Them vs Us
I've been commuting by bicycle on Sydney's roads for almost a year now. It's certainly been a learning experience, and one I plan to discuss a fair bit on this blog.
One of the side effects is that I've joined a side in the long running war between motorists and cyclists. Cyclists and motorists for the most part hate each other.
There are a few reasons for this. The first is ineptitude, a large percentage of both motorists and cyclists just lack proper skills. On a bike, this isn't such a problem. When you are in charge of 1000kgs of metal moving at 60km/h this becomes a little more serious. Drivers get very edgy around "wobbly" cyclists on the road, and cyclists get very nervous around drivers sitting in large cars surrounded by mod cons such as mobile phones, CD players and in car DVD players and GPS units.
The next reason basically boils down to impatience. It seems to be human nature, especially in more recent years, to dislike anyone else getting something more than you, and before you. It's the reason we see people trampling each other when the doors open on a boxing day sale. I think that something almost primal is triggered when somebody stuck in a line of traffic sees a cyclist moving up on the inside of a lane to where they want to go. Traffic congestion in a city like Sydney is out of control and people are getting more and more frustrated sitting in their cars for larger parts of the day. To see someone immune from the physical conditions they are constrained by is enough to get some people to fume (pardon the pun).
The third reason comes down to a simple misunderstanding. Motorists don't like cyclists on the road because they believe that cyclists don't obey the rules. This is where it gets confused.
There are basically two types of cyclists on the road, each has their own idea about how to get from A to B safely, and each totally disagrees with the others philosophy.
The first group ride as visible as possible, they want to be seen and respected. Where safe, they will get off to the side and allow cars to pass. Where that wouldn't be safe, they will "take the lane", which means riding in the middle of the lane, as if you were a car. These cyclists are most likely to have a good set of lights on the bike at night and wear bright, reflective clothing. For the most part they will ride within the law, and take some pleasure in pointing out aspects of the law to motorists who challenge them on it.
The second group ride under the assumption that the road really isn't safe, and the motorists that don't intentionally want to kill them will probably not see them anyway. Once they start riding with the mindset that they are invisible, anything goes. Anything that will get you from A to B without having to fight cars for space is fair game, riding on footpaths and up one way streets the wrong way are valid places to ride. Stop signs and red lights become meaningless and bike lights are pointless.
Both of these approaches have their pros and cons. If all cyclists rode out of sight on the footpath, we wouldn't bother motorists (pedestrians would hate us, but that's a whole other story). On the other hand, if everyone rode legally on the road it would destroy any argument about cyclists not belonging if they won't obey the rules. The problem is that these two styles don't co-exist particularly well. To the casual observer, cyclists are one and the same which leads to comments like "why should cyclists get equal rights on the road when they ride on the footpath and run red lights".
I don't think I have any real answers here, it isn't a problem that is about to go away. What we need is a little bit of tolerance and patience. Unfortunately these seem to be very lacking in society these days.
Personally I don't have too many problems on the road. I have the occasional brush with a driver who tries to change lanes onto me (I often exchange words with them when this happens), but I don't end up on the receiving end of too many car horns and yells of abuse. I'd like to think it's the way I ride that contributes to this, but I fear it's just my size.
Update : Some great comments below, and the discussion has continuted over at Phil's blog.
Comments
ChicagoCellphoneSavant said on 4.14.2006 at 1:09 AM
The second reason you listed, impatience, is what I think the main problem is. I think that motorists are not patient with other motorists let alone cyclists. People just need to calm down on the road! Thanks for the post!
