“Of course we have a deal. They get out of the way of our cars, we look the other way on the statue defecation.”
- George Costanza and Jerry Seinfeld
The tyranny of speed rules over nearly every road in this great nation. Florida is perhaps the tyrant’s most resolute stronghold. It’s as if gravity or latitude or the warm climate (or perhaps the convergence of the three) have funneled that power into our peninsula from all across the land. Hemmed in by the Everglades, the tyrant’s power concentrates even more as one moves into Broward and Miami-Dade counties. It then squirts out along US 1, the Overseas Highway that runs from Key Largo to Key West. The Highway is now mostly overwhelmed by the tyrant; its miles of ugly strip commercial development making it look like nearly any other four-lane highway. If it weren’t for the palms and tropically-themed signs you might think you were outside Atlanta along some stretches.
N. Roosevelt: sidepath on the left side; destinations on the right.
One-hundred and two miles down the highway you enter the Conch Republic, aka Key West. It’s the end of the road. The tyranny of speed has pushed its invading wedge westward into the island along US 1, and its commercial minions — fast-food purveyors, big box retailers… — have come in behind to claim territory. At its ironic intersection with Eisenhower Drive, it loses nearly all its power as it changes names from N. Roosevelt Boulevard to Truman Avenue and becomes a narrow, two-lane street.
Most of the tyrant’s soldiers relax and drop their weapons when entering this human-paced paradise, but enough keep their warrior mentalities to make trouble as they scatter throughout the fine grid of narrow streets. The saner ones leave their cars at their hotels as they visit, or even sell them if they decide to stay and put down roots.
The End of the Road. Welcome to human-scale.
The tyrant’s soldiers have a deal with the pigeon cyclists of Key West; the cyclists scatter out of the way of their cars, the tyrants look the other way when cyclists run red lights or ride with a beer in one hand.
I traveled to Key West over the first weekend of December with Keri Caffrey and John Schubert. As we biked around the island we found ourselves running afoul of their pigeon-deal. Not accustom to getting out of the way, we annoyed quite a few of the soldiers, and they made threatening motions with their weapons. The problem became severe as we traveled N. Roosevelt; no doubt the leading edge of an army is where the fighting is the bloodiest. The tyrant had provided the pigeons with a place to keep out of the way; something called a “bike path.” The path was pleasant enough as it followed the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, but on some stretches the commercial minions had build driveways across it, and the soldiers were not terribly polite about yielding at those crossings. At the very first driveway we were nearly taken out by one.
Our purpose that weekend was to introduce some key Conchs to the principles and practices of vehicular cycling. In that we feel we were quite successful; all who attended our course said they saw real value in it. The larger challenge for Key West though, is getting local motorists to accept vehicular cycling.
Conchs in Training
The local cyclists may feel the current situation is pretty good. After all, bicycling makes up a far greater proportion of traffic on Key West than in perhaps any city in the nation outside of Davis, CA. Eddie Marsh, proprietor of a pedicab and bike rental business, told us the tourists who rent bikes for a week usually return reporting that they had a great time. But I wonder how many crashes are caused by their relatively new door-zone bike lanes and their sidepaths. It’s common for untrained and inexperienced cyclists to be unaware of the conflicts posed by such facilities, and see only the “benefit” of “having a place to ride.”
I’ve been traveling to Key West since 1982. During that first visit I noticed how some motorists were easily aggravated. The juxtaposition of aggressive driving and the “mañana” mentality was surprising. But it was still a fairly sleepy island at that time. In ’85 I rode the Old Town section of the island with a friend and it was roughly the same. My next visit in 1994 was as a budding bicycle transportation professional, spending a week observing and analyzing conditions and behaviors for an FDOT-led project. Locals were increasingly concerned that cycling was becoming dangerous on the island, but many of our team routinely rode the N. Roosevelt roadway with no grief from the soldiers. In 1998 I went down there for a Florida Bicycle Association advocacy-building effort. The attitude from the locals was much the same as in ’94; “it’s a dangerous place; we need more bikeways,” yet I still saw it as a fairly easy place to ride.
