Safe Cycling: Share The Responsibility

I got pulled by a cop under this campaign this morning. I was coming down Queen St, with a street car squeezing me out and over into the tonnes of parked cars lining the streets. Coming to a very minor intersection, with absolutely no cars coming through it, even in the distance, I took the decision to continue through the red light after stopping for a moment in order to put distance between myself and the street car that was riding my ass all the way along. What do I get for this cautious approach to cycling?

A 190 Dollar fine and an earful of crap from a cop. Its absolutely ridiculous that cyclists are treated the same as cars in the Toronto traffic codes, we are clearly not large metal hunks of junks, powering down the streets, but more flies in comparison - breaking a red light when there are no cars coming is clearly not a danger to anyone and is a clearly sane thing to do when there are so many cars squeezing you to the street car.

The cops are fucking idiots if they think this form of harassment of cyclists in the guise of an education campaign is conducive to good traffic behavior. Within two minutes of my ticket I saw two separate idiots, both jabbering on mobiles, one nearly squeezed another cyclist onto the footpath in that classic Toronto maneuver of hugging the curb with out looking. Then, the other veered all over the road in a U-turn while chatting on the phone, swinging in wildly at cyclists going the other direction. I see this sort of shit everyday - is it any wonder cyclists like me will bend the rules of the road if it keeps us ahead of traffic and is no danger to myself or others?

Get real and do some proper policing instead of picking off cyclists because we are easy.

Why did you give him your name? I deliberately don't carry ID for this express reason. If pressured, I just start speaking about my paperz in a German accent. That usually embarrasses them enough to let me go.

a good example for motorists, instead of telling them why we have to blow through lights and stop signs. That way, we can keep the topic of conversation on the need for mutual respect, rather than on our riding.

do not excuse car dependence, car overuse, cars destroying the environment, cars destroying our city, homicidal drivers, careless drivers, road rage, or road hogs in cars. But cyclists who insist they (we) have a right to violate the law make it harder to talk about these things. When we justify our decision to bust stop signs and red lights, we create a huge obstacle for ourselves when we call for respect.

I found what looks like an excellent analysis of bicycle fatalities; in most of the cases, the fault lay with the operator of the motorized vehicle. Some motorists don't want to hear that. Do we really consider the ability to bust a red light or a stop sign so important, so precious, that we will defend it at the cost of talking about more important things like sharing the road and mutual respect? Do we really want to hand the people who consider us a nuisance an easy distraction from the important issues? Do we want people who might otherwise ride with us, organize with us, and fight the politicians with us to look upon us as a culture of lawlessness and contempt for safety?

I think we can do better. I think we can set an example.

I don't think anyone here doubts that motorists violate the law at least as much as cyclists, or that motoring crimes do far more harm. I don't think any of us see the HTA as flawless. I consider the current car-centric transport policy criminally reckless with the air we all breathe, not to mention the lives of the people on the street. The leniency enjoyed by homicidal drivers appalls me.

I simply say, as I have said before, that if we argue that we as cyclists have a right to break the law anytime obeying the law would inconvenience us, that argument gets in the way of other points we want to make. I have come to this conclusion after reading dozens of web-log posts; motorists who dislike cycling often use this as their primary argument.

I'll just address a couple of points raised here earlier:

1) People who attack cyclists for disregarding the law overlook worse crimes by motorists.
Absolutely right. For exactly that reason, I consider it a mistake for us to argue that we can disregard the law safely, and that we should have a right to do so. When we make an issue of cyclists having a "right" to violate the law, we ignore motorists who do violate the law.

2) Cyclists who flout the law do so as a form of civil disobedience.
Although no universal definition of civil disobedience exists, the definition I generally accept includes the following: (a) a clear analysis of why we consider the law/government policy wrong. I don't see that here. Inconvenient does not equal wrong. (b) An effort to change the policy within the law. If any cyclists have mounted a serious campaign to get traffic lights abolished, I have yet to hear of it.

If someone, somewhere in the world works for and gets a change in a law, that does not justify anyone, anywhere in breaking a similar law in their jurisdiction. The traditional definition of civil disobedience requires that you personally attempt (legally) to change the law you break. In any case, the principle of civil disobedience generally applies to laws which implement an actual injustice, not laws we find inconvenient.

Just to come back to the original point: I see some pretty substantial evidence that cyclists who claim a unique right to ignore the law steer the discussion away from the issues, from facilities for cyclists to the actual case for changes to the law, which would improve the cycling environment for all of us. I claim no right to tell anyone they cannot break the law (although I can and will point out the weaknesses in their justification). I certainly claim no right to tell anyone they have no right to argue for changes to the law, something I engage in myself quite a lot. But I will also point out the downside of public attempts to justify breaking the law.

I use the same definition of civil disobedience that I and my friends use when we risk arrest to protest the destruction of First Nations culture, wars, arms races, and assorted other forms of violence.

As for the prospect of changing traffic laws through the courts, I have never seen an example where that worked, and I don't see any prospect of it happening here. Traffic courts tend to defer to the legislature, and I honestly don't see a viable legal or charter argument against stop signs or traffic lights.

