I recently started using my bike as my main mode of transportation, and there are many intersections near my house that feature a pedestrian scramble (a.k.a. an exclusive pedestrian interval). When there are no pedestrians in the walkway but the signal remains on for them, I’m unsure whether I should go. On one hand, it would make my commute more efficient and probably safer (the risk of getting hit by a car is much lower). On the other hand, there’s a vanishingly small chance I hit a pedestrian and a much higher chance I undermine pedestrians’ confidence in their safety — if they see bikes crossing during the designated pedestrian time, they’ll feel less safe in the area in the future. Plus it’s technically illegal. What do you think? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Those of us who walk in New York City know the unwelcome experience of having bicyclists whizzing through pedestrian crossings when we have the light. Each year, in fact, a few hundred unlucky pedestrians in town will be injured from encounters with bicyclists, a handful fatally. With a pedestrian scramble — also known as a Barnes Dance, in honor of the traffic engineer Henry Barnes — vehicular traffic is paused in both directions; pedestrians can cross the intersection diagonally if they want. If you’ve forded Tokyo’s famous Shibuya Crossing on foot, you’ll be struck (or, rather, not struck) by the ability of hundreds, even thousands of pedestrians to swarm across the intersection without bumping into one another, let alone a car or bike.
I have no doubt that you’d be a careful crosser; your evenhanded summary of the situation suggests that you’re able to look in both directions and size things up. But one rationale for these scrambles is to enhance pedestrian safety by completely separating vehicles from pedestrians. Cyclists who play it by ear, or eye, are defeating the point of the system. And norms get settled by decisions that people like you make. Stay put when your light is red, and you serve as a role model for other cyclists. Predictability and social trust are strengthened when people follow the rules even when they don’t see any benefit in doing so. At a Barnes Dance, it really is best to let the traffic signals lead.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader with a curatorial query. She wrote: “I have a Little Free Library in my front yard. I encourage my neighbors to take books and leave books, and many do. Children’s books are especially popular. … Someone leaves a lot of religious books in my Little Free Library. I welcome Bible stories, prayer books and religious philosophy, but recently donated books are making the case to children against evolution. In storybook form, these books state that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. These are not told as stories, but as the word of God. I realize that parents usually help children choose books from my front yard, and that I do not have an obligation to leave specific books in my L.F.L. indefinitely. Still, these anti-science books present me with an ethical dilemma: If I am opposed to schools’ and public libraries’ banning books like ‘‘In the Night Kitchen,’’ ‘‘Fun Home’’ and ‘‘Heather Has Two Mommies,’’ must I also distribute creationist children’s books?”
In his response, the Ethicist noted: “School librarians must contend with issues of what’s age-appropriate, what’s consistent with the educational mission and what’s considered harmful, by parents as well as educators. In a progressive school in Brooklyn, you may not find a book viewed as hurtful to L.G.B.T.Q. people; in a Christian academy in the South, you might not find one viewed as advancing L.G.B.T.Q. perspectives. The point isn’t that they’re equivalent; it’s that people who say they’re opposed to banning books often wish themselves to keep certain books off the school shelves. … I favor a relatively permissive approach. Children get properly educated when they’re aware of a wide range of views, including, as they grow older, views their parents disagree with. Learning to evaluate ideas is a preparation for adult freedom. Adults, in turn, are entitled to make their own choices about what to read. That’s one way in which adults exercise their freedom. Another way is by making choices about what books to provide to their young kids, or those in their neighborhood. So toss those creationist books if you like. Still, I doubt it would accomplish much. A parent intent on promoting creationism isn’t going to be hindered by their absence; another parent might use them to critique creationist views. Both will find a way to think outside your box.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
I am a school librarian, and part of my job is not only to purchase books for the library but also to remove books that are outdated, factually incorrect, poorly circulated, in bad condition, etc. I would weed out books from my school library that disseminate creationism as the “true” narrative because they are factually incorrect and therefore inappropriate for my library. This is different from banning books or censoring materials, which occurs when someone restricts access to materials based on a difference of belief. I think she can, and should, remove these items, because they aren’t scientifically correct. — Sarah
⬥
A vast majority of Christians would quibble with applying the phrase “anti-science” to Christian books. God gave us a curiosity about the world around us and the abilities to investigate it. We just disagree with others about the findings of those investigations. You do not have to choose between science and God. The best presenter of this idea I know of is John Lennox, professor emeritus of mathematics at Oxford University. — Randy
⬥
I was disappointed to read the following line in the Ethicist’s column: “In a progressive school in Brooklyn, you may not find a book viewed as hurtful to L.G.B.T.Q. people; in a Christian academy in the South, you might not find one viewed as advancing L.G.B.T.Q. perspectives.” This comparison perpetuates negative regional stereotypes. If he had stuck with “Christian academies” his comment would have lacked any pejorative regional tag. — Gary
⬥
I’m not saying what I think the owner of the Little Free Library should do, but I hope this issue may at least make her more sympathetic toward people who perhaps take the wrong approach, but nevertheless are concerned about the worldviews expressed in the books their children are reading. — Amy
⬥
How about attaching a disclaimer to the books in question? Something like this could work: “I disagree with the ideas presented in this book, but in the interests of free speech and open discussion, I will not remove it from circulation.” — Helen
⬥
I just taught a college course on book-banning and have come to recognize that any banning intentionally limits the knowledge of readers. The members of opposing ideological camps (right-wing vs. left-wing, religious vs. secular, etc.) are all motivated by a belief that their ideas are “right” or “correct.” My opinion as both an educator and a reader is that the art of learning involves learning how to separate the wheat from the chaff, however one defines those categories. The only way for children or adults to sharpen their minds and come upon their own positions on ethics or politics or science or whatever is to read all sides of an issue and then land where they may. I do think the Little Free Library owner can responsibly cull books to provide an array of genres and age-appropriate and topic-based books, but culling based on what you believe vs. what you don’t makes this library no freer than those in schools or municipalities that are affected by book bans. — Heather
⬥
As a retired librarian now living in a conservative southern state, I always smile when I read that a nearby school district has banned a book like “To Kill a Mockingbird” or “The Bluest Eye.” Nothing gets a middle-schooler more interested in reading a book than finding out it has been banned. — Marilyn
The post I’m a Cyclist. Must I Wait for the Light When I Know I Can Safely Cross? appeared first on New York Times.
