Town Hall Meeting, This Saturday, 5/30/09 10am @ Richmond Rec Center --> How about pedestrian freedom & government calming?

Hey,

  "Pedestrian safety?" As a pedestrian, I'm more concerned about my freedom. There's too much obsession with safety. If a resident wants to make the decision as an adult to cross against a traffic light or where there is no crosswalk when it's safe to do so, she or he should not have to worry about being criminalized for it and having hard-earned money confiscated by the state! This has become an overly fearful society of people too willing to trade freedom for safety and security, and as Ben Franklin pointed out, those who make that trade ultimately wind up with neither.

  While we're at it, how about discussing some "government calming" proposals at this town hall meeting? Government is much more out of control than traffic.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Starchild, I am reluctant to get into this, but unfortunately we live in a three dimensionall world and for the time being there are long standing common law traditions that permit the state to regulate public accesss. Protecting minority rights to life is a legitimate state functionuntil the time we can achieve anarchism of the capitalist variety. As a member of a very small minority whose right to life is very much benefited by concern for pedestrian safety, I appreciate the seriousness to which this is attended to in san francisco, as opposed to here in Baltimore, where pedestrians are largely viewed as legitimate targets, and I was just millimeters from biting it last winter when a poorly marked dseperation from sidewalk to street put me in the line of uncoming traffic and they could have cared less.

Phil,

  In my message to Supervisor Mar's office I am perhaps guilty of overstating my case for rhetorical purposes. No, I don't really think "pedestrian safety" is an improper concern of government. But I do think it's interesting that we never hear the term "pedestrian freedom," even though our freedom as pedestrians to make common-sense judgements, like crossing against a light when it's safe to do so, is legally infringed upon. And it seems undeniable that "safety" *is* often used by government authorities as the justification for further infringing on freedom, in this area of public policy as in many others.

  Like you, I appreciate the fact that in San Francisco, more than in most other places, "the pedestrian is king" (or queen, as the case may be!) and cars are expected to yield even when they have the "right of way". Heavy, deadlier traffic *should* yield to slower, more vulnerable traffic. But I don't think this should be accomplished via blanket citation-punishable rules, but rather by presuming in cases of injury-causing accidents that the party moving with deadlier force (combination of weight + speed) is at fault unless that party can show clear evidence to the contrary.

  Having said that, I also believe that people should share the roads, sidewalks, parks and other common spaces. Politically- or publicly-favored uses of government property (e.g. pedestrians on sidewalks, cars on streets, etc.) should not be assumed to automatically take precedence over all other uses. Bicyclists should be allowed to use sidewalks, skateboarders to use steps and benches, demonstrators and festivals to occupy streets, graffiti artists to adorn bare ugly walls and surfaces, etc.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))