Now, a decade later, they have those bikeways they asked for, and my perception of the island is that motorist attitudes towards cyclists are worse than they’d ever been. Motor traffic levels are much higher (especially on N. Roosevelt) and motorists are much more intolerant of roadway cycling. (So much for the theory that increasing the amount of cycling improves motorist attitudes towards cyclists.) On the other hand, the locals we spoke to think things are pretty hunky-dory. It’s so rare for American cyclists to say they live in a good place for cycling; one needs to respect that, so I question my own perspective.
When I visited in 1994 the cyclist crashes we were hearing about had little to do with the lack of bikeways; they were mostly instances of cyclists not yielding or otherwise violating the rules of the road. I wonder what the causes are today. Has safety actually improved along with its perception? Nothing I saw this year would lead me to expect objective improvement. But without actual data that’s just conjecture.
It’s an important question. I hope someone can provide answers. Because if Key West is perceived as a success while actual safety has been degraded, it becomes yet another misleading example in support of misguided planning and design.
The sad irony in this story is that Key West prides itself on tolerance. “One Human Family” is the official city motto. The mayor wrote that this motto “reflects our commitment to living together as caring, sharing neighbors dedicated to making our home as close to ‘paradise’ as we can.” The city is known for accepting and welcoming those who wish to live differently from the norm. Such tolerance does not, however, appear to extend to those of us on bicycles who behave as equals on their streets. You can flaunt your sexual orientation or your outrageous artistic sensibilities, or wear a t-shirt that would get you thrown out of your mother’s house…but drive your bicycle like you’re a first-class citizen? Now you’ve crossed the line, bud.
Enough with the "she's not wearing a helmet" blather, already.
“65% of statistics are just made up.” — unknown
It’s been repeated so many times as to be considered a “fact.” But this “fact,” which has been used to justify mandatory helmet laws across the nation and around the world, is based on a misleading report about a poorly designed study. I’m speaking of course about the “fact” that bicycle helmets reduce head injury risk by 88%. This paper does a great job of explaining the errors in the infamous Thompson, Rivara & Thompson study, published in New England Journal of Medicine in 1989. The key shortcomings:
The “cases” (bicycle head injury hospital admissions) were significantly different in character from the “control group” population.
None of the cases involved bicyclist crashes involving motor vehicles.
The report is claimed to apply to all ages, but the case and control groups were all children.
Helmet use was “self selected.” Non-head injuries were less severe among helmet-wearers than non-helmet-wearers, implying that helmet-wearers are less likely to get involved in more serious collisions.
According to the Florida Department of Health, there were 622 traumatic brain injuries (TBI) among bicyclists in Florida in 2005. By comparison, during the same period, 14,696 automobile and truck passengers, 1,643 motorcyclists, and 1,189 pedestrians suffered traumatic brain injuries. Cyclists were only 3% of all traffic-related TBIs. The TBI rates per 100,000 population* (2005 thru 2007) are: motor vehicle occupant 82.5, motorcycle 10.7, pedestrian 7.1, bicyclist 3.7. (That’s total population, not “cycling population” or “motorcyclist population,” etc.)
[The above paragraph has been updated with better data. The previous numbers were from a report that evidently only included injuries recorded in the state's "Central Registry."]
Since helmet use is such an important element of the “dangerization” of cycling, we owe it to ourselves to do what we can to smack down those ubiquitous “88%” claims whenever we can.
Obligatory Disclaimer: I am not anti-helmet. I wear one most times I ride. I am anti-helmet law because there is some evidence that such laws reduce cycling (especially among kids) and because there is no evidence of a compelling state interest.
Last night PBS aired the two-hour NOVA special “Darwin’s Darkest Hour,” about Charles Darwin’s struggle to finally decide to complete and publish On the Origin of Species. Part of his struggle was trying avoid running afoul of his wife Emma’s faith in God. In an early letter to Darwin, Emma wrote, “My reason tells me that honest & conscientious doubts cannot be a sin.”
My wife, who was believer when we met, expressed a similar sentiment about my agnosticism.
Respect for honest doubt would go a long way towards mending the huge rifts among the two main bicycling “camps.”
Bikeway proponents must respect the doubts of vehicular cycling proponents about the benefits of facilities, because there is significant objective evidence to support that doubt. Since decisions about bikeways are done by governments, objectivity is essential.
