Just a short, simple observation for you today. I’ve noticed a good thing, and a bad thing, about the “hands free” or “no texting while driving” laws enacted across the country.

Good Thing:

Fewer distracted drivers on the road, looking at where they are going instead of LOLing the latest selfie from their bestie.

Bad Thing:

An increase in the number of people parked in the bike lane, having pulled over to LOL the latest selfie from their bestie.

… You win some, you lose some.

Lawyers are a highly educated bunch – right? I mean, when they make a statement of law they know what they are talking about (goes the common wisdom). So boy was I excited when I read the following, written by a Nebraska Attorney:

Bicyclists always have the right of way […in Bellevue, Nebraska]

Really? Someone from Nebraska – tell me it’s true!

In my time writing for JustAnotherCyclist and VeloReviews, I’ve become accustomed to half-truths, or even complete falsehoods, being included in media publications on cycling. I find them and mentally pick apart these articles. I mean, after all it allows me to go through the rest of my day feeling all superior about myself. This guy is a lawyer after all – defending against verbal assaults in his job. So let’s take a look at the article he posted on a media website. The article starts out well enough:

In today’s fitness-centered world, bicycling has become a popular mode of travel and keeping fit.   More and more Americans are relying on two-wheeled transportation to get them to and from work, as well as replacing gym memberships for many avid cyclists.

However, that is immediately followed by the oh-so-common statement:

Cycling brings with it risks of injury that may be different than those in standard automobiles, but certainly no less serious.

Cue eye roll. What is it about American society that is so hung up on safety in completely unbalanced ways? Why do we hype the dangers of some things (like cycling) while intentionally downplaying the dangers of other things (like driving a car on the freeway.) We cover some accidents (plane crashes) on every single channel, while other accidents (like the thousands killed in auto collisions every year) go without even a mention?

I’m poking a little fun at Mr Kelley here for sure. But his article actually captures almost exactly the common wisdom of our society regarding cycling. He talks about the health benefits of cycling quite a bit. In fact, most would probably classify his piece as a “pro-cycling” article. But then he counters that by scaring the hell out of everyone with how dangerous cycling is. Few would even question me if I hit 75 MPH in a 65 MPH zone on the freeway. But ride without a helmet on my bike and oh boy am I taking my life into my own hands there.

I’m guessing that the folks writing these types of pieces don’t even realize the impact they can have. Let’s take a look at his final paragraph:

When you are traveling on the main roads, it is a good idea to avoid wearing earphones and concentrate on the sounds of the road.  Being observant as a cyclist can reduce your risk of injury.  Be sure to use your hand signals when making turns or stopping and remember to wear reflective gear.  Pay attention to traffic control measures and travel at safe speeds for the conditions you are experiencing.  Know the bicycle routes that provide the most visibility and always make sure your bicycle has working equipment and can be easily seen at night.  It is also important to inform loved ones of which routes you are taking and what time you expect to be back so they know where to look if you don’t return on time.  Ultimately, bicycling has become a safe and effective mode of transportation in the metropolitan area, as well as being a great step towards physical fitness! [embedded links his]

I agree with the first sentence. And the last statement I of course agree with. But what may be non-obvious is everything in between. Of course we want people to be safe, but every sentence in that article has an implicit declaration of a hazard that you will encounter if you ride a bike. Instead of providing a list of things to do to keep you happy, the message conveyed is really a list of things that are going to get you maimed or killed if you ride a bike. I fear THAT is the message that many non-cyclists will take from postings like this.

We need to work to reduce the presumption of risk in cycling if we are to succeed in getting more people on bikes. As I have said before, please PLEASE stop the fear mongering. We do it to ourselves as a group. We continue to use the dangers of cycling to motivate lawmakers and city planners to give us infrastructure. Lots of things in life are dangerous. However, compared to most of the things we do in life cycling is actually quite safe. And as a good doctor I know said, not-cycling is quite possibly a whole lot more dangerous than cycling.

