Comment 40324

By frank (registered) | Posted May 03, 2010 at 12:45:49

There's a HUGE problem when you try to associate logic with sociology: human beings don't necessarily act as a result of logic (in fact I find they rarely do) and that's been proven over and over again; if that were the case, there would be no such things as addictions and many other social problems we currently face. That's the reason for seeking some sort of middle ground...provided both arguments are correct of course.

Consider this:

If the argument from one side is to implement a full cycling network in order to improve means of transit, access to other modes of transport, safety etc. and the other sides simply says no because it's not going to work then compromise is hardly possible because the second argument has no factual basis (the facts actually demonstrate the opposite)...

However if the first argument remained the same but the other party had serious concerns as to the safety aspect (for argument's sake)- concern for the cyclist as well as the motorist even if the basis is purely upon human perception it's quite easy to address the concerns and eliminate the argument by doing something that increases the perception of safety (widening the bike lanes let's say) thereby finding a "middle ground".

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools