Getting some respect

Cyclists following all the laws, likely still pissing people off. Photo credit: David Curran

“Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect.”

— "Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists?", The New York Times

The above quote reflects an idea with seemingly widespread acceptance, which is that cyclists could overcome drivers’ hatred and earn their respect if we would all just follow the rules. Respect for cyclists, in this view, is predicated not on our legitimate, law-given right to the road, but our ability to perfectly, “in every traffic exchange everywhere”, obey the letter of the law. Never mind that drivers and cyclists break the law at roughly the same rate—the perception is that cyclists are the scofflaws, and damn rude to boot. And so many of us have taken to policing our fellow riders, blaming them for our pitiable station, or begging the police to more often ticket law-breaking cyclists. This I consider unfortunate—because the sad truth is that cyclists can never be perfect enough for motorists to willingly give up the space and speed they feel they’re entitled to. It’s time for us to try a different way. 

The politics of respectability

The concept of respectability politics, through which Black social critics have made the case that "acting right" will never command respect for Blacks in American society, is a useful frame for all marginalized groups, including bicyclists. 

“Respectability politics...refers to attempts by marginalized groups to police their own members and show their social values as being continuous, and compatible, with mainstream values rather than challenging the mainstream for its failure to accept difference.
”

— wikipedia.org

You might recognize a respectability-oriented argument from comments by Bill Cosby and Charles Barkley, who insist that a lack of personal responsibility and conformity with mainstream culture, not white racism or hundreds of years of oppression, are primarily to blame for the black community's continued struggle. If (poor) blacks would pull up their pants, speak deferentially to cops, stop acting like thugs, etc., etc.—then they'd thrive. Unfortunately, as many of us know from hard experience, being respectable does not necessarily translate into being respected. Plenty of "respectable" black folks still face discrimination and, indeed, outcomes as disparate as those of America's white and black communities suggests something more is at play here.       

Of course respect can be earned, no one is disputing that. But when a power imbalance exists—caused and reinforced over many years by policies that benefit one group over another—the more powerful group comes to feel entitled to their privilege, and blind to its true cause (i.e., not their own inherent worth but an entire system stacked in their favor). They are not so inclined to grant respect (i.e., equality) to those they believe would halt the gravy train. 

And so it is with bikes v cars. If we believe that stopping at stop signs is going to reverse the impact of decades of car-prioritizing policies in the U.S., we are tragically naive. Again, cyclists can never be perfect enough to get motorists to willingly give up the space and speed they feel they’re entitled to. Many motorists don't want us on the road, period. They don't want to have to drive slower and pay better attention and re-learn traffic law and adopt a new transportation paradigm that encompasses all comers. I’m not mad about that—change can be uncomfortable, and there’s no denying that this change is a doozy. What’s crazy-making is the pretending.

I remember on two separate occasions when I was stopped at a red light and the drivers behind me honked their horns, waved frantically and yelled at me to get over so they could make a right turn—which I did not oblige, because I was headed straight. They were both over-the-top mad about it. The second time it happened, I remember wondering if he would have pretended to be as mad if I'd run the red light as he was actually mad that I was stopped there, delaying his turn. Prior to those incidents it had not occurred to me that people might (subconsciously, perhaps) pretend to care about cyclists following the law in order to mask their rage at cyclists existing in their space...but what other explanation could there be? 

Countering power and privilege

Of course it's good practice for cyclists to observe the law—it upholds the predictability upon which safety in traffic depends, and it's generally safer for us. But let's not pretend that it will earn us the respect we crave, and let's not waste time policing cyclists who aren't compliant. Instead our movement should turn our attention to helping motorists, who wield a disproportionate ability to harm, move into a new paradigm of transportation. How? Widespread motorist education. About this, Yay Bikes! has some thoughts—and also, some original data. Which is back up by yet more data. 

During our 2015 Ride Buddy pilot program, we rode with people to help them figure out how to ride bikes on trips to and/or from work. We followed up with participants six weeks after their Ride Buddy experience, to see whether and how their behaviors and attitudes had changed. A couple of things we were curious about was how riding with us influenced both their impression of bicyclists and the way they drove their car. Here's what we found:

In terms of how, exactly, their impression changed, the majority of survey respondents (61%, n=41) reported that they "better understand why [bicyclists] make the choices they do", while others said they "feel less hostility towards them" and even that they "think they're kinda heroic, actually".

