BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
163

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

2012-09-30 22:59:00

By the same logic, we should say no to mandatory seatbelt laws because they promote the image that cars are dangerous.


The article says that biking without helmets is a common denominator for bike friendly cities. Is that correlation or causation? My guess is correlation.


I've been fortunate to have never been in a bicycle accident, but I always wear a helmet and would feel naked without one. It is lightweight, little hassle and has a great potential to save my life someday. I say that is a big win.


2012-09-30 23:43:35

I agree with you about helmets--I always wear one.


I did think the article made an interesting point about the risks of not exercising/car culture/etc. vs. the risks of not wearing a helmet.


It's based on the assumption that helmet-wearing discourages people from riding...whether that's true I don't know.


2012-10-01 00:07:40

Well. Most interesting.


I mostly agree with the article. Though horrible things can happen, like Wouter Weylandt's accident last year during the Giro d'Italia. That was pretty unusual. And I speak as someone who had to deal with 2 nasty OTBs in the past year.


That stuff happens with biker bikes. Public bikes are a completely different story. For starters they are not built for speed, and speed is what kills (Weylandt was going +40mph when he crashed). Public bikes are heavy and under-geared. It's hard to screw up. Well, unless you've lumbered up a significant hill and then insist on freewheeling down the steepest, windiest, street available: Meaning that you are an idiot, and thus don't count. ...Or if you insist on ignoring motorized traffic.


More to the point, insisting on helmets for public bikes is complicated and counter-productive. Other than having every rack have an attendant (like say in Firenze), I don't see how you can enforce it. Why not just assume that that lugubrious action is enough to minimize dangerous behaviour? (Yes, I've seen public bikers salmoning.)


Helmets are not a strict necessity for the casual biker. Let's not make it an extra barrier to participation.


ahlir
2012-10-01 00:56:55

> The European Cyclists’ Federation says that bicyclists in its domain have the same risk of serious injury as pedestrians per mile traveled


Which means that commuting cyclists have much a higher level of risk than pedestrians.


I wasn't under the impression that we had helmet laws, other than those concerning minors...


2012-10-01 04:20:17

@resurrectionfern Which means that commuting cyclists have much a higher level of risk than pedestrians


Why would you say that?


Do you have some idea of there NOT being pedestrian commuters in Europe? In the US, that is, sadly, close to true, but think other countries may be different.


mick
2012-10-01 15:17:25

I thought it was pretty widely accepted that any required use of helmets - whether actual or inferred - resulted in a reduction of ridership.


I certainly know people who have said to me that their own self-imposed requirement that they use a helmet when riding has occasionally made them NOT ride when they otherwise might.


I think there is an element that says "bike riding is something I do for fun" If I have to use specialized equipment, including a helmet, it loses some of the sponteneity, and some of the fun."


swalfoort
2012-10-01 15:32:04

I think the helmet thing is a red herring. You never hear people say they would take up running if only they didn’t have to buy special shoes. It’s just a convenient excuse, especially since helmets are not mandatory for adults in PA.


marko82
2012-10-01 15:37:03

Yes, interesting.

I disagree with the article that it is the perceived danger that prevents/reduces ridership. I think it is the reduced (though realistically marginally) ease and spontaneity. If there were a bike-share, and I felt like I had to have a helmet and didn't, obviously I would just bag it and walk. People will do what is easiest.

I have no idea how Australia ended up with an adult helmet law. Weird.


edmonds59
2012-10-01 15:48:23

"I think the helmet thing is a red herring." I don't have the statistics in front of me but I'm sure you can find them wherein I recell trends reported from Europe where ridership declined when municipalities instituted helmet laws. I bet you can the actual statistics at copenhagenize.com.


kordite
2012-10-01 15:51:21

I believe some people don't ride bikes because they think helmets mess up their hair, especially women. I remember some helmet-war claim that ridership among teenage girls falls when laws requiring young people to wear helmets are passed. This seems credible to me.

While I always wear a helmet and think people are foolish for not wearing them my preference is to not have the law, because there would be more benefit of improved health from more people riding, versus the small number that would get brain damage or die from an accident while not wearing a helmet.


jonawebb
2012-10-01 16:15:42

This July a helmet on my head was the difference between a dislocated knee and me remembering what my name is and were I'm from. Cycling is dangerous. People do need helmets. Government shouldn't say otherwise. Laws like that will save the people who do bike, even if less people bike as a result of the law.


2012-10-01 17:47:26

But fewer people biking=more danger for the people who do bike, right? So the question becomes, does the additional safety imparted by mandatory helmet laws outweigh the decrease in safety due to fewer people cycling?


2012-10-01 18:00:28

But fewer people biking=more danger for the people who do bike, right? So the question becomes, does the additional safety imparted by mandatory helmet laws outweigh the decrease in safety due to fewer people cycling?


Given that cycling helmets are not intended to prevent injuries due to motor vehicle impacts, and the "fewer cyclists == more danger" is due to a greater number of motor vehicle impacts, I'd find it hard to believe that the case involving proportionally greater numbers of people getting hit by cars is much safer.


As a side note, if you seriously wish to protect your head in a collision with a car, please look for a helmet rated to do so. Snell or ANSI bicycle helmet standards are based on low-speed, low-impact events like slipping and hitting your head on a curb (equivalent of a 10-mph collision, IIRC)...if you want something that will keep your skull intact in a real collision, you'll likely need to look at motorcycle helmets, or perhaps something from the downhill world?


reddan
2012-10-01 18:13:20

Please please no helmet wars.

Bicycle helmets are indeed not intended to protect against collision with a car at high speed. They are intended to protect against the much more common low speed impact. And more cyclists = more motorist awareness of cycling = fewer accidents of both kinds.

So the ideal case is lots of cyclists all wearing helmets. But as a second choice I'm willing to go with lots of cyclists some not wearing helmets, with experienced cyclists pointing out, politely, that they are a good idea.


jonawebb
2012-10-01 18:23:17

From a point of pure self-interest (a momentary descent into Objectivism, like Heracles into the underworld), the safest possible scenario for me is the most possible people on bikes, helmets or no, no matter, and me with a helmet. And that's kind of how I roll.


edmonds59
2012-10-01 18:57:48

However, the point that leads from the title of the thread is not the inherent merits of helmets towards protecting the brain (if it were, we would also be advocating for helmets for pedestrians and drivers) but the effect that mandating helmets has on mode share.


Numbers from Copenhangen show a direct correlation between the numbers of cyclists and the safety of those cyclists. Cause and effect is not simple but it would seem that more cyclists means more drivers recognizing that there are more cyclists and behaving appropriately. More cyclists mean more drivers who are also cyclists behaving appropriately. More cyclists mean more bicycle infrastructure for cyclists. More cyclists mean more casual cyclists moving at a slower speed. All these factors make for safer cycling.


So, into this environment, I recall reading of several movements by auto industries and other concern trolls mostly in neighboring Denmark, to promote helmet wearing. Where their influence has grown and helmet use has increased, ridership has gone down.


Denmark has already discovered what the NYT article mentions above, more helmets mean fewer cyclists. Note that in saying this I make no mention of why people wear helmets or why people choose not to ride anymore. In some ways it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why people choose to wear or not wear helmets, the statistics show that if you push helmet use, fewer people ride.


Conversely, if you want to promote cycling, drop the mandate that people wear helmets. More cyclists mean safer cyclists.


kordite
2012-10-01 19:08:54

The very concept that a person known as a "concern troll" exists and is a force to be reckoned with, changes the game here. It is not simply a matter of are-helmets-a-good-idea or should-helmets-be-required. It is necessary to factor in the skew caused by the presence of concern trolls.


That said, I usually do wear a helmet, but I will not on occasion, either because I simply forgot to take one and won't go back for it, or I'll just assume the risk.


stuinmccandless
2012-10-01 19:57:58

Just some philosophical questions here:


Given that the media in the US (and possibly the non-cycling public) is so fixated on helmet usage when reporting accidents, would the cycling community be at greater risk from more frequent reporting of helmetless cyclists in accidents?


Should helmet wearing and non helmet cyclists pay the same health/life insurance premiums, given that the actions of others do affect your insurance?


