1. Introduction.
2. Archie, New York Times, December 19, 2010.
3. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.
1. Introduction.
I have commented on a bizarre bike path proposal in Cambridge on Western Avenue, connecting with Memorial Drive. The project is very destructive to bicycle use.
The project’s lack of value bears striking resemblance to the bizarre environmental destruction at Magazine Beach. In turn, the Magazine Beach project’s heartless animal abuse combines with bizarre environmental destruction in a project which is difficult to justify except as contractor welfare.
The powers that be in Cambridge are fighting, among other destructive projects, for a bicycle highway destroying massive amounts of riverfront and habitat.
Most recently the Cambridge City Council has announced a crackdown on bicycle lawlessness. I find the timing highly suspicious, after the reaction to the bike path nonsense on Western Avenue.
Archie Mazmanian offers comparable traffic nonsense in the below communication, followed by my proposed letter to the editor of the Cambridge Chronicle.
2. Archie, New York Times, December 19, 2010.
Today's NYTimes Week in Review section includes, on page 9, Bruce McCall's "Op-Art" feature titled "Shakedown Street" which might with humor reflect Cambridge officials on bike lanes, etc. A link to it might be appropriate for your Blog.
Archie Mazmanian
The URL is:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/19/opinion/20101219_mccall_opart.html?scp=1&sq=Op-Art%20+%2.
3. Letter to Cambridge Chronicle.
RE: Bikes, law enforcement and the Cambridge City Council
I have a couple of problems with the City Council’s supposed crackdown on bicycle lawlessness and with Councilor Kelley’s place in the situation.
First of all, I do not believe in coincidences, especially when dealing with the Cambridge City Government.
Cambridge recently announced a strikingly irresponsible bike path proposal for Western Avenue.
All of a sudden we see a remarkable reversal of position on bicycle safety from a city council which has long not wanted to know about dangerous biking.
Is this public safety? Or is it a shakedown to protect a bizarre project from very justified complaints from a well organized group with contempt for law?
I think pedestrians, drivers and other bicyclists should be protected from Cambridge’s culture of lawless bicyclists because the lawless bicyclists are dangerous, not because bicyclists, whether lawless or not, are properly objecting to a strikingly irresponsible project.
And, as usual, there is no proof, but a horrible stench.
Secondly, Mr. Kelley’s position on bicycle lawlessness is to favor of lawless bicycle operation.
Both Kelley and the recently deceased Bill Walsh look to me like products of lawless subcultures.
Walsh went along to get along. That was the way, he apparently thought, the way to do business with the banks. Thus mortgage practices which have been found illegal.
But Walsh’s lawlessness had nothing to do with his responsibilities as a city councilor and his lawlessness constituted no threat of physical bodily harm to third parties. And it was pretty secret.
Kelley admits publicly to lawlessness. Kelley’s public lawlessness demonstrates contempt for laws he is sworn to uphold.
Kelley’s admitted public lawlessness sends a very clear message to impressionable children that you do not have to obey inconvenient laws.
Kelley has publicly stated that he has been involved in collisions with pedestrians.
I have a friend who was laid up for six months when she was run down by a sidewalk bicyclist. I have seen contempt demonstrated for the handicapped by lawless bicyclists.
Walsh’s record as a public servant was impeccable. I prefer Walsh to the current city council.
