by distance travelled.... somehow there has to be a way to track that.
Roadblock02.4.08 - 9:24 pm
reply
everyone could purchse a gps device. a standard govt issue gps device that only transmits distance travelled over time could be used to prove your human powered travel. LOL that's some big brother shit.
Roadblock02.4.08 - 9:27 pm
reply
Call it Carbon Free Commerce Rights Bill.
Doesn't really roll off the tongue but the idea is to include all people that don't use a car to achieve some transaction or participating in commerce of their city in some way. This could include cyclist, walkers, telecommuters, and possibly others.
User102.4.08 - 10:50 pm
reply
how about ... Bicyclist Bill of Rights
Joe Borfo02.4.08 - 11:00 pm
reply
I love that Mikey's Bill of Rights includes a dare. Imagine how great life would be if there were more dares!
SoapBoxLA02.4.08 - 11:04 pm
reply
I am utterly at a loss to (f)understand why anybody would not want to change the CVC. The CVC as it regards cyclists is the emperor with no clothes. Everybody acts as though it affords us all of these wonderful rights, but in fact it only does so grudgingly and/or ambiguously in a few sections, and the rest of it is geared toward other users. CVC 21202, no matter how many of you have it printed on stickers and patches and shit, is a mess. It needs reworking.
PC02.5.08 - 3:58 am
reply
I'm not saying that the code is a work of art. What I suggested, was what ideasculptor stated,
ideasculptor -
"I'd also like to see an automatic doubling of fines on citations written against cars who endanger bicyclists, just as fines are doubled in construction zones and such. These are much easier measures to get passed, since they increase revenue and don't actually make anything newly illegal, yet they will have an effect on our safety."
I agree with just about all of this. By doing this, we see who is really behind the cyclist's rights. You then build from this. Trying to change the CVC code would be a long debatable process. Not much arguing about doubling the fines now is there?
User102.5.08 - 1:07 pm
reply
First, I want to see evidence that increasing ticket prices is an easier to pass because they increase revenue. I have never found articles on the history of the relationship between legislative change and economy. I simply won't believe raising ticket prices is easy because it increases revenue. Either way the bigger question is revenue for who?
What would increase the revenue and livelihood of all people (all humans!) would be to construct complete streets with broad near free transportation solutions. The way we transport ourselves, move ourselves geographically, effects us politically and socially.
As
Stephen Box has written about, bicycles are good for business. Better transportation is better for business of all, worse for the business of the select few who transportation is not a significant monetary issue to.
Second if fines can easily be increased, does this lead to better built, safer, complete streets? No.
I also believe that the CVC could be written worse for us, but I think its more important that when cars "oppress" a cyclists right to transport themselves when we have the legal right, there is a problem, socially, and institutionally within our governmental systems (we have to look at city law, state law, national law, and international law when we think about this too).
Anyway, just adding to the discourse. I really appreciate everyones willingness to express themselves. Continue to share your ideas.
Mikey Wally
mikeywally02.5.08 - 2:34 pm
reply
I hate when I rant because I realize how unclear I am. I am sorry for these changes. I'm just super high right now I'm sorry.
"I have never found articles on the history of the relationship between legislative change and economy."
I have never found articles on the history of the relationship between legislative change and the economy concerning upping fines and revenue. It is much more complex than that. Whether it is easy or not to raise fines because it increases is a complex question that I will not take answers for willy nilly. That's all. I'm just not being obedient.
Obviously law and economy are very close.
mikeywally02.5.08 - 2:39 pm
reply
I think it is to our advantage that the cvc is vague and ambiguous at least for now. once they start fucking with that law I'm guessing that money interests will steer it and clarify it for their purposes (as per usual) and I'm guessing it wont be to a cyclist's benefit.
Roadblock02.5.08 - 2:43 pm
reply
Aside from agreeing with more bicycle paths, wider lanes and whatnot, I kind of like things the way they are right now.
I mean, with most normal people and law-enforcement, I think we sort of fall into a "Charcoal Gray" area when it comes to law being enforced on us as cyclists.
