“Moral weightlessness” of cyclists?

[Crickey7]

I made a switch a year or so ago to riding pretty much only in a travel lane, the same distance from the right edge, regardless of the presence or absence of cars ahead or in a parking lane next to me. In other words, I behave just like a car should. I think drivers often like it less, because they prefer it when riders pull into a lane that is empty of cars for more than, say, a half block. But they seem to respect it more. It’s actually cut down on the number of times I’ve been harassed, even though it’s less “convenient” for drivers. That said, it requires a set of skills and mindset not everyone has, with fast starts and rarely looking back (if it’s behind me, there’s nothing I can do about it).

[Geoff]

I think there is quite a range between being shrinking-violet polite and being obnoxious aggressive, just as there is for drivers. I think most cyclists would agree that taking the lane can be safer than hugging the curb, because drivers are more likely to see you and less likely to pass too close. Which doesn’t mean daring drivers to hit you is a way to get respect.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 97611 wrote:

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

As others have said, both. But (not to sound like a broken record) there is another consideration – critical mass. If seg infra makes more people into transportation cyclists, that is more people who (while they may love riding in seg infra) also know that bikes belong in traffic lanes (among other reasons because they ride and know the problems that seg infra has in particular times and places and conditions) They will carry this knowledge with them when THEY drive, and spread the knowledge at least to immediate family members who do not ride (I have a little anecdote about this I tend to post later)

[baiskeli]

@mstone 98589 wrote:

Nobody ever got or kept rights by polite-ing themselves into them.

Ghandi? Martin Luther King?

Point is, holding the moral high ground matters. It’s not the only thing you do, but it’s necessary.

[rcannon100]

Ghandi and Martin Luther King did not get what they wanted by being polite.

They got what they wanted by leading resistance movements.

They happened to be non violent (on their part) resistance movements. But MLK ran his campaigns like a tactical general. And if you were a reporter who put down your camera to help up a kid that had just been beaten by a rascist – he would ream you out. His strategy was public exposure on the violence that was there lives.

Both made very clear – it was not passivity or politeness that was their strategy. It was resistance and non cooperation (with a moral high ground).

And yes – MLK believed that he was redeeming BOTH the white man and the black man. True of Nelson Mandela and Tutu as well.

There are two ways to eliminate your enemy

(1) destroy your enemy
(2) convert your enemy into your friend.

MLK, Mandela, Tutu, Ghandi – followed the second path.

What would that mean for cyclists. It sure as hell has nothing to do with being polite to car drivers to get our way. It would be more like Steve O’s idea for Intersection of Doom where we as cyclists just decide, from now on, we are going to walk our bikes across doom slowly – and bring the intersection to a stand still. Until they fix it.

[baiskeli]

@rcannon100 98600 wrote:

Ghandi and Martin Luther King did not get what they wanted by being polite.

They got what they wanted by leading resistance movements.

I agree completely. My point was that holding the moral high ground isn’t the same thing as being polite. I should have said that instead.

[Geoff]

rcannon and baiskeli are making some points I can get behind. Now, how can the typical cyclist use those ideas in his regular riding to 1) increase respect for cyclists generally, and 2) make his own time on the road safer?

[mstone]

@baiskeli 98598 wrote:

Ghandi? Martin Luther King?

Point is, holding the moral high ground matters. It’s not the only thing you do, but it’s necessary.

Both of them were less about polite and more about forcing a violent response to expose the hypocrisy of the system. I don’t see cycling as entirely analogous (unless there are people willing to be run down for the cause). Neither existed in a vacuum, and there were a lot of impolite things happening at the same time. Or, should Rosa Parks and the guys at the lunch counter really have just followed the law with a high profile smile? And shouldthe civil rights movement have been put on hold until the black panthers and other non-non-violence groups disappeared? Yeah, having the moral high ground matters, but to some degree the high ground depends on where you are sitting. I don’t think it involves denying rights to a group because some members of the group are jerks, and I think it’s immoral to condone such attitudes even in careless rhetoric.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 98609 wrote:

Both of them were less about polite and more about forcing a violent response. I don’t see cycling as entirely analogous. Neither existed in a vacuum, and there were a lot of impolite things happening at the same time. Or, should Rosa Parks and the guys at the lunch counter really have just followed the law with a high profile smile? Yeah having the moral high ground matters, but to some degree the high ground depends on where you are sitting.

