“Moral weightlessness” of cyclists?

[mstone]

@jrenaut 97727 wrote:

I agree with you on what should and shouldn’t be driving policy, but I disagree that we can look past perceptions. I don’t think we can make real changes happen without at least understanding why people ride and walk and drive the way they do and how they view others riding, walking, and driving.

To what end? Do you think you can make other cyclists stop doing stupid things or make non-cyclists not focus on stupid cyclists, and are you willing to wait on improvements until one of those happens? My theory is that perceptions will only change over time, and effort is best spent making immediate improvements which will, as a side effect, encourage positive changes. Now if someone else believes that campaigning for an improved image is the best first step, I can’t possibly stop them–but I sure ain’t gonna join them.

[Steve O]

@mstone 97722 wrote:

I have no desire to engage on whether cyclists or non-cyclists should or shouldn’t have perceptions about one another because that is in my mind completely irrelevant.

I get your point, but the reason I don’t think it’s irrelevant is because things like funding and infrastructure and policy are very often driven by people’s perceptions. We saw this at the Lee/Lynn meeting where the Arlington staffer in charge of signals indicated that he perceived the problems at Lynn and Lee to be primarily the fault of bad cycling behavior. This was in stark contrast to the evidence we were in fact witnessing with our very own eyes at those very moments.
Another staffer has used the phrase “plenty of bad behavior on all sides” to describe that intersection, implying an equality of misbehavior that is off by an order of magnitude–and without any reference to the differences in vulnerability and responsibility.

Since we cyclists are a small minority, if the majority perceives us unworthy of attention, then we get none.

It would be a wonderful world if policy were driven entirely by evidence, but it’s not. But even that may not serve us well, since some may argue that since 1-2% of trips are taken by bike we only deserve 1-2% of funding/space/care/enforcement, etc.
@mstone 97722 wrote:

And I don’t care whether or not bad cyclists affect how 3rd parties view cyclists, I just want them punished when they engage in behavior that puts others at risk so that they don’t do that anymore.

This extends to the punishment side of things as well. Again, I agree that enforcement “ought” to reflect reality. But the “windshield view” of the vast majority of travelers, as well as the enforcement authorities themselves, often results in mild punishment for severe damage. This is one of the issues wheels&wings is attempting to understand better. Perhaps it’s not a lack of morality but a lack of rationality. I’ll leave that question open for further discussion.

[Steve O]

Originally Posted by jrenaut
I agree with you on what should and shouldn’t be driving policy, but I disagree that we can look past perceptions. I don’t think we can make real changes happen without at least understanding why people ride and walk and drive the way they do and how they view others riding, walking, and driving.

@mstone 97731 wrote:

To what end?

I agree with jrenaut that understanding people’s motivations is important, because it may affect how we go about accomplishing things.
A perfect example of this is the “Click it or Ticket” campaign to encourage seatbelt use. For many years the effort to get people to buckle up was focused on safety. Only after social scientists and market researchers learned that the people who were not wearing their seatbelts were not affected in the slightest by these admonitions (people who care about safety were already wearing their seatbelts) were they able to adjust their message to affect their behavior. So the “why” does matter.

[mstone]

@Steve O 97732 wrote:

I get your point, but the reason I don’t think it’s irrelevant is because things like funding and infrastructure and policy are very often driven by people’s perceptions. We saw this at the Lee/Lynn meeting where the Arlington staffer in charge of signals indicated that he perceived the problems at Lynn and Lee to be primarily the fault of bad cycling behavior. This was in stark contrast to the evidence we were in fact witnessing with our very own eyes at those very moments.

I’m not arguing that it’s irrelevant because people do not use invalid emotional stereotypes to stir things up, I’m arguing that it’s irrelevant because that’s not something you can actually change.

@Steve O 97738 wrote:

I agree with jrenaut that understanding people’s motivations is important, because it may affect how we go about accomplishing things.

If you come up with a way for cyclists to achieve useful policy objectives by way of agonizing over how non-cyclists perceive the actions of dangerous cyclists, I’d be all for it. I just haven’t seen such a thing. For example, maybe a huge sustained media campaign equating cyclists and unicorns would make people think positive thoughts about cyclists. Or maybe it would backfire and make people hate cyclists more. Either way, someone would need to pay for the media campaign and that isn’t on the table. So what we’re left with is a nagging worry about “optics” that doesn’t lead anywhere productive.

[Orestes Munn]

It might be helpful to consider a case or two. The parallel has some problems, but a few decades ago, the general society was quite uninterested in fair treatment of racial minorities as a social good and, in many cases, defended its “right” to discriminate in savage ways. While things are far from perfect today, the situation has changed radically. Overt racial discrimination is not something reasonable people do or admit to in public. Arguably, this came about because majority individuals’ developed the capacity better to identify with members of minority groups. Was the evolution in the perception of minorities causative or reflective of legislative and behavioral changes? Clearly, policies such as anti-discrimination laws are “outcomes-driven”, but would they have been possible without a change in perception?