In any case, I insist on the difference between a well-conceived and strategic campaign to change the law, either through the courts or the legislature, and a generalized claim that cyclists have the right to break any traffic law that doesn't suit us. The former I support. While I defend anyone's right to do the latter (you'll notice I don't call for unplugging blogs, nor do I make personal attacks, etc.), I do find it has a cost. If nothing else, it uses up a huge amount of energy to no purpose.

have no relevance here. Either the objective facts validate my concern about the political effect of claims by cyclists to have a special right to violate the law, or they do not. I assure you that I had no need to see this, or to see this, or read anything like this, or this. I don't agree with what these people say, but they either believe what they write/film, or else they think other people will. Either way, I think (again, based on the hard cold objective evidence) we take a political hit, and I honestly don't see a compensating advantage for us in making the claim that, as cyclists, we have a right to break the law.

Which brings me to the specific case. I honestly see it as a borderline case that an observer can read either way. I certainly don't think your accusation of "disingenuous" holds; not when the post that started this thread contains the phrase:

Its absolutely ridiculous that cyclists are treated the same as cars in the Toronto traffic codes, we are clearly not large metal hunks of junks, powering down the streets....

In any case, I don't have any problem saying that while I consider this a marginal case, I still consider any cyclist facing an imminent threat has the right to end the rules to cope with that threat. But if we go farther and claim that any cyclist has the right to violate essentially any traffic rule, (evidence as cited above) we will take a political hit.

So I will ask again: if you consider it worthwhile to take that hit, why? And on the same topic, if you believe all cyclists ought to agree with you, again, why?

Opposition to cycling, fundamentally, does not make sense. It doesn't make sense that with peak oil coming, the Star still publishes a two-section spread dedicated to the glory of the car. The video you found "unbearable", I find no more insane than Case Ootes blocking bike lanes because of his terror that drivers will spend two seconds more in the same cars that they loudly claim nothing will ever get them out of. If you look at the reality of the situation, we have to deal with some pretty crazy ideas.

Which means we have a choice. We can try to gently coax the people Case Ootes and Rob Ford represent out of the crazy thought, belief, and value system they've got themselves into, or we can inflame them. Claims that we have a right to bust red lights or stop signs, or that we can do it safely, have the effect of the matador's cape waved at a bull. It does cost us, in public support, and in hardened attitudes. And what, I ask again, do we get out of it?

Couple of comments on communication:

You asked if I wanted cyclists to shut up. I don't. I want us to think about how what we say affects what we can achieve for ourselves and the rest of the cycling public. Politicians call that "message discipline", and it works.

Right now, about 2/3rds of the residents of this city ride bicycles. We have every possible argument for cycling: public health (obesity), public health and the environment (pollution), public health and safety (the death toll from car crashes) the cost of roads, the increasing gridlock, and the rising cost of gasoline. And with all that, how many kilometers of cycle lanes did we get over the past few years? I want the cycling community in this city to win, which means, like it or not, thinking about the way we present ourselves, thinking about how we negotiate, and thinking about how we bring the cyclists who don't get involved in this work into it.

Which brings me to the second point: you won't convince anyone of anything by responding to disagreement with a personal attack. Nothing you have said so far makes me believe that complaining about getting tickets for running red lights accomplishes anything, except to inflame those who disagree with us.

To put it simply: I believe in cycling excellence, and to me, cycling excellence means either obeying the law whenever I can do it safely, or else mounting a serious challenge to the law, complete with good argument against that law and an effective defence strategy. When a fellow cyclist finds it necessary to break the law, I don't want to attack them. But I do want to point out that we can aim for something better. If we want to change the law, we can aim to do it in an intentional, thoughtful, strategic manner. If we want respect on the road, we can set a good example of effective road sharing. We can demonstrate what good cycling looks like, both to prospective cyclists and to motorists.

Some of the things I have said have obviously excited strong opposition, at least from Darren. So I have to ask, Darren: have you read something other than a commitment to cycling excellence and effective strategies for change into what I have written? If so, what exactly have I written that you have a problem with? And if you have a problem with the idea that excellence in cycling includes following the traffic laws, particularly the ones designed to safely regulate traffic, unless we have a clear and effective strategy for challenging them, will you explain it?

How do you legally break the law?

I didn't write that you can legally break the law, but that you can make legal attempts to change it. And I'd appreciate it if you would read what I write before you attempt to lampoon it. I've spent 42 years cycling and thirty-odd years as an activist, not all of it easy or comfortable. It won't kill you to make some effort to keep this conversation, if not polite, then at least relevant.

You cited the ideals of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB).

I cited the position of the League of American Bicyclists in favor of obeying the law. And no, I don't suggest unthinking obedience to the law; I simply insist that if we plan to disobey the law, we ought to have some specific analysis to explain why we find that law wrong, and a specific strategy for changing it. We cannot cite the Highway Traffic Act when it suits us, and ignore it at other times.

Why would you not strive for proven concepts from countries that have far superior records on cyclist safety and that are much better at providing facilities for cyclists.

Please explain which jurisdictions implement the proven concepts you have in mind. I may well support some or all of these polices.

Let me remind you of the only claim that I have so far made: that cyclists ought to try to avoid violating the law, unless we have a clear analysis of why we find it wrong and a specific strategy for changing it. We don't have to break the law without such an an analysis and plan. Breaking laws dealing with safety often makes for bad cycling, and doing it in public, even defending the rightness of our doing it, makes for lousy politics, particularly when so many of us cite the HTA as our authority to use the street. If you think I have made any other claim, please cite it, because I think you may have misread my opinion.

Even more curious in light of the fact that LAB cannot agree on the position themselves.

Please provide a citation for this controversy.