This reminds me of my thoughts on Marx, via The Communist Manifesto: Very insightful economic history, horrible prescription.

As someone who grew up in Manhattan without ever thinking I’d need to drive to a Chicagoan who was frustrated with its public transit (I went from growing up with three supermarkets within 500 feet of our home to needing to take two buses to get to one in Chicago) and eventually got a driver’s license at the age of 32, I’ve seen this relationship from multiple ends, so this analysis appeals to me.

The one area that, to me, becomes the nub of the problem is red lights and stop signs. As a driver and a pedestrian, I’m fine with trusting pedestrians crossing on a Don’t Walk signal if they see a clear path (although even there, if there’s a left turn arrow for cars this can become dangerous quickly), but cyclists doing this bother me a great deal: They can’t course-correct easily, so when they’re wrong it can go very bad. On top of that, I can’t trust a cyclist I see speeding towards a red light where I have the green, and that makes me take my attention off the road in front of me, possibly leading to an accident.

So, I feel these are reasonable points, but I have to also admit that I simply think cyclists blowing red lights and stop signs is just *unfair*. Articles like this one help to keep that impulse in check (as much as one can; hey, it’s complicated!)

Expand full comment

My goodness, what an informative article. Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro for giving me so much to ponder.

Expand full comment

The problem is that CRT demands embracing it's conclusions and solutions, whether they work or not. In your example, all traffic on every highway and byway would be pedestrian centric due to potential problems seen through a pedestrian lens.

Imagine having interstate highways broken up by cross streets for pedestrians, for example. A solution would be to have pedestrian walkways above the highway but in Critical Theory analysis those would be only to benefit the car drivers, not the pedestrians and should be rejected as carism or autoistic. However, we already have arrived at pedestrian walkways over highways in pedestrian areas without even considering Critical Pedestrian Theory. The same goes with pedestrian cross walks that take speed of the pedestrian into consideration that are already in existence. So, again, Critical Pedestrian Theory is unnecessary. Good try, though.

Expand full comment