As the London group Reclaim the Streets argued, our streets were taken from us and sold back to us for the price of gasoline.  This is true for most aspects of The Commons as technologies have advanced: agriculture became agribusiness, stories became published books, songs became recorded and marketed music, forests became tree farms.  Our economy is based in large part on the conversion of The Commons into money.

And today we’re even losing the freedom to use our parks as a real Commons.  No sitting, no laying down, you must have a permit to have a gathering.  Keep moving people; you could be shopping and helping the economy grow.

Not everyone has the time to occupy a park or plaza; some of us are fortunate to have jobs, even good ones; but we can show solidarity with the other Occupiers by spreading the occupation across time and space in our own more modest ways.

The bicycle is an excellent tool of Occupation.  But I am not talking about Critical Mass. Critical Mass presumes (depending on who you listen to) that bicyclists can’t travel our streets safely as they are, that we have to travel in large groups in order to protect ourselves, that cyclists need special accommodation, that motorists are evil and cyclists must be protected from them with special laws, and that the rules of the road were written for motorists, not cyclists.

Let me address this last point before moving on.  We have to differentiate between rules and laws.  Rules grow out of the culture somewhat organically.  Even if one person develops them, we follow them by consensus if they work.  There’s no police or formal court to uphold them.  Laws are the formalized versions of those rules as they’re implemented by our governments.

The first formalized traffic rules were developed by a man named William Phelps Eno in the early 1900s and adopted by many cities as their official traffic laws.  In 1905 less than one in a thousand Americans owned an automobile.  Eno didn’t develop his rules for them; he saw autos as a passing fad.  No, the rules for vehicular traffic were written for drivers of horse-drawn vehicles and bicyclists.

A number of us have learned that adhering to the rules for vehicular traffic is the best way to drive a bicycle on our public streets, and what’s more, controlling a lane — riding near the middle of the lane — is the most effective way of reducing conflicts and crash risks.  I won’t go into the details in this piece; it has been covered extensively elsewhere, especially on CommuteOrlando.com.

While the rules for traffic have remained the same, the laws in most states have been changed to favor motorists over bicyclists.  They place motorist convenience above bicyclist safety and comfort.  Cyclists have had to fight to ensure they could operate in the safest possible manner, which often entails controlling a lane rather than hugging the edge.   In most states today bicyclists are required to keep “as close as practicable”  to the right edge or curb, but with many exceptions for safety.  The times and places which meet those exceptions are actually more common than the times and places which don’t.

While lane control is primarily a practical safety strategy, it can also been seen as a political statement.  It is a way of saying that speed is not the primary rule of traffic; that “first come, first served” is; that the basic right to travel in the safest possible manner must take precedence over the desire to travel at higher speeds.  That those wielding power cannot be given so much advantage over those who do not wield such power.

We see the Tyranny of Speed expressed in online newspaper comment sections when cycling is discussed: “If you can’t keep up with traffic you have to get out of the way.”  Should speed take priority before liberty, before health, before clean transportation, before a civil and communal public realm?  Is getting to one’s destination a few seconds sooner more important than cutting the amount of money we send to oil barons and Middle Eastern sheiks and instead keeping it in our communities? Occupying the Lane is one powerful way to answer, “No.”

Bicyclists and motorists are not “natural enemies.” We’re all simply people who desire to get where we want or need to go in a reasonable time period and in reasonable comfort and safety.  Only a tiny proportion of motorists act as bullies, and even that would be reduced if cyclists stood up to them.  Most motorists, when lane control is explained to them, understand and appreciate it.  They’d be very happy to share the roadways with assertive, predictable cyclists who communicate clearly and cooperate with their fellow road users.

Segregating cyclists into reservations or ghettos (bike lanes and sidepaths) only reinforces the belief that we cannot learn to share.  Separation is more often the problem rather than the solution.  By putting bicyclists “in their own place,” motorists can just forget about us.  Which they do. Until it’s too late.  Which is usually when they’re turning at an intersection or driveway.

Just as Occupiers have learned to use the tactics of non-violent protest, bicyclists can learn the strategies of sharing roadways — confidence, consideration, communication and cooperation.

As London’s Reclaim the Streets put it:

The street is an extremely important symbol because your whole enculturation experience is geared around keeping you off the street. Inevitably you will find yourself on the curbstone of indifference, wondering “should I play it safe and stay on the sidewalks, or should I go into the street?” And it is the ones who are taking the most risks that will ultimately effect the change in society.

The “risk” in this case is not a physical one.  Cycling as a vehicle driver does not add physical risk, it reduces it.  No, the risk is social.  It’s standing up to a taboo whose time has come and gone.

The great mythologist Joseph Campbell warned that if wish to make meaningful change in the world, we must define ourselves by what we wish to see, not by what we oppose.  I hope those in the Occupy movement will take that to heart, whether they are in a park or on a street; posting on Facebook or Twitter, on foot, in a car, or on a bicycle.

