In defense of rule-breaking

During my time in Germany, I observed something amazing to American eyes: At 3 a.m., in a city-center with no cars on the streets, drunken Bavarians leaving their favorite gasthauses would stand obediently at intersections waiting for the "Do Not Cross" light to change.

To the Americans on the corner, this seemed insane. Sure, having lights for pedestrians makes sense. It's a good rule. But the sight of a small crowd of happy, liquored-up people standing on an empty street corner in an otherwise silent city patiently waiting for a machine to tell them when to cross the street struck me as essentially, fundamentally absurd.

Which brings me to bicycles.

Lately there's been a push here in Charleston to make the city a better place for cycling, which makes perfect sense: Our only hill is a bridge, the city itself isn't particularly spread out, and a few simple, cheap changes could encourage huge increases in bike commuting, removing thousands of cars from our traffic-choked streets. This should be a great cycling city.

Problem? Well, there are several. Motorists here often resent cyclists, and many of the people who ride bicycles here do so in the most haphazard, dangerous ways imaginable. So to advance the pro-bike agenda, there's a bit of PR horsetrading going on, with police enforcement sure to follow: Motorists who crowd, cut-off, or buzz bicyclists could face fines, and bicyclists will be expected to follow "all the rules of the road" or expect a ticket.

This is generally a good thing. Bikes should generally be in the street, flowing with the traffic, not riding against it or running people off the sidewalk.

But here's where my German experiences start nagging at me. If "all the rules of the road" means that a cyclist, approaching a wide-open intersection, with no cars approaching, has to come to a complete stop before crossing, or must wait for some light to turn green, then we've fundamentally misunderstood the technology, its role in transportation, and the purpose of the rules themselves.

There is a particular mind that goes rigid the moment I introduce this idea: That's the law, it says, and everyone must obey it. This mind is unassailable when it comes to nuance, and arguing with it is pointless. The Germans even have a word for the concept: Rechtschaffen, which is generally translated as "righteous," "straight," "orderly," "rightness-having" or even "uprightly."

But my German-speaking friends told me the word had a deeper meaning for which English has no equivalent, a concept of living in an unassailable way that owns correctness. Rechtschaffen, as they explained it, was a philosophy of orderly life that rejects any alternative as not only fundamentally wrong but also as essentially dangerous to society. It is a rational, logic-based, unassailable mindset that leads ultimately to a culture in which even drunks will not jaywalk at an empty intersection at 3 a.m.

Which is why I believe that American bicyclists should all follow the rules of the road -- but then break them, carefully, deliberately and correctly whenever they become impediments to safe, smooth public transportation.

Our traffic laws weren't written for bicycles. They were written for cars. Each is a fundamentally different technology, and the physics involved make this clear. Cars are dangerous to the people in them and the people around them: They pack a lot of mass, accelerate quickly, brake slowly, and travel at high speeds. The heaviest thing on a bike is the rider, they accelerate slowly, brake quickly, and generally travel at low speeds in urban settings.

The irony is, a cyclist who moves at a more or less constant speed, passing stopped motorists on the right and stopping only when safety and courtesy requires it, will get to his or her destination faster, because a bike cuts through congestion like nothing else. This approach to riding speeds up the commute for cars, reduces carbon emissions, makes it easier to find a parking place, and so on.

Why do we require cars to come to a complete stop at a stop sign? Because a rolling stop in a car can lead to death in a variety of ways. A bike that comes to a rolling stop at an open intersection is not a serious threat to anyone but the rider, and conserves the rider's momentum. Observe a veteran rider at an intersection some time: Defensively alert, carefully monitoring every threat, almost stock still -- yet rolling forward just slightly the whole time so as to conserve the momentum that keeps the rider on the pedals.

What does society gain by prohibiting this practice? Nothing. What does it lose? It makes cycling -- the thing we're trying to encourage -- less efficient.

But how about at a red light? A line of cars is waiting, despite the fact that there are no vehicles crossing the intersection, and a bicyclist rolls by on their right, slows to scan the intersection for threats, and then rides through it and continues on his or her way. The bastard is cheating, right?

Well, again: What does society gain by prohibiting this? The drivers stuck in traffic aren't mad because some cyclist got to go ahead while they stayed behind. And the cost to society? ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE IS DELAYED. The cyclist is delayed for obvious reasons, but it costs the motorists, too.

Consider: If bikes are prohibited from passing on the right and treating intersections more like a pedestrian would, then bikes must remain in the lane with the cars. They accelerate much more slowly than cars do, and every time you make them come to a complete halt, everyone has to wait as they grind their way up to speed again. Plus, if you're on a narrow two-lane city street with oncoming traffic, it can be very difficult for motorists to find the room to safely pass.