The majority of respondents (61.5%, n=39) reported that they "give cyclists more space when passing", while others said they "are less anxious and more patient"—and also that they drive more slowly and less distractedly. One even wrote, "I'm way more patient with cyclists now. I understand what they're doing.”

Although it's a small sample size, these results suggest something interesting—that a one- to two-hour guided bike ride experience can change both the way people drive and how they feel about bicyclists.

In fact, I have come to believe that the only way for cyclists to get more respect is for more motorists to become bicyclists, even for a very short period of time. Ideally, a preponderance of the population would participate in educational rides like How We Roll or Ride Buddy or Professional Development Rides. But how? It can be hard for people to overcome their fear of riding with traffic, their inability to see themselves as a “cyclist”, logistical challenges, etc. So anything that compels participation is likely a no-go. But an idea from former Yay Bikes! founding board member Ken Cohen provides a compelling alternative. What if we could get insurance companies to provide a discount to customers who participate in an educational bike ride? If we could demonstrate safer driving through bicycle education, I bet insurance companies would consider it. And if people could save money on their car insurance by becoming more attuned to how their driving impacts more vulnerable road users, I think they'd jump at the chance.  

The final word

People who ride bicycles yearn for respect out there on the roads, and no wonder—our lives can depend on it. The mistake we sometimes make is believing that we can earn that respect by acting right and following all the rules. We cannot. As much as we should ride lawfully (and we should), sadly that is not the path to legitimacy. We need to cultivate empathy among those who drive. We need to get them to ride with us. And with the proper incentives, I believe we can. 

Etiquette, schmetiquette!

Why bring the best movie of all time into this?!

“They’re some of the rudest people I’ve ever encountered. I hate to say it, but I’m just going to be bold—they’re some of the most self-centered people navigating on highways, or on county roads I’ve ever seen. They won’t move over. You can honk at them; they think they own the highway.

”

— President of the Montana Senate Scott Sales, R-Bozeman, opposing a proposed safe passing bill for the state

"Not wrong, just an a**hole"

I was reading the comment section on a bicycle-related newspaper article one day (I know, I know…) and noticed an interesting pivot in one of the comments. Someone had defended a cyclist’s right to be on the road—yay!—but then, channeling The Dude from The Big Lebowski (please do watch the clip above), went on to say that while cyclists “aren’t wrong” to be on the road, “they’re just a**holes” for riding there. Well now. That took a turn, didn’t it. 

It does seem to me there’s been a shift in the discourse lately, with more people understanding that cyclists have a legal right to be on the road. But the cultural attitude about that remains entrenched—it’s damn rude to do it. And so people who ride are faced with a choice. Do we physically remove ourselves from the flow of traffic when our presence slows motor vehicles, currying favor with drivers and maintaining our status as decent, etiquette-respecting human beings? Or do we stay safe? 

Yes, the choice between “rude” and safe is that stark. Safety for cyclists is largely a function of how visible we are to people driving cars, and the best way to be visible is to position ourselves within a driver’s line of sight (keeping in mind that they can’t see as well, or process information as quickly, from within their speeding box). Nevertheless, we are subjected to a near-constant chorus—of frustrated motorists but also fellow cyclists who think giving up space on the road will gain us acceptance and respect—that slowing the speed of car travel is deviant. Here’s what I say to that: 

Our roads ain’t no place for etiquette. Particularly the bicycle kind.

“etiquette (noun) : the customary code of polite behavior in society or among members of a particular profession or group.”

— dictionary.com

Etiquette is the proverbial grease to society’s chain; it’s the spoken and unspoken rules about how we should behave in a given context to get along with others. Knowing a group’s rules and acting accordingly is essential for anyone who wants to fit in and thrive. So, as people who ride, “bicycle etiquette” should be a useful concept, leading us toward a common understanding of how we should conduct ourselves, yeah? Well sure, in the context of trail and group riding, where clear codes of conduct are important for not just politeness but also safety, etiquette is essential—for example, everyone should understand how to pass others without frightening or injuring them. 

