http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-18-what-does-it-mean-to-ride-a-bicycle-responsibly
What does it mean to ride a bicycle responsibly?
by Elly Blue
18 Jan 2011 7:43 AM
Illustration Omitted:
Not responsible for
bicyclesPhoto: Mike GiffordIs
it a good idea to ride a bicycle responsibly?
I doubt there are many out there who would say it isn't.
But there is no consensus about what exactly constitutes responsible
riding.
The topic has generated intense debate since the bicycle was invented.
There has never been a unified code of behavior for bicycling, and
existing laws, infrastructure, and expectations range from
contradictory to absent to downright hazardous. So people who ride --
as well as ones who don't -- are left to hash out their own street
code.
The conversation's most recent locus is on Greater Greater Washington,
a well-respected D.C.-area transportation blog. David Alpert wrote a
post about a "social contract" for bicycling, covering
situations from stop signs to sidewalks. The resulting discussion is
good-natured and inconclusive -- and extremely long, as commenters
hash out a slew of preferences, exceptions, and variations.
Alpert's piece came in the wake of a campaign launched by major D.C.
bike advocacy group, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. WABA
asked its members and the public to sign onto a "Resolution to
Ride Responsibly" that begins: "I resolve to be a more
responsible bicyclist. I resolve to better respect the rights of other
road users. I resolve to make a good faith effort to better follow the
law. "
This pledge has generated less debate about riding strategies than
grumbling about WABA's advocacy tactics and underlying
assumptions.
WABA addressed the clamor in a blog post by the organization's
director, Shane Farthing. "Bottom line: The scofflaw perception
is getting in the way of needed changes, and we need some mechanism to
combat it. This pledge is meant to do that in order to set the
stage for the next round of advocacy."
Farthing's frustrations are clearest in the conclusion: "If you
disagree with riding responsibly ... don't sign the pledge."
The "scofflaw perception" is indeed pervasive. But is it
real?
Prejudices abound about people who ride bikes. The classic ones --
that people who ride are both entitled elites and impoverished losers
-- are brilliantly contradictory. Then there is the myth of the
freeloading bike riders, which we debunked here. The idea that people
obey the law less on bikes than in cars is another baffling falsehood
that has over time hardened into conventional wisdom.
But you may be thinking right now -- Hey, I see them break the law and
ride unpredictably all the time!
Well, yes. But in greater rates than people driving cars? Or
walking?
Maybe not. In the absence of numbers, consider the perspective of
Randy Blazak, a sociologist who specializes in hate crimes and sees
distressing parallels between his work and his daily bike commute.
We all practice "selective perception," he said in an
interview about reactions to a proposed new stop sign law in Oregon.
Apparently we are hyperaware of anything that reinforces stereotypes
we hold dear. Yet when there's contradictory data, we don't look as
closely.
Biases also tend to color our perceptions of what is and isn't
dangerous. Seeing someone on a bicycle in traffic can seem alarming no
matter how legally or safely that person is riding, especially if you
can't imagine yourself doing such a thing. But the devil you know is
always more appealing -- and the hundred or so car-related deaths and
many, many more injuries that happen in our country every day have
come to seem so inevitable and mundane that most of us don't think
twice about climbing into a car and setting off towards the
freeway.
The more people on bikes, the safer bicycling becomes. Yet even as the
mode's popularity grows, there's a measurable increase lately in the
toxicity of rhetoric about it, which is unfortunately reaching beyond
the media and into politics.
It's understandable, in a way. In order to get from point A to point B
efficiently and safely on a bicycle, you can't always do exactly what
you would in a car.
There aren't always good options, though. Or even safe options. Red
lights don't always turn green unless a car is present. Narrow bike
lanes force you into a minefield of opening car doors. Fields of
broken glass and unexpected potholes prevent you from holding a
straight line.
But if you've never ridden a bike in the city, you may not even
realize these problems exist, or that the person who is riding right
in front of you rather than in the available bike lane probably isn't
doing it to annoy you.
Without empathy, there can be no understanding. Which is why one of
the most effective tools in the bike advocacy workshop is to bring
your most vehement critics on a ride. Even in the absence of vitriol,
the experience of riding a bike, often initially for fitness, has
turned many a politician into a proponent of bicycle
transportation.
This is why WABA's pledge occupies shaky ground.
A pledge to ride "more responsibly" not only presupposes
existing, widespread irresponsibility, it assumes that we can change
public opinion that is based on misconceptions and remove dangers that
are built into the roadway simply by changing the way we ride to
conform to a legal code -- one that's riddled with contradictions and
grey areas and wasn't written with us in mind in the first place.
More education is needed. As WABA points out, nobody is perfect. And
there are certainly some styles of road use out there that aren't as
safe or polite as one might wish.
But education goes both ways. No matter how predictably and well we
ride, it won't change the perception of anyone who doesn't know what
they are looking at.
The challenge for WABA and all other bicycle advocates in the year to
come is to educate road users -- all road users -- in the way of the
bicycle and what exactly it means to ride, drive, and design a road
responsibly.
Elly Blue is a writer and bicycle activist living in Portland,
Oregon.
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, this material is distributed, without profit, for
research and educational purposes only. ***