James mc Parlane said on 4.14.2006 at 5:25 AM
The third group, and I know of at least one person who does this is the
"I can be a car because its my road too, but maim me and I will sue you with lawyers who eat human flesh - adrenalin junkies"
I would put myself in group one, but If I lapse in concentration I sometimes find myself in group two, BMX style :)
fernando said on 4.14.2006 at 11:59 AM
i used to ride like group one, but my mentality was group two (cars are lethal and largely driven by people who view cyclists as nothing more than potential chassis stains).
in the end i gave up cycling in sydney because I couldn't make it work.
in my view townplanners need to build in cycle lanes and cycle paths to solve these issues (adelaide has done a good job with this and some planned areas of the US are amazing in this regard). however, I just don't know what the solution is for built up urban areas.
Damian said on 4.14.2006 at 1:02 PM
Cycle lanes and paths certainly have their place, and in some cases can be fantastic. The problem with an over investment in these facilities is it segregates cyclists from motorists so that when a cyclist does venture on the road all the above problems are increased.
Canberra has a huge network of offroad bike paths, it's regarded as one of the best places to ride a bike... unless you want to ride on the road, then it becomes worse than Sydney. You get a new response which is "they have all these paths to ride on, they shouldn't be on the road".
Where bike paths have been built, cyclists are expected by motorists to be using them. In a lot of cases they aren't where we want to be. They might take us in the wrong direction, or suddenly stop before we get to our destination (this happens a lot in Sydney), in some cases they have been designed by people who appear to have no commonsense at all. [1]
The most severe problem with bike lines in Sydney is what is known as the Door Zone. The lanes are adjacent to parked cars, so you have to be super careful to avoid being a victim of someone opening a car door without looking. Because of their proximity to the kerb, they are used as dropoff parking spots for taxis and private cars, nice places to stand while waiting to jaywalk and just good places to dump things. [2]
I use cycle lanes where it suits me, but I am always a bit fearful when people talk about spending large amounts of money on offroad facilities. It's a very expensive way to get cyclists out of sight and out of mind, which is a dangerous precedent.
[1] Some examples :
http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/index.htm
[2] www.cyclingplus.co.uk/.../readerphoto.asp />
adrian said on 4.14.2006 at 8:40 PM
Yes - there is the x-factor - the road.
IMHO there is no better piece of road for seeing everyone at their stupidest than a roundabout.
And the best roundabout to see some alpha stupidity is the one on the corner of Burren and Wilson St.
I'll admit to having been both wronged and in the wrong on this rounder and I now approach with extreme prejudice.
pedaller said on 4.15.2006 at 5:31 AM
Firstly: congratulations on the decision to do more commuting by bike in Sydney.
Second: there some good points here about bike lanes and roundabouts. The Wilson Street roundabout is unpleasant because cars often don't slow down, but I think the Railway Ave/Kingston Rd/Trade St/Liberty St roundabout is near lethal becasue the lines of sight for everyone are so bad.
Third: bike lanes!!!! NSW Road Rules state that cyclists MUST use bicycle lanes if they are provided. There is an exception to this that says unless it is dangerous to do so. So, motorists are right to expect bikes to be in the bike lanes, and bikes are often right in that most bike lanes in Sydney are dangerous for the reasons mentioned in the previous comments. A n alternative is to designate the road a "shared zone" indicated not by a bike lane but rather just a bike symbol on the road.
Fourth: I think we have to keep in mind that there are many motorists out there who are prepared to share the road, and the cyclist-unfriendly motorists make up a relatively small proportion of the overall total. Similarly, there are many cyclists who share the road well and a small proportion who give cyclists as a whole a bad name.
Fifth: there are lots of different groups of cyclists:
a) commuters - they will be riding any sort of bike from hybrids, bmx, touring bikes, road bikes to recumbents and tricycles. Some wear high visibility clothing, some don't. Some have good lights, some don't. And sadly, some have helmets and some don't.
b) training riders: typically road bikes, typically wearing helmets, typically cruising at a speed higher than that of other cyclists, sometimes in groups, and most likely to be found on roads without bike lanes (some exceptions apply ofcourse, like the Old Pacific Highway between Hornsby and Brooklyn). Often seen early mornings or evenings on the road.
