This reminds me of my thoughts on Marx, via The Communist Manifesto: Very insightful economic history, horrible prescription.
As someone who grew up in Manhattan without ever thinking I’d need to drive to a Chicagoan who was frustrated with its public transit (I went from growing up with three supermarkets within 500 feet of our home to needing to take two buses to get to one in Chicago) and eventually got a driver’s license at the age of 32, I’ve seen this relationship from multiple ends, so this analysis appeals to me.
The one area that, to me, becomes the nub of the problem is red lights and stop signs. As a driver and a pedestrian, I’m fine with trusting pedestrians crossing on a Don’t Walk signal if they see a clear path (although even there, if there’s a left turn arrow for cars this can become dangerous quickly), but cyclists doing this bother me a great deal: They can’t course-correct easily, so when they’re wrong it can go very bad. On top of that, I can’t trust a cyclist I see speeding towards a red light where I have the green, and that makes me take my attention off the road in front of me, possibly leading to an accident.
So, I feel these are reasonable points, but I have to also admit that I simply think cyclists blowing red lights and stop signs is just *unfair*. Articles like this one help to keep that impulse in check (as much as one can; hey, it’s complicated!)
Lol. I don’t think I said the article did say anything about traffic laws. I was just writing about something I’ve thought about a lot through a “power dynamics” lens, and how that’s helpful, but not complete, much as the author says in this piece.
CRT produces a range of conclusions, responses, and solutions though. I'd say the three most common responses/solutions could probably be broadly characterized as structural reformation, structural replacement, or structural retreat with a lot of room to hammer out specifics under each of those umbrellas.
This reminds me of my thoughts on Marx, via The Communist Manifesto: Very insightful economic history, horrible prescription.
As someone who grew up in Manhattan without ever thinking I’d need to drive to a Chicagoan who was frustrated with its public transit (I went from growing up with three supermarkets within 500 feet of our home to needing to take two buses to get to one in Chicago) and eventually got a driver’s license at the age of 32, I’ve seen this relationship from multiple ends, so this analysis appeals to me.
The one area that, to me, becomes the nub of the problem is red lights and stop signs. As a driver and a pedestrian, I’m fine with trusting pedestrians crossing on a Don’t Walk signal if they see a clear path (although even there, if there’s a left turn arrow for cars this can become dangerous quickly), but cyclists doing this bother me a great deal: They can’t course-correct easily, so when they’re wrong it can go very bad. On top of that, I can’t trust a cyclist I see speeding towards a red light where I have the green, and that makes me take my attention off the road in front of me, possibly leading to an accident.
So, I feel these are reasonable points, but I have to also admit that I simply think cyclists blowing red lights and stop signs is just *unfair*. Articles like this one help to keep that impulse in check (as much as one can; hey, it’s complicated!)
Where in this article is there anything prescriptive, at all? Or anything remotely normative? Where does that author say anything about traffic laws?
Perhaps you are just imposing your own thoughts and wishcasting a strawman that just isn't there?
Lol. I don’t think I said the article did say anything about traffic laws. I was just writing about something I’ve thought about a lot through a “power dynamics” lens, and how that’s helpful, but not complete, much as the author says in this piece.
My goodness, what an informative article. Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro for giving me so much to ponder.
CRT produces a range of conclusions, responses, and solutions though. I'd say the three most common responses/solutions could probably be broadly characterized as structural reformation, structural replacement, or structural retreat with a lot of room to hammer out specifics under each of those umbrellas.
"Critical race projects have occupied both deconstructionist and
interventionist spaces; there is no necessary inference that allegiance to the
former precludes investment in the latter. Critical Race Theory, both in its
traditional iterations and in an expanded articulation, can and should
disrupt racial settlement and push for conceptual tools that may, for a short
time, push things in a different direction. Certainly there are no final
answers, no blueprints for transformation, but something more than the
post-racial agnosticism seems warranted by today’s milieu."
Taken from the 2011 article "Twenty Years of Critical Race Theory: Looking Back To Move Forward" published in Connecticut Law Review and written by Kimberlé W. Crenshaw, a leading CRT proponent. http://shain003.grads.digitalodu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Twenty-Years-of-Critical-Race-Theory-Looking-Back-to-Move-Forward.pdf
Sounds about right.