Over the past couple of weeks, I have not managed to ride my bicycle, but I’ve heard a ton of noise and incitement in the Boston Globe and on the Boston Critical Mass email list to which I subscribe. The Globe has run two controversial articles describing what they perceive as a growing conflict and tension between drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians.
First, the Globe ran a story about how urban bike riders have attitude and fail to follow the rules of the road. I was shocked and dismayed to learn that some cyclists run stop signs and red lights.
But this conflict-baiting op-ed piece attempts to place the blame for driver misbehavior on scofflaw cyclists and suggests that the “cure” is just to get cyclists to obey the law.
A while back, I read a great blog post entitled The Myth of the Scofflaw Cyclist and I wish all these frustrated, angry motorists would go read that first before they leap into their attacks on the bike riders. I’m not saying that people who fail to follow the rules are without blame, but I do believe blame is irrelevant.
An op-ed piece today make the point about road safety…the author observes that our roads are designed to kill people. His point is that we should modify our infrastructure to increase safety by doing things like installing speed humps, center lane divider strips, and rotaries to calm traffic.
What bothers me about these stories is the reactions–the continuing, irrelevant discussion of right and wrong, of blame and personal responsibility. Cyclists should obey the laws just like cars (fail to do). Drivers are inconsiderate. Cyclist/Bikers are jerks. (Other) People (than me) are stupid, inconsiderate, etc., but, hey, until you start following the rules, who can really blame them?
Enough already. As someone who rides a bike in the city, I went through a period of paranoia and indignation but this was cured by a few crashes where I realized that if I end up in a conflict with a car, it doesn’t matter who was right or wrong because I won’t be around to argue about it. My crashes didn’t involve cars–they were road hazards and I was lucky. But I know that irrational attitude–on both sides–that can develop. And it can end in death.
We need to change the road, not the rules. We need to stop believing that education and common sense are enough to protect us as a society from the tragedy of accidents. We need to say, OK, drivers and cyclists alike are breaking the law and endangering each other, so what can we do to make it less likely they will do that?
Can we start by accepting a proposition that our roads are for people, not vehicles? That some people will choose to run, walk, bike or drive on these roads and we should make the roads safe for ALL those modes of transportation?
Can we adopt a realistic attitude with respect to compliance?
Why do people drive “too fast” on a given road? It is not just that they are busy on their cell phone, sending text messages, or rushing to some important event. They drive as fast as they feel safe driving. So the fact that they are speeding is probably evidence that the speed limit is not realistic. The road is too fast.
Why do cyclists run red lights and stop signs? Most of them don’t do it while issuing a middle-finger salute to the cars around them. It’s not a brazen defiance of authority, but rather a choice, based on a belief that what they are doing is safe under the circumstances. Individually, you can say “stupid choice.” But en masse, random stupidity cancels out and you are left with empirical evidence that these traffic controls fail to provide believable safety for people on bikes.
I’m not saying there is zero value in education and enforcement. But when you see rampant disregard for existing laws, why would you think more laws or more education would help?
{ 4 comments }
Dave,
Inspiring words, especially as I await sunrise to venture onto the narrow and congested streets of Cambridge (even at 5:30 a.m.) for my morning ride. Boston may not rank up there with Montreal, Sacramento or Tucson, but it is becoming more bike friendly. Evolution takes time. Cheers, WRP
Here’s another interesting approach using a shared space concept:
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSGOR14512420070911
Not sure if this would work in our car-loving culture, but if you think about it, one of the reasons why roads are so dangerous to everyone else is because cars have the right-of-way on 80%-100% of the space available. If you take away that idea, drivers would no longer feel entitled to have the right-of-way. Intersections would change from spaces which require you to follow rules, to spaces which require you to be cautious. Additionally, anyone would a rebellious streak wouldn’t have any rules to break.
I think it’s very interesting, and I would love to visit one of the towns that has implemented this plan. I can’t really see this working in Boston at its current state because there’s too much congestion, but maybe if we could alter policy to take 80% of the cars out of the city (congestion charging, anyone?), it might work.
ABC News did a report on this a while back, but I couldn’t find it.
Good luck. As a walker constantly annoyed by cars and sometimes by bikes, I hope we can all find a middle-ground sometime soon.
The problem is pedestrians who jaywalk. Their actions causes cars to miss lights. In turn, cars drive more aggressively, trying to get through when they can, even going to far as to leave themselves stuck in the middle of an intersection rather than risk getting stuck at another green light because a pedestrian may jump out in front of them.
Seriously, most other cities give tickets for jaywalking. Were Boston to do that I think traffic aggression may get toned down quite a bit.
I’ve been ruminating off-and-on this topic the past few weeks. One of the first things I learned in Boston is not to be in a hurry when driving anything. I’m inclined toward the position of actively being a scofflaw within reason when no harm can be done, and doing it accepting that everyone else should be doing it too. Anarchy? Perhaps, but our streets were not designed to handle the traffic they carry so being adaptable, courteous, sensible and defensive seems to be the best way to navigate.
Are pedestrians, bicyclists, or cars the problem? Sure. So are trucks, motorcycles, motorscooters and buses and duck boats. It’s a busy city and we’re all in the same place jostling out of each other’s way to get from Point A to Point B. That’s city living.
Well said. The city could benefit from some infrastructure changes, but you can’t change human nature.
Comments on this entry are closed.