Untimely death and injustice often go hand in hand. This is particularly true in societies where minority groups are assigned less value than their majority group counterparts. Cyclists, in American society, can be considered the former.
As a distinct minority, cyclists face unusual scrutiny when they are killed by a motor vehicle while cycling. Drivers, who form a vast majority, may feel saddened by a cyclists death, but they often qualify this sadness with blame.
Cyclists are outsiders on roads which are perceived as belonging to cars, and as such, often face blame for the unfair things that happen to them. A prime example of this can be seen when a cyclist is killed by a motor vehicle.
A high profile case of this type occurred in the town of Wellesley, Massachusetts. There, a 41 year old cyclist was struck and killed by a truck. Despite the best efforts of the Wellesley Police, a grand jury decided not to indict the truck driver — so his grisly deed when unpunished.
Both cyclists and friends of the victim were outraged by the grand jury’s decision. It was clearly a case of prejudice against cyclists. Overwhelming evidence of the driver’s negligence existed, including a video of the moments prior to the impact.
Even so, the grand jury, most of whom were sympathetic to the driver, felt a cyclist’s life was expendable. The loss of it wasn’t enough to warrant any punishment of the man who was responsible for the death.
The majority will always see the plight of a single majority member through their own eyes. They will see that person as they would see themselves. And anything they wouldn’t want to see happen to themselves, they won’t inflict on him.
While this approach might make the majority feel better, it leaves a feeling of emptiness in the hearts and minds of those who either identify with the cyclist or know him as family or friend. Such a sad state of affairs cries out for some form of action. Yet there is nothing anyone can do to mitigate the loss of life or the injustice of an arrested prosecution.
Under such conditions, people look for ways to make amends. Nothing short of bringing back the deceased will suffice, but this doesn’t stop people from trying.
For instance, Wellesley’s executive director, Hans Larsen was recently quoted as saying:
“Every time somebody is injured on our roads — particularly when someone dies — the selectmen take it very seriously; obviously, the police take it very seriously. It calls into question, you know, is there something else we need to do? Or is there something we should have done differently? We don’t want this to happen again, and what do we need to do to avoid that?”
He goes on to talk about the trade-offs that go along with creating space for bicycles. It will mean taking something away from cars, which may not go over well with some Wellesley residents.
Wellesley’s leaders are planning to establish a dialog. This will, no doubt, cause conflict. But maybe remembrance of the recent death will encourage selectmen and residents to put aside their differences and work on finding a way to help drivers and cyclists peacefully and safely coexist on the town’s roads.
As nice as this gesture is, it’s a sad commentary on our society that someone has to die before anyone makes even the smallest effort to change the problems that enabled the senseless death. We see danger all around us. And rather than address it, we avoid it.
We avoid danger physically. We avoid danger mentally. We avoid danger culturally until it causes an unbearable problem which we all regret. Then we do too little, too late — just to make ourselves feel better.
Whether we feel better or not, what we’re doing is merely a gesture, not a solution, because what happened in Wellesley will continue elsewhere, irrespective of the outcome of their bike lane debate. Ideally, we would anticipate disaster and address it prior to a loss. But, unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20, so we will have to satisfy ourselves by effecting change one death at a time.
