Rogue Bicyclist Confesses

Bellingham resident Preston Schiller is the principal author of An Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning and Implementation(Earthscan, 2010). Among his many civic involvements have been the King County Non-Motorized Transportation Committee (as a pedestrian advocate), a stakeholder in the revision of Washington State’s crosswalk laws, and a member of the Sehome Arboretum Board.

Bob Keller’s front page article in the June Whatcom Watch, “Rogue Bicyclists Loose in Bellingham” lunged off the front page and knocked me off my bicycle. Had that “Going Rogue” gal Sarah Palin given up Harleys and caribou hunting and taken to bicycling in Bellingham? Were her reality show relatives now riding along? If so, we’d better watch out! I should hasten to add that I have a great deal of respect for the good work that neighbor Bob has done in the community and at Western’s Fairhaven College and I especially appreciate the news clippings about issues I am working on that he leaves on my doorstep from time to time, but, given the nature of its assertions, the article clearly begged a rejoinder.

I agree that there is a problem with a small, very small, percentage of cyclists who ride in ways that menace pedestrians — and other cyclists. I suspect that most of them have never taken a cycling course or read about bicycling etiquette. Over many years of daily cycling in Bellingham I have had only a few close encounters with cyclists who relish riding fast, without lights at night, and without regard to other cyclists or pedestrians. If my legs were younger I might have been able to catch up with them to offer some required reading or an escort to the nearest bicycle shop for lights. I have observed a rare cyclist “blow the red light” at Forest and Holly or the four-way stop at 10th and Harris and wished that they and the hundreds of motorists I have seen do the same had been apprehended by Bellingham’s police.

Riding on sidewalks presents a somewhat different set of issues. The system of multi-lane, one-way streets and stop lights in downtown was not created in the 1960s to make life easier for cyclists or pedestrians. Like much of traffic engineering it was done to cram more cars through--and faster. It has made downtown streets less safe as drivers speed and switch lanes frequently—and race to get through yellow or just-turned-red lights. And it makes it difficult for cyclists to reach their destinations without going out of their way, often up a steep grade. While the city belatedly reduced a few three lane streets to two, and added a few bicycle lanes, it cannot seem to find space in the 200 feet of right-of-way in Railroad Ave. for 10 feet for bicycle lanes (or wider sidewalks), nor can it bring itself to imagine lane reductions and bicycle lanes on Holly or Chestnut. Nor can it even broach a discussion—let alone an analysis, of reverting the one-way system to two-way, as several other cities have done to make their downtowns safer and more attractive with slower traffic. I do agree that cyclists should avoid downtown sidewalks as much as possible and, when necessary, use them only for short distances with great caution at a pedestrian pace.

The “gliding ‘Idaho stops’” disparaged in the article deserve a closer look. Idaho’s stop-as-yield statute allows cyclists to slow at stop signs and proceed if it is not necessary to yield to other vehicles or pedestrians. It also allows cyclists to proceed in a similar manner at red lights after stopping. In either case cyclists may not ignore the legitimate rights of other road users at such intersections, nor “blow through” at full speed. Given the cyclist’s need to maintain minimal momentum this law is quite reasonable. It also encourages cyclists to seek out neighborhood routes, safer and with less traffic than arterials. It has been in effect for 30 years, much studied and found to be safe, and is being considered for adoption in several other states including California. And here is my “rogue confession”: I sometimes think that I am in Idaho — but I always yield to pedestrians!

Keller posits as axiomatic that “bicycles are to pedestrians as cars are to bikes.” This was the part of his article with which I had the greatest difficulty. An axiom is supposed to be a self-evident truth that does not require proof. It did not look at all self-evident or proven to me.I suppose I could list a number of ways in which pedestrians or runners have been rude to me on trails, walking four abreast with strollers and dogs and … , but let’s go in a more constructive direction. So much for anecdotes, opinion and personal experience; let’s look at some data and provable assertions.

Bicyclists Harming Pedestrians

Given that the media make much of the rare bicycle-pedestrian crash that results in a pedestrian death one would expect that it would be easy to find many cases with web searching. Search as vigorously as I did I could not find more than one a year killed by a cyclist in the U.S. There are some difficulties with missing data and the way the data is reported, but I conclude that very few pedestrians are killed by cyclists. Similarly there are not good data available about pedestrians injured by cyclists. My impression after much searching and reading many reports is that there are, perhaps, at most a few thousand pedestrian-cyclist crashes that result in injury each year and that most of the injuries are not severe. Most of these are in very crowded cities like New York where respect among pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists is quite low and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are poor. This is not to say that this is acceptable; most of these injuries could and should be avoided. And when an outrageous killing of a pedestrian by a rogue bicyclist occurs, as happened last year in San Francisco, bicycle advocates are the loudest voices in the room calling for sanctions against such violence. Compare their blogs on the topic of better behavior at red lights with Bellingham’s curious motorhead-inspired vote (and media coverage and anonymous comments) that threw the baby of pedestrian safety out with the bath water of a poorly executed contract for red light cameras last year and you’ll see quite a difference in understanding of this issue.