Should we protect children under a certain age by enforcing helmet usage, under the pretense that they are unable to make logical decisions for themselves? (This is the law here I believe, as was in my home state Florida)


Do helmets increase danger by providing a false sense of security? (People have asked me this, but I'd disagree. I do feel more secure wearing a helmet, but I'm pretty certain it is not false security)


Why does mandatory helmet usage decrease interest in cycling, but mandatory seatbelt laws have no effect on the number of people driving?


And not so philosophical:


What can we do to make helmet wearing a fashionable or cool thing to do? (When I was a kid, especially, I hated wearing a helmet because it seemed super dorky, never fit right and just didn't look cool)


Is there any correlation between helmet usage and abiding by the laws of the road? If so, what does this say?


2012-10-01 20:11:13

I don't know how this fits into the calculation, but something to consider - I know a crap-ton of people who still don't wear seat belts, law or not. And many people reported dead in car accidents on the news are reported as not wearing seat belts. I can't put my finger on it exactly but there seems to be some kind of vague implication that having a law has created some kind of uniform usage that we can compare helmets to in some way. Far from it. When someone is in a car there is almost no way to verify usage, bike helmets - way obvious.


edmonds59
2012-10-01 20:39:10

@brybot Is there any correlation between helmet usage and abiding by the laws of the road? If so, what does this say?


I don't have the exact reference,b ut there was a british paper on this. The question they were trying to answer was "Why don't helmets save lives," since there were a spate of papers that said they didn't.


One hypothesis was that helmet wearing riders felt OK to take risks because they had "protection." The paper found that there was not an increase in risk-taking behavior by helmet wearers - quite the opposite.


They found, as you hypotheisize that helmet wearers tend to ride more conservatively. This is a confounder in other papers about the protection afforded by helmets.


If helmet riders are less likely to take risks, they are less likely to have serious injury, but you would likely find the same effect in riders that wear neck ties.


mick
2012-10-01 20:53:24

I think it gets to the basics of identity. Folks just can't make the leap in their mind.


Wherein, most folks don't think of themselves as spandex-clad Cat 6 jail trail racers, but would pedal down to a local pub on a scraper bike with no helmet, no lights, in an old t-shirt and jeans...


sloaps
2012-10-01 21:02:34

@mick, I will sell all of my bikes the instant I have to wear a tie to ride one (tweed rides not withstanding).


marko82
2012-10-01 21:11:34

Last century, I wore a tie to work, so I woujld often be on my bike wearing a tie. It was a little difficult wearing a useless thing simply because it was expected of me.


mick
2012-10-01 21:20:53

We all know that wearing a helmet is a good idea, and that biking is healthy. The real question is do we want one more law regulating what we should or shouldn't do? The result will just be more government bureaucracy and less liberty.


2012-10-01 21:32:22

Used to be, wearing a seat belt was a real pain. Both my 1972 Opel and 1971 Pontiac T-37 had TWO seat belts, one for the belt, one for across the body, each with a big honking buckle about the size of a wallet, weighing about 4 to 6 ounces. Reach down with left hand, get left piece of lap belt (the male end). Reach down with right hand, get buckle end. Attach. Reach across with right hand, or back with left hand, find hanging buckle (I think that was the female end). Reach down with right hand, find male end of shoulder belt. Attach. None of these were on retractable rollers, and half the time, one of them would be hanging out the door, chipping the paint off a body panel.


That was seat belts in GM cars in the early 1970s. Is it any wonder we trained people to NOT use them? Get anyone over about 50 talking who doesn't use seat belts, they probably are remembering their '72 Olds or whatever.


stuinmccandless
2012-10-01 21:43:04

Regardless of whether fragile little bike helmets provide protection for hard human skulls or not this much is true: riding a bike without a helmet adds to life expectency by virtue of exercise. This addition far exceeds the risk of helmetless riding. One might suppose (correctly or not) that wearing a helmet would provide additional benefits - but riding without a helmet is healthier than not riding.


mick
2012-10-01 23:09:15

I would want my head to be in a helmet if it smacks into a windshield or bounces off of the road at any speed. I think once I didn't wear a helmet no the rite aid 5 blocks down the street and I didn't like it.


I personally wear it on trails and always because I don't trust other cyclists, animals, or myself to not cause a wreck. I also work in the medical field and don't want to be the dumbass who should have known better but ended up with a preventable brain injury. I don't see a problem with a law meant to protect people. I understand that the helmets aren't supposed to be effective for high speed crashes, but there are many crashes at lower speeds. I just shake my head at people putting themselves into dangerous situations without proper gear anyway. Most of it are motorcyclists without helmets weaving down the highway at high speeds, but I do also shake my head at the dangerous cyclist wearing no helmet salmoning without lights at night. You never know who is going to be drunk or a dangerous driver, and you may be doing everything safely and BAM! Someone plows into you at 10mph from behind at a light or stop sign and you strike your head. Just my thoughts.


stefb
2012-10-01 23:31:16

I wear a helmet but I certainly wouldn't make a law to make it mandatory.


When I was in Holland almost literally no one wore them in the cities (I did), I mean like <1%. Although, the recreational riders out of town on fancy road bikes generally did wear them, often with a full kit. Not sure how to interpret that.


People riding motor scooters generally didn't wear helmets either - it was higher than bicyclists but still maybe 10%. And I think there's a much greater chance a motorcycle helmet will actually give you some protection in a crash than a bicycle helmet.


salty
2012-10-01 23:52:04

Regarding downhill mtb vs moto helmets; this is a debate that has been raging for a couple years in downhill and the latest research tends to show that while moto helmets offer better protection from penetration and the type of forces you see in a 50+ mph crash, the more flexible and more crushable mtb specific helmets offer much better protection for your brain in crashes at lower speeds (dh crashes tend to be between 20 and 40 mph). Basically they have made the moto helmets too hard in the quest to protect from penetration of debris and your poor squishy brain and skull don't get the slowed deceleration in moo helmets that they get in bike helmets. In fact in motocross there is a not insignificant number of companies purposely producing softer helmets and on the mtb side there are companies trying all sorts of inovative approaches to decouple the interior of the helmet from the hard shell exterior in the event of a crash.


cburch
2012-10-02 03:11:50

Aren't the downhill helmets significantly lighter too? I remember torquing the hell out of my neck when I was younger riding MX. Not sure if I would ride a dirt bike without the neck restraints now nor would I ride a street bike without a super light helmet.


orionz06
2012-10-02 03:50:47

Interesting... I'm sure they're both way more effective than normal bicycle helmets (I'm assuming most/all DH helmets are full face?).


I do think it's a bit silly that I ride my scooter with a full face helmet and gloves but I take no such precautions on my bicycle. Unless I go riding on the highway (which is pretty rare), the speeds are similar. Of course the average speed on the scooter will be closer to the max, but as a percentage of distance traveled it's not a huge disparity. I mean, i bet over half of my work commute is spent at 20-30mph on the bicycle.


Anyways, it's probably better not to overthink it too much...


salty
2012-10-02 04:01:18

@Mick -- I didn't mean to imply that there are no pedestrian commuters in Europe, I was just pointing out that the statistic they supplied maybe isn't the best one. The article said that pedestrians and cyclists have the same level of risk **per miles travelled**


The assumption is that cyclists travel farther than pedestrians, on average, in their daily commute. If that's not true, then fine, but if it is, then their statement doesn't clearly communicate the level of risk for those involved. Sorry for being pedantic :)


2012-10-02 04:40:17

@orionz high end dh helmets weigh just a touch over 2lbs. Mine is 968g to be specific.


cburch
2012-10-02 05:28:02

I don't bother with a helmet. To be quite honest I feel it is rather silly for someone with my expertise. Goodness, our country sure lives for the fear crap. It would be VERY rare a helmet would do any good. Sure for the young cyclists or the uncoordinated, they should wear one, but for most it is really a bit over the top. Your hands would protect you for the most part in a fall and most don't fall. Last time I fell was when I had a bit low tire pressure on my back wheel and when over some tracks on less than a good angle at night. I bit it and my head wasn't even close to hitting the ground. My hands and arms took over.


