One of the interesting things about being a blogger is seeing reader reactions to what I’ve written. Instant feedback makes blogging different from other forms of writing where words are put out in printed or electronic form for readers to ingest in some far away place. This leaves the author wondering what they thought as they were reading and whether the words had any lasting impression on them.
What is particularly interesting about the comments and e-mails I receive is how often readers wanted me to write about something I wasn’t planning to address at the time I wrote the post. I was thinking one thing and they wanted to read and discuss another, related issue.
This very phenomenon occurred on my last blog post. As a philosopher, who happens to also be a cyclist, I was particularly annoyed by an article I had read in The New York Times where the author — who used to write a column called “The Ethicist,” of all things — completely misconstrued the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in order to manipulate readers into thinking that a famous philosopher would agree with his unfounded arguments for why he runs red lights.
Aside from the absurd butchering of a well-known philosophical position, the article was poorly conceived and even more poorly written. Consequently, everyone who read it thought that it meant something they wanted it to say. A reflection of this can be seen in the comment section of that post.
For example, one commenter wrote:
“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.”
He took away from the article the message that cyclists should use common sense when navigating intersections rather than strictly obeying the traffic laws. The problem with this is that the cyclists are engaging in an illegal act since bicycles are considered to be vehicles under the law. Further, they want to break the law because it is an impediment to their riding style so they rationalize their behavior in a variety of ways.
Another commenter saw things a little differently.
“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.”
He thinks that the author meant to say that breaking the law is ethical because the law is wrong. In reality, the author never said the law was wrong because he thought that it should apply to cars and pedestrians. He only thought it was wrong in his case because it was inconvenient for him to obey it.
Later, someone else left a comment expressing another interpretation of what the article’s author meant.
“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…”
This commenter viewed this article as reflecting some sort of policy on the part of The New York Times stating that “bicycles are a legitimate mode of transportation.” As I pointed out in my reply: “For all we know, they published this piece to show how irresponsible cyclists are.” Knowing The New York Times, the most likely explanation for the publication of this piece is the relationship its author has with the newspaper as a former columnist.
After reading the comments, a couple of things dawned on me. One was that the readers who took the time to comment were the ones who wanted to run red lights — or to circumvent some other traffic laws.
Although the arguments for agreeing with the author’s contention that he shouldn’t have to obey red lights when riding a bike were different, the conclusion was the same: bicycles are not cars, therefore they shouldn’t be subject to the same rules as cars.
All cyclists have heard this before. It’s a recurrent theme in the road cycling world because, even as we move towards making bicycles a legitimate form of transportation, some cyclists don’t want to behave like drivers.
The primary reason for this is that they want to keep riding. Either they don’t want to expend energy starting up from a dead stop or they want to get where they’re going more quickly and don’t want to be bothered stopping for anything other than an obstacle in their path.
Often such cyclists point to the differences between cars and bicycles and claim that they are used differently. Bicycles, they say, aren’t cars so they shouldn’t be subject to the same laws as cars.
The problem with this position is that many cyclists are willing and able to stop at stop signs and red lights. They are able to use their bicycles as transportation within the context of the existing traffic laws.
This is not to say that the laws are perfect with respect to bicycles. Most cyclists have experienced the frustration of reaching an intersection alone and they can’t trigger the green light. This is when they face a moral dilemma. Should they wait for a car to arrive? Or, should they run the red light to get through the intersection?
Current laws don’t adequately address such problems. They also don’t address the issue of the unnecessary expenditure of energy required for stopping at a red light when there is no traffic. Making a cyclist wait alone at a light amounts to an energy penalty for those who choose human powered transportation.
Such issues highlight the problem with expecting bicycles to act like cars all of the time. Still, these issues don’t carry enough weight to overturn the traffic laws. The laws exist for a reason, and they benefit all road users. So the laws themselves are just. And just laws should be obeyed by all road users. However, some latitude should be built into the law to allow for bicycle specific situations where strict enforcement makes no sense. This is what the red-light-running cyclists should be pushing for.
Instead, they’re pushing for elimination of the laws for bicycles, which presents a whole host of problems — the explanation of which requires an entire blog post of its own. The existence of cyclists who feel justified in breaking the traffic laws makes coexistence with cars more difficult.
When large numbers of cyclists run red lights, drivers believe all cyclists behave this way, and they complain. Sometimes they take out their frustration with such cyclists on innocent cyclists who obey the laws. More importantly, the law breaking cyclists put all cyclists at a legal disadvantage when a cyclist has a run-in with a car.
The perception of cyclists as scofflaws influences juries who then favor drivers over cyclists. This is unfair and frustrating for an injured cyclist who is law-abiding and must face penalties for the behavior of others.
Perhaps this is to be expected since humans are inherently selfish. Only feelings of guilt or obligation imposed on them through societal expectations make them consider the rights of others. In the case of cyclists who are injured by drivers, other cyclists don’t feel that they owe them anything, so they behave in ways that handicap all cyclists out of self interest.
Law-breaking cyclists and law-abiding cyclists stand squarely on either side of a great divide. Law-abiding cyclists see how demanding special treatment antagonizes drivers. They see how refusing to comply with the rules affects the reputation and legal standing of all cyclists. They see the big picture when it comes to integrating bicycles within the existing road infrastructure. They see good will. And they see community.
Law-breaking cyclists see traffic laws as a burden. They see it as something which will force them to change their riding style to accommodate others. They see the laws as increasing their travel time and as an increase in expenditure of energy. Ultimately, they want to be free from traffic laws in order to ride as they please.
How can these two positions be reconciled?
Time, practice, and education may narrow the divide. Law enforcement may change some minds and break some wills. Laws may be amended to accommodate special situations faced by cyclists. But before these things can occur, there will have to be a great deal of discussion among cyclists about how traffic laws affect cyclists individually and cycling as a whole. Let the dialog begin…