I like dogs and I know that Bob Keller likes dogs, but I believe that a good case could be made for fingering dogs as more dangerous to pedestrians than cyclists: each year many more passers-by on foot are attacked and killed by dogs and many, many more are injured by dogs than by cyclists. Like orders of magnitude more. But let’s leave Rex behind and examine the most onerous of pedestrian (and cyclist) killers.

Motorists Harming Pedestrians and Cyclists

Each year in the U.S. over 4,000 pedestrians are killed by motorists and another 70,000 are seriously injured. In pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions there is a very fine line between a fatality and a severe injury with life-long consequences — so many of those 70,000 will be suffering a long time, perhaps all their lives. Most pedestrian fatalities occur while legally crossing the street. A few are killed on sidewalks. Many are killed because motorists are speeding or because speed limits are too high for city streets. Motorists kill over 600 bicyclists each year and seriously injure another 50,000. Pedestrian (and cyclist) fatalities and severe injuries rise dramatically when hit by vehicles going over 20–25 mph, which is why Councilmember Michael Lilliquist has joined an effort to pass state legislation that would allow cities to lower speed limits — especially in neighborhoods.

I could find no cases of motorists being killed by either pedestrians or cyclists in crashes. As they say in Pentagon — State Department Speak; this is clearly an asymmetrical conflict.

Pedestrians and cyclists have much more in common than in conflict:

• Each suffers mightily and painfully at the hands of motorists.

• Enforcement of motorists’ violations of pedestrian (and cyclist) rights is minimal to non-existent.

• Infrastructure for each is woefully inadequate and under-provided.

• Each is seriously disadvantaged in a world designed by and for motorists and their interests.

• Each is somewhat ignorant of the needs and circumstances of the other.

What does this mean for Bellingham or other Whatcom places?

Here are a few pedestrian-cyclist issues reflective of the national situation that could be addressed in our northwest corner:

While provision for bicycle and pedestrian planning and infrastructure has improved markedly in the past decade there is still more that needs to be done. Transportation planning, provision and enforcement should reflect already agreed upon policy ideals placing pedestrians, cyclists and transit users ahead of motorists — if for no other reason than to balance the decades of promoting and subsidizing driving at the expense of these other modes. A recent study from the Whatcom Council of Governments indicates considerable growth in walking, cycling and transit use in Bellingham — funding for these modes should be increased to maintain that growth.

Bellingham’s world-class trail and greenways system should be better integrated with a traffic-calmed pedestrian/bicyclist street network across Bellingham. Parts of it could look like the impressive Lummi Nation separated walkway-cycleway paralleling Haxton Road between Slater and Kwina Roads. Other parts of it could resemble Portland’s bicycle boulevards. There could be at least minimal lighting on heavily used trails.

Cyclist/pedestrian relations could be improved with a little help from our friends at City Hall. A task force should be set up including Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Police and citizens to work on improvements, physical and social. Public Works should give up trying to hijack the Bay-to-Baker pedestrian and bicyclist trail for an arterial and work to reduce rather than increase motor vehicle traffic.

Cycle/pedestrian relations and understanding could be helped with some signage along trails spelling out etiquette and reminding cyclists and walkers to have lights at night. Cyclists should have good lights, front and rear. It’s not just for the cyclist’s safety; it’s for the safety and benefit of others. Perhaps bicycle stores could offer special reduced prices for basic lights or a special discount coupon for reformed rogues. There are already some good volunteer efforts aimed at basic cycling education; perhaps these could be expanded.

Cyclists and pedestrians should find better ways of communicating with the other on the street or trail. Cyclists should communicate clearly and politely which side they are on before passing pedestrians or other cyclists on trails. Not with a bell (bells are for cattle, sheep, and goats!) but with a friendly voice. Pedestrians should put aside their cellphones and headphones for a few seconds and acknowledge the bicyclists’ communications. Who knows, start with such basic interactions and you may end up becoming friends—without Facebook! Rogue bicyclists and rogue motorists should be rounded up and sent to the Netherlands for rehabilitation and reprogramming and then be made to come back to Bellingham and teach cycling courses to kids.

Bicyclists have been tenacious advocates for improvements in policy, planning, funding and infrastructure provision at all levels of government, most of which have also had considerable benefit for pedestrians. Bicycle advocacy organizations were among the most effective forces for transportation reform and better funding for trails and sidewalks beginning with the 1991 federal transportation act (ISTEA). Unfortunately pedestrians have not been as well organized as an interest group, although they have many strong friends in the development community, especially among the New Urbanists. Rather than contesting each other’s space and prerogatives they should unite and work for overall improvements as well as pacifying the motor vehicle beast that was sprung upon the world over 120 years ago, not far from where Bob Keller and a cyclist collided.