I read David Filipov’s newest article at the Globe with some amount of disgust this morning. For those who have yet to glance upon this masterwork of investigative journalism let me serve up some tasty snippets.

Boston has launched a high-profile campaign to become a friendlier city for cyclists. Now the question is whether bicyclists will become friendlier to Boston. On any hour of any day, Boston bicyclists routinely run red lights, ride the wrong way on one-way streets, zip along sidewalks, and cut off pedestrians crossing streets legally – even though bike riders are supposed to obey the same traffic laws as motorists. Sometimes, a bicyclist will do all of these things in one two-wheeled swoop. The city seems unable to stop it.

(emphasis mine)

Ahh yes, Boston cyclists scourge of the streets. I don’t actually disagree with the authors claims of wrong doing by cyclists. In fact I am just as annoyed and pissed off when I see cyclists running red lights (news flash, running red lights doesn’t make you faster…being faster makes you faster), mostly because I then have to pass their stupid asses as I take off after waiting at the red light, but also because I see them regularly muck up traffic, almost get run over, or fail to yield to pedestrians. In short the same numskulls who run red lights on their bikes, are the same people I worry about when in cars. So why might you ask was I so disgusted with this article?

In short the article is guilty of two things. One, it insinuated that only cyclists are breaking the law, and two, it tries very hard to neglect that different user groups produce different consequences when they break the law.

So to the first point, ‘only cyclists are bad’, lets take a look at some of the crack statistics work that the author did.

At that particular intersection, 12 out of 28 cyclists were observed ignoring the red light over the course of 45 minutes. Some cruised right through; others paused and then went forward. A dozen more rode along the narrow sidewalk, weaving their ways among joggers, people walking to work, and students toting instruments toward the Berklee College of Music. Four more cyclists rode the wrong way on Newbury Street, dodging oncoming vehicles.

…

On Wednesday, over the course of 40 minutes, 20 cyclists ran the light at Charles and Beacon streets; only one did not. Monday morning, over the course of 35 minutes at Copley Square, 12 cyclists sailed through red lights (five waited for green). Monday, during a half-hour at lunch time, 10 out of 23 cyclists ran the red light on Tremont Street at the beginning of Beacon Street, where tourists commingled with hurried business people. Ten more rode the wrong way on Tremont. Dozens more took the sidewalk, scattering walkers.

Nice, random sampling times, no methodology, no sampling of other user groups, tiny samples, in short these numbers mean nothing. They also fail to capture the entire picture. How many pedestrians walked out against the signal, how many cars failed to yield, how many cars failed to use turn signals, how many were speeding? I feel that a detailed multi-user group study of any intersection would show that every user group in Boston has a problem, and that problem is that they simply don’t give a fuck about anyone else.

If you are a pedestrian and you want to be “over there” and the little walk man isn’t showing what do you do? You look both ways (sometimes), if no one is coming (or often even if they are, cause ‘hey fuck it’ they will stop) and you step out into the street. You don’t care if you force the cyclist to move into heavy traffic to avoid you, you also don’t care if a bunch of cars have to suddenly stop to let you cross when you have absolutely no business being in the road at that time.

If you are a cyclist and you want to go through a red light, well ‘hey fuck it’, off you go. You have no regard for the fact that you might get run over, that you might hold up traffic, that you might strike a pedestrian that is crossing the street, that you might hit another cyclist that is following the law, that you might then cause a headache for the cyclists behind you who then have to deal with you when the light does turn green.

If you are a motorist and you feel like getting from point A to point B as fast as possible and you don’t feel like signaling, checking your mirrors, obeying the speed limit, looking before you open your door, yielding to pedestrians, giving cyclists room on the road, well ‘hey fuck it’ it’s your car and you will do what you want.

In short no user group is any more or less lawful than any other. They each break different laws in different frequency, but they are ALL breaking the law with great regularity and mostly because of the “hey fuck it” attitude that so many have in this city.

That brings me to point two. The consequences for different user groups breaking the law are not the same. When a car decides to run a red light, it carries a much greater risk than when a bike does. Similarly the danger to pedestrians who cross against the light are predominantly to themselves, with cyclists a close second, most motorists will not be physically harmed if they strike a pedestrian. All of these actions are illegal, and stupid, but the risk vs reward for each is different. If you are going to write an entire article about how unruly cyclists are, well then you should have lots of facts about how this behavior is dangerous to the public. Statistics showing the hundreds of deaths caused each year by cyclists running red lights, and the carnage caused by sidewalk riding. Don’t get me wrong, I think running red lights and riding on the side walk are stupid and shouldn’t be done, but in all honestly they don’t pose a major threat to public safety. However literally thousands of people are killed each year by or in cars. When a 4000 pound box of metal and glass gets going fast and doesn’t signal it’s turns, people die.

