No Infrastructure for You!

If you peruse almost any online article dealing with cycling in any form, you will undoubtedly come across cries from bike-haters along the lines of, "cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure until they follow the rules", usually with more cursing and bad grammar and often wishes of bodily harm. It's hard to know where to start dissecting such arguments, so I'll just deal with one aspect here: if you want to make this argument, we should hold car drivers to the same standard. Therefore, I propose that nationwide we make absolutely no improvements to roads until all road users follow all the rules.

That I-5 bridge over the Skagit River that recently collapsed? Sorry, we can't fix it until no drivers in Washington are pulled over for speeding. If no drivers in Washington are pulled over for traffic violations for one month, then they can begin work to repair the bridge. That resurfacing taking place on the road down the street from you? Nope, can't finish it until no one in your city is seen double-parked or on their phones while driving. These are of course absurd suggestions, as are those that cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure because some cyclists don't follow all rules.

The worst part of this situation is that many cyclists don't meticulously follow the rules exactly because of bad infrastructure and out-dated laws. Many cities are finally investing in bike infrastructure and have seen fantastic gains in their cycling rates. This is great news for those cities, their cyclists, and their citizens in general for all the great reasons I won't detail here. However, much of this improvement is happening in a highly piece-meal fashion and because of this, what starts as a good or great bike facility can suddenly vanish before your eyes, dumping you into the middle of a street crowded with speeding traffic. For many people, this event is enough to even keep them from riding, but for many others, it just encourages them to hop up on the sidewalk where they feel relatively safer (though many studies show you're actually at a much higher accident risk while on the sidewalk, but that's another story).

I'm not advocating that this is alright, but I certainly understand this behavior from less-confident or fit cyclists. If you're new to cycling in an urban environment (and often even when you've been riding in one for some time) there are situations with speeding, impatient, inattentive drivers that can be downright terrifying. One particular spot where this occurs is on King St. in San Francisco, between 2nd and 3rd. In this spot, Diana Sullivan was killed earlier this year when the bike lane she was riding on vanished and she was then hit by a cement truck. As can be seen in the Google Maps screenshot below, this lane just ends (the dashed line is the last breath of it, move around Streetview to see more of the location) with a small sign and one sharrow on the roadway ahead to give any indication of what's going on. I've ridden through this spot many times myself and while pretty confident on my bike around cars, I always leave this spot with an adrenaline high and a deep breath, because you without fail are dealing with impatient, speeding cars - speaking of, it would be great if the SFPD actually enforced speed limits on the Embarcadero instead of pointlessly harassing cyclists!

Dangerous gaps in bike infrastructure like the one detailed above only serve to encourage "bad" behavior among cyclists while making conditions dangerous and frustrating for both cyclists and drivers. So to all the cycle-haters out there; no, "scofflaw" cyclists don't mean that there shouldn't be improvements made to cycling infrastructure - it means quite the opposite! If there were more continuous, protected cycletracks, people would be much less likely to ride on the sidewalk. If you reform laws that force cyclists to conform to car-centric rules, again, cyclists would be far less likely to break them (allow stopping and proceeding if safe at red lights and treating stop signs as yields, both of which most cyclists do very safely already). The more common and safe-feeling that cycling becomes, the less it will carry an "outlaw" feel to it and cyclists will encourage better behavior among each other as well!

If I Don't Have it, You Shouldn't Either

And now for something different! All my posts except the intro have focused on bike stuff. Well not this one! The Bay Area recently endured a BART strike. BART employees were striking for a number of reasons, but chief among them were salary and benefit concerns. Basically, BART wants the employees to contribute more to pensions and healthcare and doesn't want to give them significant raises. When topics like this come up, you hear all kinds of arguments. The type that always surprise me are basically the equivalent of, "Well, I don't have ___, so why should they get ____?" You can fill in the blank with "pensions", "health insurance", "decent wages", "vacation days", etc.

In this case, employees wanted raises more in tune with the very rapidly rising cost of living in the Bay Area. Rents have been soaring in this area on top of big jumps in other cost of living factors (gas, food, etc.) over the past few years. BART employees haven't received raises in several years (since 2008 I believe) under efforts to cut system costs during the recession when ridership dropped significantly. Well, now the Bay's economy is doing well again and BART is seeing record ridership and surpluses. Now would seem a good time to reward the sacrifices and hard work of employees with long-overdue raises, even if only to reflect cost-of-living increases. In light of this, BART employees asked for a 23 % raise over several years. BART countered with 8 % with several ridiculous conditions (such as lower numbers of employees taking federally protected family leave).

This gets me to my original thought - I've heard several people who are otherwise very liberal comment that BART workers don't deserve these salaries. Yes, I agree that for a mostly unskilled job, they receive a pretty high salary, but that's exactly the point. We should be fighting for living wage salaries for everyone regardless of education level or "intelligence". BART employees average base pay in the $60-70,000 range (before overtime and benefits). In some parts of the country, yes, this would be a large sum, but in the Bay Area, this is just barely a living wage for a family, and probably isn't even depending on where the family lives. And when BART managers have an average salary of >$300,000, the disparity becomes even greater. Yet, here even normally pro-labor people have been critical of the BART workers.

