What do you get when you mix a pseudo-ethicist with a mainstream media pulpit? A law breaking cyclist who makes blind assertions about how breaking the law is “ethical.“
As a general rule, legitimate ethicists do not write fluffy articles in mainstream newspapers. They also avoid concluding that an action or desire is “ethical” on the basis that the person engaging in the action has a right to justify his or her behavior. Ethical arguments are developed from premises, which through the use of a rational thought process, engender valid conclusions.
The other day, a fluffy article masquerading as an ethical treatise appeared in the pages of The New York Times. After reading it several times, I still couldn’t determine, with apodictic certainty, whether it was intended to be serious or meant as tongue in cheek.
Although I was hoping that the latter was the case, due to the ridiculousness of the article’s arguments and the reference to laws and habits from other countries, I suspected that the former was true. Surely, no one would invoke the name of Immanuel Kant, to a general audience, unless they were trying to persuade people in the direction of their position.
This article starts out with the provocative sentences: “THE rule-breaking cyclist that people decry: that’s me. I routinely run red lights, and so do you.” From the outset, the author refuses to acknowledge the true nature of his actions by choosing to refer to his illegal activity as “rule-breaking,” even though he is breaking the law. Similar manipulations and defiant words can be found throughout the piece.
After the author sets the tone for the article, he moves on to justify his actions. In no time flat, we are treated to his belief that he has a right to break the law. He makes several main arguments to support this view.
First, is his insistence that the laws don’t apply to him because bicycles are different from cars. The fact that bicycles are defined as vehicles, with the same rights and obligations as cars, does not deter him from this perspective. Size and speed seem adequate to him for the purpose of redefining bicycles as something other than vehicles.
Second, is the argument about how it is OK to break the laws if others do it. In this case, he cites the example of pedestrians. They cross the street against red lights, so he can too. To make this argument, he overlooks the obvious point that bicycles are vehicles and pedestrians are not.
Third, he mentions the Idaho law which permits bicycles to treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs. Nowhere does he mention that New York has much more traffic than Idaho and a similar law would be more dangerous as a result.
Fourth, is his example of Amsterdam and Copenhagen where bikes are treated differently through the implementation of extensive protected bike lanes and lights timed for bicycles, not cars. In his mind, protecting cyclists makes bikes a “third thing,” i.e. neither a car nor a pedestrian.
These are all common excuses used by law-breaking cyclists. But what separates this article from most others is the author’s reliance on “ethics” to formalize this thinking into a justifiable system.
His claims about how this behavior is ethical stem from a number of disjointed sentences stating that this or that is “ethical,” without any proof of how or why these things are ethical. To make it sound official, he claims that his ethical argument “pass[es] the test of Kant’s categorical imperative: I think all cyclists could — and should — ride like me.”
Either he has no understanding of Kant or he thinks that his readers won’t know the difference. By “thinking” that all cyclists should ride like him, he is violating the categorical imperative, not passing it. In Kant’s view, humans should never be treated as a means to an end. Yet, that is exactly what the author is doing here.
He is using other cyclists by encouraging them to break the law with him, so that he can continue what he has been doing — while claiming it is ethical. In other words, the cyclists are the means to an end. By manipulating their actions, he can get what he wants for himself. But he hasn’t proven how such actions would benefit other cyclists, let alone drivers and pedestrians.
Contrary to what the author claims, ethics is not just about how our actions affect others; it’s also about whether something is right or wrong. To be ethical, on Kant’s terms, it must pass the test of being a universal law. However, it cannot be a universal law because it benefits cyclists at the expense of other road users who are obligated to obey the law.
Further, Kant would recognize and uphold the law of intersections which says that when a light is red, all traffic heading in that direction must stop. This is always true because the law of intersections is necessary to maintain order on public roads, and as such, benefits not only road users, but society at large.
Disobeying traffic laws is never legal or ethical whether traveling by car, bicycle or foot. Traffic laws exist to promote the greater good. Breaking them is done for personal gain. And asserting that these actions hurt no one is shallow and disingenuous. Likewise, invoking the names of famous philosophers will never change these facts, although it may fool some people into believing that their rule-breaking ways are acceptable.
I liked the Kantian reference although you correctly point out that the writer misuses Kant’s conclusions. Of course Kant wants it both ways doesn’t he? I think the point is that as things stand now the rules for bikes don’t make a lot of sense. The writer would also be living up to My Imperitive… It’s not has fast you go, it’s how little you go zero. I go through over a dozen lights each day and there are some I run routinely and others I have never ever run. Common sense needs to be applied and I’d say that is really the nut of that piece.