To learn more, go to CyclingSavvy.org and CommuteOrlando.com

“It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”
– UCLA basketball coach John Wooden

I’ve spent the past two decades trying to figure out how make bicycling work better for people. Perhaps instead I should have been trying to figure out how to make our communities work better. As John Wooden implied, when it comes to cycling, I’m a know-it-all, but when it comes to what really counts…

I’ve found I have to refute a number of things I used to believe, or at least wanted to be true. That’s a fancy way of saying I was wrong.

This year the “bike lane wars” have really heated up.  The war stories keep coming through my web feeds. New York City is the front line. Florida’s legislature felt the need to control cyclists by passing a mandatory bike lane use law last year. Why so much rancor about something that’s supposed to be so wonderful and benign?

The book “Community: The Structure of Belonging” by Peter Block is helping me get to the root of the problem. Block’s book explores the all-too-common dysfunctions of our communities, showing why, in spite of immense affluence and ubiquitous communication options, we are unable to solve so many of our pressing problems. Reading it I came upon passages which could have been written explicitly for the “bicycling community.” But we shouldn’t feel too special; our problems are practically universal. Here are (for our purposes) the key statements from the most important passage in the book (underlines are mine):

“If we create a context of fear, fault, and retribution, then we will focus on protecting ourselves, which plants the seed of entitlement.

“The retributive context … is based on fear, fault finding, fragmentation … it is more about being right than working something out, more about gerrymandering for our own interests than giving voice to those on the margin. Other than that it is fine.

”The cost of entitlement is that it is an escape from accountability and soft on commitment. It gets in the way of authentic citizenship.

“What is interesting is that the existing public conversation claims to be tough on accountability, but the language of accountability that occurs in a retributive context is code for “control.” High-control systems are unbearably soft on accountability. They keep screaming for tighter controls, new laws, and bigger systems, but in the scream, they expose their weakness.”

Fear is the foundation of much of what bicycling advocates are concerned. “We’ve got to make bicycling safer!” (Or at least seem safer.) Since “safe” is an inherently relative term, it’s the grounds for endless argument. We’ve managed to get people so afraid of bicycling that recently a “bicycle planning professional” on the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals email list was asking about how one might create a designated pedestrian and bicyclist space, segregated from motor traffic, in an alley.

We fixate on who is at fault, rather than on how conflicts and injuries might be best reduced. Once again, this leads to endless argument and finger-pointing. Nobody wants to be seen as being at fault, so each focuses on the faults of the others. Since everyone else is at fault, we become the victims. And since we’re “doing god’s work” (being so green and healthy and all), we must be entitled to special treatment by everybody else: motorists, officers, planners, engineers…. We hold them all accountable for our safety and comfort.

How do we hold them accountable? By enlisting government to control them.

99.999% of motorists do not want to hit us or hurt us. But we try to control them anyway, through laws and engineering; the 3-foot passing law, a vulnerable user law, and bike lanes which say “This is our turf, you’d best keep out of it.” To which some motorists reply, perhaps righteously offended, “That’s your playpen. I paid for it and you’d best stay in it for your own good.” So in retribution they try to control cyclists with a mandatory bike lane law. None of these attempts come close to achieving their intent, because they focus on blame instead of on how crashes actually happen.

Controlling with Paint?

It’s time for some serious and honest research into the effectiveness of bike lanes.

For many years I tried to find the evidence that bike lanes increase cycling without compromising safety. That was my belief, but I’ve yet to find definitive data supporting it. Now I’m finding the validity of that hypothesis to be increasingly unlikely. While they do produce some modest increases, through my own use of bike lanes and observations of the behaviors of motorists and other cyclists, I’ve come to believe they create unnecessary hazards and conflicts on urban streets. They’re particularly problematic on lower-speed streets where bicyclists are often going as fast or faster than the motorists. The reports involving crashes due to conflicts created by the bike lanes are starting to come in. From my informed perspective, the negatives of bike lanes now outweigh the modest benefits.

And now we’re expected to always use them “for our own good.” Look at how New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg responded to the viral bike lane ticket protest video:

“Generally speaking bicyclists are going to stay in bicycle lanes because of public pressure, the same way that smokers aren’t going to smoke in this park; we’re not going to give out tickets, it’s public pressure — the same way you pay your taxes. Most people in America, unlike other places in the world, pay their taxes, and that lets us go after the handful that don’t.“

There you have it; the retribution cycle in action. Fearful cyclists push to get the government to control the “at-fault” motorists by creating bike lanes. Motorists, who see cyclists as unpredictable fools, show their disdain for that control (and loss of operating space) by parking in bike lanes. Bicyclists have to leave the bike lanes for valid reasons, then get ticketed by police who side with the motorists. One cyclist gets retribution by creating a very successful video, and the rest of the cycling community piles on. So the Mayor gets defensive and equates uppity cyclists with smokers and tax cheats. Block’s pattern of community dysfunction predicts it all. Everybody else is wrong, except us. Where will it end?

