Driving Reality

Consume any media from a major outlet and you'll likely be bombarded with car commercials depicting the "freedom" afforded by car travel. Either someone is driving down open roads or they somehow magically have streets all to themselves in a dense urban area. In both cases, the truth is vastly different. Think of the last time you were driving in the downtown area a big city. Were you the only one on the road? Unless it was the middle of the night, probably not. The reality is usually gridlocked traffic, honking horns, and frustration. Reality, even on most freeways, looks more like this:

Now of course I don't blame car companies. They're only giving people what they want, right? A big house in the 'burbs and a nice fast car (to sit in traffic)? Yet time and time again, the happiest commuters are those that have short commutes, especially those who commute by bike or foot. So maybe people don't actually want this but see no alternative? But in reality, you probably have a choice. Sure, some "super commuters" may have no choice but to drive to their jobs, but for most people, there are other options, most obviously biking, walking, and public transit. Some of these might not be as "fast" or "easy" as driving, but they are generally a whole lot less stressful (you can relax and read or get exercise), better for your health (more than 30,000 people were killed in automobile crashes last year, and the year before that, and the year before that), and cheaper (biking and walking are essentially free and transit is a bargain). Speed and "ease" aren't everything.

Another huge deviation from reality is parking. Too many people expect to just have free, plentiful parking at their disposal, just like in the commercials. Heaven forbid if there isn't an open space right in front of your destination! But the reality of parking is again hugely problematic. It's often over-supplied, leading to scenes such as:

This horrible waste of public space happens all over the United States. Parking (and traffic lanes) are usually built for peak capacity, which only happens a few times a day at best, so most of the time they sit open like this, wasting public space that could be home to businesses, green space, or wider sidewalks. Of course, then at peak times, some areas will look like this parking garage in Manhattan:

Again, a huge amount of space dedicated to the storage of a completely wasteful form of transport for most people! That's not to mention the huge amount of money wasted on paying for this parking! But you never see this reality in car commercials. And speaking of wasted money, no matter where you're driving (even if it is the "freedom" of the open road), you're going to eventually have to fill up your gas tank:

Car companies do show people at gas stations a lot, but never what they're spending and how much that adds up. I can't remember the last time I worried about the price of gas, since I have to buy it so infrequently. 

So what's the solution? Well, as I said, for some people, nothing much, unless you finally get a job closer to home or move closer to your job. But for many of us, exploring a few easy alternatives to driving isn't the barrier it might appear. You probably have a capable bike in your garage already. Pump up the tires and ride to the store or walk instead of driving! Far too often I see people drive mere blocks to the store and come out with less than a full bag of groceries. Just walk instead and get a little fresh air and exercise. Try to take the bus or train to work. Bring a book or some paperwork and see how much you can get done on that "longer" commute. Instead of arriving drained and stressed from driving, you'll arrive with a headstart to your day! While biking isn't always completely stress free (if confronted with hostile drivers or bad infrastructure), I'll take it over driving any day myself. I arrive feeling energized and ready to start my day. Riding is usually a blast and it's free. Plus, you get to avoid the frustration of idiots like this:

Next time you're shown the "freedom" of driving, think twice and consider what might actually make you feel free. FREE YOURSELF from the stress, cost, and harmful effects of driving.  Enjoy some fresh air, meet your neighbors or complete strangers, and see the world from a different perspective!

Bike "Friendly" Businesses

I really do appreciate the efforts that some businesses make to appear bike-friendly.  Putting bike racks out front does go a long way over nothing at all and I certainly appreciate steps like that.  Especially when the racks are fairly prominently placed so you don't have to walk through a sea of car parking after locking up your bike.  But bike racks alone do not a bike-friendly business make.  There are plenty of ways that this can be messed up.  One that I've observed far too often is racks that would otherwise be useful clogged up with shopping carts and other things.  I've seen two particularly egregious examples of this at a Target and Safeway.  In each case, instead of leaving bike parking open and creating an inviting situation, the parking is blocked with shopping carts.  In the case of Safeway in El Cerrito, CA, it almost appears as though this was being done intentionally by someone working there.  Luckily in this case, there are additional racks to use.  In the case of Target, it appears to be the case of someone putting the cart there by mistake.  Hopefully an employee removed it later so the person with their bike parked there isn't crowded out and can easily access their bike.

Another way that businesses can fail in this way is to provide absolutely worthless bike parking.  Again, Safeway is an offender here.  Again, the racks are located in a decent location, near the front entrance of the store.  But if you want to actually lock your bike up securely, this type of rack is worthless.  You can use the ends, as this bike owner did, but that means the whole rack can hold two bikes.  Otherwise, you're only able to lock your front wheel which can be easily stolen with or without quick-releases.  

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.

Rule Breakers?

It's been a long time since I last wrote anything here! This isn't due to lack of things to write about of course - with the topics of this blog there are honestly too many things to write about. But for this post, I want to comment on an old topic that is particularly irritating. Many in the anti-bike realm suggest that cities and states shouldn't make improvements for cyclists until all cyclists follow all the rules of the road. While I can't add any new pieces to this debate, I'd just like to point out the biggest flaw in their argument. A huge number of drivers (and likely all of them at some point) break the rules of the road, too. Though this was crystal clear already, the past two days I've bothered to stop and take pictures of some of the offenders - in this case drivers parked in bike lanes. Whether running in for coffee or sitting in a delivery van, each of these drivers has blocked the space designated for cyclists and created a safety hazard where cyclists have to go around them in traffic. In the case of the Accord on 16th, this driver had parked right around the corner from where the bike lane turns, so anyone riding around the corner would be put in extra risk due to lack of visibility to see the offending motorist's car.

The van on Howard just didn't seem to care and was too busy having a smoke break to move out of the way.

In either case, the main issue here is lack of concern for others and putting your own convenience first. And while I'm the first to admit plenty of cyclists do this too, drivers can't claim innocence. Whether parking in bike lanes, texting and talking while driving, speeding, not giving enough space when passing, running red lights, running stop signs, blocking intersections, not looking when opening your door, or cutting off a cyclist to save a half second (or no time at all, since you're often rushing to get to the next red light) drivers break plenty of rules everyday, yet no one argues that they shouldn't have safer, smoother, and less congested roads until they follow the rules. Instead we keep widening freeways, repaving streets, and making other improvements that dwarf overall spending on cycling infrastructure. I'm all for cyclists behaving better and try to be a good example myself, but you're living in a fantasy land if you believe drivers don't break many (of the same) rules every day!