I agree with Phil. The center of the piece is that laws governing bikes are based on the concept that they are equivalent to (though in reality the rules are written to make them similar to but lesser than) cars. This should not be the case as – like the author argues – bikes are very different from cars. Nor should cyclists be governed as pedestrians, because, again, they are very different from pedestrians.
He argues that his breaking the law is ethical because the law is wrong. (Similar thinking to idea that ‘illegally’ freeing slaves or ‘illegally’ feeding the homeless can be ethical despite going against current law – though clearly a less cut-and-dry and more debatable example.)
I think you over-focused on the reference to Kant and and missed the heart of the article.
Actually, I think that both you and Phil are reading into the article what you want it to say, not what the author wrote. He specifically titled the article “If Kant Were a New York Cyclist.” And he claimed that his behavior, in violating the existing laws, was “ethical” because it would meet the test for Kant’s categorical imperative. That is what I was writing about.
The author did not say that breaking the law is ethical because the law is wrong. You said that because it’s what you believe. And then you presented an argument to support your contention. (By the way, your argument was better than his.)
The reason I think your argument differs from his is this statement: “But although it is illegal, I believe it is ethical. I’m not so sure about your blithely ambling into the intersection against the light while texting and listening to your iPod and sipping a martini..” If he was arguing that the laws are wrong because they are based on the concept that bikes are “equivalent” to cars — but that they shouldn’t be regarded this way because bikes are “different” from cars — then the same would hold true for pedestrians. Yet, he concludes that he is “not so sure” about whether the same red-light running behavior is ethical for pedestrians, who are different from cars and bicycles. He is not contesting the validity of the law. He thinks the law is valid and should apply to dissimilar road users — cars and pedestrians — but not to him as a cyclist.
I also don’t agree that traffic laws are based on the concept of different road users being “equivalent” (i.e. the same or similar). They are based on the concept of a “vehicle.” As with any concept, the universal of a thing allows for individual instances of a thing which share certain common traits (hence their inclusion in that concept) while permitting certain differences.
Take, for example, the concept of “chair.” Conceptually, a chair consists of a platform with a back, supported by legs. An individual chair can have three legs or four legs, arms or no arms; it can fold or recline — and still be considered a “chair.” This also holds true for the laws which pertain to “vehicles.” A vehicle can have a motor or no motor, four wheels or two wheels, etc. Individual vehicle differences do not make them different things, subject to different rules.
Where I agree with you and Phil is that it might not be best for society as a whole to create traffic laws based solely on the concept of “vehicles.” In other words, other things might be considered such as whether cyclists should be prevented from going through a red light in cases where the bicycle is unable to trigger a green light. Based on certain vehicle differences — which is what you and Phil are pointing out — the laws could be applied differently, without overturning the laws.
My own position is that bicycles should follow the same rules as cars, including stopping at red lights and stop signs. In cases where there is no traffic, slowing down before proceeding through a red light would be reasonable. However, when traffic is present, it is not harmless to run a red light because drivers cannot predict the behavior of cyclists who are doing this, and might make a mistake — like turning right on red into the path of a red-light-running cyclist. We can’t assume that the car’s occupants, or a pedestrian, won’t be injured in this accident because the driver could lose control of his car trying to avoid the bicycle.
It is a question of creating order on the roads. Cyclists who want to run red lights ignore this fact. They think that their behavior is “harmless” when it’s not. Running red lights can draw cars, other bicycles or pedestrians into accidents. For this reason, I never run a red light unless there is no traffic at the intersection when I arrive.
Bottom line… I do not agree with the author of this article that it is “ethical” to disobey a law which you do not like, when you think it should apply to others — even if you think it shouldn’t apply to you. Kant would not agree with the author either. In order to prove this I would need more space than would be appropriate for a comment; a separate blog post would be better, and is warranted, since you have raised an important point which needs further consideration.
I don’t think the author is getting his Kant right, and that’s the source of the issue here.
By “thinking” about what the world would look like if all cyclists used discretion in observing traffic signals, the author of the New York Times piece is not violating the categorical imperative. It is specious to claim that “thinking” about other people amounts to “using” them as a “means to an end.” What other way can a human possibly invoke the categorical imperative as a ethical test, if not through thinking about other people?
The author of the piece also does not “encourage” anyone to disobey laws, nor does he try to “manipulate” anyone. The author of this blog is committing the same error he maligns in the comments, by reading his own meaning into the article’s words.
