another tedious bike post

I’m a bit late to this, but for the record: it’s extremely disappointing to see the most important cyclist advocacy organization in the city concern trolling its own members.  As others have noted at length, the proposed pledge to more lawful behavior is both insulting and potentially unwise: complete and mechanical obedience to the rules of the road can be dangerous in its own right.  I’d say I’m pretty scrupulous about following the law — dorky hand signals and everything! — but if you think I’m going to hang out in a left turn lane facing a red light but no oncoming traffic, waiting for someone to plow into me from behind, you’re nuts.

I get pretty upset when I see someone salmoning up a one-way street or failing to yield the right of way, but the actual incidence of serious cyclist misbehavior seems to me to be relatively small.  In the same way that many motorists habitually execute rolling stops, or fail to signal, or go five miles over the speed limit, cyclists commit a lot of offenses that don’t represent serious safety problems.  No one spends much time bemoaning drivers’ peccadilloes because we’re used to them.  But first-hand experience of biking through the city is still pretty rare. It’s unfortunate, but I think that without such experience, drivers are unqualified to weigh in on what constitutes dangerous behavior, and consequently overstate the problem of cyclist recklessness to an astounding degree.  In perfect world everyone would make at least a few commutes using each mode (and in the presence of users of other modes) before engaging with this topic.

Motorists often mistake their own surprise for evidence of a safety problem.  This is understandable; we should all resolve to surprise each other as little as possible on the road.  But sometimes a driver’s surprise represents proof of a cyclist’s erratic behavior, and sometimes it’s just evidence of the driver’s lack of experience around bikes.

I think folks behind the wheel are used to having responsibility vested with them.  As is often repeated, they’re in control of deadly weapons.  A burden of responsibility is understandably placed on them, rather than pedestrians.  Unfortunately, the speed and vulnerability of cyclists combined with drivers’ inexperience around them makes this two-party arrangement untenable.  Cyclists have to adopt a patronizing attitude toward people in cars: to declare themselves the judges of how the street should be navigated. We’re the most vulnerable; no one else is willing to take charge of keeping us safe.  If we decline that responsibility, it’s our own asses.

This isn’t an ideal state of affairs.  The burden should be shared, and codified by law. And it really can be that way!  I rode in the Netherlands this fall; that’s how things work there. But that experience was both inspiring and depressing: believe me when I say that we are nowhere near ready to rely wholly on the rules of the road in the way that American drivers and all of the Dutch are able to (the only time I have been hit by a car as an adult, I was completely in compliance with the law; the driver simply didn’t expect a bike to be there).  The current situation will obtain in most American cities for the foreseeable future.

Besides, sharing the road is a pain in the ass.  That’s just the truth: it would be a lot more convenient for me if there weren’t any cars in the street, and it would be a lot more convenient for the drivers of those cars if I walked to work.  That’s just how it goes.  Some folks in cars are never going to be happy that I’m on the street, on a bike.

Safely navigating the city on a bike and keeping drivers happy are goals that are somewhat in tension.  Trying to meet drivers’ motivated and at times incoherent expectations is a losing proposition.  Changing those expectations is the only way forward, and the only way to do that is to get more bikes on the road.  I wish WABA’s staff was focused on that task instead of spending time scolding the people they’re supposed to be representing.

Leave a Reply