Thursday, February 9, 2012

Stop

Yet again in Arizona there's a proposed law to allow cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. This isn't the first time this change his been proposed and killed, so there's reason to doubt its passage. But if the bill does pass, it won't change much in the real world: most cyclists treat most stop signs as yield signs already, so the effect of the bill would be to decriminalize what cyclists already do, not change their behavior.

I don't advocate that cyclists follow traffic laws. Instead, I advocate that cyclists protect themselves. Usually that means following the law, but sometimes it means breaking the law. In the case of stop signs, I fail to see how coming to a full stop is de facto safer for the cyclist. Rather, I see the opposite. By default, a bicycle is unbalanced when at rest and unwieldy when started from a full stop. Also, unlike motorists, cyclists are vulnerable while stopped in the road; we don't have bumpers and two tons of mass to protect us from rear-end collisions.

But it's not my intention to argue in favor of the law. Yes, I support it because it would decriminalize part of my behavior, but the practical effect would be small: I've never been ticketed for running a stop sign—and that's not for lack of police witness.

Legally, a bicycle is a vehicle, and cyclists are subject to most of the same laws as motorists. However, in the real world, cyclists constitute a tiny minority of traffic and are mostly left alone by law enforcement. The unwritten rule for cyclists is: stay off the busy roads and don't cause trouble, and the police will leave you alone. It's the kind of just privilege that history often affords tiny, voiceless minorities, and it's as it should be.

But I fear someday cycling will catch on and grow from being a voiceless minority into being a vocal minority, and consequently its truce with law enforcement will end. Rather than empowering the cycling community, the result, I predict, would be to spark a backlash from motorists. Roads are built by motorists for motorists, just as traffic law is written by motorists for motorists. Cyclists don't pay gasoline taxes, yet we're tossed 1% of urban road budgets by way of perks such as bike lanes. That fuels resentment from motorists. And we break lots of their laws too; that also fuels resentment.

The greatest danger in being a cyclist is that you're invisible to motorists: they don't see you coming. But we're also invisible to the establishment, and that's our greatest safety.

2 comments:

Bobby and the Presidents said...

Very interesting to read your comments about a subject that affects you more than 99.9% of the population (talking in terms of time on the roads here, not population). Anyway, I cyclist have a better "right to the road" arguement if the letter of the law treats them exactly the same as motorists. I will continue to stop when I want and roll through when I want so I don't feel I will be affected either way. As a final point, if you can call any of the above a "point," I think if I had a blog I would write up a comparison of this majority vs. minority affect to that of walkers/runners using golf courses to walk or run.

Craig Brandenburg said...

Bobby et al.— Interesting analogy. And it looks like you do have a few blogs.