I'm not saying it's right, but we seem to have the slight advantage over bending the rules than say, a car-driver has.
Start pushing the "Cyclist's Bill of Rights" as state-mandated thing, and it could make things more difficult and less enjoyable.
Good example would be things like more cyclist's nabbed for, "once-unnoticed" traffic violations, more scrutiny from the non-riding public, things of that nature.
So, do what y'all will, but I've grown towards staying on the defensive, and enjoying myself at the same time.
bentstrider02.5.08 - 2:56 pm
reply
I don't really understand why there is so much discussion of the CV on a Bill of Rights thread. The CVC is a vehicle to enforce the bill of rights, for sure, but lets first concern ourselves with the list of rights we'd like enforced. I posted a (mostly) reasonable list in the other thread, and others threw a few out there on that thread, too. One place to start might be to list the things that we find unsafe and/or oppressive about the way things stand now.
My biggest gripe, which far surpasses the occasional rude car driver, is the state of pavement quality in the parking lane and rightmost lane on most of the major thoroughfares in LA. I've been to third world countries with better pavement quality than we have here - the largest city in the richest state in the richest country on the planet,
Rude drivers who endanger our lives with unsafe passing and harassing threats are also another obvious problem
The inability to connect one part of the city to another via marked bike lanes/bike paths is an obvious deficiency. Striped bike lanes may not be ideal, but they do make things a little easier for us, if only because cars spend less time idling behind riders, wondering if they have room to pass, when they have a line they can see. There are nowhere near enough east/west bike lanes in this town that actually connect to useful places. This may be true of north/south routes, too, but I stay in a pretty limited zone in that direction, so I wouldn't know.
Bike parking could be a whole hell of a lot better in most of the major shopping areas of the city.
Law Enforcement is nowhere near aware enough of the laws as they apply to cyclists and they don't do near enough, on the enforcement side, to protect bicyclists from dangerous drivers.
Even from that short list, I could make up a pretty decent list of 'rights' that I think we should be looking to acquire for ourselves, and the list is far from comprehensive.
ideasculptor02.5.08 - 2:56 pm
reply
First off, I think Bill of Rights is fine. Like it or not, we're in America and its a pol and media friendly title. I encourage us to stick with it.
When I did transportation lobbying back in Jersey we passed a bill that increased fines for motorists who hit pedestrians (and NJ's definition of pedestrians included cyclists) who were in the crosswalk. If it would make it easier, I can probably track down the bill and language if we wanted to try it here.
I put this on the Illuminate LA board also, but I think our rights have to include fare and equal treatment in the media. That bike (and pedestrian) deaths are basically ignored by the press (unless the accident is somehow spectacular, like there's a bus/truck/train involved) does us a great disservice. The average LA car driver isn't the dip that throws stuff out his window at us or tries to run us down in the crosswalks and people would be a lot more sympathetic to our cause if they knew how bad it really is out there.
Streets Blog02.5.08 - 3:21 pm
reply
You raised a very good point there Knittens. I must say, you bring a whole perspective on the issue.
Nice work!!!
User102.5.08 - 4:06 pm
reply
I see the BBOR as being (among other things) a concise guideline for the people who may support cycling, but aren't cyclists, and don't have a clue what a more bicycle-friendly city would entail. Believe it or not, there's lots of people that fit this description, and they will come out of the woodwork when it becomes clear how cycling can improve quality of life in their communities.
As far as how things are right now; I'm sorry, I think they suck. Non-automobile transportation gets the shaft here in L.A., and that's got to change. Take a look at what's going on in cities like Portland and San Francisco to see just how backwards this city is.
angle02.5.08 - 4:06 pm
reply
Tempe Arizona is VERY bicycle friendly from what I funderstand.