We try to control traffic engineers with “bike-friendly” policies, and take them to court when they don’t adhere to them, such as in the A1A case.

Of course the 3-foot passing law is not enforced, because officers don’t respect us (hmmm, why is that?). The mandatory bike lane law is enforced (at least socially). And increasingly across the country advocates and planners are saying bike lanes aren’t enough, because they don’t control motorists enough; so barrier-separated bike lanes — “cycle tracks” — must be the answer.

Block again:

“The concern about street safety and increasing the comfort and quality of the urban experience is of course legitimate. What limits us and undermines our quest for authentic community is the belief that fault finding, legislation, and enforcement can give us the security we seek. … We think more watching improves performance. All evidence is to the contrary, for most high-performing communities and organizations are heavily self-regulating.”

Who is Accountable?

And where is the accountability from the bicyclists? It’s rather hard to find. See them knocking down our doors to take safe cycling courses? Nope. Indeed, the most socially visible bicyclists are hardly accountable at all: Critical Mass riders, pack riders, hipster/fixie riders. Responsible cyclist behavior is so rare that I’ve heard stories of motorists going out of their way to thank cyclists for acting predictably. (Full disclosure: I used to ride with packs, and I’ve attended a handful of Critical Mass rides. Past tense. But I’ve never been hip or ridden a fixed gear.)

All these attempts at control, whether of motorists, bicyclists, planners or engineers, as they get increasingly specific in their intent, are also increasingly subject to challenge by the ones being controlled, because each party finds valid reasons to question the control. This only leads to more conflict, ultimately ending up in our courts. The only solution to this downward spiral is accountability, and accountability must start with me, not you. Us, not them. So that’s why I say, “I was wrong.”

Accountability must lead to commitment. In order for cyclists to be released of the control being imposed on us by others (mostly by the State), we must make the commitment, without condition, to change our ways so control is no longer necessary. That doesn’t mean we do what others want (because what others want of us is based on retribution, not fairness or reason), it means we do what’s best for all involved, including ourselves.

For many years I’ve argued that it’s unfair to expect bicyclists to “police our own,” since pedestrians, motorists and motorcyclists don’t. Now I believe it is our responsibility. Maybe not to “police” our fellow cyclists, but we must figure out how to influence and encourage them to strive to reach a higher standard. Not just to be conspicuous, predictable and the most polite of roadway users, but to work for the safety of all road users as well.

Capacities, Not Deficiencies

“The real cycle you’re working on is a cycle called yourself. The machine that appears to be “out there” and the person that appears to be “in here” are not two separate things. They grow toward Quality or fall away from Quality together.”
– Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

While there may be a few exceptions, it is possible for any reasonably competent person to bike safely on virtually any road. We know it’s possible because people are doing it. These people are not super-fit or fearless daredevils. They are individuals who have simply learned how to drive their bicycles in a predictable, defensive and strategic manner. If they can do it, most any adult can. Not only does such cycling eliminate the vast majority of hazards and conflicts with motorists, it is also appreciated by many, if not most motorists. Motorists know what to expect of such cyclists.

What should we call such cyclists? I suggest we avoid “vehicular cycling;” while it’s objectively correct, it’s loaded with too much political baggage amongst cycling advocates. Florida Bicycle Association calls its traffic cycling course CyclingSavvy, but a more generic term is probably needed. While it’s essentially defensive driving for bicyclists, the term “defensive” can have a negative connotation. What motorists need from us is to be polite and dependable. So I am proposing we use the term “dependable cycling.” Keri Caffrey likes to tell the story of how she used to have to deal with so many stupid motorists, but after she learned to ride properly, all-of-a-sudden those drivers got so much smarter. By being polite, defensive and dependable, we encourage motorists to be polite and dependable as well.

I’ve made my commitment to make cycling better by first and foremost being a better cyclist. I hope you will do the same. No matter how long you have been cycling, you will learn valuable lessons from FBA’s CyclingSavvy course. The course is all about being accountable and committed, not about avoiding becoming a victim.

“Typically I ride my road bikes between 9,000 and 12,000 miles each year and I ride them anywhere I want to go in daylight or darkness. I enrolled in the three-part Cycling Savvy course. I learned fundamentals I don’t remember thinking about . . . no wonder I wasn’t very helpful to beginners. Convictions that I held resolutely were challenged and shown to be indefensible. This course is wonderful for timid cyclists and a must for those of us who know it all.”
– Larry Gies, Seminole County

“I don’t think there are too many people in the world who have more experience with different kinds of cycling (recreational, commuting, touring and racing) in different parts of the world (five continents) than I have. …When CyclingSavvy came to the midwest in April and June 2011, I took both the Three-Part Course and the Instructors’ Course in St. Louis. I believe that I learned more in these few months about cycling safely and comfortably in traffic than I had learned from my previous 50 or so years of cycling.”
— Gary Cziko, new CyclingSavvy Instructor in Champaign-Urbana, IL