[Steve O]

@mstone 97745 wrote:

I’m not arguing that it’s irrelevant because people do not use invalid emotional stereotypes to stir things up, I’m arguing that it’s irrelevant because that’s not something you can actually change.

If you come up with a way for cyclists to achieve useful policy objectives by way of agonizing over how non-cyclists perceive the actions of dangerous cyclists, I’d be all for it. I just haven’t seen such a thing. For example, maybe a huge sustained media campaign equating cyclists and unicorns would make people think positive thoughts about cyclists. Or maybe it would backfire and make people hate cyclists more. Either way, someone would need to pay for the media campaign and that isn’t on the table. So what we’re left with is a nagging worry about “optics” that doesn’t lead anywhere productive.

I’ve lost track of where this all started and what it is we are talking past each other about.

For me the most important thing, and what I actually spend personal (and as an LCI, a little professional) time doing, is trying to get more people on bicycles–both to increase our numbers and to increase our visibility and the perception of biking as a normal activity. As pointed out in this insightful article “Why Bikes Make Smart People Say Dumb Things,” much of the perception issues lie with the fact that people do not relate to cyclists, because they don’t have any experience. So I would say anything that works towards that objective is good: improved infrastructure, protected bike lanes, Learn to Ride classes, comfort bikes, Fun rides, Kidical mass, Phoenix rides, light giveaways, this Forum, Capital Bikeshare, trail plowing, BTWD, the Bikeometer, Friday Coffee Clubs, movies at the Cinema & Drafthouse, BikeArlington, the League, WABA, and on and on. I suspect we agree on this. No agonizing necessary.

So I would disagree that it’s something we can’t change. Not unlike how attitudes toward gays have changed so dramatically in the last decade–mainly because they all came out, and a lot of people realized they actually knew some themselves–and they weren’t evil or bizarre or abnormal, by doing all these things we can shift attitudes towards cyclists, too.

[krazygl00]

@Crickey7 97699 wrote:

I think the issue in the early 1980’s was that manufacturers were desperately trying to reduce weight, but the technology and materials they had available to them were not really up to the task. You may recall a brief obsession with drilling components. Then, of course, we saw the creation of the oversized aluminum frame with its astonishing lightness but incredibly harsh ride qualities.

The bikes we have today are truly wonderful. Light, fast, reliable and comfortable. Nostalgia is fine, but I’d ride a 2015 Roubaix frame with 105 components over any bike made before 2000.

I wholeheartedly agree that we live in a golden age of bikes and components. Which is why I get all vexed and curmudgeonly whenever a friend wants advice on buying a Walmart bike.

But I think in your encapsulation of recent history you should include that lightness – for it’s own sake – diminished as a design objective in favor of a more cohesive set of traits that also included stiffness, ride quality, etc. Witness the offering at any recent NAHBS and the premium price high-end custom steel frames still fetch.

Once stunning lightness became economical while still retaining strength it seems some of the focus went to ride quality. Yes, makers are still trying to produce light bikes but for many riders it seems that at a certain point enough was enough and other qualities became the focus.

So I wouldn’t necessarily choose a 2015 Roubaix over any bike made before 2000. Many of them, yes. But a lot of bikes made before 2000 still have ride characteristics that are quite competitive with today’s bikes, despite being a few pounds heavier than “modern” offerings. And with judicious component group upgrades one can still stay not too far behind the weight curve.

[Steve O]

@wheels&wings 97433 wrote:

— their injuries or deaths do not count as much as those of other people on the road.

What do you think? Does anyone have any experiences, examples or observations that would help us think about these topics?
(wheels&wings)

Back to the original question of this thread:

I think this case makes for an interesting study:
– Driver killed cyclist–evidently just ran into her.
– Grand jury decided not to bring any criminal charges against the driver – only traffic violations
– Driver appealed the traffic violations, proclaiming her innocence of anything at all–despite killing a person! (I think this is a key point to made from the “moral weightlessness” viewpoint). Her attorney said, “there was no way to avoid” the collision and therefore his client should not be charged with anything.
– Judge upheld 3 out of 4 traffic violations, with a maximum fine of $1500.

Note that Maryland passed legislation that could make this sort of incident a homicide, but the grand jury ruled it out.

(as an aside, I noted this passage in one of the above articles:
In October 2009, Curtis Leymeister was killed one morning in St. Mary’s County while riding his bicycle on the right side of the main travel lane, by a driver who simply did not see him. Kathy Lee May had cleared the frost off a small area on the driver side of her windshield, but she chose to wait for the defroster to clear the right half of the windshield. She hit Mr. Leymeister before the windshield cleared. While it should be obvious that you might kill someone when your windshield is covered with frost, there was no proof that Ms. May realized that she might kill someone. She was charged with negligent driving and had to pay a fine of $287.50.)

