Bad Infrastructure = Bad Behavior

Do cyclists who ride on sidewalks bother you? Do you get annoyed when someone takes the lane in front of you and "slows you down"? Think all those cyclists rolling through stop signs are a bunch of idiots? You're as much to blame for that as anyone!

See, here's the issue - as I've touched on before, one of the primary reasons for all of the above behaviors is bad infrastructure. Cyclists don't generally ride on the sidewalk because they want to - it's often crowded, you have to ride slower, and the facts show it's actually much less safe than riding in the street, even with no bike facilities. But for most sidewalk riders, it's about perception. Given the choice of having cars zoom by mere inches away in some cases, or ride on the sidewalk, the safer option in many cyclists' heads is to head to the sidewalk.

I observed this time and time again with a bike lane near my house. The lanes, which had continued for over a mile, abruptly ended several blocks from the next major intersection with nothing more than a tiny sign (seen above) and most people (especially those with children in tow) would transition over to the sidewalk. Given high vehicle speeds (due to speeding, not an inherently fast speed limit), I can certainly sympathize with the choice. But what this really illustrates is that if you want to avoid bad behavior, avoid bad infrastructure. I never observed someone riding on the sidewalk in the stretch with bike lanes (aside from children, who are allowed to do so). It was only the bad infrastructure design that dropped the bike lanes that caused them to make that choice.

What constitutes bad infrastructure? Well, any number of things, but especially notable are transitions from good to bad. As mentioned above, bike lanes abruptly ending is one example. I've mentioned before the example near AT&T Park where a cyclist was killed after the bike lane she was riding in abruptly ends and she was hit and killed by a cement truck.

Other examples include band-aid infrastructure improvements - most often in the case of sharrows. Because these markings mostly do nothing (especially because they haven't been accompanied by education as to what they actually represent for drivers and cyclists), they often aren't heeded by cyclists, who instead continue to ride in the door-zone and car drivers still don't give bikes safe space due to impatience. Separated trails often just end - as I recently encountered approaching the Berkeley Marina along a new Bay Trail extension. I'm heading along a beautiful trail, when all the sudden, BAM, I'm dropped into a gravel parking lot with no signs as to where I should go. Granted this is new, so maybe markings are still coming, but when was the last time you ever drove down a road that didn't say very clearly that it was a dead end or not a through street?

Next time someone complains that cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure until they all follow the rules, keep in mind that much bike infrastructure is designed in a way that basically encourages cyclists NOT to follow the rules out of concern for their own safety or schedule. For a great example of how good infrastructure works, SFMTA recently installed protected bike lanes along the Great Highway near the Cliff House. I used to ride up the sidewalk in this stretch. It's wide, generally not too crowded, and as a natural continuation of the trail along the beach, it was convenient too. However, now that they installed the lanes pictured below, I made sure to use them, since I want to leave pedestrians with the sidewalk. Now that I have a safe way to head up this route (since you're especially vulnerable when going uphill and slowed down), I'll choose that every time! Improvements like this are a great example of getting it right with infrastructure!

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.