Please don’t take these quotes as chest-thumping. Keri and I didn’t approach the development of this course with the thought of “We have all this game-changing information to share with cyclists.” Instead, we were focused on simply getting more people comfortable cycling in traffic by changing their beliefs and doing a better job of explaining key concepts. In the process we learned a ton of new things ourselves. It’s said one learns more by teaching than by being a student. I think one can expand that to: one learns more by developing a new curriculum than by teaching. And the most important thing we learned was that when we communicate politely and clearly, drive assertively, and act dependably, motorists treat us with respect. No bicycle facility, traffic law, t-shirt message, YouTube video, or protest ride can come close to the effectiveness of being a dependable cyclist.

Who Are You and What Can You Contribute?

This piece is entitled “I Am Not a Bicyclist.” Yes, I did that to grab your attention. Of course I am a bicyclist. I am also a husband, a reader, a gardener, and a number of other things; and somewhere near the top of that list is a Citizen. I used to believe the fact that we identified ourselves as cyclists was an advantage. It enabled us to come together to develop strategies and implement them to improve our standing in our communities. But by identifying ourselves as cyclists we also set ourselves apart. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, notable social psychologists have promoted the realistic conflict theory, which holds that groups which are segregated from one another — even ones that share core values and common backgrounds — inevitably develop prejudices and discrimination. The Robbers Cave Park experiment is a classic example. Capulets and Montagues. Motorists and bicyclists.

“Bicycling community” is an oxymoron, a dysfunction, as is any “(insert interest group) community.” It’s an idea we should leave behind. Community is about integration and sharing. In functional communities people help one another do the “right” things far more often than they punish those who do the “wrong” things.

Let’s be citizens first, and cyclists somewhere down the list. Let’s be individuals who take accountability for the future, rather than entitled consumers waiting for the government to give us “our own space.” Once again, Block says it best:

“A citizen is one who produces the future, someone who does not wait, beg, or dream for the future. The antithesis of being a citizen is the choice to be a consumer or a client … Consumers give power away. They believe that their own needs can be best satisfied by the actions of others. Consumers also allow others to define their needs. If leaders and service providers are guilty of labeling or projecting onto others the “needs” to justify their own style of leadership or service they provide, consumers collude with them by accepting others’ definition of their needs. This provider-consumer transaction is the breeding ground for entitlement, and it is unfriendly to our definition of citizenship and the power inherent in that definition.”

The rationale for segregation is deficiency. The rationale for control is deficiency. We call for the segregation of bicyclists and motorists because both are presumed deficient and unwilling or unable to avoid colliding with one another. We call for our governments to control motorists and cyclists with increasingly prescriptive laws and enforcement for the same reason. If deficiency is the expectation we set and the story we tell, then that’s where we’ll go. While the deficiencies are real, so are our capacities for competence, politeness, and dependability. Which story shall we tell?

“What do you want from me — my deficiencies or my capacities?”
– Peter Block

“Regulation is a signal of design failure.”

– William McDonough

The childishness and fear-mongering over cycling continues across the land. It’s stories like these that make me fear for the future of cycling in this country.

The latest insanity comes from Portland, where an Oregon legislator is proposing (just for discussion, mind you) a ban on children under seven being transported via bicycle, either on the back of an adult’s bike or in a trailer. Presumably kids under seven could still ride bikes of their own? There was no mention of that becoming illegal.  So evidently parent cyclists are the problem.

Then there’s New Jersey, where a legislator thought bicycles needed to be registered through the DMV.  Imaging having to pay $10 per year to register the bicycle-shaped object you bought at Target for $89.  She’s since reconsidered.

Not to be outdone are the brilliant folks at the Bicycle Alliance of Washington who have actually endorsed a mandatory bike lane use law in return for a variation on the 3-foot passing law.  (In the proposed law, 3 feet would be the minimum passing clearance at less than 35 mph; over 35 mph it goes up to 5 feet.)  What’s more, their mandatory use law is extended to paved shoulders, not just bike lanes.

But hey, it’s OK, because they wrote it such that you’re only required to use the bike lane or shoulder if you think it’s safe.  I’m not making this up.  The actual language reads “…if such use is reasonably judged safe by the bicyclist.”  It’s one thing to tell someone they are not required to do something they believe to be risky, but to require someone to do something as long as they believe it to be safe?  Also, the well-informed cyclist can (in theory) avoid a citation for not using a bike lane by just telling the officer he thinks it’s dangerous.  The uninformed cyclist not using the bike lane just has to suck it up.  Or will officers volunteer that, “Well sir, we can avoid having you cited if you just tell me the bike lane is dangerous.”

