I was walking around the city the other day, headphones on, rocking out. I’d just crossed the street, and took a step to the left off of the curb, getting ready to turn left and immediately cross another street. I heard a squeal (which in retrospect was the sound of bike brakes on the rims) and felt a thud against my left shoulder. Before I knew what was happening, I saw a guy smack onto the pavement in front of me. I’d just blindly walked in front of a cyclist riding in the road next to the curb, knocking him to the ground.

The guy popped up – and I could immediately see the blood starting to ooze out of the scrapes across his left arm. He glared right in my face and said “Maybe if you knew how dangerous it is on the streets already you could pull your head out of your ass and watch where you’re going.”

My immediate reaction was “Me? What if *I* knew how dangerous it is on the streets? Do you know who I am???“

OK. So in actuality the story above is entirely fictitious. I’ve never actually walked out in front of a cyclist on the streets. However, early today I did almost do that. Or rather, I was preparing to turn left, looked and was surprised to realize how close to the street I was, and an actual, flesh and blood, non-imaginary cyclist that was riding in traffic. That’s when it dawned on me how amazingly easy it is to have a momentary lapse in attention and get yourself in that situation. I then imagined the scenario described above as I stood there waiting for the cross signal to turn.

It was something of a revelation.

You see, I can see me reacting exactly as my imagined cyclist above did. I could see me chewing the guy out for stepping in front of me and knocking me over. And I could see me doing that, all the while assuming that the guy was just a “stupid pedestrian that had no idea about bikes, or riding in traffic, or the dangers.” And that guy losing his attention for just a moment could be a pro cyclist, or the president of the League of American Dudes that Ride Bikes, or the president of Trek Bicycles, or whatever. All I would think in that moment of rage and frustration was that he knocked me over, therefore he was my enemy, and by extension the enemy of cyclists everywhere. (Oh c’mon. Before you go labeling me an egotistical prick, really really think how you would react in the same situation.)

The revelation for me was how often we, as cyclists, tend to look at ourselves as vulnerable – as victims on the road. But is this accurate? I’ve ridden in traffic for a while now and I’ve only made contact with a car in a way that was a surprise once. All of my accidents that resulted in broken bones or scraped flesh were a result of road conditions, hazards, or (yes) my momentary laps of attention while I was on the bike. I’ve drawn more blood working on my bikes than I have riding them.

A lot of the effort to push for safer cycling infrastructure has an unfortunate side effect – it makes cycling look dangerous to the population at large. But is it really? Well, according to data shared on helmets.org, in 2010 616 people were killed in cycling accidents. Obviously there is no denying the impact those unfortunate deaths had on the people that knew them. Each of those 616 cyclists were someone’s riding buddy, mother or father, son or daughter. But if you compare that number to the deaths of people walking on our sidewalks, or riding in cars on our highways, it is statistically almost nothing. According to the 2010 US Census, there were 308,745,538 people living in the United States at that time. That means less than one out of every 500 thousand people were killed in a cycling related accident.

Since I already likely pissed off half of my readers with my “stop talking about helmets” rants, I might as well piss off the other half with this statement:

I really really wish bicycle advocacy groups would stop using the danger of death and injury to cyclists as a tool in their arsenal to effect change.

There have been so many relatively fit, active and receptive folks that I’ve talked to about dropping the car and cycling to work that cite safety as their primary reason for not riding. They’re convinced that if they start cycling on a daily basis that eventually they will get run over by a car. That’s simply not true, and the numbers cited above speak to that. In addition, if places like those glorious northern european cycling utopias have taught us anything, it is that more cycling can actually (and counter-intuitively) result in less cycling related deaths instead of more.

Believe me – I’ve done my fair share of feeling like a victim while I ride on the road. However, the more I reflect and look on that objectively instead of emotionally, the more I realize that it simply isn’t the case. Sure, I’ve been told to get out of the road, to put on a helmet, to get the hell out of the way by motorists. But that is a social, human problem – not a safety problem.

I feel safer on my bike these days then I do when I drive my car. Yes – I even feel safer when I’m travelling along side or amongst all those SUVs that the common wisdom would tell me are trying to mow me down on a moment’s notice.

Knock off the fear mongering folks. If you truly want to get more people out riding bikes (and thus voting for things that support cycling) stop scaring the hell out of them and instead show them how safe it is – even with the crappy cycling infrastructure we have in most places in the US.

It is not uncommon for us cyclists to think that we, among all of the road users, have a more objective opinion.  This is not necessarily hubris or arrogance, but due to the fact that most cyclists are also occasionally motorists.  Not only do we ride bicycles, but we often drive too.  So, goes the logical argument, we can see both sides.  It is difficult for me to know for sure if this opinion is accurate or objective – as it is my particular perspective as well.

But I’d never considered the possibility that motorists might actually feel that they, themselves, are victims.  Apparently there is a certain segment of the population that sees shared infrastructure and mass transitive alternatives as directly threatening their right to own and operate a motor vehicle.

It is just this concept that an exceptionally objective paper published by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute looks into.

Is there a “war on cars,” that is, a coordinated effort to unjustifiably restrict automobile use? Some critics (called auto advocates in this report) claim there is. They cite various policy reforms intended to encourage use of alternative modes. Critics claim these are coordinated and unfair attacks on motorists’ rights and freedoms. According to this narrative, motorists are victims entitled to defend themselves from a devious enemy.

The paper is packed with information, and I’m going to refrain from comment for the time being.  I will, however, encourage you to read it.  It is a real eye-opener – very though provoking.

You can find the paper online at VTPI, or a local copy archived here.

Thanks to @lutzfernandez, as retweeted by BikingInLa, for bringing this to my attention.

Followers of all things cycling on the internet have likely at least heard of the phrase by now – even if they haven’t seen the image:

This one runs on fat and saves you money

This one runs on money and makes you fat

The origins of this phrase are on Mr. Peter Drew of Adelaid, Australia.  And, as luck would have it, Peter has agreed to release his artwork under a Creative Commons license.

Check out the Flikr page for different sizes of this image – including a hi res version.  There are also more details on the artist and the image itself at quickrelease.tv.