That cursed bicycle!

Two things crossed my retinas recently that generated the impetus for this post. One was an editorial on the CBC news site about why cyclists and drivers clash, and the other was a FB post about how cyclists are destroying the planet.

Every time I'm out for a ride with other bike-minded folk, we of course talk about our bikes, what we've seen or done on a recent ride, or the state of our lives as impacted by the cost of maintaining/improving our bikes, but we are invariably reminded of our other common link when an unpleasant encounter with a vehicle occurs ...  the "What's the deal with that guy (or gal)?" discussion. Why do you think it is that every conversation about bikes, cars and pedestrians is so contentious? Why does almost every cyclist have multiple stories about nastiness directed at them, regardless if they've knowingly done anything wrong?

If you think about what makes cyclists different, one big thing is that they're a visible minority, all bedecked in their fancy stretchy clothes. They're people who have chosen a behaviour that is different to what most others do, or have done, because while most people have physically ridden a bike at some point in their life, a relatively small number has chosen to make it their main form of exercise. However, that alone can't be the root since we could easily find other groups that are visible minorities through chosen actions but don't generate the same visceral reaction. Vegetarians, as an example, are a group of people who have chosen a lifestyle that is different than the majority, but there are very few people actually "road raging" on vegetarians. My very biased guess would be that it's tied to the fact that a large number of motorists don't like to share.

Something I have heard motorists say is that all road travellers should be equal, exactly the same, and anyone using the road should be equally responsible. It's a lovely thought because we're all taught from childhood that you should share equally and everything should be fair. Motorists would have us believe that their anger is born of their assertion that cyclists are aggressive, they blatantly break the laws of the road, and being on the constant vigil for cyclists is annoying. Of course, my bias (fully acknowledged) is that when totalled, rules transgressions by motorists far outnumber those of cyclists. Cyclists are not completely innocent ... far from it! ... but the scorecard is not as one-sided as many motorists would like us to believe.

It would be lovely to be equal, except for the fact that the threat isn't equal. The idea that two entities should have the equal responsibility when one of them poses a vastly greater danger to the other lies at the crux of the matter. Many drivers have no idea why people ride bicycles. If you speak to people who cycle, they talk about the great exercise, the pleasure of the ride, how it's faster than walking, eco-friendly, and sustainable. The overwhelming majority of angry motorists complain that the only reason they could see for riding a bicycle was to save money, leading to some sort of resentment, saying something like, "why should I have to look out for this person who's on the road because they're too cheap to buy a car or too cheap to pay for bus fare?"

Another very interesting take on this centers on the idea of empathy. Many drivers can attest to having stepped off the curb into traffic as an accident, and the commonality of the mistake allows them to forgive when behind the wheel. Many have never gone road cycling, felt what it's like to have a car pass within a hair's breadth while sending shards of road debris slicing into shins and thighs, or to slam on the bike brakes as the car turns right without checking a blind spot. They most certainly have never been nearly blown off the road as a transport or large truck impatiently thunders by, angered that they were "stuck" behind a cyclist for an extra 3 seconds.

Again, I fully admit that I am decidedly biased about this argument.

As a purely "tongue in cheek" take on the those that take issue with cyclists, check this little piece out:

The bicycle is the slow death of the planet - Thank you FB's Megan Doreen and Yvette Moore
General Director of Euro Exim Bank Ltd. got economists thinking when he said, 

"A cyclist is a disaster for the country's economy; 

does not buy cars and does not borrow money to buy; 

does not pay for insurance policies; 

does not buy fuel, nor pay for the necessary maintenance and repairs; 

does not use paid parking; 

does not cause serious accidents; 

does not require multi-lane highways."

"Cyclists do not get fat and are neither needed nor useful for the economy. 

They don't buy medicines. 

They do not go to hospitals or doctors. 

Nothing is added to the country's GDP (gross domestic product)."

"On the contrary, every new McDonald's restaurant creates at least 30 jobs: 10 cardiologists, 10 dentists, 10 dietary experts and nutritionists, and obviously, people who work at the restaurant itself."

Choose carefully: cyclist or McDonald's? 

It is worth considering.
P.S. Walking is even worse. Pedestrians don't even buy bicycles.

Falling on my own sword, have I gone through a red light? Yes, after checking both ways multiple times and having no cars in visible sight lines. Have I turned without signalling? Yes, although I try very hard to signal every time. Have I ridden two abreast? Sure, but only on country roads where the traffic is nearly non-existent.

One beneficial thing about being a cyclist is how cognizant of them I am when behind the wheel, while driving defensively, obeying 97% of the rules of the road ... Hey, even though everyone in my family calls me an "Old Fart" for driving so slowly, I still speed a teensy bit.

See you out on the road.
Please make sure you see me and give me some room.

I'll do the same for you.