[SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws

[Neal Henderson]

Hello All,

 

Pedestrian Crosswalks .......
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/Traffic/XWalk.asp 

 

FOREWORD

 

The Arizona Department of Transportation's crosswalk policy is based on
research conducted over a seven-year period by the City of San Diego. The
San Diego approach to evaluating crosswalk needs, which resulted from that
research, has resulted in that city being consistently ranked as the safest
pedestrian city in the nation. The San Diego study showed traffic engineers
that nearly six pedestrian accidents were occurring in marked crosswalks for
every one mishap in unmarked crosswalks (those unpainted crosswalks that
exist by State law at all intersections). (emphasis added) When this ratio
was adjusted in terms of relative crosswalk usage, there was still an
impressive 2 to 1 difference in accidents. 

 

Cheers,

 

Neal

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org [mailto:sdcbc-bounces at bikesandiego.org]
On Behalf Of John Forester
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 18:30
To: Trevor Bourget; Sachi Wilson; Sdcbc
Subject: Re: [SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scorrlaws

 

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

 

 

_______________________________________________

 

You are subscribed to the SDCBC mailing list as nealhe at cox.net

To unsubscribe or change mailing options, go to
http://www.bikesandiego.org/mailman/listinfo/sdcbc

List privacy information is located at http://www.stickman-computing.org/aup

For help or to talk with someone other than the mail robot, send e-mail to
postmaster at stickman-computing.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20070105/7a6869af/attachment-0001.html