[SDCBC] Good article on bicycle scofflaws

[John Forester]

Well, Trevor is interested to read our comments; lots of scope for 
such in his posting.

Trevor has an interesting view of society as understood by sociology. 
He equates society only as the actions of individuals. I had written: 
"Attributing these instances to social ignorance, or to the desire 
that cycling be play, ignores the role of society in creating these 
attitudes." To which Trevor replied: "Society is not a thing as you 
have tried to describe it. Saying that a group has actions is just 
shortcut talk for declaring the predominant (the "norm") action of 
particular individuals of the group. When I assert that eating while 
driving is normal, I merely mean that it has become common to do so." 
Trevor's definition of society as only the actions of individuals 
would not get him a passing grade in Soc. 1. Sociology also studies 
the institutions and organizations which are also parts of society, 
and studies their formation, their actions, their interactions, their 
purposes, and several other aspects of these entities. Furthermore, 
Trevor doesn't know the various definitions of normal and normative; 
in addition to his definition of popular or common, there is the 
definition of what should be done. These two definitions are 
obviously in conflict.

To consider a subject close to our minds, consider the action of 
building bikeways. According to Trevor's view, bikeways are built 
only by considering the actions of individuals: the draftsman, the 
surveyor, the scraper operator, the operator of the asphalt mix 
plant, the spreader operator, the roller driver, and all the others. 
Bikeways are the norm because all these people participate in 
building them. The sociologist considers, instead, the parts of 
society whose interrelated actions result in the production of 
bikeways. I suggest that some of these parts of society are: the 
organizations of motorists, the bikeway advocates, the legislative 
bodies, the engineering societies, the contractors organizations, and 
many more.

I had written: "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." To which Trevor replied: "Yes, when 
people operate dangerous equipment it is in all of our best interests 
that we be encouraged to use them safely, in order to avoid killing 
each other. It is the proper role of government to protect each of 
our rights by regulating each of us in order to protect the others." 
By Trevor's logic, only motorists should be regulated because only 
motorists operate dangerous equipment, leaving all the other road 
users unregulated because they do not operate dangerous equipment. 
The trouble with Trevor's theory is quite obvious: the highway system 
can operate safely and efficiently only when all roadway users 
operate according to the same rules; it cannot operate safely and 
efficiently when one class of user must operate according to certain 
ruels while all other users can operate in any way they please. The 
system could be operated safely, though not efficiently, if only 
motorists had rules, but if that were the system, then the rule for 
motorists would be that they would have to operate in a way to avoid 
all collisions with all other possible random motions of other 
traffic. That is, motorists could operate only at a crawl.

I had written: "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." According to Trevor's 
theory, societies cannot do these things because societal action is 
no more than the sum of individual actions. As I pointed out above, 
this is not an acceptable sociological theory of social action. We 
know that our society has done these things, and we have some 
understanding of the parts of the society that have caused these 
things to occur.

With respect to the latter part of my sentence above, that society 
claims that cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers of 
vehicles,  Trevor agrees: "I asserted that while some cyclists may be 
capable of operating as drivers of vehicles, the majority of people 
who may ride a bicycle cannot be trusted to ride one according to the 
laws that govern motorists." Note Trevor's sneaky argument, presented 
in the hope that you won't notice its flaws. The statement concerned 
society's claim that cyclists are incapable of operating as drivers 
of vehicles. While acknowledging that some cyclists can operate as 
drivers of vehicles, Trevor then changes the verb from being capable 
to being trusted. All that Trevor is saying here, in actual fact, is 
that most Americans think that they can get away with operating 
bicycles in an unlawful manner. Well, yes, Trevor, that is what I 
have written above, in slightly different words. American society 
prefers that cyclists operate in an unlawful manner, because it 
fears, erroneously, that if cyclists operated lawfully motorists 
would be delayed.

Then Trevor wrote: "I asserted that most individuals who ride 
bicycles do not want to obey any rules when they ride bicycles. They 
want to play. Using the word society as you did, I would say that 
"society thinks bike riding is play"." That is a correct assertion. 
That societal belief is one justification that society has for 
discriminating against cyclists, because they are "only playing on 
the roadway" while motorists are "using the roadway." You have all 
read that before, haven't you? However, that belief, held both by 
society and by Trevor, is jeopardized by the recognition that if the 
roads are to be used safely and efficiently, all roadway users must 
operate by the same rules. In other words, any society which believes 
that riding a bicycle is only play must prohibit playing with 
bicycles on the roadway, because that is dangerous. Which is, of 
course, the argument made for kicking cyclists off the roadways.

Then Trevor fulfills his theory by suggesting that people who want to 
play with bicycles be provided with bicycle playgrounds. Well, just 
as some recreational authorities have provided special facilities for 
skateboarding. I have no objection to that, provided that the money 
and space come from recreational funds. I think, though, that such 
would be very dangerous. It is well known that bike paths, which are 
operated as bicycle playgrounds, have a very high accident rate. In 
San Diego, also, it is also appropriate to refer to the Great 805 
Disaster, which occurred when the just completed but not open to 
motor traffic freeway I-805 was opened for a day as a bicycle 
playground, and quickly closed because of the accidents. It is also 
reasonable to note that the most dangerous part of the Palo Alto to 
Marin County and return century ride is that portion that is through 
the Golden Gate Park which is closed to motor traffic and is 
therefore operating as a bicycle playground.

Then Trevor introduces the subject of certifying cyclist competence: 
"... so that cyclists who ride in the roadway can be assumed to be 
operating according to vehicular traffic principles. This may require 
that bicyclists who want to ride in the roadway give up something, 
such as their freedom to operate without a proper bicycle driving 
license, perhaps even one that must be affixed visibly to their 
bicycle such as are required for motor vehicles." Trevor here 
conflates vehicle licensing with driver licensing, which are entirely 
different things. The only issue here is licensing of cyclists as 
drivers of vehicles, not licensing of bicycles as vehicles. I do not 
disapprove of such a possibility, but it is not necessary. Almost any 
police officer who sees a cyclist disobeying the rules of the road 
for drivers of vehicles is capable of catching that cyclist; the 
officer patrolling on foot is almost unheard of today. Catch the 
cyclist and cite him for disobeying the law; there's nothing 
complicated in that. No license plate readable from a long distance 
is necessary to accomplish that. I point out that those European 
societies which assumed that cyclists had to obey the traffic laws 
never found the need for cyclist licensing. They prosecuted unlawful 
cyclists in just the same way that they prosecuted burglars. Trevor's 
suggestion is rather like licensing people for knowing that it is 
unlawful to burgle houses, so that, if caught burgling a house, they 
can be identified and prosecuted.

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