Vehicular cycling proponents must respect the doubt of others about the effectiveness of vehicular cycling. While vehicular cycling can also be measured objectively, it is experienced subjectively. There is significant subjective evidence to support that doubt; those many personal experiences in traffic which reinforce our culture’s taboo about cycling. Since cycling itself is done by individuals, many of whom are not trained, comfortable with, or prone towards objectivity, we vehicular cycling proponents must take a softer, subjective approach.
Respect and caring are the foundation.
“Certainty divides us; doubt unites us.”
– Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Laughing Jesus
This chart is from the Netherlands Interface for Cycling Expertise.
I have estimated the percentages from the chart and converted it to numbers showing percentage increase from the historic low to 1995.
For those who believe The Netherlands’ and Denmark’s high cycling numbers are due to facilities, you might consider that many of these places never dropped below 20% cycling mode share. Cycling has always been a prominent component to their traffic environment.
Take a look at what they themselves say about the effectiveness of bikeways to increase cycling:
“Since 1990, the total length of cycle paths has increased to almost 19,000 km, doubling the length in 1980.”
“Results: In 1994, the total distance cycled was 12.9 billion km, compared with 12.8 billion in 1990. The number of km traveled by car was 125 billion in 1990 and 129 billion in 1994.”
“Expansion and improvement of the infrastructure does not necessarily increase the use of bicycles.”
From “The Autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan”
1994, Dutch Ministry of Transport
And
From “The Economic Significance of Cycling”
The Netherlands Interface for Cycling Expertise
“Experiences in Amsterdam show that the increase in bicycle use in the city centre in the last 10 years is mainly due to increased parking rates.”
“The policy of reducing car traffic in city centres therefore often consists of reducing parking facilities, and this method is used to cut car use.”
“Many cities have started to reclaim space from the car in the last 10 to 20 years. … A good example of this is Copenhagen where, between 1962 and 1996, the number of parking spaces was reduced from 3,100 to 2,000…”
The existence of an extensive rail transit system is also a very important factor:
“In 1991, 44% of [transit users] went to the local train station by bicycle.”
From “The Autumn of the Bicycle Master Plan”
If you start with different ingredients for two recipes, then add the same new ingredient to both recipes, do you end up with the same results?
“If you don’t stand up, you don’t stand a chance.”
– Genesis, Squonk
A woman walks into a marketing and public relations firm and sits down to talk with their lead strategist.
“Our organization has a fun, safe and healthy activity we wish to promote, but we’re struggling to figure out the right approach,” she says.
The strategist thinks for a moment, then responds, “I recommend the approach bicycle advocates have been using for the past 20 years; reinforce the public’s fears about your activity.”
The woman is taken aback, pauses for a moment, then says, “Oh! You had me going there for a moment!”
The common belief about European cities is that they have so many bicyclists because they have extensive (and “safe”) bikeway systems. This travelogue from 1937* shows Copenhagen streets filled with cyclists.
Granted, auto ownership in 1937 Copenhagen was rather tiny compared to present-day American cities (or for that matter present day Copenhagen). But watch how the motorists and cyclists interact. To us it looks like chaos. Traffic control appears minimal at best, yet the cyclists all seem blithley unconcerned.
It is certainly true that bike used plummeted in Denmark after World War II, and one can argue that the increase in auto use made it “necessary” to build segregated bikeways in order to increase bicycle use. My point is: look at how they all behave. Integration inspires cooperation — especially when the bicyclists are dressed just like everybody else.
Are bicyclists required or expected to permit motorists to violate the law?
Passing within 3 feet is of course a violation now in Florida. As someone who spent 20 years hugging the white line, and the past 10 riding more assertively, and has been passed by probably a million motorists in his lifetime, it’s obvious to me that hugging the edge invites close passing while lane control does not.
Here’s another illustration to show the dangers of having a large group ride single-file along the edge. Thanks to Keri Caffrey for the truck & trailer illustration.
And if a cyclist is hit in such a scenario, count on the driver claiming the cyclist “swerved into me; there was nothing I could do,” and the officer going along with it.
Studies have shown heart patients benefit from exercise, and some have even shown it works better than surgical procedures. At a meeting of the European Society of Cardiology on Sunday, several experts said doctors should focus more on persuading their patients to exercise rather than simply doing angioplasties.
