Bicyclists Deserve the Right to Free Movement
thenation.com
thenation.com
I just spent a month bicycling around the UK. I knew the infrastructure was better than in the USA, but it blew my mind to see how even motorways often had bicycle & pedestrian paths off to the side. And almost all bridges seem to have a sidewalk, often one big enough to comfortably fit bikes and pedestrians. That's something we don't even get in the most pedestrian friendly US cities (citation: the Queensborough bridge in NYC).
And the funniest part? People in the UK complain about their infrastructure constantly, and frequently asked me why I was cycling there instead of the Netherlands, or France, or Spain, or Italy, or any other European country.
Infrastructure in the USA is a nightmare and an absolute embarrassment. I fear for my life every time I walk or bike here in shared space with drivers. I suspect a lot of this stems from the fact that around half of Americans have never left the continent of North America [1]. It's hard to realize just how bad our infrastructure is when you have no point of comparison and all of our infra sucks.
It's so frustrating because it's so simple: I just want to ride my bike and walk around. That requires very little infrastructure. I shouldn't have to wrap up my entire identity up in bicycling and walking just because most of our country doesn't bother with those activities.
[1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lealane/2019/05/02/percentage-o...).
Unless something changed recently I don't think this is true of the UK. You can't ride anything under 125CC on a UK motorway and cycling/walking is illegal. Maybe you mean dual carriageways?
It may also have something to do with the UK having almost 10x the population density of the US.
Cycling in European cities is basically just pure luck and depends far to much on the local legislation and the major. The last local election in Spain has put a lot of conservative and right-wing majors into office, many openly campaigning with turn-backs on all the work Spain has put into creating cycling infrastructure. Here in Austria the neofascists Freedom Party interprets freedom and being able to drive and park everywhere by car, same for the convservative Bundeskanzler who is in a coalition with a toothless Green party. Being a cycling advocate is a fight for each and every cycling path and even then the local city planners can still mess up and build the worst possible solution.
And in the US, that will never change. An example from 2023 (yes this year).
The State where I live has a law all road construction/repairs is suppose to allow for what here in the US is called a "Bike Path". That really means a 2 feet (2/3 meter) wide shoulder on each side of the road. It is delimited by white paint that will be allowed to fade. On this "path" is painted a bicycle every so often, that will also fade and never be maintained.
So, a road near where I live, a bridge was replaced. The Plans called for construction of this "path" to accommodate cycling on this road. Construction completed a week ago, no white line was even painted. The plans only mentioned it so construction would be allowed to start. Since it is complete, the excuse is "Oh we forgot".
This is in a State that is pushing Cycling as an alternative to Driving to work. So in the US, do not hold your breath, we will continue with doing all we can to increase the average global temperature until no one will be able to go outside in the deep South during the Summer.
This is that.
Some Americans have this world European fetish and think all Europeans are so well traveled and worldly. 40% of Europeans have never been to another country let alone another continent.
Unless you're traveling to Mexico or Canada (which are just not that different from the US in terms of infrastructure), Americans face at least a $500 round-trip plane ticket and around 10 hours of travel each way. More realistically, ~$1000 for a ticket at a reasonable time between reasonable points.
It's just a different order of magnitude of cost to visit places with different infra and culture.
You can, of course, ask someone to leave your land if you need to use it. There's a reason that adverse possession takes years to decades.
Here is a Finnish web site on the topic: https://www.visitfinland.com/en/articles/finnish-everyman-ri... . Here is another: https://www.nationalparks.fi/everymansright .
> "What's the line between a tent and a cabin?"
You can pitch a tent. Not build a cabin, nor park a camper. Only temporarily. It looks like motorized transport on land isn't included (I wonder if e-bikes are allowed.) Though you can drive a motor vehicle on frozen lakes, rivers, and the sea, so perhaps you can take your camper out then and do some ice fishing?
> "How much are you allowed to modify the environment to make it suitable for camping?"
Not much: "It’s NOT allowed to… cut down or damage trees … collect moss, lichen, or fallen trees from other people's property … light open campfires without permission, except in an emergency". "In short, leave nothing but footprints behind."
> "How long are you allowed to stay before moving on?"
I can't find it for Finland. For Norway, "Tourists are allowed to stay in one spot for up to two days."
> "Are you required to remove your waste?"
It's forbidden to litter. I can't find what to do with poop - probably the usual burial is okay, depending on where you are. I would expect more notice about needing to carry it all out if that were required.
> " How close can you be to an established dwelling?"
A "reasonable distance from homes." Not "very near homes and other private buildings or through farm fields and nursery plantations which could easily be damaged".
It looks like "200-300 feet" is reasonable, from one site.
Of the Tier 2 American cities, I think Minneapolis is the best at accommodating bikers, winter climate excepted.
The big difference: outside of urban centers Europe has a lot of paved paths between towns, that's something that spotty in even bike-friendly Oregon.
