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!

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.

The De-Bikification of Beijing

Pity, the citizens of Beijing. Obsessed with the status symbols of consumer culture, they are furiously ditching their bicycles for cars. They will soon get what they asked for, and they won't like it.

Miracle on Washington Street

A few weeks ago, road cyclists received a miracle. It was on February 27th to be exact.

On that day, a Georgia Senator--one who previously said that we need a law to keep bicycles out of the way of motorists--became an advocate for bicycles!

At a Transportation Committee hearing the week prior, Senator Butch Miller and several co-sponsors offered SB 468, which would ban the currently-legal practice of bicyclists riding two abreast on Georgia roads and instead force them to ride single-file.

To their credit, leaders from Georgia Bikes! worked to maintain a constructive relationship with Senator Miller. They sought compromise and got one.

Miller accepted their watered-down amendment which substituted the outright ban of two-abreast riding with a vaguely-worded requirement for cyclists not to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic.

While the amended bill raised a host of questions about enforce-ability and other unintended consequences, Miller could rely on the fact that the same kind of vague limitation on cycling was already on the books in nine other states. Surely its passage into law would allow him and SB 468's co-sponsors to claim a win on behalf of their motorist constituents.

With the bill passing unanimously through committee and apparently destined for a vote in the full Senate, Miller told Georgia Bikes! the following Monday that he would not pursue passage of his bill and would instead work with Georgia Bikes! on the implementation of a Complete Streets policy. Complete Streets policies emphasize that public roads should be designed for moving people, not just automobiles, and should include facilities that improve safety and access for transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists of all ages and abilities.

Some characterize Miller's intentions as always in keeping the interest of cyclists foremost, claiming that he rides a bike himself.

Oddly, he never mentioned that about himself during the hearing as he faced a long line of citizen-bicyclists criticizing his bill. For a two-term Senator, one would think Miller would have seized the opportunity to establish his credibility with this assembly of bicyclists.

As I described previously in this blog, Miller repeatedly acted in ways that seem to belie his stated intentions. Would bicyclists expect any more from someone who leads the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association?

Beyond the potent persuasive powers of Georgia Bikes!, what could account for Miller's dramatic turnaround? How did the discussion shift so dramatically, away from getting bikers out of motorists' way to developing streets that are conducive to non-automobile transportation?

For now it's best to leave the sleeping dog lie and celebrate the fact that we are not all riding in a line.

And to Senator Miller: thank you for seeing the light. I hope to see everyone at the GA Rides to the Capitol.

- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!

Georgia Senate Taking Bikers for a Ride

UPDATE: Senator Butch Miller will not pursue passage of SB 468, preferring instead to work with Georgia Bikes! on the implementation of a Complete Streets policy over the remainder of this and into the next legislative session.

I'll post here again when I learn more about this welcome and unexpected turnaround!
As SB 468--the bill which originally proposed to curtail two-abreast bicycling in Georgia--sailed through the Senate Transportation Committee last week and makes its way to the Rules Committee, confusion reigns over the future of road cycling in Georgia. For cyclists, our remaining options are very limited.

Georgia Bikes! has published its current advocacy position on its web site. Thankfully, they have negotiated with Senator Butch Miller for the removal of the bill's language regarding two abreast bicycling. Instead, the amended bill contains this curious provision:

Persons riding bicycles and electric assisted bicycles shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and on a laned roadway shall ride within a single lane.


Depending on who you ask, this could mean a lot, or nothing. Some point to the fact that similar language is already on the books in Colorado and seven other states, and that the results have been inconsequential for cyclists. After all, they say, this simply places into the law what we cyclists normally practice using our own judgement and common sense.

As written, however, it is vague and does not explain what normal and reasonable means. Thus it raises two risks:

1. It will create confusion for all concerned parties and is impossible to enforce consistently. One can easily imagine the same confusion among law enforcement officers. Gosh, Officer, we didn't realize that the traffic behind us wasn't normal and reasonable.
2. In future cases of automobile-bicycle accidents, this could provide a means for motorists to avoid responsibility when they otherwise would be found to be at fault.

Senator Miller has no supporting accident data, case studies for similar legislation, or any other evidence to support his claim that SB 468 will "improve safety." Its true purpose is to satisfy motorists who do not believe in sharing the roads with cyclists. Georgia's Senators get plenty of phone calls from angry constituents about troublesome bikers on the road, so it is an easy avenue for the politicians to score points. 

Georgia Bikes!, while continuing to work "in good faith" with Senator Miller, states that they are not actively opposing the current amended version of SB 468. They are holding out hopes that they can extract further concessions from Sen. Miller.

Senator Miller and SB 468's co-sponsors want to demonstrate to motorists that they have acted to get bikers out of their way. Georgia Bikes! is finessing their way into a compromise which could leave us in a legal Twilight Zone.

