National Resources Defense Council Asks: Why So Much Bike Hate?
by Lewis DerkinsJuly 31st, 2008, 10:16 pm
Today a National Resources Defense Council blogger asks why there is so much anger directed toward bicyclists.
Plenty of angry cyclists are quick to point out perceived persecution, but you don’t often hear a cyclist take the opposite point of view – that of a rational person who understands the shared responsibilities of the roads.
On our site, we get labeled everything from bike-haters to car apologists to buffoons for pointing to basic common sense arguments explaining why everything that the bike community advocates should not be taken at face value. Oftentimes, these arguments incorporate pro-bicycle ideas that are undermined by the social irresponsibility of cyclists and their demands. These cyclists may be a minority in their community, but they are by far the most vocal and visible. In their hurry to decry us for speaking truth to the establishment, it tends to go overlooked that two of us are actually cyclists.
In response to the question – why so much hate? - one commenter, who happens to be a cyclist, offered one of the best summaries of the flip side from a cyclist’s perspective that I have ever seen.
This deserves to be quoted at length:
Richard Conroy — Jul 31 2008 10:18 AM
Disclaimer: I’m an avid, lifelong cyclist, daily bike commuter year round (about 100 miles a week), & bike tourist. I work for a bike organization & am a cycling instructor. The reasons why cyclists are so poorly regarded are not hard to understand. This is what I’ve observed about the cycling community, and why I think we invite trouble on ourselves.In a nutshell, many cyclists want to have it both ways in terms of road safety. They want drivers & pedestrians to act courteously & legally, but many, many cyclists don’t want to act that way themselves. The double standard is glaring, and yes, the non-cycling world notices it. The various blogs, message boards, bike fora, etc. are filled with cyclist stories about rude & dangerous drivers. There are a number of committed cyclists who believe & openly say that cycling on the roads is dangerous. So there’s a lot of finger pointing at others. But on these same message boards, when the topic turns to rude cyclists, obeying the law, stopping at red lights, there is a split in the cycling community. Many cyclists will espouse a “share the road, same roads, same rights, same rules” ethic. Many, many others, however, think it’s ok to blow off the rules, and resent “being told what to do” by other cyclists (note: it’s the state legislature telling you what to do, not other cyclists!).
Even prominent local bike organizations have gotten into the act. One local bike organization can be heard in the press frequently lamenting how dangerous the streets are, that the streets need a better design, yadda yadda (if cycling is so dangerous–why do it? is one obvious question that comes to mind). Yet I know many of the staff of this organization think it’s OK to ride against traffic, ignore traffic signals, & ride on the sidewalk. Sure, their publications urge cycling safely & courteously, but there’s been too many statements from them in the press that preaches a diametrically opposite message. Then we get a prominent local blog, which has twice in the past year, published articles suggesting that traffic law should be amended to allow cyclists to run stop signs & red lights, allowing cyclist behavior that is less predictable, and less in sync with the rest of traffic.
Critical Mass is another case in point, and a glaring example of a supposed bike promotion movement with no leadership, no goals, and no coherent strategy, where the lowest common denominator sets the tone. Some of these people need to study some Gandhi, to understand when law-breaking can be an important part of a social movement, and when it’s just plain mindlessly stupid. “Be the change you want to see in this world” is one statement that seems to be completely lost on the Critical Massers.
In the end, instead of wallowing in self pity, lamenting why cyclists are singled out, maybe the cycling community needs to take a look at itself. Instead of complaining about how dangerous the streets are, let’s talk about what cyclists can do to make themselves safer (thereby making the streets safer as well). Instead of asking for special exemptions from traffic law, lets ask how traffic law can be molded so that riding on the streets seems less scary, and that both cyclists and drivers are accountable for road safety.
The beauty of cycling is its freedom & independence. But freedom also needs to be tempered by self-discipline, and much of the cycling community, especially critical mass, has completely failed to exercise that. Here’s a basic rule of politics: if you don’t control yourself, somebody else–mainly the government–will do it for you, often in a manner that you don’t like.
Amen. Notice how many of those same arguments have been made on this site? (Hint - Every single one of them.)
As of today, no other commenter has agreed with this comment, or even acknowledged it yet.
Posted in Bicycles, Laws |
I cycle thousands of miles a year, and agree with what Ricard wrote. I abide by traffic laws and encourage other cyclists to do the same.
That said, I don’t agree with Lewis’ argument for bicycle registration. In theory, it sounds great: make cyclists responsible for their actions so they will ride safely. While I agree that cyclists must be responsible, I don’t believe that registration will do anything to improve safety. What would we do, revoke a cyclist’s license for running a red light?
How often in the news do we hear about drivers who are driving illegally with a revoked license or without insurance? The police can’t get a handle on unlicensed drivers with plainly visible license plates. How can they practically enforce registration on bicycles? If you want cyclists to stop at red lights, ticket the cyclists who run red lights. It’s already the law, why not enforce it?
Alex -
I don’t think we should take away a bicyclists license if he runs a red light - we don’t do that with cars. We should treat them the same way. If you’re caught with multiple serious violations, then you could use your license.