The 3-foot law/fetish is a lousy trade for a mandatory bike lane use law.  Does anyone have the slightest bit of evidence that it improves motorist behavior?   Lane control on the other hand is a proven strategy cyclists can already legally use to get motorists to pass safely.   If one simply gets rid of all the absurdly convoluted language in the far-to-the-right/mandatory bike lane laws and encourage cyclists to control their lanes, passing clearance would improve for real.  More importantly, this obsession with passing distance and bike lanes ignores the fact that most crashes (over 90%) involve turning and crossing movements, not motorist overtakings.

I can just see all the police officers in Washington now, following motorists with one eye on the speedometer and one on some specially designed and perfectly calibrated device that measures the passing clearance, waiting to watch them pass cyclists.

Then there’s this beauty from a Brooklyn councilman.

…in many of these cases the bicyclists were violating the rules in some way. They were either on roads without bike lanes, going through a red light or riding the wrong way down the street.

His argument makes some warped sense if one believes the purpose of bike lanes is to keep cyclists safe, and one keeps seeing cyclists routinely violating the law.  Really, why not limit cyclists just to streets with bike lanes.  It’s for our safety!  Safety first!

Many of Reed’s fellow cyclists are criticizing him for not using the paved shoulder, even though Texas law does not require it, and also permits cyclists full use of a lane that is too narrow to share.

If Reed was riding on a roadway with a shared use path next to it in a state that has a mandatory sidepath law, many, if not most of you would support him, even though some of you might prefer to ride on the path.  Most non-cyclists however, would not understand why he wasn’t using the “bike path” because riding on the road is “so dangerous.”

If he was riding on a roadway with a narrow paved shoulder or bike lane that was full of debris and was staying out of that shoulder or bike lane, once again, many or most of you would support him, even though you might use the shoulder or bike lane.   Most non-cyclists however, would not understand why he wasn’t using the “bike path” because riding on the road is “so dangerous.”

If he was riding on a roadway without a paved shoulder, bike lane or sidepath and controlling the lane, many or most of you would support him, even though you might hug the edge.  Most non-cyclists however, would not understand why he was on the road at all, because riding on the road is “so dangerous.”

From the sound of how the Ennis police and Ellis County sheriff’s departments are behaving, I think they could have just as easily cited, jailed and convicted Reed for any of those types of circumstances, because they believe — in spite of a complete lack of evidence — that roadway cycling is dangerous and causes delay and chaos on our roads.

When I was pulled over for controlling a narrow lane in the City of Orlando, I heard the same kind of absurd and ignorant arguments from the cop who pulled me over.  Fortunately, there was no bike lane or paved shoulder present, and I was able to talk my way out of it.  Last week an off-duty sheriff’s deputy told me to get on the sidewalk.  Many will say, “Well that’s different,” but it’s really not; all of these police actions stem from the same bogus belief, not from their understanding of the law.

The real problem we face is not so much how our laws are written, but what people believe about cycling.  When we cyclists criticize Reed for cycling in the way he does, we are reinforcing the belief that roadway cycling is dangerous, and therefor irresponsible.

******************

A note about impeding traffic.  I looked up the traffic counts for the road Reed’s been using at the Texas Department of Transportation website.  It gets about 18,000 cars per day; rather low for a four-lane highway.  Reed’s first arrest happened at about 2:30 p.m., which is well “off-peak.”  Using standard traffic planning estimates, I’d guess the road was seeing roughly 3 to 4 cars per minute per lane, or one car passing ever 15 to 20 seconds.  How can one possibly think changing lanes to pass a cyclist is any sort of problem in such a situation?  By comparison, the street I ride to work during rush hour is a 3-lane one-way.  Each lane sees about 12 to 13 cars per minute, or one every 5 seconds (of course they actually come in platoons).  But even with much heavier traffic, motorists rarely have to wait more than a few seconds to pass me, and most don’t have to wait at all; they see me early and change lanes.

“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.

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.

Thanks to Copenhagenize for the find.

* YouTube shows this as from 1953, but info from IMBD and auto styles in the film indicate it’s 1937.

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.

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.

The problem is not lane control or two-abreast.

It’s group size.

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.

The street is an extremely important symbol because your whole enculturation experience is geared around keeping you out of the street. “Just remember: Look left, look right, look left again… No ball games… Don’t talk to strangers… Keep out of the road.” The idea is to keep everyone indoors. So, when you come to challenge the powers that be, inevitably you find yourself on the curbstone of indifference, wondering “should I play it safe and stay on the sidewalks, or should I go into the street?” And it is the ones who are taking the most risks that will ultimately effect the change in society.

The car system steals the street from under us and sells it back for the price of gasoline. It privileges time over space, corrupting and reducing both to an obsession with speed or, in economic lingo, “turnover.” It doesn’t matter who “drives” this system, for its movements are already pre-determined.

– from the website of the (now defunct) London advocacy group “Take Back the Streets”

* * * * *

Imagine you are a member of the majority, and a powerful minority has managed to get the laws changed in such a way as to significantly curtail one of your essential liberties. What’s more, they then proceeded to abuse your remaining rights and make your life miserable. As a result, a couple decades later, your majority has become a minority.