Article is great. In the more developed cycling areas like Finland, Denmark and others most don't wear a helmet. They just ride and enjoy without all the fear and marketing of, "OMG you need a helmet!!!!" Whatever.


2012-10-02 05:32:52

Great article and really good comments here everyone.

Whern I ride, I wear a $12 helmet from Target. I suppose it would save me some road rash if I fall. Hardly worth mandating that adults wear these.

I just returned from a trip to a central PA bed and breakfast. The owners are cyclists and operate a ride share on the front porch. You get a comfort bike, a u-lock, and a helmet. I thought it was pretty cool.

The helmet is just one more barrier to jumping on and riding for the average Joe. I will always have mine on, but I see plenty without them.


2012-10-02 12:05:08

I don't bother with a helmet. To be quite honest I feel it is rather silly for someone with my expertise...

Your hands would protect you for the most part in a fall...



Pros don't release. Expertise my ass.




rice-rocket
2012-10-02 12:15:40

I am also strongly against mandating them. Where does that stop? Illegal to ride without knee pads and elbow pads? Purely a wild ass guess but I am willing to bet that there are more things helmets won't protect from than they will.


That said I value my noggin and wear a helmet that I spent too much money on in order to obtain the fit, ventilation, and style I wanted such that I would wear it all the time.


orionz06
2012-10-02 12:15:56

When my kid went endo on the jail trail his helmet was practically melted. He looked at it and said "wow, if I wasn't wearing a helmet I'd probably be dead." As his mom I can't even begin to picture what would have happened otherwise. My husband has always said "you don't need a helmet on trails." False.


My step mom falls into the "don't want to mess up my hair" camp. I tried to tell her that she would look awfully silly scalped.


In Amsterdam no one wears a helmet. No one travels very fast, and there are protected bike lanes and an entire bike infrastructure. Nonetheless, I wished I had a helmet.


sarah_q
2012-10-02 12:20:14

I don't understand why people who think helmets are useless wear them. What is the logic behind that? Did I misread?


stefb
2012-10-02 13:31:31

PS- always tuck and roll don't catch your fall with your arms.


stefb
2012-10-02 13:32:14

Helmets could keep you safe if you don't think so I don't care. I do not think people should have to wear them though. If you don't want to wear one it doesn't and won't hurt me so don't wear one. I think the same should apply to seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Thin the herd.


tetris_draftsman
2012-10-02 13:47:21

More anecdotal European evidence... I was just in Southern France for 2.5 weeks and I would say 5-10% of riders wore helmets and virtually all scooter riders (maybe there is a law?). There were more than a handful of bicycle riders wearing big yellow construction vests, as well. There was some separated bicycle infrastructure but nothing like Amsterdam or Copenhagen, bicycles were accepted on the roadways and filtering by them, scooters and motorcycles is assumed.


dmtroyer
2012-10-02 13:50:27

I was reading some of the anti-helmet stuff on the web and it really made my head hurt. Helmets don't protect against head injuries, etc. It's really insane, like the vaccines-cause-autism sites, or the ones about Morgellon's disease.

It's pretty easy to test whether helmet protect against head injury in a bike accident. Simply have a friend hit you on the head with a baseball bat while you're wearing a helmet. Now, take off the helmet and repeat. See the difference?


jonawebb
2012-10-02 14:02:32

Anti cycling helmets or anti motorcycle helmets? There is a big difference between the two and still a huge variance in what a chosen helmet will offer.


You can choose a motorcycle helmet that is legal in a helmet required state that is all but useless, last time I checked. Likewise with bicycles. Very easy to choose a helmet that might be useless for the application despite the best efforts to be safer.


orionz06
2012-10-02 14:06:17

I don't think bicycle helmets are useless - I fell and hit my head last winter and I was glad I had the helmet on. But, it's nowhere near the protection of a motorcycle helmet, and I know it's only going to help in limited circumstances.


salty
2012-10-02 15:40:53

Yeah, jonawebb, it's not a perfect analogy, but I definitely see the comparison to the vaccines-cause-autism stuff.


My mom (who has an MD and has worked in trauma units) cried (with relief/gratitude, I guess) when she saw my banged-up helmet after my wreck in February because it so clearly did its job when a car caused my head to hit the pavement at something in the 15-20 mph ballpark. I would have been so screwed without it. Maybe not dead, but certainly not neurologically unscathed.


Do whatever you want, and definitely don't think that a bike helmet makes you invincible or that it is anything like the protection of a motorcycle helmet or similar. If nothing else, though, if your head gets knocked into the pavement, it's going to hurt less if it's covered than if it isn't. And your brain won't object to a little extra cushioning.


2012-10-02 16:07:04

From the google:


About 75% of all bicyclists who die each year die of head injuries

85% of head injuries in bicycle accidents can be prevented by wearing a helmet


http://www.headinjuryctr-stl.org/statistics.html


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-02 16:08:54

Statistics that are missing from that website is how many accidents there are that do not have head injuries and are likely unreported. "75% of those who die, do so from head injuries" is a scary sounding number. But how many of those involved in an accident do not die? Without that number it is impossible to assess actual risk.


And, again, the take away from the article is that with more cyclists, the total number of accidents goes down. 75% of a diminishing number is also a diminishing number. And the European numbers show that the overall risk goes down at a higher rate than the the risk of being helmetless might push the risk up.


In an an individual incident where a person crashes and hits their head, it will ALWAYS be safer to have a helmet on than not. But, with more cycling there is safer cycling and, overall, less risk of having any sort of accident in the first place.


kordite
2012-10-02 18:04:06

Two thing for the bottom line:


1) If it is unsafe to do something without a bicycle helmet, then it is also unsafe to do with a bicycle helmet.


2) The exercise a person gets from riding without a helmet extends their life expectancy more than the risk of not having helmet reduces it. That is, riding without a helmet is a healthy activity.


mick
2012-10-02 18:17:51

Rice says: "Pros don't release. Expertise my ass." Um, I am not riding in a pack with other cyclists inches from me riding over 30mph. Not a good comparison.


2012-10-02 19:12:27

When I crashed and broke my collarbone, I released just fine. That was why I broke my collarbone. I missed a turn and hit a curb. But I also woke up in the emergency room, and my helmet had a crack over the right temple. So maybe my technique wasn't quite right. It still turned out to be a good thing I was wearing a helmet, though.


jonawebb
2012-10-02 19:41:47

> PS- always tuck and roll don't catch your fall with your arms.


brilliant advice, stef


melange396
2012-10-02 19:55:02

I think whether or not someone wants to wear a helmet while biking is their choice. I choose to wear a helmet when biking in traffic because yes, it is dangerous, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. I can't tell you how many of my friends who have been in bike accidents have told me a helmet was the difference between life and death.


But I think the part of this article that resonated with me most was the comment about how in America there is a social stigma that comes along with not wearing a helmet. On one rare occasion I decided not to wear a helmet while out on a leisurely bike ride through the park (not in traffic) and had a man shout "Wear a helmet!" at me. Honestly, I was pretty annoyed. As if it didn't cross my mind. If what I'm doing isn't jeopardizing anyone else's safety, then it's none of his business how I decide to ride.


I just wish people would lose the judgement sometimes. I think fear of being judged or labeled is what keeps people from taking up biking.


2012-10-05 14:20:21

> I think fear of being judged or labeled is what keeps people from taking up biking.


So, so true, and not just for biking.


epanastrophe
2012-10-05 14:46:07

and that is why i don't go around telling people "you're doing it wrong."


hiddenvariable
2012-10-05 15:25:14

HV - ++++that.


edmonds59
2012-10-05 16:12:22

"and that is why i don't go around telling people "you're doing it wrong""


I do not question other riders on helmet use, but I am curious obout the idea of cyclists encouraging other cyclists to behave themselves in public. this has been touched upon in a few threads and maybe needs it's own space.


helen-s
2012-10-05 18:31:06

"I am curious obout the idea of cyclists encouraging other cyclists to behave themselves in public"


I agree this is definitely a discussion all it's own. Helmet use is not required by law in PA, and I don't think it should be, but what about something like going through red lights? As far as I know, there's no law about running red lights on a bike (someone correct me if I'm wrong), but if it was, would that make it kosher to call another cyclist out on it?


