Sunday, August 12, 2012

Bicycling's Unspoken Rules of the Road

R-E-S-P-E-C-T. One can almost hear Aretha's back track while listening to that tired story about bicyclists needing to obey the traffic laws.

A recent NY Times op-ed by Randy Cohen (If Kant were a New York City Cyclist) raised a tsunami of criticism from cyclists and noncyclists alike. Cohen, who for many years edited a weekly column about ethics in the NY Times Sunday Magazine, expressed a point of view I find to be spot-on.

Critics are bristling at the thought of excusing law-breaking cyclists, under any conditions.

Apparently Cohen's biggest mistake was to cite Kant while he debunked longstanding beliefs held by many. Who reads Kant anymore?

So let's set that aside and talk about matters of safety and respect.

Over the past 22 years I have bicycled over 71,000 miles, mostly on the streets and roads of Atlanta. Despite the challenging conditions here for biking I have done so accident-free and thus feel I know something about what a cyclist can do to avoid collisions with other vehicles.

We can all agree that respect for cyclists is a good thing, both in creating safer conditions on the road and in obtaining specific legal and infrastructure accommodations from the powers-that-be.

But I disagree with the conduct some insist are vital for cyclists to gain that respect, and I furthermore think such respect may be overrated.

In places I know well such as Atlanta and New York, many road users pick and choose which laws to obey based on a their needs, preferences, the effectiveness of local law enforcement and (hopefully) common sense. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and it has stood the test of time!

I vividly remember my high school drivers ed (yes, it was decades ago), when a NY State Trooper addressed my class by telling us that that the police do not issue speeding tickets if they clock a speed less than 6 miles over the limit, or on interstates if the speed is less than 65 in a posted 55.

Great, we budding drivers thought, permission to break the law!

And it's not just speed limits that we are flaunting. Texting, rolling stop signs, double parking and unsignaled turns are just some of the many infractions frequently practiced by a broad swath of motorists. I frequently see police cruisers doing it.

Meanwhile we have our anecdotes from witnessing bad bicycling behavior. Motorists love to cite this as a frequent bone of contention.

But what thinking person concludes that cyclists break the laws any more frequently than noncyclists? Where, then, does this obsession with cyclist misbehavior come from? 

But first a word about safety.

Indeed, scofflaws of all stripes can make bad decisions...dangerous decisions. But who predominantly suffers for these bad decisions? HINT: if you are encapsulated in a steel-and-glass-and-plastic can, you usually are not the one most at risk of harm.

This is where bikes and cars occupy different ethical grounds based on their potential for harm. Put another way, we need a stronger appreciation for the benefits of placing ourselves under conditions that mitigate the consequences of poor judgement.

When you see a cyclist doing something patently stupid, imperiling themselves or (more rarely) others, don't hate on cyclists. Instead think to yourself, Oh, good, at least that bonehead isn't driving a 4,000-pound Explorer.

Conversely when I see the driver of an Explorer proceed through a red light at a deserted intersection, I am heartened. Why idle unnecessarily (wasting fuel and polluting the air), because the local jurisdiction hasn't properly maintained their traffic signals?

Which brings us back to these solemn exhortations for cyclists to obey the laws, flawed as they are. Is it really so outrageous to say that many of us, cyclist or not, are scofflaws of necessity and habit?

This discussion needs more candor. Without it, we risk setting double standards of behavior for bicyclists and motorists which perpetuate the bicyclists' relegation as second-class road users.

Which brings us to the value of respect for cyclists. Motorists frequently complain about bad cycling behavior, but is this really the source of their contempt?

I am not so sure and would like evidence to the contrary.

"But these here cyclists are lawbreakers" is a convenient but not entirely honest justification for the attitudes of some motorists who have yet to overcome a stronger feeling that cyclists don't have any business using their roads. To them, cyclists irritate not for their lawlessness but simply because they are there.

Here in Atlanta we have spent over two decades tirelessly advocating for safer conditions for cyclists. Our progress--while fitful--has accelerated dramatically over the past three years. Why?

It has less to do with us gaining some added measure of "respect" from the non-cycling powers-that-be than it has from the fact that we have new friends in government (City Council, State) who are themselves bicyclists.

Our numbers continue to grow. Time and tide are in our favor and will gradually replace the older authority figures with those who get it. Perhaps patience more than respect is the bicycle advocate's best friend.

As always, thanks for reading and stay in touch!

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Atlanta: Fit to be Tied



The good news is, Atlanta-area voters have spoken. Sadly their voices were tinged with fear, paranoia and pessimism.

It is a pity they rejected the transportation referendum (TIA,) because we badly needed it. The business community, politicians from both parties and grassroots community groups strongly supported it.
Supporters of the TIA understand how Georgia currently ranks 48th in per capita spending on transportation, and planners predict that Metro Atlanta will become home for an additional three million people over next 30 years.
However they were bested by an equally diverse coalition of opponents, each with their own agendas. Although the majority of the tax revenues was to be spent on transit and other non-roads projects, it did not satisfy the Georgia Sierra Club's anti-roads stance.
The Georgia NAACP opposed it, because they claim that GDOT has not been using enough minority contractors. They have demanded that Obama's Department of Justice investigate this.
Most importantly the Georgia Tea Party tapped into a vast reservoir of anti-government sentiment, especially against GDOT and MARTA. Voters could not be convinced that there are legal provisions in place to assure that the tax would expire after ten years, and that the proceeds would be spent as promised. 
These opposition organizations say that the results of this vote creates a mandate for a "Plan B," despite a clear disinterest on the part of the Georgia Legislature to reopen this subject. This would raise the possibility of reopening past debates about the state motor fuel tax, current budgeting restrictions on MARTA and regional governance of transportation in Atlanta. 
I hope that they are right but am not betting on it. It is a lot easier to whip up constituents to vote "no" than it is to recruit them into a cogent transportation reform movement.
The Georgia Tea Party, Sierra Club and NAACP can take a well-deserved victory lap. Then they need to get busy. 
They have earned themselves a mountain of work that they now own.