Roadblock02.5.08 - 4:10 pm
reply
" Bicycling Tempe is a designated Bicycle Friendly Community with 165 miles of bikeways. Tempe has artist-designed bike racks, scenic paths and convenient bike parking. This year, Tempe plans to construct the Western Canal Multi-use Path, Rio Salado South Bank and Tempe Canal Multi-use Path projects. To report a hazardous bike path call 480-350-8284. Get a free bikeway map mailed to you."
http://www.tempe.gov/tim/
Roadblock02.5.08 - 4:12 pm
reply
Mikey,
Raising the fines is for an increase of revenue is not necessarily my argument, other than to use it to convince some politician that it would be beneficial. And no, increasing the fines does not lead to better built, safer, complete streets. It makes the drivers on the road a little more aware of us out on the road. Instead of speeding ahead of you to make that right for example, the driver will think twice about that move. It will lead to fewer accidents with VERY little if any infrastructure to change. And the change would be immediate, not 10 years down the road. It's a measure that few could imagine opposing.
User102.5.08 - 4:43 pm
reply
Yeah, that was my point in the original argument, too. It won't raise revenue at all if cops don't ticket people for doing stupid shit to bicycles. But anyone that thinks cops aren't sensitive to the price of a ticket when they hand them out has never eaten a meal with a cop. It costs nothing to increase the fine, and would earn more, so I don't see where it wouldn't have a positive impact on revenue generation, except where cops might be inclined not to write someone up in order to spare them the cost of the high fine. But lets face it, they already don't write people up. At least with the higher fines, when they actually hit us and a cop is forced to write them up for it, it will be expensive.
Obviously, one of the rights in the BBOR has to focus on better enforcement against careless and unsafe drivers. To my mind, that's just a given.
ideasculptor02.5.08 - 5:58 pm
reply
Roadblock wrote:
I think it is to our advantage that the cvc is vague and ambiguous at least for now.
It hasn't been so far. An ambiguous law is a law that a judge can interpret any way he wants.
This is especially true regarding CVC 21202. If a judge wants "as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway" to mean "in the gutter," guess what? That's what it means. And if he wants "at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time" to mean "anything moving slower than a typical car when the road is wide open," guess what? That's what it means. Indeed, the inclusion of the word "normal" would tend to support that interpretation: it's not unfair to assume if the authors of the law had meant "speed of traffic at that moment" they would have said so.
That's what I mean when I say that the emperor has no clothes. It's a shitty law, guys. You're kidding yourselves if you think otherwise.
I'm convinced that most of the people who ride around with that magic number 21202 plastered all over their bikes and Chrome bags have never actually read the fucking thing.
Besides, the parts of the CVC that the cops use to harass us are anything but ambiguous. They're archaic, pointless, and sometimes breathtakingly stupid, but they're not ambiguous.
For example, the law requiring rear-facing red reflectors and reflectors on the pedals. I hardly know anybody who has those reflector pedals, and they are utterly superfluous on a bicycle with a good rear light. So why not bring CVC 21201 into the 21st century by amending it to provide that any bicycle, operated in darkness, that has an operative rear-facing red or amber light visible under clear conditions at a distance of 300 feet from the rear and sides of the bicycle, need not have the pedal reflectors?
once they start fucking with that law I'm guessing that money interests will steer it and clarify it for their purposes (as per usual) and I'm guessing it wont be to a cyclist's benefit.
I'm having a hard time picturing a bunch of tycoons sitting around with their cigars and brandy, plotting to manipulate obscure sections of the vehicle code related to bicycles' equipment and lane positioning in such a way as to serve their venal interests. Something tells me they have bigger fish to fry.
PC02.6.08 - 3:16 am
reply
I agree that we probably don't have to worry about tycoons getting it in their heads to oppose us on changes to bike safety laws, but we shouldn't count out the possibility that if there were a movement to clarify/modernize the section of the law pertaining to visibility that whatever company makes pedal reflectors would put some money into striking that part of the bill.
Why do "hands free" laws for cell phones for drivers get passed in just about every state as soon as a legislatore submits legislation requiring them despite studies showing it doesn't make a damm bit of difference whether or not you're holding the phone or talking on a bluetooth when it comes to driver safety?
Because the people that make blue tooths and hands free devices have put a lot of money into making those devices legally required.