Where the notion of bicycle etiquette becomes trickier is in its application to people riding roads. A quick Google suggests the phrase is a mash-up referring to many different things: riding tips ("No shoaling!"), safety advice ("Wear a helmet at all times"), admonishments to follow the law ("Don't ride against traffic"), truly random stuff ("How to poop on a ride") and calls to get out of the way of other vehicles ("Two abreast? Surely you jest.”). Clearly, there is no clear consensus about what it means. And I’d argue that’s because etiquette in the context of road riding is nonsensical. The group into which people riding roads are attempting to “fit in” is not fellow cyclists but fellow travelers (aka “traffic”)—and all travelers are governed by traffic law, not the laws of polite society. 

Sharing isn’t caring

Keeping peace on the streets is often regarded as a function of all users extending kindness towards one another, or "sharing the road”. This is problematic for many reasons, not least that our understanding of how to behave in traffic breaks down even when people are trying to be kind (I see you there, 'Unnecessary Samaritans', braking for me as I wait to cross the street, forcing an awkward “Are they really stopping for me? Oh, OK, looks like it, guess I’ll have to perform a little shuffle-jog to demonstrate I don’t take their kindness for granted” situation). More troublingly, when we view traffic from the perspective of "polite" or "rude", as opposed to "legal" and "illegal", we set expectations for the behavior of people who ride bicycles that run counter to their interests and safety.

Transportation engineering in the United States has historically prioritized speed and efficiency, and all of us have, to some extent, internalized this ethos. The consensus in American society is now that it is “rude" to slow traffic, meaning that even perfectly legal behavior on the part of a cyclist (riding in the middle of a lane of traffic with cars queued behind) becomes cast as deviance. The “polite” thing to do is move to the right, sharing or forfeiting the lane, at the expense of our own bodies and well being. 

The following analogy may be crude, but it can help us understand how inappropriate it is to think of a bicyclist’s right to travel in terms of etiquette:

People born in the United States have been granted the right to "pursue life" (thanks, Forefathers!). But at times this right may prove inconvenient to others. Say you've spent the past several years caring for an ailing parent. You love them and you're as sympathetic as you can be, but… this is taking so much longer than expected! It’s kind of jamming you up a bit! HOWEVER. Is it “rude” for them to keep living? Of course not! They are exercising their fundamental right to life, not breaching a social contract. Their need for extra care to sustain life does not constitute a claim to "more rights” to life than anyone else. They’re just living as best they can, for as long as possible, regardless your feelings about it.  

Likewise, Americans have a fundamental right to travel (to be distinguished from a right to travel as speedily as we may desire). And at times, depending on the vehicle we’ve chosen, our exercise of this right to travel can be inconvenient for others. It can take more time for them to get to where they’re going when our vehicle is slower than theirs. They may have strong feelings about this. But each individual in our society gets to choose their vehicle from among any of the road-legal vehicles in our state traffic codes, and one type of vehicle has no more or less right to the road than any other. Public roadways are first-come, first-served, period. Taking more time to travel them does not equate to taking “more rights” to the road. We’re all just trying to make it safely to our destinations, as best we can.

The fact is that Ohioans have the right to ride a bicycle literally anywhere on the road, going any speed, regardless of traffic conditions. We cannot “impede traffic”. We need not ride “as far right as possible”. We do not have to “share”. And we are not “being rude” when we take the time and space we feel we need to be safe. Period. 

Cars queueing behind cyclists, alllll good.

Meanwhile, back in the real world

OK sure, but one might argue that, back here in the real world, law and etiquette coexist, and the legality of an action does not preclude people from evaluating it in light of cultural expectations. Plenty of legal behaviors are considered rude, after all (e.g., speeding up to prevent someone from entering the flow of traffic), just as plenty of drivers employ niceties not proscribed by law (e.g., braking to allow someone to enter the flow of traffic). So assuming it’s safe to do so, people who ride roads should be willing to move aside from time to time to let traffic pass—a simple, no-skin-off-my-back way to generate good will from motorists. Doesn’t have to be a big deal, doesn’t have to mean anything, just a simple act of kindness extended to a stranger to keep things copacetic. Right?! Well…no. 