Publishing an entire article about one user group without putting it in context is disingenuous, and dishonest. There is already a strong pubic opinion that you “have to be crazy to ride a bike in Boston” or “bike riders are assholes.” Which is a horrible thing, biking in Boston can be a fun and relaxing activity. Bikers are not crazy, and biking doesn’t have to be a war of US v Them. The car lifestyle has brought us a lot of things, but the most obvious is obesity, congestion, pollution, sprawl , global warming, wars for oil, and as of late an economic crisis. People could do a fair amount of good by simply leaving the car in the driveway and taking the bike out for a spin.

This article was a simple attempt to get some ad revenue for the Globe, shallow sensational journalism lacking context or good research. But the fact still remains: Cyclists break the law, a lot. What can we do about that? The article itself, and the user comments are long on “this is the problem” and lacking completely the “this is the solution.” The solution seems to be two fold.

Education: You need to know what the laws are. This goes for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. You should have a deep understanding of what exactly you are supposed to be doing out there (check out MassBike’s website for a good run down of cycling laws if you are rusty, they just passed some new laws so it might be time for a refresher).

Attitude: Boston must put aside it’s “hey fuck it” (or even worse “hey fuck you”) attitude. What really keeps us all safe and happy out there is not the law, but the social trust. That little white line, or that little red/green/yellow light, isn’t what keeps you from getting run over by that truck. The trust you put into that truck driver to treat that light like it means something, or stay on one side of that white line is what keeps you safe. When you break the law what you are really doing is breaking the social trust that someone else put in you. You are saying to them “everything is chaotic you can’t count on anything” and that makes them mad, afraid and unsafe. If you are a cyclist you count on cars coming to a stop at red lights, otherwise you would never cross an intersection (imagine if cars ran reds with the frequency that bikes do). The entire system is based from the ground up on trust of strangers. Every time a cyclist runs a red light they are eroding that trust.

If each use group continues to erode the trust (by doing all the things mentioned above and more) then eventually the streets will be nothing more than a war zone, and whoever is fastest and toughest will get around, and everyone else will be road kill. Not a happy scenario, but also far from a likely one if some simple things are changed. But hey, at least we can count on the Boston Globe to provide us with poorly thought out, and poorly researched articles so that we can scape goat one group while ignoring the bigger problem. Thanks Boston Globe.

An article today on Boston.com, Boston’s unruly riders, challenges red light runners, sidewalk riders, and wrong-way infringers. Here’s the summary:

Boston has launched a high-profile campaign to become a friendlier city for cyclists. Now the question is whether bicyclists will become friendlier to Boston.

There is the usual “discussion” page which seems surprisingly tame in the initial posts (I’m only up to page 2.) Anyone recognize themself in the video? Also, I had thought Nicole made it well known she didn’t like being called a ‘czar’. Why does everyone still call her that, then?

Or, more accurately, Marco [Pantani]. That’s what Pete jokingly called me when he saw how I like to climb hills. I really really love to stay in my drops. Risers? Flat bars? Bullhorns? Never.

I dream of being a decent climber. I dream of ascending steep hills and knowing exactly when to shift to keep a constant cadence. I’ve been dreaming of road bikes, too, spending an hour here and there fantasizing about custom frames [Igleheart? Indy Fab? Seven?], pretending I had the money to sink into yet another bike.

I know, I know, I just got a new bike. But it’s an addiction; cycling, that is. It’s sort of totally changed my life, too. I’m not going to go out and get that bike-related tattoo just yet, but I’m hoping if I ever do, it won’t be something I regret.

I’m doubting myself, though. I’ve been through enough phases [from punk to sourdough baking to boxing] to hedge my bets a bit. And when finals arrive and I’m more than a little unprepared, the doubting becomes worse as I desperately try to find something I’m good at. Because it’s certainly not law school [unless you count being spectacularly mediocre at studying law some kind of impressive feat]. I’ve been doing a fairly okay job of clutching onto the last shreds of my sanity though. Well…until yesterday.

