“Moral weightlessness” of cyclists?

[Orestes Munn]

@Alcova cyclist 97473 wrote:

There also seems to be a bizarre (to me anyway) political aspect to cyclist-driver debates. As the left-right divide seems to grow more rancorous each year, even issues that seem non-partisan become polarized through the left-right lens. Since cycling in general, and cycle commuting in particular, is viewed as something people concerned about the environment do, it’s perceived as a “lefty” activity, and therefore fair game for abuse/trolling/invective from the RW fringe.

It may be bizarre, but it fits a tiresomely prevalent American political narrative fairly well: Cyclists are an undeserving and clamorous minority, protected and subsidized by the state in violation of the perceived rights of the majority and a common perception of their natural desserts; to wit, getting crushed for doing something manifestly stupid. Add to this that cyclists tend to be socioeconomically elite and are perceived, with some justification, to be smug about their ethical and health advantages over the rest of society, and it’s pretty rich political fare.

[Brendan von Buckingham]

@wheels&wings 97433 wrote:

For an upcoming talk, my Stockholm-based brother and I will be exploring attitudes toward cyclists in the US and Sweden.

So what is the Swedish attitude towards cyclists?

[PotomacCyclist]

@dplasters 97482 wrote:

A niggling point here but,

As a country we don’t really take any injuries or deaths related to road use seriously. We don’t really respond to your grandma getting killed in the crosswalk or little jimmy getting hit on his bike riding to school. We have HUGE amounts of transportation deaths in the US. We ignore basically all of them. The mode of transportation doesn’t really much matter.

I wouldn’t say that a cyclist’s death means less than a driver’s death. Cause we honestly don’t care at all if a driver dies either.

When a Cyclist gets killed there is a snippet in the news, it will say they weren’t wearing a helmet and the comments will say “figures”. When there is a car crash and someone dies we talk about the traffic impact on 495.

About 33,000 car-related deaths a year in the U.S. Even worse 20 years ago, when the numbers were more like 40,000 a year and up. It really is insane. A lot of people are getting worked up about Ebola when they are far more likely to get run over by a car driver or get involved in a car collision.

I sometimes think about a line from the James Bond movie “Goldfinger”. Bond figures out what Operation Grand Slam is and warns Goldfinger that he will kill 60,000 people. Goldfinger is calm and laughs. He matter-of-factly states that American motorists kill that many people every two years.

While he undercounted the traffic fatality rate at that time (more like 45,000 a year and rising in 1964), he was right in the lack of perspective that people have. Before Ebola, many people would have said that the greatest threat to American life was terrorism. And yet, since 2001 (including 9/11), terrorism has resulted in about 3,500 fatalities in the U.S. (domestic and foreign criminals). Since 2001, car drivers have been involved in half a million deaths in the U.S. That’s an astonishing number.

[Phatboing]

@dplasters 97482 wrote:

As a country we don’t really take any injuries or deaths related to road use seriously.

In India we cynically call it ‘population control’. And I think the reason we do that (in both places) is because if we took these things seriously, as in, “some dude died just getting to work”, holy crap would that be paralyzing. That doing something as mundane as getting to your job or doing groceries – participating in society and the economy and all dem things – poses a risk to your life ….

So what you do instead is say comforting things like ‘won’t happen to me’, or ‘Progress Has Its Price’ and hope that you can shut out that last bit of news you read about the no-longer-alive cyclist who was NOT BOTHERING ANYONE AT ALL before you set out. With terrorism and ebola you have concrete Things to worry about. What the hell do you do if just existing increases the risk of not existing?

.. says the idiot who still has the ride home left.

[Crickey7]

I went on a moral diet and feel much better now.

[Orestes Munn]

@Crickey7 97541 wrote:

I went on a moral diet and feel much better now.

That moral fiber’ll give you a good poop in the morning!

[americancyclo]

@Crickey7 97541 wrote:

I went on a moral diet and feel much better now.

A morel diet? psilocybilicious

[Orestes Munn]

@americancyclo 97559 wrote:

A morel diet? psilocybilicious

If that’s your idea of fun, Gus…

[PotomacCyclist]

@Crickey7 97541 wrote:

I went on a moral diet and feel much better now.