I feel like there's very little established etiquette on how to behave on the roads, so it's hard to know when it's appropriate to say something to someone. I think the lack of enforceable rules also confuses motorists, and is probably the root of most bike/car conflicts. Sometimes cars get really confused when I stop at stop signs, I think because they expect me to run through it. It's like they don't know what to do.


I think that 4 foot passing law that just went into effect is the perfect example of a concrete guide for both bikes and cars on how to behave around each other. Granted, you'd think giving bikes passing room would be common sense, but maybe it's the first step towards developing a real set of road rules.


Sorry I'm a little off topic... Maybe I'll start a new thread...


2012-10-05 19:19:57

follow the same rules as you would in a car. the law isnt any different for bikes, other than allowing you to filter through a traffic jam or treat a light on a sensor you and your bike cant trip as though it was malfunctioning.


cburch
2012-10-05 19:30:40

To ammend my earlier enthusiastic support of not telling people they're doing it wrong, if I saw a cyclist blowing thru a crosswalk of school kids I would probably catch them and pump-lock their front wheel. Kind of a non-verbal adjustment.


edmonds59
2012-10-05 20:18:57

And even the rules cburch mentions aren't really bike-specific. A car can proceed through a malfunctioning red light too (though sensors that ignore bikes are more common than completely broken sensors that ignore everything).


There aren't very many bike-specific laws in PA. Here's a summary of them. Otherwise, we're supposed to behave the same as cars or other traffic.


I agree that a big part of the problem is that many drivers and many cyclists simply have no idea what the law says, and just try to behave the way they see others do (or not much worse).


steven
2012-10-05 20:23:47

…but I am curious obout the idea of cyclists encouraging other cyclists to behave themselves in public.


mostly what i mean is people out there walking around, riding bikes, doing whatever, they're not my children or my students or my employees. i don't have any power over them. so to tell them they're doing something i consider foolish comes across as self-important and judgmental. i try to avoid being those things.


if it rises to the point where it affects me, i might tell someone they're being a jagoff. or i might just call them a jagoff. but i don't leave the situation thinking i did something constructive.


if someone is doing something truly dangerous to themselves and others, and it appears to be out of ignorance, and i have the opportunity to engage them as a person, i might suggest they try something different. but i'm not going to yell at them as we pass.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-05 20:25:49

I feel like there's very little established etiquette on how to behave on the roads, so it's hard to know when it's appropriate to say something to someone. I think the lack of enforceable rules also confuses motorists, and is probably the root of most bike/car conflicts. Sometimes cars get really confused when I stop at stop signs, I think because they expect me to run through it. It's like they don't know what to do.


i wanted to disagree with this, but i think you've got it mostly right. however, the confusion comes, i think, not from people not knowing the laws as they pertain to bikes, or bikers being inherently unpredictable, but from bikes being new and different. and this is also, i believe, the main reason why the more bikes there are, the safer biking becomes. people go from "what the hell is that doing there?" to treating you as though you're just normal traffic.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-05 20:30:21

My feeling is that if laws don't make sense, and aren't enforced, I can understand people not following them. I'm thinking of the law that requires a full, foot-down stop at stop signs, and the law that requires cyclists to wait until a red light changes before they proceed. I feel perfectly comfortable disobeying these laws, and certainly don't blame others for doing so.

If the laws were more reasonable, as they are in Idaho, I'd follow them and expect others to.

Living in a civil society does not require full compliance with every law, especially when those laws are unjust, out of date, or simply not suited to the world as it is.


jonawebb
2012-10-05 20:30:43

"I am curious obout the idea of cyclists encouraging other cyclists to behave themselves in public"


I believe cyclists who flaunt the law give motorists the idea that ALL cyclists flaunt the law. However, I don't think it is my place to chastise them. I DO think it is my place to provide a (hopefully) good example.


My world view: all I can do in this world is try and do the right things, be a good example to others, and hope. If it makes an impression on someone else, then that's a bonus.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-06 19:12:34

OK, flout not flaunt, but my general reaction to this is similar to some oppressed minority group telling each other we'd better behave because white people judge us all by the misbehavior of a few. Well, that might be true, but that is not a winning response in this country. We should instead stand up for our rights and demand to be treated as part of the majority, like other oppressed minority groups have successfully done.


jonawebb
2012-10-08 16:23:59

Really? "...oppressed minority groups...?"


We ride bicycles. We are not institutionally repressed, tortured or targeted. Yes there are collisions between motor vehicles and people on bicycles, but those are not conducted as a matter of political or ideological expression.


We need to get over ourselves. It's just riding a bike.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-08 16:37:23

Hundreds of cyclists die every year, due to the indifference of drivers, traffic engineers, and the public in general. Sounds kind of oppressed to me.


jonawebb
2012-10-08 16:40:23

I feel more free and happy than oppressed on my bike...


stefb
2012-10-08 16:41:34

To be fair, thousands of road users of all kinds die every year, due to the indifference of the public in general. We're firmly in the majority in that regard.


reddan
2012-10-08 17:01:47

I know I started this and it has the flavor of that scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": Help, help, I'm being oppressed!

But on the other hand when you're riding down Fifth Avenue in traffic and encounter the active, even life-threatening hostility of the other users of the road -- well, you're being oppressed. Of course motorists die in accidents, too, but when cyclists are killed by the utter lack of care on the part of motorists and nothing is done in response -- you're being oppressed. When major road work is planned and there is not even the slightest attention paid to the need for bicyclists use of the road, even though our tax money funds it -- we're being oppressed.


jonawebb
2012-10-08 18:47:09

Heh...given the cavalier attitude with which I see motorists on Fifth treat one another, I think the problem is not one of anti-cycling oppression, but that they ARE treating us the same way as they do other motorists. That is: very, very badly and unsafely.


Merely for the sake of discussion, let's grant the point that overt hostility, injuries and deaths without consequence, and a lack of consideration whilst planning road work is a form of cycling-specific oppression. Given that, what traffic rules should one violate to make any of the above improve? What illegal actions should one take on the road to decrease hostility, increase concern over cyclist injuries, and encourage the same people who are sharing the road with us to include cyclist needs in the next round of planning?


reddan
2012-10-08 19:31:06

Hmmm... that's not exactly what I was advocating. But it's an interesting question nevertheless.

I was just reacting against the point of view that we'd better behave ourselves so that people stop treating us so badly. I claim that doesn't work in this country. People aren't treating us badly because cyclists run stop signs. Minority groups get treated better when they demand it, not when they behave themselves better. African-Americans didn't get the right to sit anywhere they want on buses in Birmingham by being polite.

I have been thinking a bit about nonviolent direct action in this regard and I have to say it is a complex step to take and I am not advocating taking it without lots and lots of thought and consideration of whether the time is right. But typically the actions taken involve disruption of the normal way of doing business, in order to ensure that minority rights are respected. E.g., if a road was being planned without consideration of cyclist use then that process could be disrupted in various ways.


jonawebb
2012-10-08 19:51:51

Ah, I see.


Personally, I don't believe that we should behave better in order to get better treatment from others...I believe that _everyone_ who uses the road should behave better, and that under no circumstances can you foster that goal by claiming exemptions for one group.


"Be the change that you wish to see in the world."


reddan
2012-10-08 20:04:30

Dan just nailed it. +1


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-08 20:19:19

I go out of my way to be polite etc. to motorists. But I do not expect this to lead to the change we want to see in the world. I think it's just the right way to act and the best thing for me as a human being.

We see very slow growth of cycling infrastructure here in Pittsburgh -- when we made the Bronze level I was amazed the bar was set so low. A few bike trails here and there, some paint, and we're set.

None of this is to disparage the hard work people here do advocating. I know how hard and discouraging such work is.

But when I look at, say, CMU, and see basically zero cycling infrastructure in the nearby streets -- this is not happening fast enough. I mean, it really isn't. And please don't forget it took two deaths in a week to get signs on Penn Avenue.

I just don't think any of these problems will be solved by us being nicer.


jonawebb
2012-10-08 20:36:18

I think there is a bit of mix and match going on here, though. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent.