Tim,
I realize you are upset by what I wrote, but I must point out that you are mistaken. The author is not just “thinking” about what the world would look like if all cyclists used discretion in observing traffic signals, he is ENCOURAGING other cyclists to run red lights. In this way, he is using their actions — when they break the law, as he suggests they do — to justify his own red-light-running behavior as “ethical.” This is what is meant by using people as a means to an end.
Here is the paragraph where the NYT author encourages other cyclists to disobey the law (by saying they should ride like him, i.e run red lights):
“I roll through a red light if and only if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk and no car is in the intersection — that is, if it will not endanger myself or anybody else. To put it another way, I treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs. A fundamental concern of ethics is the effect of our actions on others. My actions harm no one. This moral reasoning may not sway the police officer writing me a ticket, but it would pass the test of Kant’s categorical imperative: I think all cyclists could — and should — ride like me.”
what I think is far more interesting is that the ny-times is publishing a piece that is essentially that bicycles are a legitimate mode of transportation – and that the current laws aren’t adequate for cyclists. however poorly written/argued/whatever, to me this seems more like a watershed moment for biking in american cities. I guess this is hard for people who, I guess, enjoy the more exclusive aspects of cycling – a solitary pursuit, if you will…
Why did you feel it was necessary to punctuate your comment with an ad hominem attack? While you are entitled to your opinion, I don’t see how you concluded that an article about why cyclists should be allowed to break the law is about The New York Times publishing a piece that is “essentially that bicycles are a legitimate mode of transportation.” And further, why did you see my rebuttal to an invalid argument as evidence of solitary pursuits as one of “the more exclusive aspects of cycling?” Would you care to elaborate on why you think that riding alone is “exclusive” and why riding alone makes it “hard for” people to recognize bicycles as a legitimate mode of transportation?
The point of the article is that it is ethical to run red lights because bicycles are different from cars. What does this have to do with legitimate modes of transportation?
If the author wanted to demonstrate how current laws are inadequate for cyclists, he could have done so — but he didn’t. You mentioned it because it’s your opinion — one which many cyclists share. But, this doesn’t mean that The New York Times is publishing pieces about bicycles as legitimate modes of transportation. For all we know, they published this piece to show how irresponsible cyclists are. Many drivers would view such an article as proof of why bicycles don’t belong on the roads. So you see, people read into an article what they want it to say when the article is poorly written and/or its thesis is poorly argued. This is why it’s important to create a valid argument and articulate it as well as you can.
ok – you’re right – my final comment was uncalled for. however – the premise of your blog is admittedly highly individualistic, when, in fact, critical mass (btw – I do not agree with this particular group’s tactics) – i.e. “collective” – use of the road by cyclists is the only way to legitimize our activities – if a bunch of cyclists (and pedestrians) are running a red light in a particular location – maybe something needs to change (i.e social norms via legal positivism)? but you’re right – motorists will read into the article what they will.
However – I do agree with the author that there are certain situations when red lights make absolutely no sense for cyclists. For example – as my moniker implies, I live in or am from Roslindale – which means I am familiar with the traffic light at ukraine way heading south on washington street. If you have ever biked this way – the light is for motor traffic entering from the left -which at no time ever intersects with the bike lane. why should I stop at this light when I could legally ride the sidewalk and hop back onto the street (as this is not in a commercial district)? this light is specifically for cars – there is no reason I should stop here.
anyway – a more effective argument would cite kelsen rather than kant.
Great discussion. I haven’t read a lot of the journalist but from what I have he usually takes a simplistic slant on the philosophy. So the piece may be seen more as a form as entertainment. It does reflect the fact that bicycling has at least established a niche position in our popular culture and it helps to increase awareness of bicycle issues. Who knew bicyclists were philosophical or even thought at all? ‘I thought they were mindless idiots who just dashed in and out of traffic…’ If you catch my drift. Sure there will be folks who will never accept the concept of riding as a mode of regular transportation, but here it is a guy who rides writing in The New York Times about what he’s thinking when he runs a red light. Given in Massachusetts most of the state road planners are still in the dark ages and only can see adding more travel and turn lanes whenever they do work in my neighborhood, there is a lonnnnnnggggg way to go in the awareness game. Add to that the number of riders I see daily going the wrong way or down the sidewalk and awareness is lacking in too many of my fellow riders as well. I’d say acceptance is coming along though as I haven’t been yelled at to get off the road in months. Keep talking and thinking about it there and pedal on!