I don’t know how Sweden would treat this second case, but I suspect the driver would not get off with a $287.50 fine.

[ShawnoftheDread]

So, about the same as a carpool lane violation. Perfect.

[dasgeh]

It seems to me that most of the hostility and dangerous behavior towards cyclists by drivers boils down to people not wanting to be inconvenienced, even in their own perception. When I ride amongst cars in traffic where I’m clearly keeping up, I rarely get honked, buzzed, etc. When I’m riding up hill on Lee Hwy in Cherrydale (speed limit 35mph, my speed ~15mph), I get it all — even when the left lane is clear and I don’t actually cost the driver any time.

The big difference is when I’m riding with kids — in that situation, I never have negative interactions with motorists, and instead often have positive (waves, smiles, waved on when I don’t have the right of way, rolling down windows to give compliments). I’m not sure where that fits in everyone’s theories, but it’s a common occurrence from family bikers all over the US.

I see more bike infrastructure (especially protected infrastructure) as a good thing because it gives cyclists more options, and gets more cyclists out on the roads. As others have mentioned, more cyclists conveys the message that cycling as transportation is normal. Similarly, more infrastructure conveys that message as well.

[DanB]

@AFHokie 97450 wrote:

This entirely. Most Americans just don’t view bicycles as transportation. Your average American views cycling as a recreational activity/workout. Look at the majority of bikes bought and sold in the US. How many ‘commuter’ bikes vs road/mountain, etc are bought each year?

I agree that the view of biking as a hobby/recreational activity is quite common in the US. I think this is even more pronounced in less populated areas, e.g. much of the Midwest, where destinations, such as work or the store, are farther from your house, and there aren’t trails or bike lanes to get there.

@AFHokie 97450 wrote:

Plus as others have mentioned; bike attire. You don’t typically dress in special clothing before hopping in your car for a trip to work or the store. That reenforces the ‘it’s a workout/recreation’ activity mentality.

One thing I noticed after living in Germany for 6 years: their view of the bicycle as a mode of transportation brought with it some not-so-positive side effects. A much smaller percentage of bikers wore helmets, and bike maintenance was kept to a minimum. (“Just want it to get me there!”) I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that attitudes are similar in Sweden.

[cyclingfool]

@DanB 98099 wrote:

One thing I noticed after living in Germany for 6 years: their view of the bicycle as a mode of transportation brought with it some not-so-positive side effects. A much smaller percentage of bikers wore helmets, and bike maintenance was kept to a minimum. (“Just want it to get me there!”) I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that attitudes are similar in Sweden.

Not to open up the perennial helmet debate, but I do not think that fewer people wearing helmets is necessarily such a negative outcome. Even with lower helmet usage, cycling in Germany is statistically safer than cycling in the US. On a related note, a recent episode of the Amazing Race involved a cargo bike challenge in Copenhagen. Of course all the US contestants were apparently forced by producers to wear helmets. They stuck out like sore thumbs in a city where NONE of the other (read native Danish) cyclists on the street/cycletrack were wearing helmets.

As for maintenance, given the popularity of single speed (and perhaps IGH) drive trains protected inside a chain case among transportation bikes in northern Europe, not a lot of maintenance should generally be required anyway. Keep the tires inflated and you should be good to go by and large.

[wheelswings]

On this thread we’ve been discussing what’s been called the “moral weightlessness” of cyclists.
Are some bikers more “weightless” than others?

Greenbelt described how “drivers are more courteous, I think, when they see a giant roll of toilet paper or a couple eggplant sticking out from my giant Ortlieb.“

And jrenaut observed, “I get more space and more ‘aww, that’s cute’ vs ‘GET OUT OF THE ROAD’ when I’m riding with the kids.”
This thought was echoed by several others.

Which cyclists are drivers more likely to accept or respect, and which do they resent? What is the role of such factors as gender, age, fitness level, apparent occupation, equipment and clothing?

[Geoff]

@wheels&wings 98583 wrote:

Which cyclists are drivers more likely to accept or respect, and which do they resent? What is the role of such factors as gender, age, fitness level, apparent occupation, equipment and clothing?

We should also consider how the cyclist presents himself in traffic. I’m thinking about whether the cyclist comes to a complete stop at lights or barrels through; whether the cyclist makes eye contact with a driver and acknowledges courtesies; whether the cyclist takes the lane or hugs the curb, etc.

I heard that Dirt once had a sign on his bike saying “Honk if you’re horny”. I bet that sign really reduced the number of angry honks he got.

[mstone]

Nobody ever got or kept rights by polite-ing themselves into them. We should not consider how cyclists present themselves until we start taking away guardrails because some people drive badly and so no motorist has a right to be safe.

[Author]

Posts