Like most cyclists, I do not make a fetish of the traffic laws. When certain interpretations of parts of the highway traffic act would require me to put myself in danger for the convenience of motorists, I choose to say safe. Better judged by twelve than carried by six. That said, many traffic laws serve to keep cyclists and other vulnerable road users safe. As I have written before on this and other web logs, most of the time it makes practical sense to follow the traffic laws, to return courtesy for courtesy with motorists. Cyclists, in my opinion, have only two actual ethical responsibilities: take all possible care to come home safely, if only for the sake of the people who love you, and do not hurt any other vulnerable road users.
This video shows a pair of cyclists running a red light, and taking what I consider an unethical risk with pedestrians in the crosswalk as they do so. The red light has no magic quality that makes it important, but the pedestrians matter: their lives matter to them as much as mine matters to me. The riding show on this video is wrong. Full stop. It puts other people in danger; nobody on any vehicle has any business doing that.
We can do better.
Comments
hamish (not verified)
A cyclist inspired the term
Fri, 09/05/2014 - 09:45A cyclist inspired the term "passhole". It is very difficult to advocate for us and better biking at times.
W. K. Lis
Never a cop when you need
Fri, 09/05/2014 - 11:57Never a cop when you need one...
...too busy supervising construction sights.
Separatist (not verified)
The problem with this post is
Sat, 09/06/2014 - 11:06The problem with this post is it reinforces the view that cyclists are irresponsible law breaking hooligans. Rather than justify this conduct why not focus on equivalent every day behaviour for motorists that is completely unremarked upon by most.
Lets focus on changing the laws so cyclists can:
3 Legalise cyclists riding against traffic on all local residential ( not arterial) one way streets.
Most "illegal" cyclist behaviour would disappear with these kind of rule changes.
locutas_of_spragge
The problem with the
Wed, 09/10/2014 - 06:59The problem with the behaviour depicted in this post is that it frightens, probably angers, and certainly endangers pedestrians. The first cyclist to run the red light whipped through at full speed, against a red light; he had no way to see the pedestrian quite legally crossing the street and he went through the light at full speed anyway. Effectively, he decided to save a few seconds at the cost of a real risk to the pedestrians in the crosswalk.
I don't accept that kind of calculation when motorists make it. I don't accept it when cyclists make it. I have no idea why anyone thinks I would "justify" what I recorded, when I clearly said and wrote that I consider it unethical, beyond bad cycling.
Frankly, while I agree with putting energy into getting better and safer conditions for cyclists, I don't expect that better conditions will magically make all cyclists behave ethically. To stop at that light, you have to give up some momentum. You have to accept a two stage turn. You have to give up a whole thirty seconds of your life in the service of safety for everyone. Some motorists won't do that, and sad to say it seems that not all cyclists will, either. If we want a culture of safety in cycling, we have to stand up for it, to tell ourselves and our fellow cyclists that some ways of riding are just wrong.
Kivi Shapiro
When certain interpretations
Mon, 09/08/2014 - 21:43I find the HTA to be quite bicycle-friendly. Most importantly, it gives bicycles essentially the same rights as motor vehicles (except for driving on 400-series highways) and fewer obligations. Where specifically do you see a conflict between being safe and following the law?
It certainly does have such a quality: general acceptance. There is much about our society that depends on people agreeing on something, and as those are the most fragile parts of our society, they are the ones that are guarded most jealously. People who run red lights piss off other people, and it's a good idea (even if only for pragmatic reasons) to limit the number of pissed-off drivers on the road.
The most important quality anyone can have in traffic is courtesy for others. It saves lives.
Oh, and here's a +1 for all of Separatist's suggestions (especially #3). I don't think they'll directly improve safety, but they will make legal cycling more convenient.
Seymore Bikes
Actually, when people see
Tue, 09/09/2014 - 23:15Actually, when people see cyclists acting like this, it builds animosity, and directly supports a misconception that cyclists are a gang of "law breaking hooligans" that need to be regulated.
I watched a cyclist chastise a driver on Bay Street today for driving "without any consideration for others", which was all well & good until I watched him buzz cars and pedestrians at the next two intersections while blowing red lights.
Advocates would be wise to define what is acceptable and what is not for cyclists – it would help establish a more rational foundation to important discussions relating to public policy and the need for better cycling infrastructure.
Great video - Thanks for posting!
Clark in Vancouver (not verified)
When the infrastructure of a
Sun, 09/14/2014 - 12:57When the infrastructure of a place excludes a class of people, there is no incentive to follow it's rules. (This happens with race or income or anything else really.)
When you find that you're stopping every block with no cross traffic appearing, on what is supposed to be a cycle route, you learn that you don't have to stop and the result is the same. (This effect happens when driving too.) Then you get in the habit of ignoring signs because they don't make sense. Then what happens is you instead, look for gaps in traffic that you can get though. This behaviour appears to be reckless in the eyes of others who don't understand why you're doing things that way.
