The myth of the virtuous cyclist
Last Sunday, at about noon, in the middle of Harvard Square, I saw a young man cycle down Massachusetts Avenue in front of the Harvard Coop. As the walk light came on, he cut across the opposite traffic lane, up a wheelchair-accessible ramp and onto the sidewalk in front of the T entrance. There he weaved through and past pedestrians who were heading in various directions. I couldn’t imagine why he thought it was okay or what was in his mind, but he seemed unconcerned about the risk he posed to others or that he might be reprimanded.
Everyone who walks around in Cambridge knows that flagrant “anything goes” behavior is the exception but has spread among young cyclists, scooterists, e-bikers, e-boarders and the like.
This outbreak of norm-breaking by cyclists may in part be due to advances in bicycle technology that make cycling easier and more enjoyable, e-bikes and other novelties. It may in part be that continued improvements in bicycle trails and infrastructure have stimulated a desire to push boundaries. It may also be generational, a badge of millennial identity.
The norm-breaking cyclist is not alone. A belief that “anything goes” for a virtuous cause is widespread throughout society, and cycling is a virtuous cause. Witness the City’s Bicycle Safety Ordinance amendment passed by the City Council in 2020. This remarkable piece of legislation was enacted via Zoom with remarkably little discussion by a public who were preoccupied with the pandemic as well as myriad disruptions to normal life and lulled by the proposal’s benign and highly misleading title.
The law in fact contains a detailed menu and timeline of mandates for the city to build separated bicycle lanes on more than 20 miles of public ways. It briefly references the goal of bicycle safety but none of the other recognized means of improving safety, such as enforcement of traffic and cycling regulations, education or signs. It simply asserts that an elaborate and inflexible plan is necessary to reduce systemic risks to cyclists and makes no provision for evaluation of impacts, or reconsideration as progress is made, circumstances change or new information comes to light. Further, it explicitly privileges the needs and comfort of cyclists over those of other users of the public ways, residents and local businesses who rely on the streets for access and parking.
In approving this law, councillors showed that they are willing to disrupt people’s lives and livelihoods, to move “fast and break things,” the mantra of Big Tech. It is not surprising that Jeff Bezos favors policies that will shutter local businesses, that developers are comfortable with a policy that may force settled residents to move or even that a young cyclist on the sidewalk in Harvard Square believes it’s okay to break norms that others depend on. But it is surprising and shocking that our local government leaders, our representatives, would adopt such an attitude.
We need to support city councillors who are willing to reconsider the timeline and details of the 2020 ordinance. They can do this without compromising cycling safety.
John Pitkin, Fayette Street.
John, with all due respect, just because you saw a cyclist do something that bothered you doesn’t mean there is some huge policy problem or generational cultural clash.
The biggest problem in transportation, here and everywhere else in America, is automobile drivers who break traffic and parking laws all the time and are a much greater danger to human safety than any bicycle. Meanwhile, every person who chooses to bike instead of drive is making the city safer, cutting down on traffic, and reducing pollution — at GREAT physical risk to themselves, even if they follow every traffic law to the letter. Please have some understanding and compassion for cyclists and respect the good things they are choosing to do for you and your community.
Anyone complaining about bicycles or bike infrastructure is missing the big picture completely. Cambridge is a leader in bike safety and will continue to set a good example for other cities in Massachusetts and the rest of the country.