Streets Blog02.6.08 - 8:46 am
reply
I did some research last night on Mass Bike's attempt to pass a Bike Bill of Rights and what's happened. I put the info up on my blog because I didn't know how to add hyperlinks here at Ridazz..
http://streetheatla.blogspot.com/2008/02/mass-bike-and-bill-of-rights-and.html
Streets Blog02.6.08 - 9:32 am
reply
"I'm having a hard time picturing a bunch of tycoons sitting around with their cigars and brandy, plotting to manipulate obscure sections of the vehicle code related to bicycles' equipment and lane positioning in such a way as to serve their venal interests. Something tells me they have bigger fish to fry."
lol. while it is true that money interests can by rich tycoons with cigars it can also mean automotive industry lobbyists and consumer / property / business coalitions. you know, some of the same groups that managed to kill the railway here in LA in he first place... what if we really made a push to define the role of bicycles on the road? do we have the resources available to make sure that a new definition isnt going to turn out to be less favor-able? I'm all for reforming the laws but I'm not naive enough to think that opposing forces dont have a stake in this. that's why there's a big cluster fuck of traffic in the first place. money interests have warped the common good. dont think automotive and other vrious money interests wont want to weigh in on this...
thats why I'm more inclined towards advocating for human powered transportation laws and tax credits... something that is more all inclusive and could gather more resources on our side since everyone walks and there no reason we cant figure out a way for people to earn tax credits for more miles walked or more miles travelled via human power... of course the automotive industry wont like that. they lobby hard against anything that diverts people from travelling by gas powered vehicle. someone evn mentioned that they covertly fund the bus riders union citing that they curiously advocate against rail lines.... I'm just saying.... we would need to have some major resources on our side if we start fuckin with the writing of some law....
Roadblock02.6.08 - 10:02 am
reply
15 Cyclists "Stormed the Bastille" last night in a ride to the LA Bicycle Advisory Committee to demand that the Mayor and the City Council recognize the very basic and fundamental rights of cyclists.
The meeting went for hours and concluded with a presentation of the
"Bicyclist Bill of Rights" which is intended to stir discussion, debate and draw attention to the fact that - "We have rights!"
After the meeting, the motley crew rode to Pure Luck, Rampart Police pulled over four of the cyclists and brought in three additional squad cars and a helicopter and then unleashed a severe round of safety lectures concluding with a ticket for Mikey for failing to have the appropriate reflectors on his trusty steed.
SoapBoxLA02.6.08 - 10:54 am
reply
a ticket for no reflectors?! what a bunch of BS
Roadblock02.6.08 - 11:01 am
reply
ha! riding with stephen gets you into trouble. do it.
back to the topic...
meandmybluebike02.6.08 - 11:40 am
reply
Mikey is officially Core to the MAX Elite!!!
Who could intimidate two officers over no reflectors on the pedals but Mikey? Right! No one can!!! The officers were so intimidated that they had to call in back up!!
WOW!!
That's one BAD MOFO!!!
Mikey, you can have all my lunch money. You don't have to beat me up!
pa pa pa peace!
User102.6.08 - 11:48 am
reply
See, that's what I'm talking about. The reflector law is being used to harass people
now. It needs to go,
now. It could be easily gotten rid of,
now, with no controversy and no significant opposition.
There's no pedal reflector manufacturer's lobby with tons of money to throw at this issue. There are millions of cyclists who are vulnerable to the stupidity of the reflector law, though, and they vote, and politicians know this.
Cynicism can be good and healthy, but when it's combined with simplistic thinking it's self-defeating. It's not true that money interests always get what they want in the political system. There are more factors at play. A significant one is that politicians want to get reelected. They can and will burn their lobbyist friends to get votes.
Case in point: the anti-smoking laws for restaurants and bars that started popping up in major cities in the 90s. Whatever you may think of those laws, they were passed despite monumental lobbying efforts by tobacco companies, restaurant chains, and bar owners that had an aggregate worth of billions of dollars.
