Fifth Columnist
Yesterday's poem was just for fun, but it's basically what I believe. I've become a fairly enthusiastic bicyclist after joining Citi Bike, New York City's bike-sharing provider. My friends joke that I will turn into a raging bike nut, one of these guys who rants about bike lanes etc.
Unlikely! If anything I've become more convinced that the police should crack down on cyclists breaking the law. The implicit rule in New York seems to be that rules about one-way streets (or one-way bike lanes), stop signs, and stop lights don't apply to cyclists. I've had a few near-collisions when cyclists break the rules (a few as a cyclist and many more as a pedestrian). On top of that, it greatly increases the amount of vigilance I require when biking or walking. It is utterly standard to see someone going the wrong way in a bike lane, zooming down toward me and forcing me to pull out into car traffic or to scurry between parked cars. I'm convinced that this is how I will be injured—I'll make some sudden move to avoid colliding with a bike, and a car will run over me.
Part of what gets me is the shamelessness of these violations. I've been known to do an Idaho stop (or kind of a "rolling stop" as we used to call it) at a stop sign when there's no one around, but if I then notice someone nearby I feel guilty about it. But a lot of cyclists behave as though the point of bicycling is that you get to weave through the traffic, run lights, force pedestrians to stop for you even though they have the light, etc. It makes me very angry.
Some of these violations would be less likely if the city had better bike lanes. But a lot of the behavior happens in places that actually have good bike lines—for instance, going up Berkeley I have had bikers zoom the wrong way past me several times. Why weren't they on Degraw one block to the north, where they would have been going the correct direction? Someone who won't go one block to obey the law isn't going to stop breaking the law when better bike lanes are provided.
There should be a kind of social contract about these things. Cyclists deserve to have well-designed bike lanes that are actually respected by drivers, delivery trucks, etc. But pedestrians deserve to have crosswalks and sidewalks that are actually respected by cyclists (and motorcyclists—a few weeks ago my friend was forced to dodge a motorcycle on a city sidewalk). And rule-abiding cyclists deserve to have bike lanes that are respected by other cyclists (and motorcyclists). And yes, cyclists probably deserve to have their bike lanes respected by pedestrians, though I'm aware of only one place where that's a problem, and the Brooklyn Bridge has severe space constraints that make conflict inevitable. Even there, I'm more sympathetic to the pedestrians who are constantly harassed by cyclists than I am to cyclists who are slightly inconvenienced by tourists doing what tourists are supposed to do (take pictures, enjoy the view, etc.).
I sometimes see defenses of ebikes, motorcycles using bike lanes, etc. along the lines of, "Where is the evidence that they hurt anyone?" In fact pedestrians have been killed by cyclists, but even if they hadn't, I don't think this really counts as evidence-based policy. Pedestrians and rule-abiding cyclists are greatly inconvenienced by rule-breaking bicycles, ebikes, and motorcycles, and even if our fears are exaggerated (I've swerved out into car traffic to avoid rule-breaking cyclists many times and I haven't been hit by a car yet), we shouldn't have to live in fear.
Unlikely! If anything I've become more convinced that the police should crack down on cyclists breaking the law. The implicit rule in New York seems to be that rules about one-way streets (or one-way bike lanes), stop signs, and stop lights don't apply to cyclists. I've had a few near-collisions when cyclists break the rules (a few as a cyclist and many more as a pedestrian). On top of that, it greatly increases the amount of vigilance I require when biking or walking. It is utterly standard to see someone going the wrong way in a bike lane, zooming down toward me and forcing me to pull out into car traffic or to scurry between parked cars. I'm convinced that this is how I will be injured—I'll make some sudden move to avoid colliding with a bike, and a car will run over me.
Part of what gets me is the shamelessness of these violations. I've been known to do an Idaho stop (or kind of a "rolling stop" as we used to call it) at a stop sign when there's no one around, but if I then notice someone nearby I feel guilty about it. But a lot of cyclists behave as though the point of bicycling is that you get to weave through the traffic, run lights, force pedestrians to stop for you even though they have the light, etc. It makes me very angry.
Some of these violations would be less likely if the city had better bike lanes. But a lot of the behavior happens in places that actually have good bike lines—for instance, going up Berkeley I have had bikers zoom the wrong way past me several times. Why weren't they on Degraw one block to the north, where they would have been going the correct direction? Someone who won't go one block to obey the law isn't going to stop breaking the law when better bike lanes are provided.
There should be a kind of social contract about these things. Cyclists deserve to have well-designed bike lanes that are actually respected by drivers, delivery trucks, etc. But pedestrians deserve to have crosswalks and sidewalks that are actually respected by cyclists (and motorcyclists—a few weeks ago my friend was forced to dodge a motorcycle on a city sidewalk). And rule-abiding cyclists deserve to have bike lanes that are respected by other cyclists (and motorcyclists). And yes, cyclists probably deserve to have their bike lanes respected by pedestrians, though I'm aware of only one place where that's a problem, and the Brooklyn Bridge has severe space constraints that make conflict inevitable. Even there, I'm more sympathetic to the pedestrians who are constantly harassed by cyclists than I am to cyclists who are slightly inconvenienced by tourists doing what tourists are supposed to do (take pictures, enjoy the view, etc.).
I sometimes see defenses of ebikes, motorcycles using bike lanes, etc. along the lines of, "Where is the evidence that they hurt anyone?" In fact pedestrians have been killed by cyclists, but even if they hadn't, I don't think this really counts as evidence-based policy. Pedestrians and rule-abiding cyclists are greatly inconvenienced by rule-breaking bicycles, ebikes, and motorcycles, and even if our fears are exaggerated (I've swerved out into car traffic to avoid rule-breaking cyclists many times and I haven't been hit by a car yet), we shouldn't have to live in fear.
posted by James | 11:38 AM
1 Comments:
I much agree with you. (mostly, there are a few occasions where following the law is as written puts me in danger of imminent death; the main one being I turn left on red rather than turning through a lane of oncoming traffic that would not stop for me). My solution to this problem is to do the following:
- when you see a bike going the wrong way, yell "one way you g#d d#$m fish!"
- when you see a bike run a red light yell "people like you are why we can't have bike lanes"
- when a bike almost hits you yell "$&#^ You!"
- when a bike is in a pedestrian space that they shouldn't be in, don't get out of their way. Stop where you are, square your dominant shoulder towards them, and brace your legs. The physics of bike / pedestrian collisions are such that if you are well braced them hitting you at high speed would be fatal or life altering for them but only painful for you (important note, do not apply this advice if you are a small child, elderly, or have reason to believe your bones are unusually frail). The biker won't hit you. They will back off, slow down, stop, or leave the pedestrian space. The way to deter bad behavior is to make people afraid of consequences.
Post a Comment
<< Home