I ran into Mark outside the library and hitched a ride into Newton Centre to get a decent cup of coffee. On our way back to the library, we ran into a guy in our Constitutional Law II class; a guy who is on Law Review with Mark. He mentioned going to meet with our professor to ask some questions before the official review session, and, looking at Mark, invited him, pointedly ignoring me, saying:

“Yeah, I’m sure the guys will be okay with you coming. All the smart kids are going.”

I gulped awkwardly, then managed to excuse myself from the conversation that I was never a part of, to head back to my carrel. Biting my lip, I pushed aside feelings of frustration, inadequacy, and not being good enough. I have too much shit to do to feel stupid over petty comments; so I dove back into my work.

Hours later, back home, I gave myself a 20 minute break to sprawl out on my bed and think about nothing. Turning my head to check the time, I glimpsed my pretty Dolan. I wondered how long this was going to last. I dream of being fast but, like punk rock and boxing, sometimes I wonder if I was ever really built for this obsession I’ve immersed myself into [the answer to the aforementioned interests ended up in the negative, mostly because I couldn't seem to excel at either]. When passion turns into that hungry, all-consuming desire to be better, faster, stronger, smarter…does it all end there?

Even if I’m never good at cycling, am I still going to love it…?

I’m honestly not sure. For now, I’m going to do the only thing I can do: keep my head down, in the drops, and just try to climb.

In T minus too few hours, I’ll be going Chernobyl on a tax exam. Or more accurately, I will be attempting to survive the nuclear winter that will be my tax law exam.

I’m in good company, at least. Misery, a common theme this time of year, still manages to make itself useful by forging bonds of solidarity. As a few friends and I navigated the intricacies and tiny little details of the tax code for a few hours this morning, fluctuating between comprehension and utter confusion [yes, even with the exam less than 24 hours away], there was the unspoken understanding that if we fail, we’ll fail together. And until then, we were going to pretend that that just wasn’t a possibility.

Dragging my feet back to my carrel after the study session, a friend who sits at the carrel next to mine spotted me in the hall and held up a hand for a high five. I reciprocated weakly, half missing his hand, mentally thanking God it wasn’t Zack at Cambridge who would undoubtedly make me do it over and over again until my palm was numb. I sighed at my ineptness and stepped to walk past him when he asked:

“Do you know why I just gave you a high five?”

“No.” [I mean, did there have to be a reason???]

“You’re getting published.”

He took three steps past me before I realized what that meant. I shrieked a little too loudly, and attempted to hug him before he pushed me away in feigned disgust, muttering something about how he now needed to take a shower. The failed hug was made up by a subsequently successful one with another friend and journal-mate who was also selected for publication. My fantasy of getting my name [and note!] in the Westlaw database is actually coming true [in Spring 2010].

That means more work, more time in the library, more pounding my head into walls over the issue of homonymous names of geographic indicators of cheese in the European Union. But those are things to worry about next winter. For now, as taxing as my current situation is [pun totally totes intended], the news gave me a much-needed academic ego boost and sort of hinted at the possibility that maybe I don’t completely suck at all things legal.

…Well, that might not include tax law, though…

[And yes, the pictures of papers all over my desk will stop soon.]

Paris has one, DC is getting one, could Boston be next! Lets hope so. This was just sent to me from City Councilor John Connolly.

I am writing to let you know that I filed legislation yesterday to explore bringing a shared-bike program to Boston. Attached please find a copy of the hearing order. I want to recognize that Mayor Menino and his administration have already begun the process for launching such a program, and I look forward to hearing from City leaders on their efforts to bring a shared-bike program to fruition.

I am hoping that a hearing will present the opportunity for the public and any experts to discuss the best model for such a program, the necessary infrastructure, and the best ways to ensure a successful shared-bike program in Boston. I will keep you updated on the scheduling of the hearing. As Chair of the Council’s Environment & Health Committee, I am making every effort to promote a greener city that includes more sustainable transportation options like a shared-bike program.

I would welcome your feedback on this or any issue.

Thanks,
John

John R. Connolly
City Councillor At-Large
Boston City Council
One City Hall Square
Boston, MA 02201
phone: (617) 635-3115
fax: (617) 635-4203

You can read the proposed legislation here. (pdf)

I am not sure if Boston is ready yet for this kind of program (we lack infrastructure, driver education, biker education, common decency towards our fellow humans, etc…). And to make this successful it has to be rolled out with thousands of bikes all over town. Something I am not sure this plan proposes. But perhaps they can bootstrap it to success. A program like this would be a welcome addition to transportation options for the city (especially for tourists), lets hope they can do it, and do it well.