Social norms v. legality

[Steve O]

@mstone 128041 wrote:

Sidewalks are a good point–does anyone think ELFing on a sidewalk is a good idea, regardless of what the law is? As far as policy, I think the real point of this debate is to establish a social norm, which is basically independent of law.

So I moved this off the ELF thread, since it’s a bit sideways to the topic.

This remark by mstone made me think about my own riding.

For years I would turn left from K St. NW (after coming up from under Washington Circle) on 21st to get to L St.. 21st is 1-way southbound, so I would take the sidewalk for that one block with the full knowledge that bicycling on the sidewalk in that part of DC is illegal. I was completely deferential to any people on foot and no one ever questioned my being there.

So is this the reverse? I was breaking the law, but apparently not far enough out of the social norm to get any reactions. I guess my alternatives would be to walk my bike that block, or salmon (yikes!), which would also be illegal (or go a different route).

We already know that breaking the law is completely “acceptable” when it fits into the social norm (see: speeding).

Not sure what the point of this is, other than it popped into my head while reading this post on the other thread.

Topic

[Vicegrip]

I think with cycling it is less a social norm and more a safety and survival thing. Idaho stops and filtering as examples.

[PotomacCyclist]

For many people, law-breaking is only bad when someone else does it. Or someone from a different group. I’m mostly thinking of the enraged screams of “scofflaw cyclists!” by drivers who tend to break multiple laws every single day. The vast majority of drivers speed on highways and many arterials in my experience. Anywhere from 15-25% are texting while driving. (Sometimes I count numbers while I’m riding in a taxi. Or I look at drivers as they pass by while I’m standing on a sidewalk. Large-scale surveys and studies show similar rates.) About 20-30% of drivers will run a red light when they are the first to reach the light at an intersection. A Montgomery County traffic enforcement operation showed that almost no drivers will yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk at certain locations without a traffic light. And so on and so on. And yet there are many people out there who get enraged about cyclists running red lights. I’m not condoning that behavior. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of those outbursts.

This applies to many other situations, where people call for zero tolerance of crime in some scenarios, but completely ignore or accept rampant lawbreaking in other areas or groups.

Even worse, for far too many people, killing people is only bad when someone else does it. This is especially relevant given last week’s attacks in Paris. No doubt there is a serious and ongoing threat from some of those overseas groups (as well as lone wolf actors here), and we should be trying to stop them. But a lot of people seem more concerned about ramping up the hatred than worrying about American deaths. If they were truly concerned about American death tolls, they wouldn’t keep focusing on building more roads, expanding roads and making as many roads faster as possible, while cutting back on transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure spending. Transit tends to have much lower death rates per mile traveled. In many cases, the rate is half that of car driving. You wouldn’t think this were the case, given all the recent negative press about Metro, for example. But one fatal incident every six years seems a lot better than the one fatal car-related incident every one to four days just in this region. Last week was another bad week for such cases.

Neighborhoods and cities with solid bike and pedestrian infrastructure tend to be safer for people in general. Even when you include 9/11, overseas terrorists have killed about 3,000-3,300 Americans since 2001. While that is certainly terrible, what about the more than 500,000 Americans who have died because of cars since 2001? How is that not horrific? That’s 90 Americans dead every single day of every week of every year of every decade (and an even higher death rate a decade ago). Many of those deaths are preventable, if we built safer systems and cities. But a lot of people just don’t seem to care whatsoever.

[KLizotte]

@PotomacCyclist 128058 wrote:

Neighborhoods and cities with solid bike and pedestrian infrastructure tend to be safer for people in general. Even when you include 9/11, overseas terrorists have killed about 3,000-3,300 Americans since 2001. While that is certainly terrible, what about the more than 500,000 Americans who have died because of cars since 2001? How is that not horrific? That’s 90 Americans dead every single day of every week of every year of every decade (and an even higher death rate a decade ago). Many of those deaths are preventable, if we built safer systems and cities. But a lot of people just don’t seem to care whatsoever.

Now if only Bernie Sanders said THAT during the last debate!