You mean this?

[video]https://screen.yahoo.com/colon-blow-000000540.html[/video]

P.S. I just discovered that someone used the name to create (what appears to be) an actual product and company, years after the SNL ad.

http://www.colonblow.com/

[wheelswings]

Thanks for sharing all these thoughtful observations and nuanced suggestions. So much to think about… the economic dimension, the association with kids and play, the issue of attire, the road entitlement factor, the dehumanization that comes with driving, the lack of alternative transportation (and the resulting defensiveness), the impact of CaBi — and of transporting eggplants and toilet paper :+), the association with leftist causes, the paralysis of empathy, and so on. I’m amazed by all the ideas. And thank you for putting cycling in proper context with the vast roadkill taking place in car-to-car collisions…and the traffic impacts on 495. Thanks also for suggesting “social” over “moral.” And I love The Unbearable Lightness of Biking. Brilliant. I enjoyed the breakfast cereal suggestions as well…:+)

Several comments touched upon the perception of cyclists as crazy or as “other.” A lot of folks don’t relate to us (especially on days like today…). I have a follow-up question: What do you see as the relationship between how cyclists are viewed by others and the quality of biking infrastructure. Might better infrastructure lead to more respect for cyclists? And vice versa?

Thanks!!

P.S. My brother is covering the Stockholm area. I think he’s finding some of the same issues but to a lesser extent….overall, there’s a greater openness to engineering away the problems.

[jrenaut]

Better infrastructure leads to more people using it which leads to more people BEING cyclists instead of viewing them as “other”.

It’s a bit of an oversimplification, but more cyclists lead to better conditions for all. Look at 14th St NW (pretend the road construction is over). When I started bike commuting, shortly after CaBi opened, 14th was not a fun place to ride. I was passed too closely all the time. Cars would come into the bike lane (where it existed) whenever they felt like it with no regard for bikes that might already be there. But then more people started biking. They extended the bike lanes up from U to Florida. And the regular car commuters got used to bikes being there, and all of a sudden it got MUCH better for biking. I think drivers got used to seeing cyclists and started realizing that it wasn’t that big a deal, and having the bike lane there was actually a good thing for all traffic. There are still issues, and the construction crews ripping up the pavement with no regard for any road users and DDOT ignoring it all and delivery trucks near U St and [expletive deleted] Thomas Circle, but overall it’s WAY better than it was just a few years ago.

[baiskeli]

@wheels&wings 97601 wrote:

the association with kids and play

To put a finer point on it: at least among some Americans, a bike is what you ride before you get your driver’s license. Driving = adulthood. Though this has changed a great deal, and some young people don’t rush out to get their driver’s licenses the day they are old enough.

I have a follow-up question: What do you see as the relationship between how cyclists are viewed by others and the quality of biking infrastructure. Might better infrastructure lead to more respect for cyclists? And vice versa?

Well, it sometimes reduces conflicts with cyclists and others, so that’s a good thing. It could be a statement that bikes are important and belong. Some people see it as a waste of their tax money on a “hobby” though.

[DismalScientist]

Does segregated infrastructure really tell drivers that bikes belong or rather that bikes don’t belong in regular traffic lanes?

[Orestes Munn]

@DismalScientist 97611 wrote:

Does segregated infrastructure really tell drivers that bikes belong or rather that bikes don’t belong in regular traffic lanes?

Drivers continually question why cyclists are on the road at all when such facilities exist in parallel or even elsewhere entirely. While segregated facilities are great, I still worry about their ultimate effect on my ability to use the road when I want to and without harassment by motorists.

[Anonymous]

@DismalScientist 97611 wrote:

Does segregated infrastructure really tell drivers that bikes belong or rather that bikes don’t belong in regular traffic lanes?

Both, depending on where and how they’re implemented? [and (possibly more importantly) the mindset of the specific driver?]

I do think they tell casual cyclists “ there’s room for you on the road” and provide a bunny-slope-type option for transportational cycling. Bike lanes—the gateway drug to vehicular cycling (shh, don’t tell the drivers).

[Author]

Posts