-
Is there really a difference between the two? Isn't the distinction between assuming responsibility 'in the face of an external agent' (I'm not sure the word 'immutable' really adds to the point) the same as assuming responsibility 'for the actions external agents'?
I can see that there is a discrete point about whether in practice motorists (as a group) would treat cyclists (as a group) with more consideration if cyclists stopped doing things which some motorists say they find annoying, such as RLJing. That's a question of fact, and without a control group it's ultimately just anecdotal evidence and opinions.
But as I understand it, the 'don't pander to bigots' argument is that even if the consequences of inconsiderate cycling by one person is to increase the risk of motorists driving inconsiderately towards cyclists, that's the motorists' fault and not the responsibility of the cyclist who cycles inconsiderately. Although I can see the point (the primary responsibility is that of the motorist for their own actions) I have difficulty with the concept that we're not responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, even if they take effect through the agency of third parties.
Brommers-
I'm not sure the word 'immutable' really adds to the point)
It was your question in the first place.
some people steal bicycles.
Those people are bike thieves.They are the external agent. Locking or not locking does not change their existence, nor the threat they pose. They exist. That cannot be changed within the context of locking the bike up or not this one time.
Is there really a difference between the two? Isn't the distinction between assuming responsibility 'in the face of an external agent' the same as assuming responsibility 'for the actions external agents'?
One is assuming responsibility for oneself. Not for the bike thief.
The other is assuming responsibility for someone else.
Now - If you don't stop, I'm going to tear my kitten's throat out. This will be your fault. And I mean full stop. From the forum. From the internet. Your fault. Dead kitten.
This new forum quoting function is utterly dire.
NotThamesWater
Your example was of assuming responsibility for oneself in the face of an immutable external agent - the omnipresent bike thief.
Your point above, however, is on assuming responsibility for the actions of external agents, based upon tenuous, specious and unevidenced causality.