As a defense of this viewpoint, it was referenced that teachers don't make nearly what BART workers do in many cases and work super hard at very skilled jobs. Yes, that's all true, and my counter would be that the BART workers shouldn't get less, the teachers should get more! Yes, teachers work super hard and are in many cases grossly underpaid but that doesn't mean that BART employees don't deserve a living wage, too.

The same holds true for other benefits such as health care and vacation. I never understand arguments that suggest that somehow some people shouldn't get generous health care or vacation benefits (often those in the public sector) because other workers don't. Again, the flip side here seems like a much better alternative - those with good benefits should keep them and those without deserve more than they currently have!

What this often boils down to is a case of those on top pitting those below against each other. The managers at BART like to report employee salaries as a total value of salary, overtime, health care, and pension benefits. This is a pretty deceptive way to report this, since almost none of us think of our salaries inclusive of those extras (though it's important to consider these too). By doing so, the managers, who already make FAR more than all but the richest of us, are trying to deceive us into thinking that the BART employees are overpaid. The rich seek to avoid class warfare in the traditional "rich-vs-poor" sense, but seek to pit the poor and middle-class against themselves. This allows them to continue robbing the piggy bank while we're all too busy surviving to notice. But we have to pay attention and hold them accountable and one great way to do that is to refuse to turn against those just looking for a living wage like we all deserve. Myself, I strongly support the BART workers!  For more commentary on this topic, browse on over to the following article which gives some valuable points:  http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11574

Car Culture - The Culture of "F**k You"

Bad interactions can skew our perceptions much more strongly than good. This is highly unfortunate in some ways, but can carry important lessons as well. Take for instance the thankfully small number of motorists who belong to a small sub-group of Car Culture. Such motorists belong to the part of car culture I think of as the "culture of f**k you".

This is the motorist that races up behind you at a stop sign, engine revving. You stop your bike, they edge up way farther than necessary (see the video at the end of this post for a good example), then as you proceed through the intersection, they speed after you and fly by too close. Out of concern for their safety, the responsible cyclist no doubt looks back to make sure this person isn't about to hit them. As you look at the driver, an unavoidable mix of confusion and anger might fill your face, but you keep your mouth closed - lessons learned from too many interactions with the culture of f**k you and a general belief in not automatically thinking the worst of people. But as you look, you see those two powerfully pointless words on the driver's lips - "F**k you!"

As usually happens, such things only escalate a situation and of course this genius in the "safety" of his steel cage thinks he's seen the last of you. But you follow him now, his words having transformed you into an asshole-seeking missile. He stops his grey Ridgeline at a red light or parking lot (or to drop off his son at El Cerrito Plaza BART station). He tries to ignore you outside his window at first, but finally rolls down the window and you inquire why he felt the need to yell those two words at you. His response comes as a surprise, though by now it shouldn't, "because you were looking at me, why were you looking at me?" Well, Mr. F**k You Ridgeline, "because I wanted to be careful and observant and make sure I wasn't about to be run over." "That's good. (window rolls up)" His son looked to be about my age which makes me wonder - how would this guy like people driving and talking like that around his son? Why on earth would he do it to someone else's son, or another human being in general? Well, because once he steps into his car he belongs to the car culture of f**k you, as perfectly described by Louis CK.

Where on earth does this culture come from? What makes an otherwise (hopefully) rational person yell "f**k you" at a complete stranger for merely looking at them? I don't pretend to have the answer, but I have some guesses. 1) A deep-seated insecurity and anger toward anything and anyone different. Perhaps such people are just generally angry at the world and for some reason just seem to get angry when they see someone riding a bike. 2) From years as part of the culture of f**k you, these people don't even know how to act like decent human beings anymore and aren't even aware how horrible they are. 3) They've never ridden a bike on a road and don't realize what it feels like to have a multi-ton vehicle piloted by someone highly unaware of what happens when a car driver hits a cyclist (hint, the cyclist always loses). 4) They're so selfish and clueless that 1 second of their time is worth more than your safety. 5) They're jealous. Riding a bike is tons of fun, despite jerks like this guy. You get and stay healthy, save tons of money, and aren't choking the planet with your actions.

I actually think in most cases it's a mix of all five of the above, plus 100 other possible reasons. For instance, I'm sure most members of the car culture of f**k you have interacted with truly horrible cyclists and this has clouded their judgment - I don't hold cyclists as a group blameless in this situation by any means. But in the end, it's up to all of us to act like decent human beings and look out for each others' safety and well-being. I was doing what I could in that case; the ball was in his court and he swung and missed.