It sounds like you're suggesting cyclists "act out" to motorists to be respected.


OR... are you saying cyclists need to be the squeaky wheel - or even the squeakiest wheel, so to speak, in terms of traditional type advocacy, such as what Bike PGH does with government agencies.


It is an important distinction, because they're very different things.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-08 20:43:52

My last post seems to have been eaten, so this may be duplicate.

I'm not at all advocating cyclists "act out". What I'm saying is, we are second class users of the roads. We are mistreated by motorists because of that, to keep us in our place. It's got nothing to do with cyclists running stop signs, that's just an excuse.


jonawebb
2012-10-08 20:50:51

I'm not sure I agree with the assertion "we are mistreated by motorists... to keep us in our place." I think the "mistreatment" is a function of inattention, impatience and garden variety idiocy.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-08 20:54:57

Last week I was riding home, got passed by a guy with about a foot gap. When I caught up with him and, pretty politely actually, told him about the 4-foot rule, he yelled "get off the road" and drove off. Have you ever had a similar experience?


jonawebb
2012-10-08 20:58:15

So he's a jagoff. I get it.


What's your point?


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-08 21:02:32

It sounded like Jon was advocating large group rides that "disrupt the normal way of doing business in order to ensure the minority rights are respected." Sounds like the intent of critical mass.


helen-s
2012-10-08 21:02:35

Yeah we all have been yelled at and had drivers (almost) hit us on a bike and in a vehicle. I get treated poorly by motorists in vehicles bigger than my Honda fit. People are assholes.


stefb
2012-10-08 21:12:41

while i don't necessarily agree with the civil rights comparisons, it is important to remember that we are often merely "vulnerable road users" to the established bureaucracy, and, perhaps more often, even worse.


while i don't think it is necessary to disrupt motorists on the roads to make our point, do not expect me to react kindly to the suggestion that it's my job to "police [my] own". and i find the idea that people will treat us better if we are simply better behaved laughable. i behave on the roads for my safety and the safety of others (and in order to not be a jerk), not because of some misguided notion that i'm helping the cause of bicycle advocacy. i'm doing that already by merely biking.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-08 21:45:22

Critical mass is a good example of non-violent direct action on a bicycle. But there's more to a campaign than just non-violent direct action. You have to set a goal, say, a bike lane on Forbes. Then you communicate that goal to someone who can provide it, say the city. Then you start the action, say, Critical Mass during rush hour. You have to keep this up because you have to create social tension that can only be resolved by you getting what you want. Then you get the bike lane, and start planning the next campaign.

I'm not advocating this per se -- I'm just following the civil rights analogy and seeing where it leads. The first step to getting your rights is to recognize that you don't have them right now.


jonawebb
2012-10-09 12:06:50

The first step to getting your rights is to recognize that you don't have them right now.


What rights are denied to us (specifically, cyclists) that you would like to see granted?


reddan
2012-10-09 12:15:38

Well, obviously, the right to ride the streets safely.


jonawebb
2012-10-09 12:17:53

Well, obviously, the right to ride the streets safely.


This is not an issue exclusive to cyclists.


I agree whole-heartedly that the streets need to be safer. But trying to paint ourselves as an oppressed minority, when we're simply victims of the same carelessness as everyone else, is counter-productive.


reddan
2012-10-09 12:22:49

Not really. Drivers on say Penn Ave have pretty great safety on that street. They may have an accident but the likelihood of death is pretty remote. While James Price was just callously run down there recently. It's a pretty big difference.


jonawebb
2012-10-09 12:25:25

Hmm...I'd argue that 4,000+ fatalities and 70,000+ injuries for pedestrians in traffic crashes, 30,000+ fatalities alone (I couldn't find a hard estimate for injuries) for motorists, and 600+ deaths and 50,000+ injuries of cyclists in traffic crashes indicates that it's a pretty big problem for everyone.


Sure, the percentages aren't perfectly even, with the smallest victims suffering more harm...but the point is that we need to reduce overall crashes. Focusing on a complete solution for all road users is a better course of action, in my opinion.


reddan
2012-10-09 12:44:10

Well, if we look at areas where there is a lot of bike use -- around the universities -- I think you'll agree there has been serious neglect of cycling infrastructure. So the question is is the gradual incrementalist approach sufficient to get the improvements cyclists need, or would more direct action based on a civil rights model help? I would argue that it would.


jonawebb
2012-10-09 12:58:37

No, it's counter productive. I agree with Dan.


2012-10-09 13:22:22

"No, it's counter productive."


Is it? The Civil Rights experience would provide evidence that it is not counter productive. That it is, in fact, necessary to the success of the movement. Is there any actual evidence that direct action is counter productive? Even in New York, where numerous Critical Mass and other progressive action rides have been met with violence from the police, the apparent "counter productiveness" of the riders has lead to great strides forward in bicycling infrastructure.


kordite
2012-10-09 13:58:37

"Is it? " Yes, it is. Like Dan told, Civil rights is not applicable here. I would be first to organize car driver movement to ban bicyclist from the road in similar manner -- just blocking bike lane with rotational constant parking, etc. Even I bike.


And I don't endorse Critical Mass. I don't like them.


2012-10-09 14:37:15

Was it critical mass in NYC that got them their bikes lanes or the people in charge trying to find solutions to their transportation problems from overcrowding?


stefb
2012-10-09 14:54:37

@reddan

Hmm...I'd argue that 4,000+ fatalities and 70,000+ injuries for pedestrians in traffic crashes, 30,000+ fatalities alone (I couldn't find a hard estimate for injuries) for motorists, and 600+ deaths and 50,000+ injuries of cyclists in traffic crashes indicates that it's a pretty big problem for everyone


In the meantime, all the main sources of media information - TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines - have massive funding from automobile advertising and are hardly likely to trumpet the issue.


I rarely watch TV, but when I do, my impression is the major purpose of TV is to sell SUVS.


They've been largely successful. People who watch TV tend have the mistaken impression that SUVs are safer than cars - and the utterly bizarre notion that large, clunky, ugly SUVs are somehow cool.


mick
2012-10-09 15:00:09

It's always hard to say what caused a change to government policy. But, generally speaking, government policy tends to be bounded by public opinion and action. If there are lots of people advocating for some change that tends to enlarge the range of options available to the government. E.g., the Occupy protests introduced the issue of income inequality to the public sphere.

I happen to know the former traffic engineer for the city -- people have been advocating for a bike lane on Forbes for many years. And his reaction was always, not happening. This is not because he doesn't like bikes; it was simply not realistic. I think the only way something like that would become a realistic option is through non-violent direct action.


jonawebb
2012-10-09 15:07:45

"Is it? " Yes, it is.


Stating it is so does not make it so. Show me instances where direct action for bicycling lead to a decline in bicycling infrastructure or anti-bicycling legislation that diminished bicycling participation and advocacy. The very definition of "counter productive." Please cite your sources.


kordite
2012-10-09 15:45:04

So how far are you willing to go? Nothing is being "occupied" right now, because the people in that movement weren't prepared to go all the way. Civil rights protests worked because the people involved were prepared to die for what was an intrinsic right - racial equality. While I agree the right to life (as in, NOT being run-over riding a bicycle) is relevant here, the application of "civil rights" methods will not work unless you are prepared to go all the way. Otherwise you're likely to just antagonize an already hostile driving populace.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-10-09 18:46:28

Not really. If you asked most of the protesters in the Birmingham bus boycott I think very few of them would have been willing to die. But a lot were willing to be arrested. If we were to use non-violent direct action I doubt we'd be asking people to die. Probably even arrest would not be an issue. I would imagine, say, a regular Critical Mass-type protest, peacefully moving along Forbes or Fifth Avenue during rush hour. You'd be asking people to commit their time, and to deal with harassment from drivers.


jonawebb
2012-10-09 18:53:57

Just for historical accuracy - the "Won't accomplish anything and will actually hurt you movement by antagonizing the populace" was an argument that I've seen about civil rights protests about vietnam war protests, and a variety of other protests over the years.


Perhaps there are times when that argument is clearly correct. I can't think of any off-hand.