If we never get any laws changed in our favor, it won't be because of big bad evil rich guys who hate us, it will be because of our own gutlessness. Defeatism is not a political strategy.
PC02.6.08 - 1:10 pm
reply
Streets Blog -
I didn't know how to add hyperlinks here at Ridazz..
Me -
This site should help you Mr. Blog.
Visit W3Schools!
User102.6.08 - 1:36 pm
reply
PC says "Defeatism is not a political strategy."
I say "PC for President!"
SoapBoxLA02.6.08 - 3:29 pm
reply
"See, that's what I'm talking about. The reflector law is being used to harass people now. It needs to go, now. It could be easily gotten rid of, now, with no controversy and no significant opposition."
the law makes sense. from a motorist POV vehicles need to have reflectors or lights to be seen by other vehicles. it makes plenty of sense. otherwise it become an insurance issue and thus a money interest issue. I'm willing to bet that whom ever got the ticket had no lights. I'm sure it's not the "real" reason a ticket was given but having a way to be seen at night SHOULD be required of all vehicles on the road. that's a no brainer.
"There's no pedal reflector manufacturer's lobby with tons of money to throw at this issue. There are millions of cyclists who are vulnerable to the stupidity of the reflector law, though, and they vote, and politicians know this."
if there were millions of cyclists who voted and were unopposed by money interests, then there would be no issues concerning lack of bicycle infrastucture now would there?
"Cynicism can be good and healthy, but when it's combined with simplistic thinking it's self-defeating. It's not true that money interests always get what they want in the political system. There are more factors at play. A significant one is that politicians want to get reelected. They can and will burn their lobbyist friends to get votes."
very simplistic view of the lobbying process. lobbyists are neither friend or foe of the politicians they are friends of money interests and a politician would need to weigh the effects of denying or satisfying a lobbyist. it's only a small part of the equation to be sure. money interests control much more than lobbyists, they own media for one thing and spreading a positively spun message in the media is tantmount to lobbying the public - all those voters who the politician is worried about are being sold a point of view by the very money interests who are also hiring lobbiests to press their case.
"Case in point: the anti-smoking laws for restaurants and bars that started popping up in major cities in the 90s. Whatever you may think of those laws, they were passed despite monumental lobbying efforts by tobacco companies, restaurant chains, and bar owners that had an aggregate worth of billions of dollars."
very simplistic view of the tobacco issue.... the restaurant laws didnt just happen over night switched on by some grass roots concerned citizens. it took DECADES of lobbying from health care, human rights groups and probably most importantly, a coalition of lawyers (money interests) who succeeded in suing for billions before anti-smoking laws became pallate-able for the voters to enact. in other words more than just non-smokers needed to be involved they needed the lure of money to make the change. which is what I'm saying bout legislation regarding cycling. we need more than just cyclists involved to make some real change.
"If we never get any laws changed in our favor, it won't be because of big bad evil rich guys who hate us, it will be because of our own gutlessness. Defeatism is not a political strategy."
I vote you keeper of the obvious 08
I dont know exactly what was defeatist about what I was saying... my point is that building a coalition of human powered commuters (which could include potentially everyone) rather than just cyclists seems more effective than just making it about cycling or changing a reflector law.
Roadblock02.6.08 - 4:05 pm
reply
Just a quick note on reflectors:
After doing a bit of research on the subject, it seems likely to me that the main reason bicycle reflectors are required by the CPSC is that bicycles have always been considered to be toys. Since children can't be expected to operate a "complicated" lighting system, reflectors were made mandatory, since they work passively, and don't require any maintenance. The problem is that in order to work, reflectors must be hit by car headlights. In many critical life-and-death situations, reflectors alone have failed, which is why (I assume) bikes are now required to have a white front headlight.
The reader's digest version of what I know is that a large, rear-facing amber reflector (whether or not it's on the pedals) is the most potentially useful one to have, and that an active lighting system is a must if you want to be seen after dark.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/reflectors.html
Oh, did I forget to mention that 3M (manufacturer of reflective materials) apparently had a lot of input into the CPSC reflector requirement?
angle02.6.08 - 6:23 pm
reply
"Oh, did I forget to mention that 3M (manufacturer of reflective materials) apparently had a lot of input into the CPSC reflector requirement?"
oh for fucks sake!
