On City council still divided over Milwaukee Street bike tunnel

Posted on July 12 at 12:31 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

lakennedy - I would not consider my argument to be a straw-man. In a straw-man argument person A makes an argument, then in order to shoot down this argument, person B changes it to an extreme and claims that the new extreme is the original argument, thus making the argument made by person A ridiculous and easily refuted. For example:

Person A: The place where the bike trail crosses Milwaukee St is dangerous. Something should be done before someone gets hurt, and I think a tunnel is a good idea.

Person B: Well that's crazy! You can't just put a tunnel under every street where someone might get hurt!

In this scenario, person A is proposing a tunnel under what he/she believes to be a dangerous trail crossing. Person B changes person A's argument to something ridiculous, saying that person A wants a tunnel under every street. Person B has created a ridiculous straw-man argument and attibuted the argument to person A in order to make person A seem silly. (This is merely an example, not quotes)

In saying that someone could get hurt because it this crossing is very dangerous, and something should be done, I am stating my own words. Nowhere in my argument do I attribute a statement to anybody else, let alone a statement that was never made. That is what makes a straw-man. If you disagree about the safety issue, it still is not a straw-man argument.

True I have no statistics to prove the dangers of this crossing, but the danger is anything but assumed. I don't really know what statistics you are looking for, though. If it is number of fatalities, I think we can all agree that any number would be too high. Even any serious injury would be too much. Again, if you go to this crossing you will more than likely experience the danger first hand. Trail users and motorists both ignore the law here (although I would argue motorists are the more common offenders), and it definitely makes for a dangerous situation. If everyone followed the rules and exercised common courtesy, there would be no issue, but the fact is people do not.

I do understand that the funding is an issue. Our community and our country have fallen on hard economic times, and I do not wish to trivialize this matter. However, I do not see the funding as a major issue, especially when looking at the rather small amount each taxpayer will have to pay as opposed to the total cost.

Lastly, while there is a stop light a ways down the road at Wright Rd., I would hardly consider that intersection a "safe haven," but that's an entirely different issue.

On City council still divided over Milwaukee Street bike tunnel

Posted on July 11 at 5:49 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

hannah - I agree with what you said. In addition to proof of the things you mentioned, there is also proof of accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians. Perhaps not at this particular trail crossing, but I'm sure you've heard of it. I doubt most people who buy insurance buy it after something has happened to them personally, but that it has happened somewhere, just as we should build a tunnel here even if no one has been hurt yet. Now, before someone says, "well by that logic, put a tunnel everywhere!", keep in mind that a tunnel, like insurance, should only be purchased if a legititmate threat exists. Just as perhaps a huge life insurance policy is not a good expenditure for a young, healthy, single person with no family to provide for, we do not need a tunnel at every crossing. However, I feel the risk at Milwaukee St. warrants a tunnel, just as many people's life situation warrants a life insurance policy.

On City council still divided over Milwaukee Street bike tunnel

Posted on July 11 at 5:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

lakennedy - Here is part 1 of 2 of my reply:
*
Maybe I wasn't clear on what my argument is and what I mean by the straw-men others are using. My argument is that the trail crossing at Milwaukee St. is very dangerous and the tunnel is the safest option to remedy the situation, since the traffic signals already in place are routinely ignored.
*
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines straw-man as "a weak or imaginary opposition…set up only to be easily confuted." Wikipedia also gives a good explanation; a straw-man "describe[s] a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, and is then attribute[d] to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position)." (link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) For an example of a straw-man argument used, I direct you to the post you made Jul 10, 2008 at 9:52 a.m., which states "you're argument dictates that we should be putting in tunnels all over the city. Someone COULD be hit at sometime, so according to you, we should be proactive and put in tunnels right now before something happens." No one said anything resembling the argument that tunnels should be put up all over the city; you merely invented this ridiculous argument to easily shoot it down.
*
For evidence of a real safety issue at this crossing, I admit I have no statistics. However, if you haven’t already, I invite you to show yourself the safety issue by attempting to cross here on the trail. Press the button and see how long it takes for enough vehicles to stop for you to make it safely across, keeping in mind that it is the law to yield to pedestrians in the cross walk and that vehicles are going much faster than the posted speed limit. In my opinion, this is the most difficult place on the trail to cross safely, and as such, deserves a tunnel whereas other crossings do not.

On City council still divided over Milwaukee Street bike tunnel

Posted on July 11 at 5:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

lakennedy - Here is part 2 of 2 of my reply:

You suggest I write a letter to the editor explaining the tax increase. I think you would have a problem with this, as I would explain it as thetruth explained here on Jul 10, 2008 at 9:41 a.m., breaking it down into per tax payer numbers (thetruth estimated about $29, which makes sense to me). I think we all have trouble imagining the $435,000 amount suggested (I certainly do), and I feel the more important number is how much it will cost each taxpayer (again, around $29) since it seems that concerns people the most. You asked me to explain my adamant "support to keep people safe in an area where no one has been injured, but 'just in case someone gets hurt'." "Just in case someone gets hurt" in quotes says that someone said this. Since you were talking to me, I assume you are attempting to quote me. Nowhere did I say the reason for my support of this tunnel was "just in case someone gets hurt" (another straw-man?) On the contrary, if someone does get hurt, it would be too late.
*
You said these things weren't too much to ask of me considering what I had asked of you. I don't think I was asking much. The request I made was for people, on both sides, to have valid reasons for disagreeing, and a feasible solution to the safety issue (not one that the council already looked at and decided against).
*
Sorry for being so wordy again, but I wanted to completely respond. I'd like to repeat what I said earlier: The perfect solution is for motorists and trail users to exercise total safety and responsibility. Since this is not feasible, I think the tunnel is the way to go.

On City council still divided over Milwaukee Street bike tunnel

Posted on July 10 at 9:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

I am in favor of the tunnel. Having regularly used that part of the trail regularly both running and biking, it is clear something should be done. That intersection is dangerous and scary. I agree, total responsibility on the part of both trail users and motorists would be the best solution, but unfortunately I don't think that's realistic. I understand that the tunnel isn't popular with some people, and there are valid arguments on both sides, however, there are some arguments I take issue with that have been brought up here.

First, many people have brought up the straw-man agrument that people will want tunnels under every street. This crossing is more dangerous than others on the trail, and that's why something needs to be done here. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting a tunnel under each crossing.

Second, comparing this to the Racine St. trail crossing is not valid. Racine St. is an intersection of two streets that has a four way STOP light, unlike the Milwaukee St. crossing which is just a trail with flashing yellow lights that are often ignored.

Lastly, it's been suggested that the council needs to look at more options and not automatically go with the tunnel. If people paid attention, they would know that the council did consider many options, and ample opportunity was given for public comment.

Sorry for being wordy, but a lot of these comments have bothered me. I understand being against the tunnel, but having a valid reason and alternatives would make for better discussion.

On How far do you think the trade for pitcher C.C. Sabathia will take the Brewers this year?

Posted on July 8 at 7:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )

Seabee - "No way the Crew wins jack squat" is an interesting statement to make, recalling that they beat the Cubs in 4 out of 6 games AT WRIGLEY! If the Brewers are a minor league team, what does that make the Cubs? Now they have added the best pitcher on the market without giving up anyone who was going to contribute at the Major League level this year, unlike the deal the Cubs made. I'd still guess the odds are against the Brewers taking the central, but I do know this gives them a better shot. It will be an interesting race.