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.