There’s no need to imagine. This is what happened to pedestrians (and to a lesser extent bicyclists) in these United States in the 1920s.

* * * * *

I’m not sure [George is] wrong about automobiles … With all their speed forward they may be a step backward in civilization — that is, in spiritual civilization. It may be that they will not add to the beauty of the world, nor to the life of men’s souls. I am not sure. But automobiles have come, and they bring a greater change in our life than most of us suspect. They are here, and almost all outward things are going to be different because of what they bring. They are going to alter war, and they are going to alter peace. I think men’s minds are going to be changed in subtle ways because of automobiles; just how, though, I could hardly guess. But you can’t have the immense outward changes that they will cause without some inward ones, and it may be that George is right, and that the spiritual alteration will be bad for us. Perhaps, ten or twenty years from now, if we can see the inward changes in men by that time, I shouldn’t be able to defend the gasoline engine, but would have to agree with him that automobiles “had no business to be invented.”

– from The Magnificent Ambersons, the 1918 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Booth Tarkington

* * * * *

Peter Norton’s Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City is a scholarly exploration of the radical changes that happened to our perceptions of streets and traffic in the late 1910s and 1920s. During that era, motorists were a very small – but fast-growing and affluent – minority. Norton documents how they managed to change the “construct” (or “frame”) of what a street is for.

I found Norton’s book compelling to pick up because it describes minority street users managing to change the long-held conventions that determined how streets were used; the very same situation bicycling and pedestrian advocates face today.

Fighting Traffic is bit dry and dense in parts; it reads at times like a Ph.D. dissertation. But it is livened throughout by colorful quotes from the newspapers and other records of the age. Most importantly, Norton makes his case rock solid.

In the late 1910s and early 1920s motorists were a wealthy minority who were often limited to speeds of 8 or 10 mph in the cities. Pedestrians had free reign, wandering the streets as they had for as long as there had been streets. Until this time they only had to share with other relatively slow users: livestock, ridden horses, horse-drawn carts and carriages, and bicyclists. (It should be noted however, that bicyclists too were at first seen as a reckless addition to the streets, spooking horses and running down pedestrians, as bicycle law expert Bob Mionske noted in his Road Rights column in the June 2009 Bicycling Magazine.)

The introduction of fast and massive vehicles into this chaotic mix resulted in an alarming increase in fatalities, mostly of pedestrians. With only 7.5 million cars on the road in 1920 there were 11,000 traffic fatalities (one death for every 680 vehicles per year); about three-quarters were pedestrians, with children highly over-represented. By comparison, there are about 250 million cars and trucks on our streets today, with an annual death toll of 35,000 to 40,000 (one death per 6,000 vehicles per year); about 5,000 being pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, we have a much safer system today, but it has not improved much over the past three decades, and some point to air bags and better emergency room care as the reason it has not climbed.

Police in those days saw their role as upholding the existing order. According to Norton, safety came first, and traffic congestion was none of their concern. In fact, congestion was seen as keeping speeds down, reducing the severity of crashes. But motoring and economic interests wished to see “better traffic flow,” and experimented with various new rules and traffic control devices.

Cities experimented with their own unique rules and devices, making things confusing for those traveling from city to city. Motoring interests often worked with local Safety Councils to improve traffic safety by railing against careless and reckless motorists.

But things changed dramatically in 1923 when the city of Cincinnati, Ohio threatened to pass a law requiring speed governors on all motor vehicles, limiting them to 25 mph. Much as Texas bicyclists got organized back in the late 1980s when threatened with a cycling ban on many rural roads, motoring interests got seriously activated. They defeated the Cincinnati referendum and went on to develop a masterful campaign to redefine what streets were for. There’s nothing like a threat to get people organized.

In the early 1920s, Norton writes, “Motordom claimed that a new age had dawned, making the old customs obsolete.” Indeed, it was named “The Motor Age.” A “new age” demanded new ways of thinking and behaving, and new laws to reinforce them. “Freedom” was their rallying call; the fewer laws the better. Speed was reframed from a danger to a “right.” Previously “speed” was considered an integral, and even primary, element of “recklessness;” motordom’s spinmeisters decoupled the two. Now pedestrians could be deemed “reckless” for doing what they had done for centuries, and motorists could go fast without being called “reckless.”

Part of the strategy was to avoid differentiating between “groups” (motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians) and focus on behaviors (motoring, bicycling, walking). It’s acceptable to criticize a bad behavior; not to criticize a group of people by association. But this hinged on whether or not an automobile was considered to be “inherently dangerous.” If it was, then motorists must be strictly controlled due to the very nature of their vehicles, not their individual actions. Auto interests won this argument not with any dispassionate assessment of physics, but with better propaganda.

The motoring propaganda machine launched campaigns to blame pedestrians for crashes. Since there were no Uniform Vehicle Codes, they led the effort to create them, holding the lion’s share of the seats on both state and federal committees writing them. Support for these changes came from the very top. Then Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover helped motoring interests get what they wished. Pedestrian interests, having no organization to speak of, had no seat at the table.