I can think of situations in which I would consider critical mass type confrontation to appropriate - say if there were specific laws being enforced in a discriminatory fashion against cyclists, or if, say, some amusement park,for example, continued to impeed the progress of an interstate bike trail.


Critical Mass doesn't have some clear goal, though, like "End the war now." or "End segregation."


mick
2012-10-09 19:01:18

@Kordite And you show how critical mass is connected to bike infrastructure increase?


I can show sources were Critical Mass caused a massive car plow through crowd of bicyclists.


And famous NYC cops fining bicyclists. Or on last PMTCC ride cop in charger flips his lights and stop one of us for not stopping at stop sign and completely ignoring cars. Or someone on the board wrote that in the township were she spent her childhood bicycles are forbidden on the roads.


Dan is right that problems is much wider and deeper. And we need to solve it at more global level.


2012-10-09 19:20:41

@Mick Depends on how safety is measured. Mercedes (or BMW? I don't remember exactly -- someone who I know lives in Germany and gave me results of this crash-test) conducted about 4 years ago a crash test on highly rated small car. but they put a big SUV instead of wall in head-to-head-with-displacement collision. Results were very predictable -- small car lost badly. But SUV has much higher center of gravity and as a result probability of rollover is much higher.


2012-10-09 19:40:38

I was looking for a good place to post this pic from an email I got today. Maybe this is a good spot:




2012-10-09 19:42:32

@Mikahil Results were very predictable -- small car lost badly.


Yeah, in a formal joust, the SUV wins! Every time!


And given how I've ssn some SUVs being driven, that might be the goal of teh consumers.


Still, mile by mile, an SUV is more hazardous than even a much smaller car.


As well as being more hazardous to it's occupants, the SUVS are far more likely to kill others.


mick
2012-10-09 20:03:10

@Mick I agree with "the SUVS are far more likely to kill others" but "As well as being more hazardous to it's occupants" would go along if we add "SUVs cause bad driving style". If style of driving SUV is the same as a car (not racing but normal style) I would say SUV are at least no less safe than cars.


2012-10-09 21:11:28

@Mikahail If style of driving SUV is the same as a car (not racing but normal style) I would say SUV are at least no less safe than cars.


That would be incorrect. SUVs don't have the same safety standards that cars do. (Unless things have changed in the last 3 or 4 years)


mick
2012-10-09 21:34:11

@Mick They don't have to. For example, car have multi stress points where body would collaps to desipate energy since there is no lot of space between bumper-engine and passenger. Big SUV has a lot of space.


Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate that SUV are the best cars. I don't. They are bulky gas goglers. There is no need in them in most cases (but there are stilllegit cases to use them). But going in crash against SUV on a regular you are going to lose more often than win.


2012-10-09 23:44:25

I believe their lack of safety is also reflected in crash injury stats.


mick
2012-10-09 23:50:53

But performance in a crash isn't the only measure of safety--you also have to take into account how well your car can avoid a crash in a close-call situation. I'd guess SUVs are considerably less able to maneuver and avoid a crash than, say, a zippy little hatchback. I don't know if the science backs up that assumption--just a guess...


2012-10-10 02:05:13

I'm reading this thread while sitting in my SUV enjoying a post ride snack.


cburch
2012-10-10 02:29:11

"I can show sources were Critical Mass caused a massive car plow through crowd of bicyclists."


Was that counter productive to the movement? Did that incident mean that the bike infrastructure they were agitating for didn't happen?


I contend exactly the opposite. It is those incidents of pushback that help to codify movements and bring attention to something that, up until that point, were largely ignored by the public at large.


The gay rights movement had been going on for a long time but it wasn't until the Stonewall riots that it actually gained some traction. John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry was a turning point in the American abolition movement. African Americans had been pushing for civil rights since the failure of Reconstruction after the Civil War but it wasn't until Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus (and subsequent actions) started getting some attention. The independence movement in India, even with a military rebellion here or there, didn't start going anywhere until Gandhi and thousands of followers refused to move and got heads cracked for it. I cannot think of any successful social movement that did not come with defiant action.


We can sit here and talk about what we see as our rights to share roads in safety. We can try to schedule meetings with legislators and other civil officials But no one will listen to us until we literally reach a Critical Mass. There have to be either enough of us to gain their attention or we have to amass enough allies to our side to reach that level. It's not going to happen without something to expand that from the measly 1% of ride share that we currently have. It's going to take something to get people's attention. On Penn Avenue we had years of complains about the lack of infrastructure but it took the death of two people for something as simple and inexpensive as signs to be put up.


History has shown again and again and again that civially disobedient actions work and that pushback, such as some asshat driving through a crowd of cyclists, is evidence of it actually working. Evidence that people are paying attention. Some, paying enough attention to hate and attempt to murder us, many more to rally to our cause.


"And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you."

--- Quote apparently paraphrased by Mahatma Gandhi but actually from the General Executive Board Report and Proceedings [of The] Biennial Convention, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 1914.


kordite
2012-10-10 11:19:04

I'm having some trouble following this civil disobedience thread. Let's look at a specific example: Rosa Parks, and civil rights for African-Americans.


The way I understand history is that African-Americans were denied basic rights and treated as a separate class of citizens by the law. So, Martin Luther King, among others, advocated civil disobedience as a means of changing the laws (which succeeded).


Now, when I compare this to cycling, things start to break down. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of city and state law is that as cyclists, we are (well) protected under the law (in fact, you could argue we have some additional benefits such as being able to filter forward and use the sidewalk in certain circumstances), but the issue is enforcement--the laws in place (including general laws about speed limits, etc) are not actively enforced, and thus the roads are not as safe as they could be for all users (drivers, cyclists, pedestrians).


Rosa Parks broke the law because the law was unjust. Are you suggesting cyclists break the law (run red lights, for example, or ride four abreast) because red lights are unjust for cyclists? Or are you suggesting that cyclists break the law to bring attention to the lack of enforcement? I'm confused, and bringing civil rights into the discussion muddles things even more (and likely does a great disservice to both the fight for civil rights and the fight for safer roads).


To be clear, I'm not suggesting that civil disobedience isn't a solution to our problem, but I am suggesting the reasons for civil disobedience don't make sense based on the historical examples provided. In most cases in history, civil disobedience is a response to negative rights. In our case, we're talking about the enforcement of current laws, and perhaps better infrastructure to support all road users. I'm trying to understand how breaking the very laws we want to be enforced advances our cause.


bjanaszek
2012-10-10 11:50:31

Groups can be denied their rights by various means, some legal, some social. Indeed, African-Americans agitated for a change in some laws. But there was no law keeping them from eating at lunch counters. That was custom. The law got involved when they were ordered to leave, refused, and then were accused of trespass. So they were really fighting for a lot of things, not just changes in the law.

Cyclists are denied their rights (safe transport) mainly, as I see it, by poor infrastructure design. This is largely but not exclusively not a legal issue. It is more a question of priorities in funding. But people are being killed because of it. And while we've made advances here in Pittsburgh -- important advances -- the trails and paths that have been added have been "low hanging fruit" -- roads that were wide enough for existing traffic, so adding a bike path didn't inconvenience anyone, or bike trails in areas which were largely unused. I believe it will take a change in priorities that will only happen by us standing up for our rights to make that change happen.

Imagine, for example, a direct bike route from Oakland to Downtown, or bike routes connecting CMU and Pitt with the places where students live. Of course those routes would infringe on motorists use of the road, by taking lanes used for driving and parking. So there will be pushback. But those routes would be used by many more people cycling than driving, and would have many other benefits. So they are worth fighting for.


jonawebb
2012-10-10 12:19:50

I find the direction of this thread totally unbelievable. Comparing the "oppression" of cyclist to the oppression of slavery, Jim Crow blacks and post war India?


Take your helmet off and take three steps away from your bike and you are no longer oppressed. None of these other groups could do that. I find these analogies insulting and I'm a middle aged white guy.


As for the gay movement, I’m not an historian, but I bet having TV shows with openly normal gay characters has had more to do with the repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell then any acts of civil disobedience.


