A good question, and some good thoughts on the subject, for those with ears to hear.
There's at least one answer that most of us agree upon. That is, lawful cyclists generally are treated better than unlawful cyclists. But that's purely individual.
Beyond that, what kind of behavior is our candidate for change? I suggest that there are two distinct kinds: traffic errors that lead to car-bike collisions; behavior that expresses anti-cyclist views, ranging from political to merely noisy to assault.
I assert that motorist traffic errors that lead to car-bike collisions are not volitional; the motorist would much prefer that no collision takes place than that one does. (The volitional type in which a motorist chooses hitting a cyclist to avoid the greater danger of being hit by a more dangerous vehicle must be very rare indeed.) So far as I know, there has been no study to compare car-bike collision types against car-car collision types to determine differences in individual rates and probable causes. But the idea exists that much of the difference, if any, is in the smaller optical image of the cyclist in the motorist's eye and in the less significant perception in the motorist's mind.
Bright clothing and confident positioning have long been advocated, although there is no statistical evidence as to their effectiveness. There is also no empiric evidence that the less significant degree of perception in the motorist's mind is associated with anti-cyclist views; there may be a correlation, there may not be. So, for the moment at least, there's no point in trying to discuss how to change motorist traffic errors that lead to car-bike collisions, beyond applying normal traffic engineering procedures.
I suggest that what is desired by those asking the question is a method of changing the anti-cyclist views held, in various strengths, by such a large portion of the public. There is no doubt that the majority of the public hold that assault of a cyclist is as discreditable and as punishable as any other kind of assault. Punishment of this extreme end of the behavior distribution ought to keep this under control, although the frequency is likely to vary along with the general strength of the
anti-cyclist views among the population. For example, I see no chance that hatred of cyclists would become so advanced as to excuse assaults against cyclists. However, the anti-cyclist view in all its lesser expressions is so widespread in the population, is so deeply rooted, and is so supported by both society and by government, that, in my opinion, it will be changed only by a thorough revolution in the social views of both motoring and cycling. The anti-cyclist view is so deeply rooted in our society that what is done in the name of cyclists is merely more expression of the anti-cyclist view that cyclists are neither as legitimate nor as competent as motorists.
Do sharrows change motorists' attitude and actions? Or just their actions where sharrows exist, without changing the underlying attitude? We don't know either.
I repeat: in my opinion, the anti-cyclist view in all its lesser expressions is so widespread in the population, is so deeply rooted, and is so supported by both society and by government, that, in my opinion, it will be changed only by a thorough revolution in the social views of both motoring and cycling. The ability of cyclists to change that attitude, so widespread in the population, is substantially nil. We have fought the motorist oppression of bikeways and have consistently lost; what then can we expect about the public attitudes that produce bikeways?
My advice is to put up with the public's anti-cyclist attitudes, knowing that they are no more than silly superstitions. I've lived with them for more than sixty years, and they worry me only as they are implemented by anti-cyclist facilities and laws, especially the laws. Getting rid of the anti-cyclist traffic laws is the most important task we have before us. Motorists can honk and jeer as much as they like, just so long as we cannot be prosecuted for cycling lawfully and competently.
For those of you who want to significantly increase the amount of bicycle transportation being done, you have to face the paradox. It is the anti-cyclist program that is supposed, in some quarters, to produce this increase of bicycle transportation. Which do you want, less powerful anti-cycling attitudes or more bicycle transportation? That is, if the supposed correlation actually exists, for which there is no evidence.
--
John Forester, MS, PE
Bicycle Transportation Engineer
7585 Church St. Lemon Grove CA 91945-2306
619-644-5481 forester@johnforester.com
www.johnforester.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment