So This Is Why They Are So Cranky…

I got the chance to be a passenger in a car a couple of days ago. Just riding around town, getting stuck in traffic. Not epic traffic, just normal Boston traffic. We were not in any kind of hurry, and the company was good so we were upbeat and enjoying the ride. However I have to say, wow…driving is slow. I am sure other smarter people have thought about this before, but here is what I noticed.

Because cars take up so much space, you can get a road pretty packed full with only 30-40 of them. Which is in most cases 30-40 people (people drive alone). Because cars have to accelerate and decelerate pretty slowly in stop and go traffic (they don’t have the room to really gun it without smashing into the car ahead of them), and because they take up so much space, interesting things happen at red lights.

If the road were empty except for one car, that car would stop at each red light only once (by which I mean it would only sit at that intersection through one red light cycle). We can call that an X1 red light. Put more cars on the road and eventually you reach a “critical mass”, so that a car at the end of the line has to wait at the same red light more than once (one green gets most of the people through, then the cars at the back wait for the next green to go). Add more cars and you end up waiting at a single red light 3…4… or more times. We can call them X2 lights, X3 lights, etc. Get enough cars on a street with a 5 or 6 physical red lights and is like that road has 10-20 virtual red lights on it because each person stops at each red light multiple times.

In essence traffic breeds more traffic. The more cars you have trying to fit through the same “pipe” the longer it takes for those cars to go through. You could solve this problem several ways. You could figure out how many cars it takes to reach the “critical mass” number for each street and not allow more than that number of cars on the street, London tried something like this with it’s “congestion charge”. You could put those 30 people on a bus, in essence putting everyone into one “car” then they would only have to stop at each red light once. You could also put them on a train, in essence removing all the cars from the road and making the red lights irrelevant.

I doubt that Boston is ready to implement a congestion charge, and because the city has no readily defined “core” it would be impracticable. The bus and train options are good, especially for morning and afternoon commute scenarios. You have a lot of people all going to the same place at the same time. Makes no sense to all be in separate vehicles. And as we see above, everyone suffers when everyone drives.

However what about when you are not commuting, what about Saturday, or middle of the day, or running errands. Erratic traffic, where you don’t want to go where the bus is going, or you have to go where the T stop isn’t? I would say that the best possible transportation option is then a bicycle. On a bicycle you are legally allowed to filter down the right hand side to the red light (you still have to stop at the red light). By filtering to the front you are removing the X red problem that cars have. You stop at each red light only once, it is as if you are a lone car on the road. Turning each X2 or X3 red into an X1 red. Because of this you will almost always go faster than each individual car (average speed and actual speed).

Ironically (as cars often think it is bikers slowing them down), you will also be helping the motorists go faster. Each person on a bike instead of in a car reduces the “critical mass” number by one. Remove enough cars and the X3 red light becomes an X2, remove even more cars and each car will be able to fully clear through at each red light. The remaining cars then experience the speed of having less cars on the road. The cyclist reaps the benefits of faster travel, cleaner air, less motorists (and thus less danger from them), a fatter wallet (bikes are cheap compared to cars/t-pass) a greener planet, and nicer calves. A classic Win/Win.

Add to Reddit.

Tweet

The Myth Of The Law Breaking Cyclist

I had one of those light bulb over your head moments today.

With all the silly stories in the Globe lately, the general talk among people I meet, and even people commenting here my mind has been working overtime on the following problem: “What can we as cyclists do about the rampant law breaking going on among our peers.” I started thinking, should we use peer pressure, should we push for ticketing, should we this or should we that. I was really racking my brain about what “we could do.” Then something strange happened.