Levy,
Just a suggestion in the box … please rebrand; The Onion: Cambridge Edition
I created an account just to comment on this letter, as this is the most bad faith argument on this topic I have seen in a long time. It’s almost as if you have never seen anyone operate a car anywhere within 100 miles of Cambridge. Everyday I see constant speeding, running of red lights, bad merges, rolling through stop signs, etc. Does this mean we should ban all car and that drivers are not virtuous? Also, sorry that the bicycle safety ordinance was passed during the pandemic. Should the council given up on governance during covid? The content of the law had been around for a long time, and has been a part of numerous public meetings, your description is a complete mischaracterization. The most troubling thing about this letter is that you don’t seem to grasp this is all about safety. Cyclists are putting themselves at risk every single day in Cambridge. A car hits a cyclist and they are in the hospital or there’s another ghost bike ceremony, plan and simple. Better infrastructure and more safe options means further safety for all road users. If bikes are in the protected bike lane they’re not endangering themselves or pedestrians. Look at the Brattle Street protected lane, prior to its installation there were constantly bikes going the wrong direction and rampant double parking, now there is neither and Brattle is safer for all. At the time of its installation there were all of the same complaints about parking and they were for nothing, Harvard square is better off with that lane just as Cambridge will be with a swift implementation of the bike safety ordinance. Don’t lose the bigger picture, increased bike safety is safety for all on the road.
I bike everywhere, and I don’t like it either when cyclists don’t exhibit courtesy toward pedestrians. Just as cars can hurt cyclists and pedestrians, cyclists can hurt pedestrians (but to echo the above commenter, cars are much more of a threat to safety).
The best way to get cyclists to follow the norms the writer speaks of is to improve our cycling infrastructure. People are more likely to follow rules when placed within a framework and a system. The cycling system right now is a messy, incomplete patchwork, so it stands to reason that cyclists act in an unconstrained way.
There are three kinds of cyclists.
1) The good kind that obey the rules and are courteous.
2) The usual kinda that obey the rules as long as it is convenient to them but then casually ride through stop lights.
3) The kind that ride the wrong way down the street or ride on sidewalks while taking on their phone.
You can make all the infrastructure you want but unless you put some real teeth into fixing of #2 and #3….you are always gonna get dummies coming off of sidewalks, getting doored, and thrown under a bus.
Thank you, John, for posting this op-ed. The newly enacted Bicycle Ordinance was pushed through precisely at a time when the advocates knew few would be watching or participating. That there is push back should come as no surprise.
Cambridge is an old city with many narrow streets. True, as initially created, our streets were not anticipating cars and buses, but surely in the early 19th century, most folks were not traveling far on a daily basis. Schools and churches were in the neighborhood; there were literally grocery stores and bakeries and butcher shops and hardware stores within walking distance of just about everyone. The streets accommodated to horses and carriages and later to cars and buses.
Somewhere along the way, we lost our neighborhood resources. No longer is everything a short walk from our homes. Not even close. In fact most of us find we need to cross city boundaries to shop or work. No matter the agenda of the cyclists, most people are never going to be cycling to do their shopping or commuting. Many are not even capable physically even if they so desired. There is a sizable elderly population in Cambridge and what of the families and the disabled? Should they be punished or banished? I have watched the big dig of Inman Square for years now. What has even been achieved?? Other than enormous expense, lost of old growth trees and the park, and disaster for the local merchants, what can we expect?? Not much other than reconfiguration of an intersection.
We would like everyone to be safe but the reality is that there will be accidents no matter what we do. The reality is that many cyclists weave in and out of traffic and doing so creates a lot of danger for everyone. The example John describes is really emblematic of what is seen on a daily basis. It is the norm. I was a cyclist who rode to Boston and back on a daily basis for years.
Dear Foster 123: You say that :” It’s almost as if you have never seen anyone operate a car anywhere within 100 miles of Cambridge. Everyday I see constant speeding, running of red lights, bad merges, rolling through stop signs, etc.” WOW where do YOU live?? I mean if that is going on then there would be endless accidents on the roads and I personally, am not aware of this. Maybe you can quote some statistics. Please do, that would be very helpful. You need not resort to false equivalency to support your point. Bike riders vs car drivers…whose worse? we ALL want safety for everyone navigating our roadway system. Let’s do it in a way that is fair to all the residents: Cyclists, walkers, drivers, blind people, old people with walkers, or in wheelchairs, or scooters whatever your mode of transport is. Right now it seems as thought it bike safety above all else and that is why some of us people are having questions and seeking balance. We all need to be safe!