Roadblock02.6.08 - 8:54 pm
reply
Roadblock wrote:
it took DECADES of lobbying from health care, human rights groups and probably most importantly, a coalition of lawyers (money interests) who succeeded in suing for billions before anti-smoking laws became pallate-able for the voters to enact.
Erm...the voters didn't enact those laws in many cases. Politicians did, in response to voters and despite lobbyists. Thank you, though, for finally admitting that the will of voters can influence what politicians do, even despite the insidious and ever-present "money interests."
Incidentally, are you saying that the trial lawyers who took those cases against the tobacco companies had a significant role in the lobbying campaign for those anti-smoking laws? And are you seriously suggesting that human rights groups had a lot of money to throw at politicians, or that health care providers (who, if you look at it cynically, stood to lose financially from fewer people getting sick) actually did throw a lot of money at politicians to sway them on this issue? Those assertions are a little hard to accept without proof, frankly.
in other words more than just non-smokers needed to be involved they needed the lure of money to make the change. which is what I'm saying bout legislation regarding cycling. we need more than just cyclists involved to make some real change.
And yet other niche groups and special interests manage to get laws enacted or changed all the time, without having to build giant coalitions or raise tons of money. They just have to be loud and persistent--and, might I add, non-defeatist.
I dont know exactly what was defeatist about what I was saying...
Then you may want to go back and read your own writing and see how many times you try to tell me or somebody else that a campaign to change things is futile.
PC02.7.08 - 5:02 am
reply
"Erm...the voters didn't enact those laws in many cases. Politicians did, in response to voters"
so in other words the voters enacted the laws?
"and despite lobbyists. Thank you, though, for finally admitting that the will of voters can influence what politicians do, even despite the insidious and ever-present "money interests." ""
the will of the voters is more often then not influenced by the way stories are told through the media - which as I said is a giant lobbying mechanism for money interests....
Roadblock02.7.08 - 11:08 am
reply
Who wants to see change 10 years from now? Not me! Any change you guys are both talking about will take a MINIMUM of 10 years. I guess you can call me a defeatist since I advocate for a stiffer sentences against drivers committing driving infractions against bicyclist.
User102.7.08 - 2:01 pm
reply
Roadblock wrote:
so in other words the voters enacted the laws?
No.
the will of the voters is more often then not influenced by the way stories are told through the media - which as I said is a giant lobbying mechanism for money interests....
Nice straw-clutch, but I think you understand what I mean now.
PC02.7.08 - 2:05 pm
reply
User 1 wrote:
Who wants to see change 10 years from now? Not me! Any change you guys are both talking about will take a MINIMUM of 10 years.
That's a patently absurd thing to say.
PC02.7.08 - 2:06 pm
reply
"the will of the voters is more often then not influenced by the way stories are told through the media - which as I said is a giant lobbying mechanism for money interests....nice straw-clutch, but I think you understand what I mean now."
LOL! oh I get it now what was I thinking! the mainstream media has absolutely no influence yeah that's right... and they dont tell lies or spin stories... nope and they arent owned and paid for by money interests naw they just tell the truth about everything.
Roadblock02.7.08 - 2:15 pm
reply
Mmmhmm. Yes, naturally, that's exactly what I was saying.
But...you
do understand what I mean now, don't you? It's OK to admit that the other guy may have a point, you know.
PC02.7.08 - 2:21 pm
reply
from what I can gather, your point is that voting matters and that people getting involved and banding together for a common cause can create change.... and if that is your point, I would agree with you and I firmly believe that voting matters. more so if we were in an ideal setting where other forces were'nt severely corrupting the democratic process. we dont live in a democracy we live in a casho'cracy so it's not so simple to get things done.. .
Roadblock02.7.08 - 2:36 pm
reply
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