You’re missing a couple of the advantages of licensing:
First - licensing would allow you to track who those “worst offenders” are. You would be able to assign points to licenses just like you do with cars. This would have a very serious influence on the behavior of most cyclists. It’s true you won’t get everyone, but that’s not an argument for why we shouldn’t try with cars, and it isn’t an argument for why we shouldn’t with bicycles. We certainly won’t get anyone if we don’t do anything.
Even if you only influenced the behavior of moderate people and that only left the bad apples violating all the rules - you’ve still narrowed the problem and made it easier for police to enforce.
Second - one of the biggest advantages to licensing is that it would mandate training for cyclists on the rules of the road and safe riding practices.
This could also tie into drivers ed for cars, and having everyone on the same page will be a big step toward reducing accidents. As Richard points out, the unpredictability of cyclist behavior is a major problem, and licensing would help this.
It provides training and education as part of the licensing and registration process. It provides an incentive to follow the laws so you don’t lose your privileges, and it officially sanctions bicycles and legitimizes their behavior on the roads.
All of those things will help reduce accidents.
Lewis, you’re just repeating yourself. The first advantage you claim assumes that people will stop riding if they lose their bicycle license. I’m arguing that cyclists, just like drivers, will just keep riding if they lose their license, so using licenses to to punish cyclists is ineffective.
Second, education is always helpful, but is it really necessary to create an entirely new arm of the DMV for testing and registering bicyclists in order to teach people how to ride safely? There isn’t that much to learn. I think it would be more effective to actually enforce the laws we already have and make a concerted effort to educate through more effective means like advertisements or school programs. If the police impose stiff fines, then cyclists will pay close attention to those bike safety advertisements.
Alex -
You’re also assuming that cyclists won’t stop riding if they lose their license. Some drivers don’t stop, others do.
The idea that you wouldn’t try to enfore a law because some people will break it doesn’t make sense.
I concede that I’m talking about creating another law that doesn’t already exist, but what you’re talking about doesn’t go far enough.
Cops can already ticket cyclists - one thing you’re overlooking about these drivers who drive on suspended licenses is that they often face jail time, whereas cyclists currently don’t. This threat is significant, and would undoubtedly influence behavior.
Again - I’m only talking about the worst offenders here - not someone who does a 5mph stoptional in a neighborhood when it isn’t busy, but the guy who speeds through a red light in rush hour and knocks over a pedestrian. That would be at law enforcement’s discretion, like it is now for cars.
The problem with the argument you make about licenses being ineffective is that I could say the same thing for cars and ask you why we should continue to license them? If it doesn’t provide a deterrent, then why make them do it?
On the education piece, I’m not talking about a whole new wing of the DMV. We’re talking about developing a new written test, a new road test, and having a new designation on licenses. The same people who work at the DMV now can administer all of those things. The only up front cost is the time it takes for a team of people to develop the new tests.
I agree with you that enforceing the law we already have is the key - but that’s what licensing is for. Right now if a cop tickets a cyclist, how does anyone track it to tell if he’s a first time offender, or this is his 30th time? What tells the cop how bad this guy’s past violations have been? What allows a cop to radio in information to stop someone who trys to evade him - and it’s easier for cyclists to evade cop cars in an urban area than it is for drivers to do it?
In a car, the cop runs your license plate and has a good idea who you are and how you drive and that can be an influential factor in his decision to ticket you or let you off with a warning.
If you licensed and registered bicycles, and each bicycle had a motorcycle plate (or whatever the appropriate size is), police could do the same thing. Red light cameras could ticket cyclists who run them. This would also help to ID hit and run cyclists. Right now if a cyclist knocks over a pedestrian, witnesses can only give a physical description if the guy runs away - this would give you information that you could turn over to police to track down people who break the laws and it would be tied to a database that has the cyclists name and address.
Again - I’m not advocating for new laws (unless of course we’re going to codify something that currently doesn’t exist but would ensure cyclist safety - like where they should ride in the lanes). I’m advocating for stricter enforcement of the existing laws just like you are. The main difference between our positions is that I would like a more formal tracking and enforcement mechanism in place and you don’t favor that.
If your main concern is cost and an out of control bureaucracy, again, we’re talking about taking systems we already have and extending them to bicycles. There are no new systems to license, test, register or track these people, no new government agencies to administer or enforce. We’re talking about taking the rules we already have and extending them to people who already use the roads. The costs of this are minimal for a tremendous benefit.
Take New York as an example and look at it this way - New York police have said multiple times in the past that cyclists cause most of the accidents they are involved in. Assume that only 25% of that is due to ignorance of the traffic laws (not hard to fathom - I once dated a girl who never had a driver’s license, but cycled occasionally and knew nothing about the laws). Assum that education as part of a licensing program would prevent half of those accidents. Even if it cost $1 million to get this rolling, that’s a huge bargain for a 12% decrease in fatal accidents when New York has invested somewhere over 25 times that amount just this year into bike infrastructure for no significant corresponding decrease in fatalities.