Ooops…  Looks like there were some inaccuracies in my original story.  I’ve taken the content offline while I do more research.

Ah bicycle helmets.  The topic that I just can’t leave alone.  While I try to remain non-judgmental to the choices of others, and personally can take it or leave it, I still remain decidedly against helmet laws.

Unfortunately, the folks that support helmet laws often throw out statistics without saying where they come from.

These types of issues are never as cut-n-dry as they appear.  The bicycle helmet debate even more so for two major reasons:

1) The fact that wearing a helmet prevents injury just seems “obviously right.” to many folks.  So did the fact that the earth was flat at one point.

2) There is precious little actual data – thus we tend to fall back on what seems “obviously right”

What does it take to get some real data into this discussion?

Bicycles are a very convenient form of transportation. This can be especially true if you are a young male in a juvenile detention center out with a group to take a cycling proficiency test. That is precisely the advantage two teenagers took in Eccles, UK – escaping a detention on a pair of mountain bikes.  It is suspected that the boys – aged 13 and 14 – rode the 7 miles to a local train station.  Neither the boys nor the bikes have been reported recovered.

On the other side of things, a Morristown, NJ woman has received her day in court.  Or rather, avoided it.  Kendra Arnold was in a left hand turn lane, preparing to make a left turn when driver John Farquhar approached from the rear.  According to Kendra Arnold’s report, the “silver Mercedes blared its horn and passed on her left, crossing a double yellow line.”    The police were contacted, and the case was headed to court.  However, a settlement was reached in mediation, and Farquhar has issued an apology through his lawyer.  This avoids the need for future court action.  According to the reported conversation that ensued between Arnold and Farquhar, Farquhar believed (incorrectly) that Arnold was acting illegally by being in the left turn lane.

At the mediation session, Kendra’s lawyer brought along state traffic regulations, spelling out cyclists’ right to occupy traffic lanes.

John, who works in the real estate business, professed that he had been unaware of those rules and conveyed an apology through his attorney, Peter Gilbreth.

— MorristownGreen.com

And at the other end of the spectrum, a cyclist receives the largest ever injury claim in the UK. Manny Helmot was a competitive cyclist in the Commonwealth games.  Unfortunately, he was stuck while on a training ride, resulting in injuries that ended his career.  On appeal, the UK courts have awarded Helmot just under £14 million – increasing the previous £9m of the initial court decision.  The award, to be paid by the driver that struck him and his insurers, will be placed into a trust to fund Helmot’s health care going forward.  Helmot is currently unable to work and requires care.  The effects of the collision are long term for the former cyclists.  He suffered a “brain injury impaired his judgement, his moods and his thinking and he will never be able to work, drive – or ride a bike.”

It is an interesting look into the nature of the strained relationship between cyclists and motorists that some of the most vehement, hate-filled arguments between the groups will take place in the comments of articles posted online on local newspapers websites.  It seems that whenever an article about a cyclist getting hit by a car and seriously injured or killed is put up, those that believe cyclists shouldn’t be on the road come out in force to voice their outrage at the situation.  In almost all cases, this ends up with statements about how the cyclist just shouldn’t have been on the road in the first place, and ties in many generalizations and stereotypes about how all cyclists are reckless and cyclists never follow the rules of the road.

So why do some motorists view cyclists in such a negative light?  Are cyclists out there, running rampant across our roads, looking for every opportunity to thumb their noses in the face of drivers and their “rules of the road?”  Well clearly  there are cyclists that do break the laws.  For many different reasons – which I will go into shortly – cyclists have been known to roll past stop signs without stopping, or creep through red lights before they turn green.  So there, I’ve admitted it right?  I’ve clearly acknowledged the motorists point of view that cyclists are a bunch of law breakers.  Not so fast…  The motorist’s argument suffers from two flawed assumptions.  First, by talking about what “cyclists” do the statement implies that all cyclists do the same things and for the same reason.  Any reasonable person would see this as a falsehood.  Secondly, the motorist making this argument states that cyclists don’t belong on the road because they are all lawbreakers.  However, this argument only works if motorists are not lawbreakers.  In fact on almost any trip down an interstate highway you will see numerous motorists breaking the speed limit.  Should we perhaps argue that the freeways should be shut down – cars banned – until motorists stop being “a bunch of lawbreakers?”  I’ve also noticed that, especially at the suburban 4-way stops that I may be likely to roll through on my bike, a fair number of motorists don’t come to complete stops either.   The term “California Stop” refers to cars – not bicycles.