Not surprisingly, the new codes limited pedestrians to sidewalks and crosswalks. Thinking long term, auto interests ran their heaviest propaganda efforts in the elementary schools – “streets are for cars…no playing in the streets.” The campaign in the streets themselves progressed from ridicule to arrests as police had to uphold the new laws. With the introduction of traffic signals, officers were no longer needed to control traffic at busy intersections. Unfortunately for pedestrians, this meant there was no-one there to defend their right-of-way in the crosswalks. Motorists promptly started using their size and speed to scare pedestrians to the curbs. Bear in mind that this was in a country where there were only 19 million automobiles but a total population of about 114 million. Motorists were still well outnumbered, but had the force of law and the power of petroleum on their side.

It’s startling to conceive of how quickly things changed. In a few short years, pedestrians went from being historic rulers of the streets, to an outcast majority.

States started imposing gas taxes in the early ‘20s. Initially they were condemned by motoring interests, but in a few short years they realized that gas taxes in effect “bought” them not only more roadway space, but also a stronger claim to “ownership.” The perception of our streets changed from public spaces and public utilities managed by government for the good of all, to a “commodity” paid for by users. Pedestrians, cyclists, and other non-motorized users, not paying into this system, now had a lessened economic claim to the streets.

Next came the propaganda of the “forgiving highway,” which began in the late ‘20s. The belief was that safe highways could be designed that would require very low driving competence. One need only spend a few minutes on an American street today to see that this was a self-fulfilling prophecy…except for the safety part.

Bicyclists were just collateral damage in this overthrow. Norton makes very little mention of us. American adults gave up cycling for motoring and didn’t pick it up again until the 1970s when the first good-quality multi-speed bikes hit the U.S.* The high-speed “forgiving highway” concept had all but taken over by then. It was the speed of these new roads that had the biggest impact; combined with the keep-as-far-right-as-practicable laws, it helped push bicyclists literally and figuratively to the edge of the roadway, where they had to suffer the stress and risk of being passed too closely by speed- and time-obsessed motorists. Being told one was an intruder on “somebody else’s road” only made it worse.

The public relations and social marketing firm Salter-Mitchell, in a new study for Florida Bicycle Association through a Winter Park Health Foundation grant, heard a common refrain from motorists: “Roads were viewed as ‘belonging’ to cars; cyclists and pedestrians should stay out of the way as much as possible.”

Officers shifted from protecting vulnerable users by upholding their rights, to keeping them out of the way. Today, even after officers are shown that basic cyclist violations such as no lights, wrong-way riding, and red light running are the primary causes of cyclist/motorist crashes, and that group rides rarely result in crashes with motorists, they still put more focus on group rides because they get in the way of the “rightful owners” of the roads. Cyclists putting themselves at risk are of little concern; cyclists impeding motorists is evidently a far more serious problem. Pedestrians fare no better with today’s law enforcement philosophy. A Florida Highway Patrol officer once said during a discussion of crosswalk laws, “I’m not going to stop six lanes of traffic on SR 436 so some guy can cross the street to get a Frosty at Wendy’s.” We see law enforcement agencies focusing much more on “jaywalking” than on motorists violating crosswalk laws. Delaying motorists is evidently the bigger sin.

* * * * *

[T]he automotive city took back much of the freedom it promised….[W]hen street users are free to use cars, the freedom of all street users (including motorists) to use anything else is diminished. A city rebuilt (socially and physically) to accommodate cars cannot give street users the good choices a truly free market can provide.”

– Peter Norton

* * * * *

The Use of Power

If 1920s motordom had used today’s dominant bicycle advocacy strategies, they would have said: “Give us a place to drive where we won’t get in the way and harm others.” But they knew that such a strategy would severely constrain their freedom.

What we can learn from their story? First and foremost is the need to reframe our streets back to their original concept of public space. Today, as in the 1920s, a “new age has dawned.” The age of Climate Change and Peak Oil has begun; the Age of Sprawl has ended. In this new age, bicyclists slowing motorists is a good thing. It’s an age for reclaiming the crosswalks, for building pedestrian-oriented streets (to counter freeways). It’s an age for letting bicyclists drive in the safest possible manner, which often means in the middle of the lane. It’s an age in which the definition of “efficiency” must change from speed to space, from speed to real energy conservation.

Building “walkable communities” and “complete streets” is a good effort – it provides incremental improvements for non-motorized travelers – but it’s not enough. It doesn’t change the frame. I watch the behavior on Orlando’s supposedly pedestrian-friendly and cyclist-friendly streets and still see far too much “we own these roads” behavior by motorists. In the 1920s motorists changed the frame of what we today call “walkable communities” into motor-dominated cities. Only later did they rebuild our cities to accommodate the auto.