It is not OK for acceptance into the “legitimate road users club” to hinge on someone physically removing themselves from traffic to suit someone faster than them. We can acknowledge our current reality—that we face a cultural norm around speed on our roads, and flouting that norm can upset people—and also refuse to grant it the power to dictate where we ride on the road. It may not feel fair that we, as the more vulnerable road users, have to take this on, but fortunately we do have the power to help change our society’s norms. When we refuse to move aside for faster traffic, we begin to normalize our presence and slowly, over time, we become normal. And then more people join us on the roads, and bicycling becomes safer and everyone wins—even motorists. 

Embracing “rude”

To be clear, I think we should all approach traffic with a spirit of generosity—even, yes, kindness—towards our fellow travelers, particularly those more vulnerable than us. Again, the problem with enacting that spirit is that it can undermine the very predictability on which traffic safety for all users depends. Laws are designed to pick up the slack in spaces where human goodness cannot go far enough, where there will be mass confusion and likely injury if circumstances go awry. Adhering to the letter of the law helps keep everyone safe on the road (yes, cyclists should do so as well, but that's a topic for another day). 

I should also say that someone who rides roads need not maintain their position in traffic at all times to make a point. It is fine to feel stressed or threatened by traffic, physically exhausted or whatever, and it might make sense to just pull over for a bit. There are no "hardcore points" one can accumulate by being a never-conceding, most-challenging-route-possible-choosing cyclist. But, to be clear—if someone moves aside while cycling to let cars pass, that is a choice they are making to forfeit their right to the road. It is not "etiquette”. The distinction matters! People want to be nice, they want to follow the rules, they want to fit in, they want not to be a burden on others. They want all that so much they are willing to risk their lives to allow space for massive speeding vehicles, by riding so far to the right they become invisible. 

So polite society be damned, I say. 

It is time for cyclists to embrace “rude” and confidently take their rightful place on the road. It is time that we stop giving our fellow road riders a hard time for being in the street, slowing cars. Because we’re not doing ourselves any favors by being nice. In fact, it just might get us killed.

Godly transportation design

Yay Bikes! member Nik Olah getting blessed at Summit on 16th United Methodist Church's 2017 Blessing of the Bicycles. 

I delivered this message at Summit on 16th United Methodist Church's 2017 Blessing of the Bicycles. It's a bit of a funny thing, because I'm not religious, and of course Yay Bikes! is secular. But I think there is great value in considering our mission from many perspectives, of which faith is one both worthy and under appreciated. (Yes, I know many of us do "bike church" on Sunday mornings, but beyond that...). Indeed, when we include “culture change” as part of our theory of change at Yay Bikes!, what we mean is that we “explore the intersections between bicycling and other areas of life—because we believe it necessary to expand the public’s notion of who is and can be a bicyclist.” People are inspired to ride for all sorts of reasons—health, the environment, fun, saving money, etc. Why not ride as an expression of our faith? So please enjoy this message as an invitation to honor God’s design by riding your bicycle! And have a blessed day. 

---

Sooooo…here we are at a Blessing of the Bicycles. That’s weird, right? I mean, it’s like a “thing” now—they’ve been doing them all over the world since 1999—but what is it, some kinda gimmick? A trick? Awkward outreach to the heathen cycling community? But why? Like I said—weird!

Well, many of us here are cyclists, or maybe we don’t call ourselves that but we ride our bikes from time to time. We may be faithful people, or perhaps not. Regardless, I think most of us can buy into the idea of a Bike Blessing, even if only because “hey man, whatever it takes to stay safe out there”. God, pixie dust, genies in a bottle, whatever, I’ll take it, sure! 

To tell the truth, apart from the safety aspect, bicycles and blessings is an odd pairing. What I love about it, though, is that it opens the door just a crack to an area of life that really warrants more attention from our faith communities—or any attention at all, frankly. And that is transportation. The everyday act of getting our bodies from one place to another. 