What the cycling crowd needs is some good old fashioned and frequent PSA’s directed at both car drivers and cyclist themselves. Some drivers/cyclists are just ignorant to what the laws are and how they should be operating their vehicle around the other. I still see cyclist riding up and down off the sidewalk and against the flow of traffic. Is this civil disobedience or just stupidity? How is that more or less infuriating than a car giving less than four feet of clearance? Sure we cyclist are the more vulnerable road user, but that will always be the case unless you are advocating the total elimination of cars, because even in utopian countries the bicycle infrastructure doesn’t go everywhere.


Like the Will & Grace Show – we need the act of cycling to be shown as normal transportation. This will happen as more and more cyclists are on the road; more sports celebrities and politicians are seen on bikes; more PSA/education takes place; and law enforcement of bad drivers is a priority.


Comparing what we put up (even on the worst of days) to the civil rights movement is just stupid.


marko82
2012-10-10 12:21:03

@jonawebb: I don't disagree, but, again, how does breaking the laws we actually want enforced advance our cause? I'm trying to understand why civil disobedience (at in terms of Critical Mass-like behavior on the road) helps (perhaps besides getting motorists to desire the bike infrastructure exists so there aren't cyclists on the road).


bjanaszek
2012-10-10 12:24:51

@brian j, that's basically right. Of course, it's not just the drivers who want the problem solved, it's also the city, and the city can solve the problem only by negotiating with the group.

You start by organizing a group that it committed to making the change. The group agrees on a specific, achievable goal. They communicate the goal and try to negotiate to achieve it. Non-violent direct action is used to pressure the other side into realistic negotiations.


jonawebb
2012-10-10 12:47:09

So, the idea is to make enough people upset about cyclists in the road that they pressure the city to fund separate infrastructure, so as to get cyclists out of their way?


reddan
2012-10-10 13:08:47

Basically. But you start by organizing, and negotiating. You don't start by annoying people, or do that randomly.


jonawebb
2012-10-10 13:11:26

One more point -- comparing this to civil rights, Indian independence, gay rights, etc., seems extreme and I do not want to take away anything from those stellar achievements. But this is important, too. Cyclists die regularly because of lack of cycling infrastructure. Our cities are unlivable because they are designed for cars. We waste enormous amounts of energy, pollute the globe, and cause world-wide environmental destruction because people drive to work and don't have a safe alternative. These are real problems. Just because they don't affect individuals in the direct, reprehensible way the Jim Crow laws or slavery did doesn't mean they aren't important. And we shouldn't underestimate the work that will be required to fix them. Powerful forces keep things the way they are. We will need to stand up for ourselves to make change. It won't happen automatically.


jonawebb
2012-10-10 14:22:05

The Constitution, through various rulings and interpretations, guarantees me the right to travel and assemble. If I cannot travel or assemble because I am in fear of my life in traveling from one place to another in an otherwise legal fashion on my bicycle then it becomes a civil rights issue. A right not exercised is not a right. And that's what things like Critical Mass does. They exert the rights we are already supposed to have.


Now, you might want to diminish that civil right with the "greater" civil rights hard won by other social movements but they are still rights.


kordite
2012-10-10 16:36:19

"As for the gay movement, I’m not an historian, but I bet having TV shows with openly normal gay characters has had more to do with the repeal of don’t-ask-don’t-tell then any acts of civil disobedience. "


And how do you think they got so far as to be on television with open, normal gay characters? It didn't just magically happen. Riots in Stonewall made that happen. Illegal and provocative gay pride marches made that happen. Decades of agitation to the point where being gay was a new normal made that happen.


kordite
2012-10-10 16:38:23

@Kordite: But my question stands...don't we already have laws in place to provide safe travel? We may disagree on what "safe travel" entails, but imagine, for a moment, if the police actually enforced the motor vehicle code. Would the streets be significantly safer?


So, that's why I'm wondering about why civil disobedience (at least as far as the traffic laws go) advances our cause, and why I think the civil rights comparison doesn't make sense.


bjanaszek
2012-10-10 16:59:18

> So, the idea is to make enough people upset about cyclists in the road that they pressure the city to fund separate infrastructure, so as to get cyclists out of their way?


jonaweb and kordite can obviously speak quite well for themselves. but as for me, I don't want separate infrastructure. i just want to be able to use the same infrastructure without getting killed.


epanastrophe
2012-10-10 21:05:18

@marko - good point. American White straight middle class males are probably least oppressed of any group of people.. Other than an american 18-34 year old middle class straight male.


Another good point is that studies have shown that there has been a decrease in number of teen smokers when there are PSAs running encouraging children not to do so, and more smokers when there are less/no PSAs


stefb
2012-10-11 02:00:51

"But my question stands...don't we already have laws in place to provide safe travel? We may disagree on what "safe travel" entails, but imagine, for a moment, if the police actually enforced the motor vehicle code. Would the streets be significantly safer? "


Yes. Enforcement would make it safer. And activism isn't just about new laws, it's about enforcing the existing laws. And building new infrastructure. And redesigning current infrastructure. And informing people there is an issue in the first place. Direct action is a catalyst that gets people attention. I repeat, no one paid attention to the gay rights movement until there were riots in Stonewall. That moment was a catalyst that got people involved. People willing to take a stand and demand the rights and safety that non-gays already had. These people went out and marched, many times risking imprisonment. And that got other peoples attention to wake them up to there actually being a problem. It encouraged people to come out of the closet and join the ranks of those agitation for change. And so on.


Critical Mass is the same thing. It's not about changing the minds of the autodominionists who think it's THEIR road alone. It's not even about making them angry enough to build infrastructure to segregate cyclists out of their own space. It is about getting everyone's attention, most particularly those people who are not involved and getting them involved. It is about showing that cyclists are a significant constituency. That's why the words "critical mass" are used. When that critical mass is reached then the politicians need to pay attention.


Numbers are enough. If that were true, the fact that women make up half of the population would guarantee them the rights they deserve. No, action is required and, as history has shown again and again, disruptive, direct action is required.


Perhaps the bicycle movement has evolved beyond the need for Critical Mass, as evidenced by the recent lack of Critical Mass rides in Pittsburgh in much the same way that the race riots of the 50s and 60s gave way to much more civil parades in the 70s and practically no African American civil rights marches today. But even so, evidence has shown, again and again, that such things were necessary in their time and continue to be necessary from time to time.


kordite
2012-10-11 11:09:37

I think the civil rights angle has been pushed plenty far enough. Although I must add to Kordite's post above, that some civil disobedience or direct action may still be necessary to get law enforcement to act on the laws that are already in place to adequately protect cyclists.

And I don't consider running red lights or weaving through traffic "civil disobedience". Those send no useful message and is just counterproductive stupidity.

Just don't expect laws or enforcement to make things entirely asshole-free. The civil rights movement was fifty years ago and racism is still alive, just whispered and "dog-whistled". Stonewall was 40 years ago and how easy would it be for two guys to walk down the street holding hands, in Pittsburgh, let alone in some redneck podunk shithole, without major harrassment? There will still be assholes shouting at you when you ride, just harden the F up and assert your rights. Every ride is an act of advocacy.

I think cycling is somewhat more comparable to what has happened with drunk driving. The reason that the only way traffic accidents are seriously prosecuted only when alcohol is involved is due to the efforts of one dogged organization, Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 40 years ago drunk driving wasn't even considered a problem, in fact, driving with a can of beer right in your hand wasn't given a second look. MADD made themselves a force to be reckoned with, and now drunk driving is a societal anathema. I would say, if you're interested, research them and see how they got to this point.

What I can't figure out is, why has MADD stopped at drunk driving? Every night there is a death report on the news from speeding, distracted driving, etc. MADD needs to now extend their activities to all stupid traffic deaths, but they seem to have packed up and gone home.


edmonds59
2012-10-11 11:55:33

Well said, Bill.


reddan
2012-10-11 12:00:14

A lot of people need more than better enforcement of traffic laws to get them cycling. They need cycling infrastructure -- separated bike lanes and the like. In order to get those lanes, some space will have to be taken away from cars. There's no way that is going to happen without conflict. So we are either not going to have necessary bike lanes, or we are going to have to push for them. I believe in trying all other methods before non-violent direct action. And nothing will happen in any case without a group of people who are committed to seeing change happen. But I believe that non-violent direct action will eventually prove necessary.


jonawebb
2012-10-11 12:56:53

Every ride is an act of advocacy.