Motoring interests used every form of power available to them. They didn’t have much in the way of numbers, but they had political connections, strong financial backing, and organization. They developed “moral” power by playing the “freedom” and “future” cards. Finally, after they had changed the rules of the game, they could use physical horsepower to intimidate with relative impunity.

Pedestrians today are the weakest street user group. Their little political strength is “bottom up;” their financial support is scant. Few people identify themselves as “pedestrians,” so their organization is minimal except in places like New York City.

We bicyclists could be much stronger if we took full advantage of the forms of power we have at hand. Unlike pedestrians, we are quite well organized; we have the Alliance for Biking and Walking (formerly Thunderhead Alliance), the League of American Bicyclists, numerous state and local advocacy organizations, and still more local clubs, groups rides, and web forums. (In a way we are even better organized than motorists; but then motorists have the entire culture behind them.) Financial support is growing, but still miniscule compared to motoring interests. We try to use moral power (freedom, safety, environment, community), but the voice needs amplification (which takes money). Commanding the lane is an expression of personal power combined with the power of expectation; you’re telling the motorist you expect him to treat you as an equal. Critical Mass – like it or not – is an expression of physical power. (Motorist and law enforcement complaints that groups of bicyclists are occasionally “hogging the road” sound hysterically funny when one steps out from behind the current motorist-dominated frame.)

The bicycling movement needs a serious internal discussion on what types of power it can and should use, and how.

In an essay I wrote inspired by Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink, I quoted Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji: “You don’t choose to make positive associations with the dominant group, but you are required to. All around you, that group is being paired with good things. You open the newspaper and turn on the television, and you can’t escape it.” Before we can change the frame, we must move out from behind it ourselves as cyclists and pedestrians.

Bike and pedestrian advocates have been trying, and in some cases succeeding in passing laws in some states which would supposedly return some balance to our streets, but these laws are like mosquito bites on the back of an unharnessed elephant. Does anyone have the slightest bit of evidence that the 3-foot passing law has changed anything? Has even one motorist (not involved in a crash) been cited for it?

Please understand I am not proposing a return to the pre-1920s laws or customs. Automobiles aren’t going away too soon, and we need good order when such dangerous things are on our roads. Indeed, for the most part our existing laws are quite good. The problems are the frame through which our laws are interpreted, and the general ignorance of them. When I explain the laws to those with suspended licenses attending the Alternative Transportation course, many have a hard time accepting them; they don’t fit in the “proper frame.”

The Time is Now

There has never been a better time of opportunity for cycling and walking interests. We have a New Age. We offer healthy, economical, green, and enjoyable options. We represent real efficiency, by accomplishing many goals at once instead of mere transport. We have the chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on our side; Jim Oberstar is an avid cyclist. President Obama reportedly “gets it” when it comes to cycling:

Stan Day, president of SRAM bicycle company said Obama “gets it,” referring to the role the bicycle can play in solving big problems like obesity and sustainability. “He does his homework and he can connect the dots.”

– Momentum Magazine

Do Obama and Oberstar understand the necessity of changing the frame? Do public health and environmental leaders understand? It will take a strong coalition.

And the “opponent” is weaker than ever:

“I don’t think the car is sustainable as the primary form of personal transportation. It’s not just about petroleum or global climate change. It’s also about congestion and safety.”

– Larry Burns, head of research and development for General Motors, 2009

In the 1920s many, if not most, pedestrians and transit riders aspired to become motorists. Today many are finding the automobile to be as much a burden as a tool of empowerment. It takes up about a quarter of their annual income, threatens the climate, continues to kill over 35 thousand Americans a year (just through crashes; that doesn’t include air pollution), and driving is increasingly seen as a chore. More and more I hear from people who wish they could become bicyclists. Ironically, becoming a bicyclist today is easier than becoming a motorist was in the 1920s. It’s just seen as being difficult because the motor-centric frame says it is. The real task of cycling and walking advocates is to help more people — as Morpheus said in The Matrix – “take the red pill.”**

“You take the blue pill, the story ends; you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill; you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

“Taking the red pill” in part means trusting the power of our cultural norms. Salter-Mitchell also found that most motorists, even though they see the streets as “belonging” to them, want to act safely when encountering cyclists and pedestrians. The problem is they often don’t know what bicyclists and pedestrians are allowed and expected to do by law. So we’ll keep handing out those little yellow books.*** Altering our culture’s construct of what a street is for, of who “owns” them, is essential if we are to truly have multi-modal communities that support our environmental and social values and goals. Motorists got their Freedom in the 1920s by diminishing the Freedom of pedestrians and bicyclists; it’s time to take it back.

* Contrary to common myth, bicycling did not increase in response to the OPEC oil embargo; sales began to climb before the embargo, and there was no similar increase in bicycle sales during the late 70s gas price hikes.

** Credit to Keri Caffrey for this reference.

*** FBA’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Law Enforcement Guide

Nota bene: Go here for a musical coda to this essay.