Scooters in urban life
On Monday, the Globe editorial page argued that the new state regulation forcing owners of scooters with 50cc engines to register them like motorcycles could cause financial and parking problems for their owners. The City of Boston will let owners continue to park them on sidewalks, but we argued that local officials need to consider a broader, more accommodating approach to these environment-friendly vehicles.
► Some Boston.com readers did not share our enthusiasm for scooters. “These vehicles are illegally chained to trees, signposts, rubbish barrels, street-lamps, etc.,’’ wrote riggssm. “While not indifferent to the parking challenges facing scooter people, I would have considered the tribulations of parking in Boston before purchasing a scooter. . . . Scooter people are arrogantly blocking the right of way and inhibiting pedestrian access when they illegally chain their vehicles on sidewalks. ’’
► Reader craffi said Boston already has a way of dealing with obstructions: “Scooters that actually block access or impede things do get removed . . . Scooters that offend your aesthetic sensibility are not removed, nor should they be.’’
► Another reader questioned why engine size should determine who can park where: “The idiocy here . . . is that parking should be dictated according to the physical dimensions of the scooter, not the engine size or speed,’’ wrote sotied. My 125cc scooter can go 60 miles per hour, but it’s smaller than many 49cc scoots that can only go 30.’’
► The commentary also prompted scooterists to decry others’ bad habits. Reader mbelleville asked, “How about cracking down on the blatant and dangerous [tendency] of Back Bay pedestrians to totally disregard the traffic and crosswalk signals? My broken shoulder occurred when a woman decided to push her baby carriage right out onto Arlington Street and against the light while I was in mid-turn on my scooter.’’
Providence Plantations?
On Tuesday, we criticized an effort to change the official name of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations as political correctness gone awry. The plantations in question have nothing to do with slavery, we noted.
► The editorial also prompted a few detours through 17th-century history. One reader quibbled with our description of Rhode Island’s founders as “religious men and women fleeing persecution in Puritan Massachusetts.’’ Muddy countered that “the founders of Rhode Island were religious fanatics who were asked to leave (i.e. kicked out of) the Massachusetts Bay, Salem, and Plymouth colonies.’’
► Meanwhile, Recifense wrote, “Is the Globe kidding in [implying that] the Massachusetts Bay Colony had nothing to do with colonialism?’’
One zoo, not two
Also on Tuesday, we called for the consolidation of the state-owned Stone Zoo in Stoneham and Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. The latter, we said, is the most logical site for a world-class zoo.
► A number of readers argued that the Stone Zoo has the better location. “Let’s close Franklin Park Zoo,’’ wrote LeBron23. “It’s not as if the zoo is in a prime location like Back Bay. No tourists will miss it.’’
► Others said neither location makes sense. “I say close both and build a new 21st-century facility,’’ urged sla1011, “ideally someplace that’s accessible on the T.’’
Ortiz tests positive
On Friday, we considered a New York Times report that Red Sox slugger David Ortiz was among those on a secret list of players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs. The news taints the team’s World Series wins, we said. Boston fans may remember this decade fondly, but it is a grim time for the entire sport.
► Several readers argued that stopping so-called juicing is a hopeless cause. “There needs to be more performance-enhancing drugs in baseball,’’ wrote AtticusBlack. “Not just baseball, every sport down to cricket and table tennis. If I’m going to have to pay $80 for standing-room-only seats I want to see a bunch of juiced-up homicidal lunatics knocking baseballs 800 yards and throwing mile-long passes while fighting off hordes of other juiced-up homicidal lunatics.’’
► Reader alekas suggested Ortiz isn’t the only one with explaining to do. “So the sum total is this: professional athlete (perhaps) goes with the tenor of the times and wrongly uses something he shouldn’t; lawyers knowingly break the law by revealing his name and those of others, names that are supposed to be under seal; a major newspaper sees no problem with the second point.’’
Visit boston.com/opinion to read these and other Globe editorials.
