Hank Ketchum
Commute Orlando has an excellent post up on the latest craze to hit cycling, the "study" that showed cyclists are only at fault in 10% of auto-bicycle collisions. After deflating the hysteria, CO closes with this:
Let’s remove the victim-advocates’ fuel by promoting empowerment-based advocacy and empowered cycling. Really, this should be easy. These are the two basic paradigms being offered:
1. Cycling is safe. With a few simple skills, cyclists can be empowered to control their environment and operate efficiently and safely on any road to reach any destination. Most motorists and traffic movements are predictable, so operating according to the rules of that system allows for safe and efficient travel, regardless of speed. Most motorists are cooperative and courteous of a confident, predictable cyclist. What they need from others is equity, tolerance and the support of law enforcement and the justice system to curb aggressive behavior and keep reckless drivers out of the system. A little intelligent infrastructure here and there enhances our access and enjoyment.
2. Cycling is dangerous. Cyclists are helpless, vulnerable and at the mercy of motorists who are mostly reckless, incompetent and unpredictable. Cyclists need expensive, special infrastructure to go anywhere safely. Most destinations are inaccessible by bike.
Why is #2 so much more appealing to bike advocates and so many cyclists?
Good question. Any ideas?
11 comments:
Assuming that the question, "Why is #2 so much more appealing to bike advocates and so many cyclists?", is not a rhetorical one, I am going to say that #2 is more appealing to some advocates and cyclists because it is more sensational.
You can talk passionately about how helpless the cyclists are, how expensive the infrastructure will have to be, etc.
Peace :)
"...cyclists are only at fault in 10% of auto-bicycle collisions" -
Ok so this means that 90% of the time that autos are "at fault" and that the cyclist is a victim (?) of the auto operator's mistake/error. I almost wish that the stat was reversed. If 90% of the time - cyclists were at fault - then we could work at being better riders. But the published stat as it is seems to feed the cyclist fear complex. I know that the biggest part of bicycle riding on the road is learning how to control drivers so that they will not make a mistake in your presence: Visibility, Communication, road space control... But it is that iphone or BB text-er while driving that still can get me in the wrong frame of mind (Cyclist Inferiority Complex).
It's easy to make a case for #2 when you're a gutter bunny that has never been instructed how to ride in the street properly.
geovrybody said...
"It's easy to make a case for #2 when you're a gutter bunny that has never been instructed how to ride in the street properly."
It's also easy for a case to be made for #2 when you are pitching bicycle facilities to folks (politicians and their sycophants) who have no intention of driving a bicycle themselves, because it serves two purposes: 1) It boosts their "green cred", and 2) It keeps bicycles out of the way of their Audi (or whatever).
#2 is popular for the same reason Fox News is so popular.
Are these green politicians actually pumped up by the idea of their driving lanes being reduced as a result of wasting natural resources/tax dollars?
From "homeland security" to "amber alerts" Americans seem to have embraced a culture of irrational fear. Plus with #2 there is money to be made! Helmets to be sold, juicy construction contracts to dish out, influence to peddle, and the politicians can boast about "protecting" their citizens. These kinds of infrastructure projects are easily positioned as humanistic, warm fuzzy, feel good community improvements. It is easy to build some bike lanes and do some PR. It is hard to change beliefs and behavior.
Doohickie is on a roll!
Good one ;-)
...
It's much easier to exploit/coddle/cater to mythology/superstition/prejudice than it is to challenge it. Even if challenging it is what ultimately would lead to a healthier culture and a more civil and livable community.
If your end goal is a to create a better traffic culture, you work for #1. If your end goal is to sell more bikes or get a government contract to build facilities, you nurture the hell out of #2 and pump it for all it's worth.
PM - I need to visit with you about doing a column for the DMN on VC. Please email my old Katy Trail address and I'll give you my new personal email since I don't work for the FKT anymore (I'm in grad school now and a full-time studnet). Thanks. Eric
If I sign up for #2, do I get money if I trade a clunker car in on a new bike?
Blogger Steve A said...
"If I sign up for #2, do I get money if I trade a clunker car in on a new bike?"
Well, if you beat the drum constantly and loudly for the #2, the odds are you are receiving a financial reward of some type: perks, commission, salary, consulting fees, or kick-backs.
Post a Comment