It's a survival tactic that was/is necessary but it's not how a place designed for cycling should be. We should be able to cycle in a civilized way and still get to our destinations. We shouldn't have to become outlaws just to go to the store. The rules and the street designs need to make sense or people will develop a contempt for them. This is not a moral failing on the part of cyclists, this is universal human nature. When any of us is put in a situation where we learn that following the rules is to our detriment, we are being taught by the system to ignore them. (Unfortunately some of them do make sense but how can we tell the difference?)
There seems to have been a lazy traffic calming method a few decades ago where cities put in stop signs on every corner. All it did was teach people to ignore stop signs. They should bring back the yield sign. Then we can continue to do what makes sense but be legal. Reserve stop signs for where they are needed.
Another thing I notice is when there are cycle paths in parks and there's a pedestrian crossing. They often put a stop sign there. What happens though is that for someone who cycles that route often, they learn that most of the time nobody is walking there and so stopping is unnecessary. Then when someone is walking across, they've forgotten that they should stop. What works better is a "yield to pedestrians" sign. That makes sense and gets followed.
I noticed in the Netherlands that the bike stop lights are lower and closer to the person cycling. When you cycle you're going at a slower speed and not looking up to where the light is. Maybe there should be additional lower lights on cycle routes.
I don't want to sound like an apologist for someone doing something illegal. The people in the video are doing some bad stuff and I do not support it. But it didn't come out of a vacuum. It came out of a system in which the mode you're travelling with is disenfranchised.
Therefore you're not an equal partner in society, you've been put in the role of outcast. Why respect the traditions of a society that excludes you? I say we start including cycling into the system (and we are a bit now) and then only after that can we point the finger at the few individuals who do bad things.
locutas_of_spragge
I remember an old saying: to
Mon, 09/15/2014 - 03:42I remember an old saying: to live outside the law, you have to be honest. In other words, if you don't follow the law because the law doesn't require or allow ethical behaviour, you have to have an ethical code of your own, and you have to adhere to it. You can only live by a code that allows you do do whatever you want if other people do not live by that code.
For that reason, I don't think we have to make the laws and infrastructure friendly or even equitable to cyclists before we call for a minimum standard of ethical behaviour. And while I do not choose to name and shame individuals here; I don't know these cyclist in any case, I do disagree, strongly, with their actions.
If either cyclist had collided with one of the pedestrians in the crosswalk, we might have had angry editorials in the Sun or other right wing carist papers, but that wouldn't be the problem. We might have had right wing candidates (Doug Ford anyone) calling for licensing or other anti-cyclist measures, but that wouldn't bother me too much. We might even have seen a delay in the promised safety enhancements for cyclists under the HTA; that would bother me, but it would not be the worst thing. The worst thing would be a seriously injured or dead pedestrian. That is why I consider it so <expletive> important to cycle responsibly.
Seymore Bikes
Clark, I manage to ride the
Sun, 09/14/2014 - 20:45Clark,
I manage to ride the city streets everyday without feeling disenfranchised, so if somebody feels like they can do whatever they want regardless of their impact to others, well that doesn't work for me (and you either I assume).
Keep in mind that the thrust of John's post is to underscore the need for cyclists to treat others like they want to be treated.
Building support for cycling is key to getting more infrastructure, so instead of lowering the bar or striving to be all understanding - I tend to view bad cycling attitudes as a threat to getting what we need.
Unfortunately, as the minority of road users, we are subject to a disproportionate amount of scrutiny.
I sometimes make mistakes when I ride, but I try to set a good example.
It all all comes down to respect - and we owe it to ourselves to do the right thing.
Clark in Vancouverl (not verified)
Thank you. I agree with you
Mon, 09/15/2014 - 14:44Thank you. I agree with you and add some clarification to what I meant to say.
One aspect of being disenfranchised as a class is being under disproportionate scrutiny.
The opposite is privilege and it means that an individual can do all sorts of bad things and because they're a member of a privileged group, others of that group do not share his blame. The finger is only pointed to the individual.
You, nor I have any association with the people in this video. The reason that we have to be squeaky clean is because we get accused of being the same as them.
Clark in Vancouverl (not verified)
I wish the approach of
Fri, 09/19/2014 - 19:15I wish the approach of cycling in a responsible way was effective. I really do.
I think that instead of expecting every single person who might jump on a bike sometime to cycle in a certain way, we should instead change the attitude of the accusers so that they no longer accuse the innocent. Educate them into how their own mind is working so that someday, when they see an individual do something, they can remind themselves that it was only one person who did it, not all the others who have some similarity.
Kivi Shapiro
@Clark in Vancouverl, what do
Sat, 09/20/2014 - 22:37@Clark in Vancouverl, what do you find ineffective about the approach of cycling in a responsible way?