What rights do we and don’t we have, and why

Posted on November 10, 2009 by Dave Feucht

A recent string of pedestrian deaths and injuries in Portland has gotten me thinking more and more about this issue, and while I still have a lot of thoughts swirling around in my head, here are a few things that have kind of settled into some kind of consistent thought patterns.

1. Do we as human beings have the right to occupy public space? Space that we don’t own? Or is this something that is only granted or revoked by the government we live under? (Think about this carefully – what about people who don’t own property, who rent, who can’t afford a home at all, who have no concept of owning things – do they have a right to occupy space, or not?)

2. Do we as human beings have the right to be upset if something takes away our ability to occupy public space (maliciously or not), specifically by killing some people, and by instilling fear of death in the rest?

3. Do we as human beings have the right to be upset if, after we see our fellow humans killed and terrified, our governments do next to nothing about it, and in many cases, actually encourage and re-enforce the behaviors which caused death and instilled fear?

4. Do we as human beings have the right to be upset if, after we see our fellow humans killed and terrified, our governments respond by giving free reign to that which killed, and further restricting the vulnerable?

I would answer yes to all of these questions.

So, where are all the people who should be upset about the 45,000 people per year dying in the U.S. in automobile collisions? Let’s face it, for the most part, they aren’t accidents, they are preventable, unnecessary deaths. And yet our automobile design, our road design, our laws and the way they are interpreted, our law enforcement and our city planning continue to be focused on moving more automobiles faster, on isolating the driver from his/her surroundings, and on requiring less and less of the driver in terms of awareness and interaction with their environment.

Am I upset? Yes.

This entry was posted in portland and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Allan

    It would be an interesting experiment to send robots who obey the traffic laws and look enough like a pedestrian into traffic (given that they wouldn't have fear of cars and send them across the street assuming cars would stop for them. How many would get hit? This might teach a lesson to drivers without the cost of human lives.

  • Mounia

    What interesting questions
    I've been thinking about these things. Thanks for putting them into words(:

  • Val

    Upset? Welcome to the club. I've been upset about these issues for over 30 years, and it's nice to have company. It could be that more of us are starting to wake up; we'll see. Val

  • anarchslife

    Hej,
    I'd like to add 2 perspectives to these points! But before I really agree with you and that's only the start of the car taking the city from people! (pedestrians)
    I've grown up and lived most of my life in Vienna, Austria and always used public transport cos it's great there. Just the last 2 years I've lived there I started cycling and I realized how dangerous it is!
    Last spring I moved to Copenhagen, Denmark which is cycling capital. Here the street have 2-4m wide cycling lanes and cars have to watch people cos there are usually more bikes on a corner then cars!

    So people need to reclaim the streets! Maybe some will die, maybe some will have accidents but we need to start using spaces that are occupied by cars and other vehicles in the city!

    this is my strong believe!

  • Mark

    Indeed, getting the streets back to being a cyclist's and pedestrian's space is a real slog – especially the first 5-10% I think. But then people said women would never have the vote and that India would never be free of us Brits, so you see the potential is there. There is a definate raising of consciousness about at the moment, but getting through to the 'masses' is going to take a lot lot more – I'm inclined to think the only way to get the majority cycling is to build safe, segregrated infrastructure. And doing that is hard as hell.

    I've added you to my blog links at i b i k e l o n d o n so others can see the sense you are talking!

    Keep on peddlin!

  • portlandize.com

    Thanks Mark!

    Indeed it is possible, but so many people just completely ignore each other, and especially people who are more vulnerable on the roads, sometimes it feels impossible – how to combat apathy?

    I think if there's anything I'd love to see on the streets in America, and Portland specifically, it would be measures to restrict how people can drive. Cycling and walking become much more safe if automobiles don't just have free reign to drive as they like, which they do for the most part now. Very little impeding their physical movement (including people), and very little enforcement or consequence for breaking laws (including killing people).

    If that could change, I think we would see many more people out walking and cycling instead of driving. After all, most of my daily needs in Portland are withing about a 15min walk, very close.

    We'll see how it goes. Best of luck across the pond :)

  • Anonymous

    Automobile safety has improved only for people inside of the car. This is one of the primary issues when it comes to conceptualizing a true big picture approach to mobility. Those safety enhancements build, and reinforce a sense of invulnerability. This causes short-sighted driving, and lack of paying proper attention to your surroundings. To make a truly safe car, one must remove the seatbelts for the driver, and replace the airbag with rusty nails, and broken glass. Make sure the rusty nails are clearly visable in the center of the steering wheel. Only then, will a vast majority of automobile operators experience the fear, and apprehension that affects more vulnerable users of the public realm. Accident rates would drop sharply, although, those that did occur would most likely be fatal for the driver. in that case, I'd tip my hat to darwin, for cutting off that branch of the species, as "not smart enough to survive"

  • howard

    I seem to notice some people is becoming more fearless or rebelous. They are willing to risk their lives to get across the road. Drivers have to learn to watch out for them more. People are getting tired of waiting for lights to change or cars to stop for them to go across… They seem to go on forever sometimes. When they have a bus to catch, they try to get to the bus in time, ingoring "safety rules". They usually make it but not always. Bus drivers are not waiting for them. Sometimes I wish they do. I hate busy streets because I have to wait much longer. If it is nice out, it does not bother me that much. But it is lousy out, I get impatient sometimes because it is too cold to stand waiting. Wait a few more years, it will get worse unless…

  • Mark

    The problem is that the prevalence of car culture (or perhaps, more helpfully, a lack of cycling culture and infrastructure) is so accepted to so many people that any kind of talk of sweeping change terrifies them and puts them by default into the defensive position (you know, "Roads are for cars", "we pay to be here", "there's no room for bikes") I'm a great believer in incremental change – baby steps if you like – one tiny change after another. Like taking the stairs instead of the lift every day and suddenly one day finding out you aren't fat anymore, incremental changes can add up in a big way. And I think blogs like yours, which are changing hearts and minds one at a time, are a big part in this. So don't loose heart, keep on peddlin' and one day, ONE DAY, everyone else will have joined you.

  • portlandize.com

    @Mark: Thanks for the encouragement, I need that sometimes!

    Cheers!