(and yeah I lived in Portland too)
At the same time, it's been my impression that there's been a backslide over the last few years: cyclist deaths are way up (and continue to rise), and I see way more obviously illegal cars (missing plates, defaced plates, etc.) and driving behavior (rolling through reds, turning on reds, etc.) on the streets than I used to. The city badly needs enforcement of these behaviors, both as a matter of public safety and a form of incentive and fine alignment.
Unfortunately it never completed, because when he went then so did the good work, the funding, and now it's back to being a culture war 'war on drivers' issue.
So they acknowledge this but expect it to change somehow?
Completely insane horrifying stat. The incredible amount of injury and death has been so normalized.
From 2005 to 2016 Chicago with a population of 2.7 million had between 3 and 8 cycles deaths per year vs 27 to 65 pedestrian deaths and 282 to 487 motorists. https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20... Edit: The closest to 1/3 days I could find was 13 bicycle deaths and 95 pedestrian fatalities totaling to 108 for the region. Which is 1 cyclist death per 28 days out of ~10 million people.
Edit: for context, NYC alone has a comparable population (versus the entire Chicago MSA) and, despite rising cyclist deaths, still has significantly fewer than ~120 a year[1].
Edit: TFA's source for cycling deaths appears to be incorrect; the actual rate is far below ~120/year. The ~120/year number appears to come from a misreading of total pedestrian and cycling deaths in this report[2].
[1]: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2023/08/07/cyclist-deaths-are-su...
[2]: https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20...
I followed the link and the closest I could find was 13 bicycle deaths and 95 pedestrian fatalities totaling to 108 for the region.
I’m not saying deaths are ok, just that the number is shocking because it’s wrong.
https://activetrans.org/sites/files/crash%20report%202018%20...
It among other fun things only goes up to 2016 and was published in mid 2018 (thus could not cover 2018). It also says that only 18 bicyclists were killed in 2016.
I could write a short novel describing my childhood bmx experiences there through the 80s-90s, and in 2022 I rode an mtb around all summer during an extended visit.
It's just insanity. People there are miserable and angry. It's palpable in how they drive.
Unfortunately I don't think these problems can be solved with improved bike infrastructure in most cities (though I'm not opposed to it). I think it has more to do with the continual strain of long commutes and the horrible frustration of driving in traffic. Unless we build a world in which driving long distances is truly optional for the vast majority of citizens, road rage is likely to be pervasive and we will all suffer the consequences.
These folks are predisposed to handle those things poorly for myriad reasons, and have established some very dangerous to pedestrians/cyclists driving norms which though illegal, go 100% unpoliced there. It's just very aggressive and driver-prioritized behavior, and it reinforces itself in a positive feedback loop turning many into psychopaths behind the wheel.
You can't even safely walk to your car with groceries in IL, the pedestrians are expected to yield to the drivers. If you get in the path of a car in a parking lot, they'll often threateningly closely follow you to try compel you to move out of their way while walking to/from your car. The drivers behave like they all own the place when behind a wheel, of course that mentality manifests as a car vs. car pissing match in traffic. Cyclists don't stand a chance in such a milieu.
Back when my family visited me in CA after moving ~15 years ago, it took just ONE day of them driving their rental to get a written warning from the police. Something about a cross-walk where they nearly hit a pedestrian after not stopping before entering the crossing zone to turn at an intersection IIRC. Turned out a police car was stopped at the intersection and witnessed it all go down. They were in complete disbelief and felt the pedestrian should have been watching out for cars, that they were in the right. It's batshit insanity in IL, and I suspect much of the US is like that to varying degrees.
CA isn't even that great, but compared to IL I strongly prefer being any of driver/cyclist/pedestrian here than over there. It may seem paradoxical that one wouldn't at least prefer being the driver in driver-prioritized IL but it's unpleasant to drive where everyone you're sharing the road with is being a psychopath.
As a commuter cyclist and former member of the 'bicycle industry', I'm going to propose an alternate view. Call this the 'libertarian theory of bike commuting' perhaps.
I love the bicycle situation in the United States. Why? Because freedom.
With increased investment in bicycle infrastructure comes increasing oversight and enforcement. This is something I cannot abide. I love riding a bicycle because I can, with reasonable caution and situational awareness, ride anywhere I choose (almost entirely) unburdened by bureaucratic annoyances such as speed cameras, parking garage gates, signals, signage, pedestrian areas, traffic and lurking police officers.
Appreciate what you have, or else we're all going to have to start wearing running clothes and doing shenanigans like joggers... because you know a properly attired and sweating jogger is ultimate stealth mode. It is just slow and makes you smell even worse + carrying cargo sort of breaks the facade.
Keep the USA weird.
I primarily drive and am often nervous driving around pedestrians and cyclists. The reason for this feeling is that I understand, even if subconsciously, how easy it would be for me to harm them with my vehicle. If I imagine myself being the cyclist it's more worrying that I can't control other vehicles that could easily harm me. I constantly remind myself that the road was made for people and drivers are just one class of person -- the most dangerous one to others on the road at that.
The best piece of advice I could give is to slow down and match the bikers' speed if you don't feel safe passing.