What lessons can we all take from something like this? First, it's obviously important to keep in mind that people like this make up the vast minority of drivers out there. Thankfully, most human beings are patient, good people or at least decent enough that even if they think bad thoughts, they would never yell "f**k you!" or honk at a complete stranger for looking at them. But it's also important to remember is that this guy isn't alone. While in the minority, too many like him are out there. When off the road, they also populate web comment sections with words of hate and claims that they'd like to run over every cyclist they see. For some reason, it's OK for such comments to be put forth by members of the car culture of f**k you, while we would never tolerate such vitriol about other groups. So while it's important to not assume that all motorists are going to act like this, you also have to be prepared for those that will and be as safe as you can. As examples of the culture of f**k you in action, I leave you with the following video:

Entitlement, or "Why'd you take a picture of my car?"

A lot of noise gets thrown around trying to claim that cyclists are an "entitled" group. While most of this comes from the same small group of internet trolls and their equivalents in "the media" (most notably recently, people like Dorothy Rabinowitz, whose delusional anti-cycling rants have garnered too much attention), such arguments are troubling because of their complete lack of connection with reality.

First off, yes, most cyclists are entitled by definition. If we look for a definition of entitlement, we find, among others, "a right to benefits specified by law or contract". To my knowledge, every state has laws that cover cyclists, usually under the context of other vehicles. While I'd never claim that all cyclists follow all of these rules all the time, most of us do ride courteously and safely, always yielding when required and in a manner appropriate for the conditions. The problem, as in most cases, are the outliers. In any group of people, there will be those who either don't know or choose not to follow the rules. This is true for cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, transit riders, and any group of people anywhere.

Problems arise when outliers are treated as the norm and people ignore the infractions of their own "group". For example, some drivers will go on and on about how they see cyclists going through stop signs while ignoring that most drivers do exactly the same thing and these cyclists in all likelihood didn't endanger or inconvenience anyone. Go to any intersection and see how many drivers actually come to a complete stop. In both cases, this is usually utterly harmless, since you can clearly judge if the intersection is clear and it's safe to proceed slowly instead of coming to a complete stop. On a bike, with better visibility, hearing, maneuverability, and an already slower speed, this is especially the case.

But back to the idea of entitlement. As I already said, cyclists are entitled to use the road (with the exception of most freeways of course, but that's another post), but that's of course not what anti-cyclist ideas imply. These usually imply that cyclists somehow think they're better than drivers and are above the law. This idea is almost laughable. First of all, cyclists get ticketed just like drivers do, often for pointless reasons that do nothing to enhance safety, simply because police squads decide to "blitz" an area and user group. Second, in the rare cases where people have been killed in incidents with cyclists, both cyclists in SF have faced charges. It is extremely rare that drivers face charges when killing cyclists or pedestrians, even if it's clear that the pedestrian was in a crosswalk with the right-of-way. These cases are usually just called "accidents" and no criminality is suspected as long as the driver wasn't drunk and didn't flee the scene. The driver's word is often the only one taken, since it's hard to be a witness when you're unconscious or dead. If you're riding a bike, often the first thing noted is whether or not you were wearing a helmet, even though this is not required in most places and certainly doesn't do much to protect you when getting hit by a car or garbage truck.

In my opinion, the real issue of entitlement boils down to concepts of selfishness versus recklessness. Much of the entitled behavior of drivers is selfish and endangers others and that by cyclists is reckless and only endangers themselves. Drivers park in bike lanes, speed, pass too closely, honk when you're "in their way", and text while driving. All of these are selfish behaviors that generally don't endanger the driver, but greatly endanger those around them, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. When cyclists blow through stop signs, change lanes without looking, or ride too fast for the conditions, they usually put only themselves in danger (with notable exceptions mentioned above). The selfish behavior of drivers is a much bigger sign of an entitled attitude in my opinion. In the picture below, the driver was parked right in the middle of the bike lane where traffic in the auto lane generally speeds by well over the posted limit. There are plenty of better options to temporarily park. I stopped behind her to take this picture and as I passed she yelled out her window, "Why'd you take a picture of my car?" I just said because she was illegally parked in a bike lane and continued on my way knowing from past experiences that any more of an explanation wasn't worth my time.

On the same day I had a driver buzz by then stop right in front of me in the bike lane to park causing me to have to slam on the brakes and swerve into the auto traffic lane after being sure I had room to do so. The light right ahead was red so I turned around and asked her if she had seen me. She said yes, but had apparently not cared enough to wait 1 second more for me to pass safely. The law entitles me to use that bike lane; her selfish sense of entitlement made her see no issue with cutting me off to save one second and put me in danger of hitting her or getting hit by passing traffic. These are just a few of the daily instances I see where the idea of entitled cyclists falls flat. In too many cases, "modal bias" makes those who spend most of their transport time behind the wheel ignore the bad behavior of drivers while being overly critical of those who use other means. None of this is to say that cyclists can't or shouldn't make strides to better follow the rules, but to claim that all cyclists don't and that all drivers do is completely divorced from reality and a dangerous misconception.