Both DC and NYC cyclists have been experiencing a backlash from motorist to which Richard Layman has an excellent response here: https://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2010/12/advocacy-process-bicyclists-and-road.html
I really recommend reading the whole thing but under the theory that some will not read the post till the end I’ll jump into the middle of his article:
…
But they will never be happy with a paradigm of balanced mobility (“complete streets”), because anything less than complete dominance of the mobility agenda by the automobile is seen as a significant loss of privilege and status.
…
An ideal and complete road safety agenda would include:– recognition of the connection between higher operating speeds for motor vehicles and traffic fatalities, especially of pedestrians and bicyclists, and a re-engineering of road design and traffic enforcement to bring actual and desired operating speed of motor vehicle traffic into balance — REMEMBER THAT IN DC, MOST OF THE STREETS HAVE A 25 MPH POSTED SPEED LIMIT.
– recognition that motor vehicles, because of of their weights and speeds bear disproportionate responsibility for a safe road network
– recognition of how the rules of the road are written to favor motor vehicles and are often unfair to other users and therefore, traffic safety laws need to be rewritten to better balance the safety needs of all users, particularly those who are most vulnerable (pedestrians and bicyclists) (ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT IN DC AND OTHER CENTER CITIES, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD TRIPS ARE TAKEN ON FOOT OR ON BICYCLE AS WELL AS PUBLIC TRANSIT, AND LAWS IN SUCH PLACES SHOULD RECOGNIZE THIS.)
– enactment of Idaho Stop for bicyclists. This allows bicyclists to treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs WHEN THERE IS NO ONCOMING TRAFFIC, which specifically means stop when there is oncoming traffic — that means no weaving!
– driver responsibility for ped and bike crashes comparable to the Netherlands. This recognizes that motor vehicle operators, because their vehicles are significantly heavier and faster, much exercise a great deal of caution and responsibility when driving, unlike the passive system of motor vehicle safety in place in the U.S., which takes negligence and death for granted (see “Wrong Turn: How the fight to make America’s highways safer went off course” from the New Yorker).
– serious penalties for motor vehicle operators for causing injury and death
– insurance and registration systems for bicyclists
– better training for police officers wrt bicycling as traffic, including traffic investigation
– posting in real time traffic accident data– and the implementation of a Pedsafe/Bikesafe accident investigation and response system for the resolution of structural-design issues contributing to accidents– refresher tests upon drivers license renewal on ped and bike issues
– mandatory training/complete curriculum developed in K-12 at the early and late elementary levels, in middle school/junior high, and in high school on pedestrian and cycling safety, maintenance (this is something I recommended in the Western Baltimore County bike plan) — only by creating and delivering a complete pedestrian, bicyclist, and road safety curriculum throughout childhood and adolescence can we be assurred that we all know how to be safe, regardless of transportation mode.
– changes in the driver education curriculum to increase awareness of/safety pedestrians and bicyclists
– requirements on organizations operating heavy vehicle fleets so that their drivers are required to take and pass additional driver education with regard to operating heavy vehicles in areas with high pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic.
The problem that WABA faces is the classic one of the boundary spanner, where they have multiple stakeholder groups to satisfy, in this case at least four groups:
– elected officials who pass laws and who are lobbied by WABA
– appointed officials who enforce laws and also provide funds to WABA for technical training purposes
– members
– the general public, who the advocacy organization also seeks to influence.Automobilists are quick to complain about loss of privilege and their seeming noticing of flagrant bicyclist road safety transgressions. They call and complain to both elected and appointed officials.
On the other hand, bicyclists rarely complain in a straightforward manner about flagrant road safety violations on the part of motor vehicle operators, especially speeding, failure to yield, failing to stop at stop signs, running red lights, reckless driving and road rage, verbal assault, etc.
WRT the above “master list” of a more complete and balanced road safety agenda, public officials aren’t in the position of being able to call for most of those provisions, because it challenges the dominant paradigm concerning automobility.
I know that when I was the bicycle and pedestrian planner in Baltimore County, I only felt comfortable mentioning four of those provisions (curriculum, heavy equipment operator training, changes in driver education and licensing), and as it was three were eliminated from the draft between the time I submitted the draft and the posted version. I needed advocates to help me push the envelope.
Advocacy organizations have the luxury and responsibility for laying out full and complete agendas so that the process of building and passing and implementing new paradigms can occur.
WABA, in a follow up entry, “Resolve, to set the stage for even stronger advocacy in 2011” claims that the responsible biking pledge is a necessary foundation for stronger advocacy in the new year.
I hope that is true and that we will see advocacy for a rebalancing of responsibility on those with the most power (motor vehicles) and greater protection for the most vulnerable, in our policies, laws, and actions in 2011 and beyond.
https://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2010/12/advocacy-process-bicyclists-and-road.htmloldId.2010122815300034