This is why I ride Perry Highway, and occasionally even McKnight Road. "I'm here, dammit. Deal with it!"


stuinmccandless
2012-10-11 17:06:13

@jonaweb And if we got all this infrastructure would be bicyclist allowed to use car road? Would be pedestrians allowed to use bike infrastructure? Would people of capable going 25-30 mph on bikes allowed to go that fast on infrastructure?


2012-10-11 20:39:28

@Mikhail I'm pretty sure that with increased bicycle use we'll have to follow rules just like other road users. Right now we're left alone pretty much and also get killed every now and then.

I don't know about European cities -- I hope someone here does -- but I do know that in NYC cyclists are required to use bike lanes where available, and BSNYC has been complaining about cyclists getting tickets for running red lights.

So, unfortunately, getting bike infrastructure does imply giving up our outlaw ways.


jonawebb
2012-10-11 20:46:22

Oh, man, if somebody passes a law that cyclists must use a bike path where available, I will be civilly disobeying that one intensely.


edmonds59
2012-10-11 23:55:45

bike lane does not equal bike path


josgood
2012-10-12 03:22:09

I will stay on bike paths when cars have to stay on interstate highways. Same argument.


marko82
2012-10-12 03:34:03

Headbands count as helmets, right?


2012-10-12 04:05:49

+1 Marko82


josgood
2012-10-12 04:48:47

It's not really the same argument as interstates, and a lot of European countries (including Denmark and The Netherlands) have mandatory bike path laws.


Not to say laws like that make any sense here where there are often valid reasons not to ride in the bike lane. But if we had great, safely designed infrastructure I wouldn't have a big problem with its use being mandated.


salty
2012-10-12 05:33:01

From what I know of Europe, there are no (or few) "you must use the bike lane" laws. But, with the infrastructure dedicated to bicycles, it is natural that people use that. Especially when it is well designed to accommodate bicyclist needs (rather than just a stripe on the road). I also recall an article saying that more people obey the common laws (lights, stop signs, etc), again, because the infrastructure is there to make it easier and safer for them to do so.


kordite
2012-10-12 12:51:13

@salty, I know the analogy might not be perfect, but it gets to the heart of the issue which is choice. Interstate highways don’t go everywhere and neither do dedicated bike trails – or even painted bike lanes. Even if the infrastructure was more extensive why should we be the ones restricted? What if they wanted to restrict cars to only a few roads?


My mother hates driving on limited access highways. She’ll take route 19 over I79 every time. If I prefer the street over some gravel trail how is that different? Also, I love the HMB and use the bike side 99% of the time, but in the winter after a storm I’m using the roadway.


marko82
2012-10-12 13:16:24

@marko, as far as I know, there is no law requiring cyclists to only use bike lanes or paths. E.g., the NYC law requires cyclists to use the bike lane where it is available (except under certain circumstances, like making a left turn). So you would be allowed to ride on a street without a bike lane just as you are now.


jonawebb
2012-10-12 13:19:31

Exactly. Then my mother should HAVE to use Interstate 79.


marko82
2012-10-12 13:22:27

Sometimes I want to get to work on my Behemoth and speed is not an issue. And sometimes I want to toodle along with the family on a bike trail.

But sometimes I want to get on a kick-ass road bike and hammer along with traffic at 25-30 mph. Commuting is great, but I have no desire to restrict roadies either (as much fun as I have at their funny little "kits").


edmonds59
2012-10-12 13:48:34

Uh, I think I've heard that they do a lot of fast riding in Europe in spite of also having good bike infrastructure. Not sure it's true, but might be worth checking out.


jonawebb
2012-10-12 13:50:22

I understand the arguments against these laws (well, I don't really understand marko's argument because the law doesn't say you can *only* ride on bike paths)... but I'd happily accept them if we had infrastructure like Holland. You're not going to find any mandatory lanes there that force you into a door zone or other stupid things like that.


salty
2012-10-12 15:03:12

I believe Marko's argument is that he does not wish to be required to use a bike path over a road, *if* both are available.


I tend to agree with him. "Default" rules should be that all vehicles are entitled to use any given road, regardless of what other options are available; special-purpose infrastructure (e.g. bike lanes, bus lanes, and limited-access freeways) should certainly have rules limiting use to its intended purpose.


The argument "cyclists should have to use a bike path if it's there" has historically been the one thing that gives me pause about endorsing dedicated infrastructure. I still think bike lanes and paths are a good thing...I just worry about spoiling a good thing by making its use mandatory.


reddan
2012-10-12 15:26:54

I know the argument of "if the infrastructure is good enough they shouldn't have to force me to use it", and I think it has some merit - certainly in the US where we mostly get crappy infrastructure that I don't want to be forced to use. But, I think it's pretty reasonable somewhere like the Netherlands where it's designed for bikes and cars to be separate.


salty
2012-10-12 16:03:10

Thanks reddan that is my point. On the North Side upriver from 9th street I almost always take the road. There is a sorry excuse of a trail right next to it but I don’t enjoy riding rutted gravel while trying to avoid walkers/joggers. Don’t get me wrong I’m glad the trail is there, I just don’t want to be forced to use it.


marko82
2012-10-12 18:29:33

Sharing my personal experience and choices on the topic:

When I commute, I never wear a helmet. I commute just about a mile, and wear makeup to work. I don't shower at work (just get a little warm, not sweaty). Makeup (base+powder) gets all messed up by a helmet.

Outside of work commuting, sometimes I wear a helmet and other times not. I like the feeling of extra safety (not complete safety by any means, but extra safety) wearing one. However, I also really enjoy the sensual and simple pleasure of wind in my hair when I don't wear one.


2012-10-13 15:32:47

I had someone pass me with about two feet clearance on Millvale Avenue bridge the other day. When I told him he needed to give four feet, his rebuttal was that I wasn't in the bike lane....


epanastrophe
2012-10-14 18:00:45

^Oh of course. So even if he knew his ass from a hole in the ground re: the law, that would clearly give him the right to run you over. /furious sarcasm


2012-10-14 19:33:07

@salty "I've seen multiple sources refer to mandatory bike path laws in Europe"


Then I stand corrected. However, my point stands that with good bicycle infrastructure, people will naturally use it. In the US, we, for the most part, are only at the early stages of that integration of infrastructure and requiring US cyclists to stay in the bikelanes does not afford them the access to the entirety of the infrastructure that is required.


kordite
2012-10-15 13:30:56

It's interesting that if one is in a bike lane then car are no required to give 4 feet.


Yesterday we went for 73 mile ride from 16th street bridge to Monongahela and back. On the way back on 837 (between Monongahela and Dequesne) one of the track was following us for about a half mile not willing to pass since there was on coming traffic. Someone behind him start to honk impatiently. Guy stopped and snapped at the driver acreaming: "You want to try pass safely? Go ahead" and as soon as the other driver decided to pull around four oncoming vehicle put him back and (s)he just quietly followed another 200 yard and passed us.


2012-10-15 14:38:52

It's interesting that if one is in a bike lane then car are no required to give 4 feet.


this isn't true. overtaking a vehicle on the left is still overtaking, even if it is in a different lane of travel.


hiddenvariable
2012-10-15 15:08:52

It's interesting that if one is in a bike lane then car are no required to give 4 feet.

this isn't true. overtaking a vehicle on the left is still overtaking, even if it is in a different lane of travel.


This is one of the reasons I despise the bike lanes here. Everyone seems to think that white line is the base of some sort of invisible wall separating us...


epanastrophe
2012-10-15 16:29:14

It would be nice if they would have one of those meetings at a time I wouldn't have to take off from work to get there soon enough.

The worries about bike infrastructure restricting our rights to ride remind me somewhat of the arguments over health care. Once again, Europe has chosen an approach that works much better than ours, and we're worried about whether following them will lead to our losing our rights. All evidence suggests that cyclists standing up for ourselves and advocating for things we need leads to more cyclist rights, not less.


jonawebb
2012-10-15 18:39:33