Cycling as a mode of transportation is at a crossroad. Many schools of thought exist among cyclists, but, as of yet, there is no agreement, no consensus, no conclusion.
Diehard cyclists who have been riding for many years are used to hardship, and revel in going out on the roads each day to battle with motor vehicles. It’s a matter of pride, and a matter of experience. For some, it’s a matter of bravery.
Such riders are undaunted by the dangers posed by riding a bicycle in traffic. They eschew bike lanes. Sharrows feel like nooses to them, roping them into an aisle of a road when they would rather roam freely between the lanes and weave among the vehicles.
Other longtime cyclists take a more practical and safety-oriented approach. Cooperation appears to be the best option in their estimation. Often, they espouse the practice of vehicular cycling whereby cyclists are encouraged to “drive” their bikes as if they were driving cars. The concept is simple: one road, one set of rules. Vehicle types don’t count.
Another school of thought advocates for the idea of different vehicles, different rules. They, too, want to use the roads, but on their own terms. Cycling, to them, is different from driving a car, so they think cyclists should abide by rules written specifically for proper riding of a bicycle (according to their own definition). Bicycle specific rules allow bicycles to maintain their momentum or allow a cyclist to feel “safer” by going through a red light to avoid conflict with cars.
Although what they’re doing requires a fair degree of bravery — because other road users can’t predict their actions and might collide with them — they perceive their actions as “safer” than following the rules as written for motor vehicles. So, in this case, bravery is in the eye of the beholder.
All of the above positions are held by cyclists who have experience riding on the road. They are all familiar with riding in traffic. And, they have different strategies for dealing with riding in traffic.
To add to the confusion, there is a large group of would-be transportation-cyclists who perceive riding a bicycle in traffic as dangerous. They think that riding in traffic requires bravery which they do not possess. Therefore, they will not ride on the roads.
This group poses a difficult problem for cycling in general. They want protections, guarantees that they will be separated from cars when riding along the road. In fact, they would rather ride along the road than in the road.
Sharrows, discontiguous bike lanes and Share the Road signs don’t satisfy them. These symbols welcome bicycles onto the road, but they offer no protection.
In order for cycling to become a legitimate form of transportation in countries like the U.S., where cars dominate the roads, more people must use bicycles. The number of riders must increase significantly.
It has been proposed that there is safety in numbers; the more cyclists on the roads, the safer they will be. Still, this is theoretical. And to tell a new cyclist that he or she must rely on the safety of numbers when faced with a several ton vehicle isn’t going to be convincing.
Safety in numbers is a concept which requires a leap of faith. New riders must believe that numbers, which have no physical form in and of themselves, will protect them. Believing this requires bravery and a willingness to take risks. Most of these potential cyclists say they won’t take this risk.
What complicates this picture is the fact that the above-mentioned experienced cyclist groups can’t agree on what the goal of a bicycle friendly country should be. Vehicular cyclists are satisfied with sharrows, bike lanes, or no markings at all because they see themselves as vehicles in need of no special consideration.
The “different vehicles different rules” group varies on their position regarding infrastructure. Some see it as valuable; others see it as unnecessary because they think that cycling specific rules will suffice for the purpose of riding on the roads. In this case, rules replace infrastructure.
Such an approach will offend the vehicular cyclists who will in turn offend the different vehicles different rules group by their insistence on one set of rules for everyone. Both groups will offend the diehards who, on principle, ride by the seat of their pants. So where does this leave us?
It leaves us with conflicting, subjective views of what is necessary to increase the number of cyclists who travel on the roads. Each of these views seems to be the safest and the best to those who practice them. However, none of these approaches will appease new riders.
They neither want to ride by bravado nor drive among motor vehicles nor run through red lights to maintain their momentum. They want to stay away from cars.
Maybe the solution would be to focus on creating protected bike lanes on main roads with regular bike lanes painted onto smaller, less threatening roads. Such a compromise would make riding a bicycle in heavy traffic less intimidating while appeasing other groups of cyclists by leaving plenty of roads unscathed so they can ride in the style of their choice (as long as the police don’t stop them).
Emotion is the driver of bikes, bravery, and protected bike lanes. And, despite the disagreements on bicycling infrastructure goals, infrastructure isn’t the real problem. Cycling will never become mainstream until we address the most important factor of all: fear.