c) Recreational riders: any sort of bike, with or without helmets, single riders or groups of riders, variety of speeds from ultra-slow family groups to moderately fast wannabe-roadies. Often found on off-road bike paths, but also found on on-road bike lanes or any other road. And sometimes they have very poor bike handling skills and lack of understanding of the road rules. But hey, everyone has to start somewhere and these skills improve as they ride more, just like a learner driver.
d) Ride-for-work: includes bicycle messangers/bike couriers as well as those with a work bike for other purposes (we know a landscaper for instance that uses a work bike to get around). I suspect because bike couriers are so visible in the city, it is noticed every time time of them disobeys a road rule, and people do complain about this.
Then there are the bmx-sport types, and mountain bikers ofcourse.
All these cyclists are differrent and their needs in terms of infrastructure are different. I think this is the message that isn't getting to town planners. Bike lanes/shared zones/off-road shared paths have their place, BUT, it is far more important that all road users be aware of other road users and the limitations of their chosen mode of travel. A good start might be to include more questions about cyclists on the road in the license testing of drivers?
Phil said on 4.15.2006 at 7:19 AM
Great post Damien. Don't really know where to start with this because it covers so much. So maybe I'll stick to the group thing.
Sorry to say but group two really has to chill out a bit and start riding on the road.....and properly. I cringe everytime I see the gutter huggers and fear for their safety. Everything they do screams hit me! No wonder the drivers freak out, they smell fear, and fearful riders are liable to do just about anything.
You see it in racing and bunch riding in a big way. Shaky wheels, sketchy handling, dodgy skillset allround. And their attitude does nothing to enhance their skillset, as a result they never progress to a stage one rider.
[Drivers are not out to kill anyone, they may be ignorant, uneducated and a bit stupid, but I it's not a venal thing.]
When you race with one of these types the first thing you do is get the hell away from them, I suspect that many drivers try to do just that. God knows I do.
As a long time commuter I only have one piece of advice, they should take the road, ride like they belong, ride like the road rules demand, and once they've mastered these, then they can ride creatively and in a free form interpretive manner because they've developed the necessary skills to break the rules.
I should also add that despite me agreeing to folks obeying the road rules, it's also important that riders leave that option open given that most infrastructure does not take in the demands of cyclists. Our requirements are vastly different, so until a proper process or change of attitude arrives in a nice shiny spaceship, hand delivered by little green men, I reserve the right to break the odd rule/law or two. In the interests of efficiency.
Damian said on 4.16.2006 at 1:34 AM
Wow, thanks for the comments everyone!
Peddler, who gets to determine when a bike lane is "dangerous" ?
Phil, I couldn't agree more about the gutter huggers. In my original post I tried really hard not to show my bias, but I definitely have become a "take the road" rider whenever I need to.
I've found that motorists will pass with with as much room as you've given yourself. If you are a foot from the gutter, you'll get passed with a foot of clearance. If you take a meter, they will change lanes to overtake.
It does take a lot of confidence to start riding this way, but it's worth it. I still don't do it all the time on all roads, especially when I'm tired and slowing down sometimes I'll ride alongside parked cars (door zone, I know it's not great). But when I'm moving at speed, or if I don't have anywhere safe to ride, I'm right there with the cars.
pedaller said on 4.16.2006 at 7:09 AM
The answer to your question, "who gets to determine when a bike lane is "dangerous?" is that I haven't heard of this rule being tested yet so this is a grey area. In the first instance it would have to be the cyclist, but if you were pulled over by the police you would have to justify your actions to their satisfaction.
Gutter hugging is also dangerous because this is the area of the road that accumulates broken glass, nails, and other sharp objects. Cyclists will usually swerve to avoid these obstacles making them appear to be riding erratically to other road users, or you can end up with that puncture that sounds like an explosion and scares the hell out of everyone in the vicinity including the cyclist. I lost control of my bike totally in one such instance on a narrow road.