[Brendan von Buckingham]

When I’m breaking the law, I’m doing it the right way. When you’re breaking the law you’re doing it the wrong way. I just explained bias, just war theory, racism, Wall Street and traffic behavior, in two sentences. Conversation over. Let’s go for a ride.

[GovernorSilver]

In the mornings, I do most of my illegal riding in the National Mall.

A lot of cyclists riding on 15th St northbound (road or sidewalk) regularly roll through the red light at the Independence Ave. I usually don’t bother there because it doesn’t seem to buy me anything anyway. I usually either beat those cyclists (the ones going in the same direction as me) to the 14th & Jefferson intersection, or quickly catch them at the red light there. BTW, that intersection is a bit awkward because you’ve got the left turn lane and the right lane which is marked with both straight and right-turn arrows. I usually stop on the left of the right lane, to allow cars to turn right. This usually works out, but today, I was compelled to ride on the left side of Jefferson, because of a line of motor vehicles that included a big tour bus that drove all the way to the Jefferson and 3rd St. intersection.

I normally wait on the right side of Jefferson at that intersection but today, I was on the left because of that bus and cars. I rode past the red light at first opportunity to get ahead of the motorized traffic, then did my more regular lawbreaking activity, riding past those red lights that allow nearly non-existent pedestrians to cross 3rd st.

[PotomacCyclist]

@Brendan von Buckingham 128060 wrote:

When I’m breaking the law, I’m doing it the right way. When you’re breaking the law you’re doing it the wrong way. I just explained bias, just war theory, racism, Wall Street and traffic behavior, in two sentences. Conversation over. Let’s go for a ride.

Also illegal drug use, i.e., getting sentences 10 to 100 times longer for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. Both are deemed dangerous and illegal, but the use of one is punished far more severely. Guess where those different forms used to be common?

[lordofthemark]

In general social norms are more restrictive than law – there are a million things that are legal, but are rude, outre, not done. Though naturally these norms can vary by culture, class, gender, etc creating intergroup conflict. Sometimes norms are more lenient, and the general social tolerance of cannibis usage, or alcohol usage by those between the ages of 18 and 21 is an example (it is kind of freaky when you are on a college tour and hear about a “substance free” dorm, since in theory all “substances” other than alcohol are illegal, and alcohol is illegal to everyone living in the dorm other than the resident advisors – but that reflects a social norm more lenient than the law) Sometimes having a law enforced only in exceptional circumstances can actually be desirable in terms of impact, though it can create problems in intergroup equity, and in general respect for law.

In transportation, it is a generally accepted norm that certain minor infractions are no cause for shame and are done by otherwise law abiding people – such as jaywalking, driving a few MPH over the speed limit, rolling stops, and rolling rights on red. The limit being that the move is not unsafe to anyone, and is “minor”. Most people know about those particular leniencies, because most people walk and drive, or have good knowledge of walking and driving.

Cycling has norms too, both of when not to do things that are legal, and when it is socially acceptable to do things that are illegal. However relatively few people bike (the folks who bike only on trails and that only occasionally, and the folks – not all children – who mostly bike on sidewalks do not really count) and so the social norms are those of a small subgroup. The larger world largely does not understand them, and I suspect that distinction from the larger society aggravates some disagreements about norms among cyclists. Certain groups of non cyclists (regular trail users, people who walk or drive frequently in bike dense areas) are sort of aware of our social norms, but either do not completely understand them and their role, or highly resent them (see mode wars)

In that context it useful for us here (and in similar forums) to discuss what our norms are and should be, how they relate to law and enforcement, and to the norms of non-cyclists. We won’t necessarily achieve closure on any given issue, but we can probably learn. We can also explain to the non-cyclists close to us why we do what we do.

[Crickey7]

Some drivers are unhappy at me, imagining I’m being rude–in essence, violating a social norm–by riding in the travel lane toward the middle of the lane instead of hanging on the white line between the parking lane and travel lane. They show this unhappiness by honking their horn. So they commit a violation of law in order to attempt to enforce their impression of a violated social norm.

It does not work on me.

[Author]

Replies