I was out for a nice easy recovery ride after my little trip to The Cape, I had moved over to the left lane because a bus had “asserted its right” to the right lane (basically it just shoved itself in there, what was I going to do, its a f-ing bus, they win), ahead of me the light turned red, so me, the bus, and everyone behind me and the bus came to a stop (as people are wont to do at red lights). Suddenly the jerk behind me in the passenger seat reaches over and begins to honk the horn (for his wife who was sitting there calmly) and begins to scream at me out of the window. I show him the red light, he continues to rage, I show him my middle finger, he loved that. He voiced his opinion that I should get out of the road because I was slowing him down (and other incomprehensible mumblings about hurting me and killing me) I asserted that he was an impatient jerk and that if he continued to threaten me I was going to have to assert my right to use the entire lane (upside his head) and I also made it clear that I was capable of defending myself and will not sit ideally by while he issues threats of violence (PS. his kids were in the back seat while he ranted, I used no profanity and never raised my voice). He ranted, I called him a impatient jerk and told him he was a horrible example for his children. The light turned green, he instructed his poor wife to speed off…only to be stopped at the next red light in about 100 feet (Harvard square I love you), and that is when the light bulb went off in my head.

You run red lights, they complain, you stop at red lights they threaten to run you over. I realized that this whole “concerned motorist” horse puckey, is just that, horse puckey. Several other motorists sat and watched this lunatic threaten to kill me because I STOPPED at a red light. Did they wonder “what will cyclists think about our road-user group” or “how can we present a better image of ourselves” or “what will the general public think of us if this man gives a bad name by behaving like this.” Hell no they didn’t.

Pedestrians don’t worry that they are going to give pedestrians a bad name when they walk out into traffic (a group of them almost got killed not 10 feet from me today because all of them looked left and then walked into traffic, the only reason they were not all flattened by that cab was because I screamed “STOP HEY STOP!”). Motorists certainly don’t give two hoots about what the general public will think when they make turns with no signals, get waaaay to close to cyclists as they pass, speed, open doors into oncoming traffic, and all the other great things they do every day to endanger themselves and others just so they can get to work 1 minute faster.

I say “we cyclists” stop caring as well. When someone tells you “I see so many cyclists run red lights” tell them “No you don’t you see a series of individuals that choose to break the law” If someone says to you “cyclists this” or “cyclists that” tell them “bullshit, there is no ‘cyclists’ in the same way there is no ‘motorists’ or ‘pedestrians’ there is only individual people who choose to obey or disobey the law.”

By placing people into big anonymous groups (motorists, cyclists, pedestrians) we are overlooking the personal responsibility of each user. ‘Cyclists’ are not to be blamed, individuals who break the law are. I think we should bring it down to a personal level. For instance when that asshole behind me was talking about running me over because I had the audacity to follow the law I didn’t blame all motorists, I got right up in his face and blamed him. It wasn’t the guy behind him in the car that made him act like a violent asshole. Similarly if you drive a car and you see some guy on a bike run through a red light, don’t blame cyclists, blame that guy.

So the question was “What can we as cyclists do about the rampant law breaking going on among our peers.”, and the answer is NOTHING. There is nothing you can do to make someone you have never met and will most likely never meet follow the law. You can’t make them behave, and you shouldn’t be asked to. It is an unreasonable request. If someone ever says that to you, ask them what car drivers can do to make sure other car drivers behave, the answer NOTHING. The only thing you can do is follow the law yourself. If you stop at red lights, if you signal your turns, and get in the correct lane, if you yield to pedestrians, if you follow the rest of the relatively few laws bikers and drivers are supposed to follow, you are doing enough. You can’t make everyone else behave, and you shouldn’t be asked to.

There are simply a whole lot of individual people (walkers, bikers, drivers) who are impatient, assholes. Lets be frank, they want to go where they want to go, and they want to do it right now, and they don’t give a damn who gets in the way, or what happens when they break the rules. You can’t change the way they act. The only thing we can do is change your own behavior. If you don’t like it when people make turns with no signal on, next time you get in a car, turn that signal on. If you don’t like it that people on bikes run red lights, next time you get on a bike don’t run red lights.

Boston has a problem, an attitude problem. People love to act like jerks. They are like little kids. Me Me Me! Me first, my desires are more important than yours, the rules don’t apply to me. This expresses itself in a lot of ways on the street, no matter what mode of transportation they use. We can’t change these peoples behavior. But if we want a different reality, if we desire a more useful transportation system, if we want streets that are not filled with violence and anarchy, we have to change. That change starts with our own behavior.

Add to Reddit.

Tweet

Boston Globe’s Latest Masterwork, A Triumph Of Meaningless Grandstanding

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.

Add to Reddit.

Tweet