[SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws

[John Forester]

Well, two different points of view, both of which have considerable 
merit but neither of which dig sufficiently deep to understand what 
they have in common. My comments are below.

Sachi Wilson wrote: "I disagree that this is a conscious 
preference.  It's social ignorance.  Society has no clue, really, 
what it "prefers" for cyclists.  When you talk to people who do not 
cycle seriously, once you get past the "keep them on the sidewalks 
and trails" mentality, they DO begin to see that it is the 
incompetent and unlawful cyclists who cause the great majority of the 
problems that THEY perceive.  And then they start listening . . . So 
really, even "society" can have a preference for lawful and competent 
cycling behavior, _once they are educated_ in what that behavior can 
do for them.  That is the key and the problem -- trying to educate 
not just cyclists, but people who don't think they even care about cycling."


To whichTrevor Bourget replied: "I have to disagree. Watch people who 
ride bikes or walk, and you can see that they would not prefer to 
have to worry about what "rules" they should be following, and they 
would rather not follow the rules they are "supposed to" know about. 
People walk across streets wherever they want, ignoring crosswalks. 
They ride bikes in whichever direction they prefer, and on the 
sidewalk or in the roadway, as their whim dictates. People consider 
driving to be "work", and bike riding and walking to be "play".

"People who try to make "work" out of cycling, by suggesting it does 
or should have rules, are perceived as spoiling the fun. Many people 
who don't ride a bike very often have one, and they don't want to 
have their fun ruined when they take their bike to the park or on 
their next vacation.

"The interesting part is the "having their cake and eating it too" 
mentality, because it's the consequence of lawlessness that bicycle 
"club cyclists" play on the streets, ignoring stop signs and traffic 
lights. The choices of a lawful cyclist are unfortunately seen in the 
same light, so drivers don't know that these riders are choosing lane 
position by a different set of criteria than "because I want to"."

Sarah has offered the explanation of social ignorance, while Trevor 
has offered the explanation of cycling as play. Not so different, are 
these? Well, we'll see.

Before we proceed, I differ a bit with Trevor's criticism of 
pedestrians crossing the street anywhere, "ignoring 
crosswalks."  Pedestrians are allowed to cross streets at any point, 
except when crosswalks exist nearby. There are two different issues 
about ignoring the presence of crosswalks: safety and traffic 
control. The safety issue is very dubious; professional opinion has 
not clearly adopted the view that crossing in crosswalks presents 
less risk of accident, or the opposite view that using crosswalks is 
as dangerous, or more dangerous, than not using them. The issue of 
traffic control concerns the effect of pedestrians upon the flow of 
motor traffic. While there are places where pedestrian traffic 
controls motor traffic (parts of Manhattan Island, NY, for example), 
in most places I think that pedestrians are pretty careful not to put 
themselves in a position where their safety requires a significant 
change in the flow of motor traffic. I think that introducing 
pedestrians to this discussion does nothing to further the discussion 
of cyclist behavior.

Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire 
that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these 
attitudes. For example, while Sachi writes that people are ignorant 
about cycling, she also writes that they already have the "keep them 
on the sidewalks and trails mentality." That's not ignorance; that 
comes from somewhere. It is a standard principle of sociology that 
the preferences of people, and of societies, are shown far more 
accurately by their acts than by their words. It's what they do, not 
what they say, that is most important. Furthermore, it is a standard 
principle of psychology that people learn more intensely from acts 
than from words. Our society has spent very large efforts for eighty 
years or more to getting people to understand that motorists should 
operate as drivers of vehicles. Furthermore, our society has spent 
large sums building highways that are particularly suited for their 
users to operate as drivers of vehicles. I think that very few people 
would question these facts. During most of this time, from say 1940 
on, our society has pushed cyclists to the extreme side of the 
roadway, or even off the roadway, and has since 1975 built bikeways 
to physically enforce those principles, while all the time saying 
that these measures are necessary because cyclists are incapable of 
operating as drivers of vehicles. People are not entirely 
unintelligent and unobservant; they see that these measures are the 
social norm, and they learn to believe that these social norms are 
the way that things should be. That is how societies function, and 
have always functioned.

The fact that we competent and wish-to-be-lawful cyclists know far 
better than these superstitious social norms does not mean that we 
should not understand our predicament. Unless we do understand our 
predicament we will never be able to alleviate it.

John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St.
Lemon Grove, CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 www.johnforester.com