Yeah, let’s take this a step back from bicycling today to consider transportation more broadly. Yay Bikes!, the nonprofit organization I founded nine years ago and still work for today, is focused exclusively on one type of bicycling, which is bicycling as a means of transportation. Of all the many types of riding a person can enjoy, this is mine, and transportation happens to be the frame I’ve used to explore and understand bicycling for more than a decade. Also, I should say that I grew up in the Christian tradition, as a preacher’s kid no less, so that experience is what I can speak to specifically. It is my hope that this message resonates with those of you from different backgrounds and traditions and styles of riding as well.

So, then. As I was reflecting for this message on what might be some intersections between the worlds of faith and transportation, I came up with a pretty short list.
Two things. First, spiritual journeys—all faith traditions use journeys as a metaphor for a person's relationship with God. Second, church vans. A way to get people to and from church when they're not able to themselves, and youth outings and the like. And I thought to myself, there has got to be more here…something more profound, more vital to those spiritual journeys we’re all traveling. And I believe there is.

{...dramatic pause...}

What is God’s design for our bodies?

What is God’s design for our communities?

What is God’s design for our planet? 

And how do our everyday transportation choices honor God’s designs…or not?

{...dramatic pause...}

If God’s design for our bodies is movement, can we not honor that design by riding a bicycle? If God’s design for our communities is love and connection, can we not honor that design by riding the bus alongside our neighbors? If God’s design for our planet is abundance, can we not honor that design by treading lightly, on a walk, so as not to squander our bounty?

This is not, of course, to suggest that God particularly cares how we choose to get around, or that there is shame in choosing to drive a car. Let’s not follow that path, it’s not productive for us. Indeed, I believe a person can honor God's design while driving by choosing kindness with regard to more vulnerable road users. Regardless how we travel, there is opportunity in front of us each and every day, numerous times a day, to experience God’s majesty in the mundanity of travel.

Surely an almighty God could have created humans to teleport. I mean, surely that would have been a superior mechanism for getting us to and fro, amiright? Missed opportunity, there...

But maybe not. See maybe there is a reason we weren’t designed to teleport. Just maybe, the time and effort it takes us to get our bodies from one place to another is a gift from God that we just haven’t realized we would do well to honor.

What type of world is available when we do choose to honor our time in transit? A world in which we arrive to our destination feeling refreshed and joyful, perhaps? A world in which children can play outside and our elders can cross the street without fear of traffic? A world in which our planet and all its species thrive? We get to choose—each and every day, each and every time we need to go somewhere, what type of world we will create as we travel.

At Yay Bikes!, we believe that riding a bicycle is an important thing a person can do to feel profoundly connected to their best self, to their fellow (wo)man, to their place in the world, to their version of the Divine. We believe that riding a bicycle is a unique experience in that way, notably different from the experience we tend to have driving a car—isolated, rushed, body immobile, dirty. And because it offers such rare and profound connectedness to the best of who we are, we believe that the act of bicycling transforms lives. Especially so for those who choose to ride, but even among those who don't, whose lives are safer, healthier, more peaceful and more enjoyable when cyclists take to the streets. 

A bike friendly world is a better world, for all of us! 

It’s almost as if it's by design. ;)

Thank you.

"I'll share the road when you follow the rules"

"I'll share the road when you follow the rules." Photo credit: Spencer Hackett on Twitter

For those who missed it, Monday's Doo Dah parade included a black SUV smashing into a bicycle, with the person landing on the roof. The license plates of the SUV were covered with the fake plates “BIK-H8R”, and a (hard to read) sign was attached to each side of the vehicle reading, “I'll share the road when you follow the rules." The driver also stopped along the route to place long strips of duct tape over bike infrastructure painted on the street.

In the last 24 hours, this float has received local, statewide, national, and international attention, and is by far the the item receiving the most comments on Doo Dah's own Facebook page. As you can imagine, a very vigorous conversation is happening Facebook on and Twitter.

If you've never marched in or seen the Doo Dah Parade (modeled after Doo Dah Pasadena), here is how it manifests in Columbus, Ohio. The parade publicly embraces a lack of organization (the organizers refer to themselves as the DisOrganizers). Whoever shows up to march is who marches—no pre-registration, no entry fee.