We’re both speculating, but it seems like it would be the people who lose their licenses breaking the law would be the same people who then break the law to drive/bike without a license.
One of the big reasons cars are registered and people need licenses is because cars can easily cause harm to other people. It’s to protect everyone else from bad drivers, not to protect drivers from themselves. Registering bicycles is independent from cyclist education. So if you’re talking about reducing the number of bicycle caused accidents, we’re talking about the 500 yearly, 3% of which might be serious, including 1 death per year. I doubt registration can make much of an impact here. You argue that government should spend taxpayer money responsibly; is this responsible? By the way, I think $1 million is a vast underestimate of what this would actually cost. I think the same budget would be much more effective enforcing the laws we already have, and it would give the city some more income.
Keeping cyclists safe from themselves is separate. Something as simple as a pamphlet (that you pickup with your new bike) could educate novices about red lights. Should pedestrians register their shoes at the DMV? How many pedestrians injure themselves crossing the street at the wrong time?
Alex -
I think the pedestrian example goes too far because pedestrians are the lowest common denominator on the roads’ food chain. The laws should all try to protect them because they are the most vulnerable.
That said - I’m not all about letting pedestrians off the hook either. It hasn’t gone unnoticed by me that many of the pedestrians who are hurt or killed bring it on themselves.
But I agree that it’s definitely difficult to determine where to draw the line, and much of the choice depends on your governmental philosophy.
I advocate that cyclists should be licensed - but I should also caveat that before I would really seriously push for something like this, I think more legitimate research needs to be done in the area of bike safety. It’s something I’ve written about extensively on this site, and I assume you’ve probably read some of it, but what I’m truly in favor of is getting to the root cause of these accidents. If it turns out that bike lanes, better signals, etc.. are the real way to go, I support those provided that is what complete, thorough, and unbiased research shows. Ultimately I want the most cost-effective solution that saves the most lives.
I bring up bicycle licensing because it is somehting you don’t often hear, and it makes people think about the problem in a different way. For nearly three decades cyclists have been parading out safety information that touts the benefits of bike lanes and slams cars, but the research doesn’t really show what they claim it does. I think people have heard it so much that no one really critically examines it anymore and asks if this is the best we can really do.
The call for licensing is an attempt to think outside the box and ask people to think about this in a different light. When I say we should consider bike licensing, I want to be clear that by “consider” I mean examine and study the process before implementing anything through the knee-jerk method.
We may never agree on this point, but I commend you for being one of the people calling for enforcement of the law and responsible cycling.
As to the cost and mechanics of all of this, it’s something we’re still kicking around. We have a couple of posts in the works to flesh the idea out a bit, but solid criticsm like yours is always appreciated - after all, we would have to convince people like you before it would ever become reality, so it’s important to know what legitimate concerns people have.
I’m also one of those good guy cyclists who agrees with Richard.
I think the animosity toward bikes however boils down to the fact that bikes are not legally defined enough and are legitimately between pedestrians and motor vehicles. This allows people to take strong positions on either side: that bikes shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as cars and should have concessions from other modes of transport, or they should have to follow the same more restrictive rules of a car but don’t deserve bike lanes or the respect that another car would get on the road. There should be a completely different set of rules that govern bikes as what they are, not cars or pedestrians.
As an example of how it’s not so cut and dry: you guys mention blowing red lights as an example of bikes disobeying the law. And yes, there dangerous cyclists out there who recklessly ride full speed through a busy intersection who should be stopped. But, lets say I’m stopped at a light crossing a small side street. I’m on a busy road and see a line of cars behind me. The side street is so dead that peds are crossing the street. It would be safer for the cyclist, in this case, to run the red light with the pedestrians, and get a head start against the line of cars behind him or her.
Streetsblog mentioned that in San Francisco they’re thinking about amending the rules completely, treating stoplights as stop signs for cyclists and saying that stop signs don’t apply to cyclists. I don’t agree with this either, as this is definitely needed for busy intersections. We need a solution with more thought put into it.
One thing I’ve seen biking around New York that I love is bike specific traffic lights. They treat the bike as another mode of transport that will have its turn for right of way. The best place I’ve seen it was an awkward intersection in my neighborhood where a bike path crosses a major road that feeds into a parkway. It’s the northernmost start of the Manhattan greenway, so they want to make it as bike friendly as possible. I truly admire the thought that was put into it, everyone gets their right of way, it’s not obtrusive enough to curb traffic flow (the Harlem River Drive which is the northern portion of the FDR starts there), but it’s safe for anyone who happens to be there. For pedestrians New York is toying with the idea of having priority lights, basically that they’ll be allowed to cross before it turns green for cars. In a case like this, bikes should be able to cross with the pedestrians, instead of waiting for cars.
That’s just one example obviously, but in general, blanket statements against or for bikes isn’t the best way to solve this issue.
Charley -
I’m familiar with the delayed signals you’re talking about, and I agree that they could be helpful.
In my opinion we still need to address cyclist conformity with road regulations though because these types of signals won’t be in place at every intersection.
I do agree with you that the best way to do it is to look at the situation holistically rather than paint with a broad brush.