My respectable bike-activist friends, by the way, think I'm entirely wrong about this. Cyclists who run stop signs and red lights? They call them "hammerheads," and blame them for the animosity many drivers direct against bike commuters. They may understand the logic I lay out, but they're generally civic-minded folk who are negotiating with the richtshaffen public officials who represent transportation authorities and city planning departments. They're willing to trade practicality for public relations gains and votes on city councils, and they may be right.

But here's the truth: A bicycle is a human-powered technology that offers great benefits to society, but it is in no way, shape or form a car.

Should we require a bicycling license? Bicycling liability insurance? No. Should we ticket cyclists for unsafe operation? Absolutely! But we should do so with the understanding that bikes should be operated in a way that takes advantage of their strengths, minimizes their weaknesses and encourages the safe, smooth movement of everyone on the road: Flow with the traffic, stay off the sidewalk, respect all signs (doesn't mean treat them exactly as the cars they were intended to direct), use bike lanes when available, use lights and reflectors, etc., etc., etc. And by all means, we need to do something about these idiots who ride against traffic.

But this argument is nuanced, and the rechtshaffen among us don't do nuance. Consequently, the next stage of evolution in transportation is likely to be a well-intentioned but poorly conceived crack-down on cyclists. Charleston, for all its talk of making the city "bike friendly," has already written a law (unenforced, for the moment) that would make it illegal to lock your bike to anything other than an approved bike rack. Talk about utterly missing the point.

It's great that we have rules and order, but my experience in Germany taught me something essential about what it means to be an American: We are great not because of rules, but because something in our national character harbors a healthy suspicion of the rechtshaffen people. Free people should break rules when they stop making sense. That's how progress occurs.

If that makes me a hammerhead, so be it. I'd rather be a hammerhead than an a Teutonic automaton.

Guten tag, meine Damen und Herren!

Comments

[Alison]

Oh, I love this. Biffle and I were talking about this just yesterday, and I agree with you completely. I do just what you're describing here every day: roll to a very slow almost-stop at intersections and then push on through if there's nobody coming. And although in every other area of my life I'm an almost obsessive rule follower, in this realm it really seems that the rules don't always make sense.

And like you, I suspect there will be more ticketing of bicyclists for breaking the rules than there will be ticketing of cars for harassing and terrorizing bikers.

[Monty]

Dan, you have failed to mention the biggest impediment to the adoption of bicycle transportation in Charleston. I referring, of course, to the menace known as "swamp ass".

[acline]

Good post.

Are you aware that some states allow cyclists to treat stop signs and red lights as if they are yields? There's much to recommend this approach.

But I question your advice to pass on the right. Do you use a bicycle as basic transportation? I do. And on the right of a line of cars is exactly where I DO NOT want to be. The right-hook accident is one of the biggest killers of cyclists.

Just take a look at this: http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2008/12/warning-redux.html

You're absolutely right that cars and bicycles are different. The law argues that they are the same. Physics argues otherwise. I prefer physics. And I prefer a separate system of transportation for bicycles that gives them priority over cars (e.g. The Netherlands).

Until that day comes (probably not in my lifetime), however, we are better off in traffic acting as much like cars as is possible.

[Coturnix]

Oooh! That is one of my pet peeves. Unfortunately, arguing with the traffic cop that my breaking of the rules, according to mathematical models of traffic flow combined with cognitive psychology of driving, was safer than following the rules, falls on deaf ears. But cops are stereotypical rechtshaffen in any society. Self-selected for the job.

[Dan]

First, let me highly recommend that "pet peeves" link in Bora's comment. And let me agree that there are certain jobs that tend to self-select their personality types.

To Andy's point about riding on the right (illustrated very well in this link you can find by following the URL in his post), some clarifications:

1. If you're a bike commuter, you understand that your health depends, ultimately, on your alertness, not on the laws that are supposed to protect you. To ride regularly is to understand that close calls are a routine part of the experience.

2. I routinely pass STOPPED cars in traffic, but only rarely pass a moving car via anything but an open left lane.

3. When passing cars on the right in an urban setting, the big risk to cyclists comes from PARKED cars along the curb. If someone swings a door open from the driver's side and surprises me, at least one of us is going to the hospital.

4. Consequently, there are some important safety rules for passing stopped traffic on the right:

Unless you're going uphill, brake as you begin to pass and then roll slowly and alertly through the open lane;

Stay slow enough that you could do an emergency lock-up on you brakes without injuring yourself;

Keep an eye on the parked cars and treat any car with someone in the driver's seat as an immediate threat;

If the opening narrows to the point that you need to be precise to "squeeze" through it, stop;

And finally, don't push it. Riding in a way that it forces anyone else to alter the way they're walking or riding or driving unnecessarily isn't just obnoxious, it's probably illegal for all the right reasons.

In two years of regular bike commuting in Charleston (and previous years in Chapel Hill), I've had to stop twice for people who suddenly opened their car doors as I was passing stopped traffic. Even though each was a surprise, neither was a particularly close call, because I ride cautiously.