Actually, Rosa Parks was very polite when she refused to give up her seat. The lunch counter protesters politely requested service. There was enormous power in that delivery. It emphasized that they were on the right side. As I mentioned, polite doesn’t mean grovelling or giving up your rights. Being polite when they asserted their rights was an essential part of, as you put it, forcing a violent response to expose the hypocrisy of the system.

(And just in case someone rolls their eyes – no, we’re not saying cyclists’ rights and civil rights/independence for India are equivalent).

[mstone]

I’d say instead that both redefined politeness to meet their own standards, just as we should.

[lordofthemark]

social justice has been advanced by polite advocacy, by impolite but non-violent resistance (both legal and civil disobedience), and yes, (not that I advocate it) by violence. It all depends on circumstances, audience, etc. I don’t think any simple generalizations hold.

I think discussing this in the abstract is impossible – what are we talking about? Giving a thumbs up to a driver who is polite to us? Calling a thank you AFTER a pass on a MUT? Flooding a meeting on new bikes lanes with advocates? Calling a stupid argument stupid? Refraining from Idahos everywhere? Refraining from Idahos in busy places? Calling out others who Idaho? Holding your tongue at a bike plan meeting when some jerk calls for a licensing system that you know won’t make it into the bike plan anyway? Thanking pols who support us? Trying to give INFO to drivers who do the wrong thing, and refraining as far as possible from using curse words? There are a zillion possible interactions, and for each a range of possible choices. I doubt any of us (except maybe dirt?) always choose the most polite response, and I doubt any of us always choose the least polite. And we all need to understand ourselves – some people NEED to let out a curse to feel better and move one, and some of us are able to interact differently (just as some of us are able to scoot up a hill in the general travel lane without delaying other traffic, while some of us simply lack the ability to do so)

[baiskeli]

@mstone 98614 wrote:

I’d say instead that both redefined politeness to meet their own standards, just as we should.

Well, perhaps – my point would be that one can be polite (pleasant) about doing something “impolite” (asserting your rights in defiance of those who won’t respect them).

[dasgeh]

I don’t see riding behavior as a matter of being polite or not or taking the moral high ground. It’s a matter of just being a normal part of traffic. For example, cars don’t “blow” through stop signs, they also don’t always stop completely. They slow visibly from their normal speed. I find that when I do the same on a bike (e.g. going from 15 mph to 3-5 mph when there’s no opposing traffic or peds), I get smiles, nods and waves from passers-by. It’s what they expect and what they see from cars. I don’t think most of them care about whether I put a foot down and get to zero.

Back to wings&wheels questions about whether different riders get treated differently, I think the answer is yes, the more a cyclist looks like a “normal” person that a driver can relate to, the better treatment s/he gets from drivers. I think it’s the same principle: when cyclists look like normal transportation, they get treated like normal transportation. It’s not 100% correlation, but I think it’s pretty strong.

And, of course, the cuter/more vulnerable you look, the better treatment you get. Bike while visibly pregnant or with kids on the bike and you’ll be given wide berth.

This isn’t to say that everyone should wear jeans on every trip, or that MAMILs don’t deserve respect and protection in traffic.

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 97611 wrote:

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

It’s a good point, and there will be some drivers who think that cyclists should be in regular traffic lanes when segregated infrastructure is RIGHT THERE. As long as the segregated infrastructure is good enough, this shouldn’t be a problem. However, I think that the existence of segregated infrastructure along one road (say N Veitch St ) wouldn’t make drivers on another road (say Key Blvd) think that cyclists shouldn’t be there.

[Terpfan]

I totally missed this thread per a work trip in San Diego the other week, but I would simply say our culture is slowly catching up to that of many northern European bicycle-friendly cultures. As many seem to have noted, most Americans experience with bikes are limited to their childhood and occasional riding for fitness/leisure purposes. Thus since they don’t engage in cycling as transportation, sport, or even as a relaxation-type ordeal, they believe it should be restricted to places they feel comfortable riding. But, like I said, I think it’s slowly changing. The surest way for it to change is for more people to do it and the invention of massive scale bike sharing is helping to plow the way.

[Author]

Posts