I still felt really bad.
When people come up with reasons why that won't care because logically they'll be in the right if something bad happens. All I can think is either they are sociopath or that they deeply lack life experience.
I can't speak for all spandex wearing cyclists but when I do that it is because I enjoy the scenery and the challenge. Are you equally frustrated with RVs?
> It’s a real sense of entitlement that is just beyond me.
You are the entitled one here. You have no right to a minimum speed on a road that allows cyclists.
> But if you’re leisure riding on a road where the speed limit is 55 and sitting in the middle of the lane you’re an ass.
I do this in all cases. If you can't get your vehicle fully into another lane to pass me then it's not a safe place to pass. If the speed limit is 55 that's a narrow highway and you have no exclusive right as a car. If you want that then stick to the freeways.
If a cyclist hugs the edge of the road then drivers frequently squeeze between the cyclist and oncoming traffic. If the cyclist stays in the middle of the lane then drivers recognize they need to wait for a clear passing opportunity.
Try it, you may just like it.
The same reason we might invest in traffic lights or stop signs even though cars regularly ignore them.
A more analogous would be that some cars choose to go off roading, or spend most of their time in driveways or parking lots - or some only drive to car shows. A much more accurate analogy would be cars that only drive in one lane and never use the left lane for passing.
Bicycles are vehicles. They have the same right to use the road as cars. Cars have no right to a minimum speed on surface streets. Cars have an exclusive right to freeways. High rates of speed are poor etiquette on bicycle routes, in my neighborhood only the fast cyclists ride in the street but at speeds that would be inappropriate on the bike path in that area.
Bicycle infrastructure tends to be an afterthought, even in the best cases. Can you describe this bike lane in more detail? Is it completely isolated from traffic? Is it mixed use with pedestrians?
Here in Seattle the divided bike lanes run parallel to roads with a curb and parking between. This seems good but at intersections bike lanes still cross side streets. That creates an opportunity for (especially right) turning traffic to not see cyclists and turn into them when the bicycle is crossing, even with dedicated bicycle lights. Riding in the street is your best chance to be seen, and on a bicycle being seen is your best chance to stay alive.
John Forester's treatise "Effective Cycling" was a huge influence on me when it came to urban cycling.
Generally no one has a right to any specific minimum speed, but most states do have laws against impeding the normal flow of traffic [1].
[1] https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/traffic-tickets/impedin...
* It is a long, straight, very slightly downhill segment with long sight lines and no intersections; one of the few safe sprint opportunities on my rides
* The bike lane surface is sloped slightly towards the outside of the road
* The outside half of the bike lane has several storm drains, and often some dry leaves in it
* The car speed limit is 30 mph.
All this combines to make it a fast segment where it really only feels safe to go that fast in the car lane. I'm going the car speed limit so in theory it's not slowing traffic.
In practice drivers perceive the speed limit to be the minimum they are entitled to and I get punish passed all the time there.
Are you asking? Post the location and I'd be happy to weigh in from a cyclist's point of view.
First, those involving cars.
- Turning Left while a bike lane is on a right.
- Cars don't yield to the bike lane before turning right
- Car occupants don't check a bike lane before opening door.
- Car parked ahead in the bike lane.
- Cars squeeze bikes next to the curb because the car can't maintain a lane / 3 foot is a really small distance at 30mph.
Next, those involving infrastructure
- Bike lane is made of segmented concrete; creating a thump and loss of traction every 3 feet, at 30mph.
- Bike lane is the gutter of the street, and street sweepers never come so it has much trash to be dodged
- Bike lane is shared with water infrastructure, where modifications lead to a longitudinal groove that is easy to get a small tire stuck in, get a flat, throw you unexpectedly.
- Bike lane is shared with storm infrastructure, so it is sloping, or has drain grates that cause bumps, loss of traction, potential to throw you -- again at 30mph
- Bike lane is "designed" for "recreation" with curves such that it is less efficient at getting from point a to b as quickly as the road.
- Need to walk their dog using their bike and don't want their dog in the bike lane.
- Can't be bothered to cross the road to the right side and instead bike on the sidewalk to avoid other cyclists coming head on in the bike line on this side.
- They just feel like it.
100% true story, I had a cyclist yell at me and call me names because I had the audacity to stop walking across the intersection as the cyclist blew through the red like at 30km/h. I suppose stopping to avoid getting hit by them interrupted their "flow" who knows.
A small number of cyclists seem to have all the excuses for bad behaviour, but it doesn't make it ok. We need the infrastructure for cyclists, and bad behaviour by some is not a reason not to build it. But cyclists could definitely do more to be safe around pedestrians and at least try to live with drivers.
Personally, when I cycle I obey all the stop lights and stop signs, I don't bike on the sidewalk, and instead of making a left I go through the intersection and wait for the light to change because my life is worth much more to me than trying to make some political show by blocking traffic in a left turn lane. It's just crazy dangerous doing that, even when there is a dedicated bike area for left turns. Blocking traffic won't make drivers any safer.