Originally posted late last night.

The vociferous arguments in the comment threads about the recent U-District cyclist's death make me ask: whatever happened to arguing about Critical Mass?

Or, more to the point, it makes me wonder about whether some basic principles for getting along in a street traffic in a city can be agreed upon (admitting that I write this from a mostly flat city far, far away).

Motorists and cyclists both ought to obey traffic laws.

Cyclists and motorists both ought to have adequate safety gear.

In any given incident, the motorist might be at fault, the cyclist might be at fault, or both might be at fault. Before passing judgment, we ought to strive to ascertain the facts of the incident.

While we might be tempted to pass moral judgment in advance on motorists, since in bike-car accidents they are likelier to be physically unscathed, we ought to reserve moral judgment until we ascertain all the facts of the incident.

While we might be tempted to pass moral judgment in advance on cyclists, since reckless riding can result in accidents that well-intentioned motorists would never seek out, we ought to reserve moral judgment until we ascertain all the facts of incident.

Discuss? Or are we beyond that point? And I know that we're all waiting with bated breath for the facts of this incident to be announced, police departments don't work so fast. Opinions expressed without knowing whatever can be ascertained about the facts of the incident simply betray the prejudices of the commenter (drivers are always murderously indifferent, cyclists are always kamikazes who sometimes succeed). If we aspire to a conversation about how the urban infrastructure can be a space to be shared, where just maybe we can all get along in fundamental ways, then perhaps fewer taken-for-granted (or gleaned from Youtube) assumptions about what the un-ascertained facts might be, and more concern for the victims(s) of the incident would be appropriate.

Now, fuck me, I'm from Chicago, who cares what I think . . . Discuss some proposed rules after the jump.

My nominees for some to-be-agreed-upon principles: cars and trucks are the most dangerous things on the road and should yield to pedestrians and cyclists.

Cyclists are the next most dangerous things on the road, and should yield to pedestrians and watch out for cars and trucks.

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable things and so should be very aware of cyclists, cars and trucks.

To ride a bicycle without brakes is a declaration of reckless indifference for one's own life and so is evidence of reckless indifference for one's fellow citizens' safety.

Everyone should always imagine, while being a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, what the people doing the other two things are reasonably likely to think/assume/act on, and act accordingly.

We all want to get where we're going in one piece. No one wants to be talking to the cops, the insurance company, or the newspapers. And one fundamental fact of living in cities is having to deal with other people. Lots of them. So, can we all just get along?

Never mind, sorry I asked.