DisOrganizers describe the parade on Facebook as the "Craziest Parade in History, Humorous! Fun! Fantastic, Liberty & Lunacy, Freedom of Speech, through humor, Express yourself, It’s a very important day for the Marching Fidel’s, Satirical, Unique, Symbolic of how Columbus is, You can be who you want to be and have a great time doing it, It’s all meant in Jest and fun, Important for a mother to show her daughter all the uniqueness and diversity, Laughter is the best medicine".

Now we all have the context. Some have said, “Chill. It's Doo Dah. It's satire.”

So, let's just assume this float was an attempt at satire. Perhaps the driver was embracing a completely ridiculous idea, deserving of attack—that cyclists should be killed for failing to "follow the rules"—to create a public dialogue where that idea could be torn to pieces in a constructive social criticism. If so, he did a truly fantastic job of staying in character during the entire parade, angrily responding to boos and flipping off people in the crowd! And now, thanks to his efforts, we as a community all know better than to plow into cyclists for offenses as grievous as failing to stop at a stop sign when there's no oncoming traffic. On behalf of the cycling community....thanks??

But I am a bit confused about a few things. Who is this guy? He seems to be unknown to people within the bike-riding communities in Central Ohio. And this nouveau Swift didn't sign his work. Why stay anonymous? Why cover the license plates? Why not take pride in the clever bit of satirical work? The goal of satire is to make a point. It is important to be accessible as part of the shtick, not to hide from reporters looking for an interview. Satire is tough to do well and should not be taken on by cowards.

If he is not one of us, what is motivating him to create such a stir on our behalf? Why didn't he reach out—we could have been helpful to him if creating a satirical float was his intent. Fantastic ideas to portray satire have shown up in social media conversations, including: *Increasing the accuracy of his satire by texting or playing Angry Birds while driving. *Recruiting a team of people on bikes traveling the parade route wearing targets on their backs, perhaps some in bandages. *Decorating his SUV with trophies of previous kills. An advocacy group could have followed him with a float offering helpful information for motorists who are truly confused about how to interact with people on bikes. Flash back to Doo Dah 2007 and we give you:

Angry Driver Mike Reed!

Angry Driver loves paying for gas with all that money of his!

Victims of Angry Driver litter the rooftop! ("Consider Biking" from waaaaay back in the day, by the way, to when it was first run by Meredith & Mike)

The incomparable Tad Dritz, having too much fun with this! 

Outta my way, suckas! I have a traffic jam to get to!

I gotta get to work so I can make money to buy more gas!

This person's 'float' was not satire. It was bullying. His purported desire to get cyclists to follow the rules was revealed as a sham when he covered the sharrows with duct tape. His real desire was to erase us, to keep us from being in a space he believes rightfully belongs to him and his SUV. He wants you to feel unsafe. He wants us to keep the bikes in the garage and drive instead. He wants the people who love us to question whether we're really so safe out there riding roads, to plant that seed of doubt in our minds when we go to choose the bike. He wants to not have to drive slower and pay better attention and re-learn traffic law and adopt a new transportation paradigm that encompasses all comers. 

Get that? It's not about cyclists following the rules. There is not enough following of rules in the world to address his root concern regarding cyclists—obliteration.

If you need to feel any sort of way about this lazy display of entitlement and bullying, feel pity. This poor guy is on the losing end of history. I could take time to tear apart the various arguments this parade float attempts to make about unlawful bicyclists (just look at the stats!) creating unsafe road conditions, behaving like scofflaws, and the other bits of tired arguments steeped in entitlement and privilege and ignorance. But the links highlighted in the last sentence do a fine job of it.

The truth of the matter is that no motorist wants to hit a person on a bike—that's just a bully's lie. Do not take the bait. Do not allow yourself to be bullied. And do not collude with him: by trying to keep loved ones from riding with well-intended comments about their safety, by policing your fellow cyclists so he (ostensibly) won't have a case to make, by driving when you'd rather ride.  

Riding a bike is safe. Period. No matter what this sad, sad man would have you believe. Feel like arguing about that? Read this.

Join over 1000 other individuals who support this work through membership and larger tax deductible donations.