Not only them, but the people who are poor and the people who ride
bicycles... Yep, poverty and bikes have to do with democracy. The poor
need bicycles to get to work, so they can eat. But more often than
not, it ain't safe to ride a bike, even in the richest nations of the
Earth! Cyclists are treated like second-class citizens, where SUVs
signal power and money, just like among the elites who rule the poor
nations. So it is that this revolution puts together LIBERATION,
BICYCLES AND DEMOCRACY...
(THE LINK BELOW HAS VERY AFRICAN STORY, LION AND MONKEY --AND IT'S
VERY FUNNY!)
OK, assume a far away land --a Banana Republic if you will-- where the
cyclists are victims of discrimination and injustice, and all of a
sudden they come to power=85 and voila, VELORUTION!
Like the article bellow says, not all vehicles are equal=85 The smaller,
the more protection they need; the bigger, the more responsibility. On
urban multi-lane roads, the right lane has a set speed of 20mph,
monitored by speed cameras. Bikes ride the lane. Do they get tickets
for running red lights? Nah, they hurt no one but themselves.
WHAT WOULD THE ROAD BE LIKE FOR CYCLISTS?
Be sure to have your T-****rt ready... ;)
http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235838593835516450?CMPN=3Dltt
This article describes how cyclists are at the bottom of the food
chain, even in a place known for traffic safety. Which means there
needs to be a worldwide change for cyclists=92 rights=85
Cyclists are Victims of the Law of the Jungle
And in reference to the above article about London, this reader states
that cyclists should not have equal rights as automobiles, but
actually MORE rights.
Again, before there=92s war, it=92s better to separate.
Velorution in the mind The Financial Times has a worthy but dull
article on the resurgence of urban cycling in the UK, with a focus on
London. It cannot escape from the cliche=92 of the number of people
riding through red lights; it is like if every article about digital
photography mentioned people taking illegal pictures at museums. Of
course figures of injuries caused by riding through red lights are
never offered.
The tor**** in the journalist=92s mind is evident in the last few
paragraphs:
There=92s no doubt that car drivers need to clean up their act. Taking
speed limits down to 20mph in built-up areas will make the roads safer
for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. Enforcing the ban on
mobile phone use will help drivers become more attentive. And applying
the Highway Code more strictly will make many people think twice about
engaging in the current bully-boy hierarchy of bigger is better.
=2E..
Now, saying that motor vehicles should have the same rights as
pedestrians or cyclists is like saying that water skiers should be
allowed on all waters in front of a popular beach. The Highway Code by
instigating this non-sensical equality status, that inevitably leads
to the law of the jungle, is bunk. It has the same moral standing as
the South African Pbutt Law.
It is not abiding to rules that we should exhort, but consideration to
all other people and especially to those who are more vulnerable than
ourselves. Yes there are definitely inconsiderate bicycle riders in
London, and it is absolutely no excuse to say, =91It is a jungle out
there, I need to defend my self=92. We need to raise the level of social
responsibility, starting by ourselves. The roads are a commons to be
enjoyed by everyone, starting by people on foot. Then the greater or
more dangerous the vehicle one chooses to use, the fewer rights one
has and the more consideration one needs to give to more vulnerable
people.
http://www.ugroups.com/driver/Cyclists-are-Victims-of-the-Law-of-the-Jungle-=
4890.html
WHY THE BANANA REVOLUTION? ;)
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
|