E-mails are flying and cycling forums are full of the story of the Town of Jupiter (FL) considering passage of a local code limiting the size of cycling groups. As often happens when reactionary minds get together, the proposed law goes too far, requiring nonsense such as bells and “safety” flags on bikes, and it seems to limit the ability for solo cyclists to drive as defensively as State law allows.
Responses from local cycling groups has also been disappointing. The more vocal folks seem to believe the solution is for everyone to ride single file and hug the edge of the road. For years now I have been arguing that the problem with groups rides in Florida is primarily group size. But few if any of the clubs and groups seem willing to try reducing group size.
Keeping the same size groups and going single file along the edge will not solve the problem, and it may make things worse.
Cyclists ride two abreast because humans are naturally social animals. The desire to ride side-by-side and talk to somebody will create constant tension between those attempting to keep everyone single-file and those who just want to enjoy the ride.
Long, single-file pacelines are inherently squirrelly at the end, and dropping back after a pull takes quite a while with a big group, so there will often be at least one rider outside the line.
Hugging the edge invites motorists to pass when it’s not safe to do so. They will squeeze by within the lane (many rural roads have lanes of 10 or 11 feet wide), and in many cases pass closer than three feet.
The problem isn’t cyclists “riding in the middle of the lane;” it’s cyclists making it difficult for motorists to pass by choosing to travel in large packs. Larger groups leads to other problems, too.
Groupthink is dangerous stuff. With larger groups…
Personal responsibility decreases.
Competition and “testosterone poisoning” increase.
Communication between cyclists decreases.
The influence of more experienced and level-headed riders is diminished.
Complying with traffic control devices becomes more problematic.
Take a look at the scenarios below and think about which strategy will result in less motorist delay and frustration and greater safety.
Please folks. Let’s not shoot ourselves in the feet over this issue. Those of us who’ve been riding safely and successfully for years in small, two-abreast groups that motorists can pass easily don’t want to be seen as the scofflaws.
Those of us who bike for transportation need to be able to control the lane to keep ourselves safe.
I’m not quite sure where people get those all-or-nothing attitudes when it comes to cycling. I’m continually amazed at how many people immediately start up with “Americans aren’t going to give up their cars” when bicycle transportation is brought up.
Similarly, many cyclists (and motorists who seem to revel in hanging out in cycling-related comment boards) seem to think lane control (aka “Taking the Lane,” aka “Commanding the Lane,” aka “Riding in the Middle of the Road,” aka “Impeding Traffic,” aka “Getting in the Way of the Important People in Cars”) is an all-or-nothing proposition. As though lane control proponents do nothing but ride in the middle of every lane.
Of course that’s not the case. We control the lane when it’s prudent; when keeping right will invite motorists to squeeze by dangerously close, when intersection conflicts are an issue, when pavement is bad, when we’re going as fast as other traffic, and in a variety of other situations.
I and others describe a lane that is too narrow to share as less than 14 feet wide. (By the way, it’s not just us arrogant lane control advocates who say this; FDOT does, too. See Florida Green Book, page 211.) But there are situations in which a narrower lane might be shareable; particularly when motorist speeds are low. One of the many benefits of lane control is that it slows motorists down so that they can pass safely. While many cyclists like to tout Florida’s 3-foot law (motorists are required to give at least three feet of space when passing a bicyclist), many of us are comfortable with closer passes when motorists are going only a few miles per hour faster than we are (but want more than 3 feet when speeds are high!). I’m happy with 2 feet when cars are doing 20 mph and the pavement is good.
Here are the factors I take into consideration:
Two-lane road
Lane not less than 12 feet
I’m not turning
On-coming traffic makes it difficult and dangerous to move into the on-coming lane to pass
Just one or two cars behind me
No debris or bad pavement ahead of me
The vehicles trying to pass are not very wide (no trailers, large trucks)
No intersection conflict issues
With those conditions I will move over towards the curb, but only after the following vehicle has slowed to my speed. Then when it passes it will only be going a few miles per hour faster than I am. If you have too many cars backed up behind you the later ones will get up a good head of steam by the time they pass you and will be more aggressive. In such a case it’s better to just pull over into a driveway and let them all by.
Please folks. Let’s not shoot ourselves in the feet over this issue. Those of us who’ve been riding safely and successfully for years in small, two-abreast groups that motorists can pass easily don’t want to be seen as the scofflaws. 
