City A Few Questions
posted by July 26 at 19:10 PMon
First off: I’ve been out of cell phone and e-mail range for the past day, so I just heard about last night’s Critical Mass attacks this afternoon.
Having read numerous emails from eyewitnesses who say the driver in the incident deliberately drove into a crowd of cyclists with his Subaru, however, I have a few questions for the Seattle media and police.
Why, if the driver assaulted several cyclists with his car, is he being treated as the victim?
Why is hitting cyclists with intent to harm them—or “nudging” them, or throwing things at them, or forcing them off the road—not considered assault with a deadly weapon?
Why does SPD and the media consider harm to property—the Subaru, whose tires were slashed and whose windows were broken—a far worse crime than running over and potentially killing a defenseless person with a 2,000-pound machine?
Why, when cyclists pay for local roads just like drivers do, do some drivers assume they have more right to the road than cyclists do—indeed, that cyclists have no right to the road at all?
Why do newspapers and TV stations always take the cops at their word—and assume that people they can’t identify with, like greasy-haired cyclists protesting car culture, must be lying?
Why do drivers see any impediment to getting where they’re going as quickly as possible as an assault on their very being (see also: This month’s traffic circle murder)?
Why do we consider it manslaughter or worse when someone carelessly kills another person with a gun—but sympathize with, and utterly fail to punish, someone who carelessly kills another person with their car?
Why do drivers so often regard their fellow humans as less than human the second they get out of their cars and become cyclists or pedestrians?
Why do we let these people keep getting away with it, and getting away with it, and getting away with it?