This Bill now has plenty of momentum in the Legislature and stands a good chance of becoming law. Georgia Bikes! other option is to fight to kill this bill. Under the current political conditions at the State Capitol, they would probably lose.

Activists not associated with Georgia Bikes! has started an online petition opposing SB 468. I still don't know what the right course of action should be.

All I know is, Georgia's roads are littered with loose screws.

Georgia Bikers, Fall In Line!

Two steps forward, one step back. Progress in certain places often ratchets ahead, avoiding a path of continuous gain.

As for the state of bicycling in Georgia, it's more like one step forward, two steps back. Yesterday I responded to an urgent call from the Atlanta Bicycle Coalition for bicyclists to attend a meeting of the Senate Transportation Committee at the Georgia State Capitol.

They met to consider SB 468, a bill that would require bicyclists to ride single file in the presence of other traffic. Specifically, cyclists must ride single file if there are approaching vehicles within 300 feet of them.

The bill's primary sponsor is Butch Miller. He explained that the bill is a response to the many concerns about safety that he and other Senators have heard from their constituents.

With respect to the 3-foot passing law that the Georgia Legislature passed last Summer, Miller said, motorists now find themselves stuck behind packs of cyclists, sometimes prompting them to make unsafe maneuvers...even to cross the double yellow center line to pass the cyclists. By Miller's reasoning, a prior law designed to safeguard cyclists necessitates new restrictions on the same cyclists, because motorists, after all, have jobs to get to.

Seriously. He cited this matter as a threat to the economy.

None of SB 468's cosponsors are cyclists themselves, and all expressed amusement/befuddlement with spandex cycling attire. I wanted to ask whether any of them were hunters.

Interestingly, Butch Miller is also the Chairman of the Georgia Automobile Dealers Association. Steve Gooch of Dahlonega acknowledged the importance of cycling to the North Georgia economy (e.g., the Six Gap Century) but insisted that something be done about the safety issues presented by cyclists riding on their two-lane roads.

One of the Senators asked how it is that a bicyclist can discern whether an oncoming vehicle is within 300 feet. Miller suggested that the bicyclist use a mirror.

Miller insisted that he does not wish to rush this legislation and did want to hear from all parties concerned. He accepted a "friendly amendment" that limits the new single file riding rule only to two-lane roads.

The Committee heard from seven cyclists and cycling advocates. No one spoke in support of the bill.

Then Chairman Jeff Mullis asked for a motion, Butch Miller motioned to pass the bill, Democrat Doug Stoner seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous voice vote.

Now it is heading to the State Senate's Rules Committee.

As written, SB 468 will jeopardize:

• Group rides
• BRAG, the Wilson 100 and other organized events
• Racing team rides and double pace lines
• Parents riding alongside their children
• The ABC's BeltLine Bike Tour
  
• Tucker, Six Flags, Pizza, Airport rides? Fuggetahboutit!

We have yet to hear from state and local bicycle advocates about their strategy. Presumably, they are mounting a vigorous campaign to defeat SB 468?

As the late author William Gibson once wrote,

The future is already here -- it's just not evenly distributed. 

Here in Georgia, the forces of ignorance, fear and sloth are conspiring to keep Georgia on the tail of that distribution.

Walking the BeltLine in Someone Else's Shoes

Today, on the birthday of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., I reflect on his call for us all to stand in the other person's shoes, to see the world in their eyes, to feel their pain.

This reminds me of a nasty screed against the Atlanta BeltLine project (and other transit projects to be funded by the proposed Transportation Investment Act sales tax) predicated on the unsubstantiated grounds that the developers are oppressing black people with it. I recently entered into a short online exchange with a defender of the article but found no desire on his part to enter into a dialog with me,  even to temporarily dispense with the use of emotionally-charged hyperbole such as "Jim Crow" and "white supremacist."

I was to uncritically accept his, and the article's, viewpoint, else we had nothing else useful to say to each other. It frustrates and saddens me, to be unable to bridge our differences on this, a most important development for the City of Atlanta and for the region.

King's advice helps me to understand this. I have no doubts that the BeltLine should be built. Still, I am open to the possibility of inequities in the way that the project expenditures are being distributed, and to seek remedies for those inequities.

Many underprivileged people have depended on MARTA as their sole form of transportation and have a hard time accepting the long-term promises of the BeltLine and the expenditures it now requires.

They have suffered disproportionately from MARTA's recent fare increases and cuts in bus services. It's hard to explain how an expanded transit system serving a broader constituency of patrons benefits everyone, while they are currently struggling to find affordable transportation to their jobs, schools, and so on.

It may not be Jim Crow or the work of white supremacists, but it hurts nonetheless.


- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!