Ironically, the REALLY close call I had came one day while riding down Upper King Street, keeping to the right, riding normally as cars passed me in the lane on my left. A woman in an SUV with tinted windows swung open her door while she talked on her cell phone, and since I was pedaling at speed there was no way for me to stop. I was able to swing around her because I was lucky not to have a car immediately on my left at that instant.

To me, THAT'S the reality of the situation: Cars stopped along the street are ALWAYS dangerous, but at least when I'm rolling past slowly I can stop quickly.

5. The right-turn risk described in the link above is really a separate issue, and it's just worth a reminder: Whether it's a driveway or a side street, you'd better watch that car that just passed you, because about once every two months the driver is going to brake and turn right in front of you. Just remember: the answer is to brake and turn hard to the right.

[Dan]

As to Andy's preference for a separate system of road for bikes, I think creating separate thoroughfares for bikes is a GREAT idea... wherever possible. And the best option for this is often abandoned or disused rail lines. For instance, there's a rail line that runs from the Charleston Neck down to Hughes Lumber (which somehow got the right to build across it), and then proceeds down to John Street. Opening that to two-way bike traffic would be great, particularly if we were able to extend it safely north as a connection to North Charleston.

What would REALLY make that useful would be some bike overpasses, so that these separate thoroughfares wouldn't require stops at every intersection. Because do you really think that motorists are going to accept red lights for bike-only roads?

Unfortunately, that's about the ONLY route in Charleston that could put a separate bike route in place, and the fact is the city doesn't want to give that right-of-way to cyclists, because it's already coveting that route for a renewed light-rail link. And yes, that might be the better use.

[Tom Bradford]

Mostly, Right On! But as a long-time rider and a bicycling/walking advocate in Charleston, I'm counselling absolute Rechtschaffen, at least for now. Reason? There's so much in the Lowcountry culture to overcome, and scrupulous observation of the traffic laws (even if they're written for cars) will go a long way to demonstrate that bicyclists belong in traffic and can uphold their responsibilities there. In a while, after that's well established, perhaps everyone can relax a little more, and the wise bicyclist will be able to roll slowly, carefully through a "stop" without putting a foot down. BTW: CPD will actually cite cyclists breaking traffic laws in the very near future.
More, occasionally, at www.charlestonmoves.org and www.charlestonmoves.blogspot.com

[Dan]

Tom, I love what you're trying to do and I back most of it enthusiastically. But color me skeptical. Once the Rechtschaffen get their hands on anything they don't let go without a fight, and we're dealing with a city that sincerely thinks it's a good idea to put up a few attractive bike racks and then outlawing every other place you could lock your ride.

The Lowcountry changes slowly, and it needs groups like Charleston Moves. But it also needs wild voices crying in the wilderness like me to keep things fluid. That's how you move Overton Windows.

[Carl Miller]

My compliments on a well considered commentary! Your assessment of both the causes and implications of "richtshaffen" are very interesting indeed. I submit, however, that despite this (rightly attributed) condition of many public officials, they ARE susceptible to the desires of citizens. The challenge for advocates is to communicate messages that make sense to us, are sufficiently devoid of nuance, and are demonstrably supported by a significant number of voters. I propose that a dialogue between and among the local stakeholders could produce desirable outcomes. I'm certain that you are destined to be one of the "movers" in this effort! I look forward to working together.

[larry english]

only one detail:

cars accelerate quickly AND brake QUICKLY
bikes accelerate slowly AND brake SLOWLY

wle.

[Dottie]

Agreed - very well said!

[Jeff]

Robert Hurst has a great section in his Art of Urban Cycling. He proposes blending John Forester's "Vehicular Cycling"(acting as a car) and the "invisible rider". Hurst suggests going beyond both schools of thought, and riding in a consistant manner but using the advantages bikes have to offer. I have found drivers to be more negligent than hostile. Some are even overly considerate and create confusion and disruption of traffic flow.

[Dan]

I'm gonna have to look those up. Thanks for the suggestions. And I absolutely agree: Drivers who are overly considerate create risk by confusion and disruption of flow. The No. 1 lesson I tried to teach our teenage sons about driving was to drive in a way that was absolutely predictable: Accidents tend to come out of someone reacting poorly to a confusion situation, so don't go around producing them.

[Dan Kelley]

The "Idaho Stop" law allowing bicycles to roll through stop signs unless cars are cued at stop signs has been on the Idaho's books for 30 years with a safe track record. Now other groups like BikePortland are pursuing the implementation of the "Idaho Stop" law.

Check out the article, "The Physics and Ethics of the Rolling Stop" from StreetsBlog.org at http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/16/the-physics-and-the-ethics-of-the-rolling-stop/

or check out the BikePortland's animation of the rolling stop at http://vimeo.com/4140910?pg=embed&sec=