Once we acknowledge that folks operating both bikes and cars can and do routinely break the law, where does that leave us?  At this point many of the anti-cyclist crowd will begin to cite unequal punishments for cyclists.  The first of these arguments is often along the lines of “cyclists don’t need a license, so there is no punishment for them.”  I bring this argument up first because it is the weakest.  In no state does the application of traffic fines or other punishments require the violator to have a license.  For example, in my home state of California I can receive the exact same fine for rolling through a stop sign on my bicycle as I can for driving through it in my car.  Furthermore, because I actually am a licensed driver, moving violations on my bicycle actually are recorded as any other traffic infraction – resulting in increased auto insurance rates and potential license suspension or revocation.

The more educated of our anti-cyclist debaters, however, will cite that police just don’t seem to stop cyclists that roll through stop signs or stop lights with the same vigilance they would with cars.  While I have no actual numbers, my own personal experience as both a cyclist and a motorist would be to agree with this statement.  Unfortunately the common human reaction is one of “if I can’t get away with it, why should anyone else.”  However, if we actually consider the job of the police officers we will see that this apparent lack of enforcement is probably not some sort of preferential treatment, but rather just common sense.

Our police officers obviously can not catch all crimes.  Instead, they have to make decisions about how best to use their time and limited resources to do the greatest good for society as a whole.  As an extreme example, if an officer sees a person jaywalking, while a fist fight has started across the street, no one would claim preferential treatment for law breaking pedestrians if the officer did not take the time to ticked the jay walker and instead dealt with the assault situation.   This is just common sense.

Even more so, it is about the actual damage potential to society.  Argue the fairness of it all you like, it is simply far less dangerous to society for a bicycle to be ridden through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop than it is for an automobile.  The potential for damage caused by a bicycle hitting something or someone is just far less.

When I think about these arguments, however, there is one fact that occurs to me that I believe might be fundamental to the differences between the sides – and hopefully key to bridging that gap.  The vast majority of cyclists on the road also drive cars.  This means that many cyclists see both sides of the issue, know what effect a cyclist can have on a driver as they share traffic lanes, and thus would hopefully have a more rounded and balanced viewpoint.  The reverse, however, can not be said.  The vast majority of motorists do not ride bicycles on the roadways.  They are not aware of some of the issues faced by cyclists trying to find safe space on the road.  Perhaps if we can increase that understanding and awareness all of those comments following the online news posts would be more about identifying dangerous intersections and pushing for improvements as opposed to the continued “cars rule, and if you bike you’re a fool” mantra.

Apparently for some simply stealing a guys bike isn’t enough. Instead of stopping there, let’s beat him unconscious too. At least that’s what a SacBee article is reporting.

That actually raises an interesting point that has always bothered me. Historically we’ve had much higher legal penalties for stealing primary transportation – first horses and now cars. These penalties have been (and are) higher than the simple financial value of the stolen property. Why? A big reason is that stealing someone’s primary transportation can leave a person stranded in a way that can potentially be dangerous for them. Well, what about those of us that use bikes as our primary transportation? What happens when I am 30, 40, 50 miles or more from home and get my bike stolen? Where’s my “Grand Theft Bicycle” statute?

All that aside, I wish this cyclist a speedy recovery. I’m still feeling the mental effects of the theft of my bike, and I didn’t have the added insult of a physical assault to go along with it.