Anarchy on Wheels: Why the rules of the road should be enforced on bikes

Living in Southern California means dealing with traffic of all kinds. The problem with this traffic is that it wastes time. It doesn't just waste time though; it causes stress. Stress which can lead to a release of cortisol which makes us fat and become predisposed to diabetes. Mostly traffic causes stress for two reasons. The first is we want to be home already and we are annoyed that we cannot just drive through at speed. The second exists whether the traffic is actually slowing us down or not. It is our response to unsafe driving conditions and it can begin because people want to be home already thereby creating a feedback loop which perpetuates itself. It can also occur for two other reasons though. It can occur from ignorance and also from a sense of entitlement. These are the most annoying of all because they can easily be prevented.

Now people who drive cars are guilty of all of this but if you want to find a group of people who cause unsafe driving conditions all the time you need to look no further then the bicycle rider. It is easy to routinely observe bike riders running red lights, failing to stop at a stop sign or riding the wrong way on a street. I recently came across an article entitled "Stop means stop: How do we get bikers to obey traffic laws?" by Christopher Beam which at first glance was finally tackling this difficult topic. Then I read the first paragraph and my jaw dropped. He explained how ran five red lights and went the wrong way down a one-way street on the way home from work just the day before. Of course he did all of this on his bike which in his mind makes it menacing but not morally repugnant.

What got me in reading this article is that the author threw out all his credibility in the first paragraph. Everything else I read was tinted with cynicism in my mind because the author admitted he was part of the problem and not the solution. By the end he arrived at the conclusion that the police should cite more regularly "outrageous" behaviors like "riding at night without a light or tearing the wrong way down a one-way street". What perplexed me was not his conclusion but what was missing. Namely cracking down on bike riders who run red lights. This is probably the most dangerous infraction since the bike rider puts his or her life in eminent danger every time they do it. More importantly they cause a lot of driver stress as people have to react to this unexpected behavior which thumbs it's nose at the rules of the road. The reason this is the most dangerous act is because unlike at a stop sign, the opposing traffic does not slow at a green light. Therefore the relatively slow moving bike can easily make a major miscalculation in running the light which the rider will instantly regret. This is compounded by riders who use clipless pedals but can't figure out how to work them. Then instead of pushing down with their foot out of the pedal to get out of the way of oncoming traffic the rider will fuss with getting their foot in the pedal only to end up moving about one mile per hour in the middle of the intersection while it's not even their turn to go.

Now Christopher's article did have a lot of substance in the middle, it mostly consisted of a false dichotomy of solutions. He called these two camps "facilitators" and "vehicularists" and went on to describe the difference in thought. The facilitators want more bike paths, bike lanes, and changed rules for bikes while the vehicularists want bikes to behave as cars on the road. It should be noted that the reality right now is that most states look at bikes as cars which means that have to follow all of the same rules. Still no municipality or city falls in one category or the other. Instead a combination of the ideas is what usually ends up being implemented. I myself am a huge advocate of bike paths when they are economically feasible. At the same time if a bike is on the road I believe it should follow all of the rules of the road. One major addition to many cities with newer roads in Southern California is bike lanes. These do a great job of making the road safer for bikes. They do a horrible job of making the road safe from bikes though. This is because they don't instill a sense of being a part of the traffic and so bike rider's feel they can live outside of those rules.

Another major problem with bikes and roads is the left turn or the merge to avoid a right turn only lane. I bike semi-regularly and I admit that merging all the way to the left turn lane is challenging. It is not impossible though and I always check the traffic and wait for a clearing before I attempt. Some riders though through a combination of knowing they have as much right to be on the road as a car and a grossly massive sense of self entitlement will just merge without looking at all. This sends cars swerving and jamming on the breaks. Many cars will honk to warn the bike of it's impending doom. The rider in response will yell and scream about how it has the right of way since it was in front when it merged. I don't know what bizzaro world this makes sense in because cars get honked at for cutting people off too.

Bikes and cars can get along just fine if everybody would follow the rules without exception. In addition I advocate the addition of anything which will improve the safety of the bike rider such as bike lanes or bike paths. I also advocate getting traffic signals to recognize when a bike is waiting at a left turn. The most important thing I advocate though is for bike riders to stop at red lights, signal and look when moving left, and never ride the wrong way on a street. This would by far increase the safety of bike riders the most and also have the benefit of making us all less stressed out and fat.