First, I would like to claim that bicycling is a far superior means of personal transport, as compared to automobiles. This opinion is based on the concurrence of physical exercise that accompanies biking, the lack of environmental degradation associated with a bicycle’s functioning, the monetary efficiency inherent in its investment and upkeep, its compactness, storability, and parkability, its ease and simplicity of operation, and its overall track record of safety, assuming the rider wears a helmet.
It is not a perfect device, however, considering its limited speed, greater transportation time, and small carrying capacity. That I have weighed the benefits as more important than the deficits is a reflection of my personal values, and is unfortunately opposed by the values of the general public.
But the purpose of the present commentary is not to persuade people to change their mode of transportation; if someone wishes to better his or her life by choosing to bike more frequently or exclusively, this should be done on his or her own terms at the appropriate time. Instead, I would like to address the discord that exists between bikers and drivers who, whether willingly or not, share the road.
Anyone who has ventured to ride a bicycle on the road (as opposed to the sidewalk) in the city of Minneapolis (and probably any other metropolitan area) knows that drivers can be, and often are, very antagonistic. They honk, yell, make rude gestures, or speed past in a reckless way. Granted not all, or even most, drivers behave this way. Probably not more than 1 in every 60 or 70 drivers exhibits this, at least in my experience. But one antagonizing moment is enough to really set off a biker’s day, especially if it is dangerous, and always if it is undeserved.
My assumption is that this antagonism is motivated by the view that public roads are the domains of motorized vehicles alone. This implies that bikers have no right to use them, and violation of this non-right warrants some reprimanditory response. This view is in dire need of gross adjustment. All public roads in Minnesota, except where a minimum speed limit is posted, may be used by bikers. If a bike lane is available, it is often in the biker’s best interest to use it, but this is not required. In fact, bikers may use any lane, including the middle one(s). It is illegal for anyone over the age of twelve to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk of any business district or university campus in the city of Minneapolis.
Furthermore, drivers are required by law to yield to bikers at all times, just as they are required to yield to pedestrians. This is unfair, to be sure, and it is unfortunate that many bikers take advantage of this, but it is a law motivated by safety concerns. Without a doubt, bikers are more vulnerable to bodily harm than are drivers, when factors such as speed are made equal. A fender-bender between a bike and a car can land the rider in the hospital (and the driver with an enormous bill!). In addition, drivers must maintain a minimum distance of three feet from all bikes, whether stopped or in motion. In essence, then, a driver could be stopped at a stoplight and a biker could come up from behind and smash into the car, falling to the ground, and the driver would be liable. Surely, some fresh young lawyer could convince a judge to see it differently, but as far as the law is concerned, that’s the way it is.
To their credit, however, most drivers are either silently and privately pissed off, or they have some sympathy for bikers and refrain from antagonism. Bikers, on the other hand, can be equally antagonistic. The difference is that biker antagonism is not normally bred of smugness, but of sheer ignorance. By law, bikers are required to obey all traffic lights and signs. Bikers must utilize proper hand signals when turning, changing lanes, and stopping. As with automobiles, it is illegal to ride a bike the wrong way down a one-way street, or to ride on the wrong the side of the road; bikers must always ride with traffic. 30 minutes before dusk and 30 minutes before dawn, riders must have both a head and taillight.
It is a rare event indeed to find a biker who follows these laws. Even the most conscientious bikers go through stop lights without batting an eye. I do this myself when I deem it safe, and the reason it is justifiable, for those of us who know it is illegal, is that enforcement is so incredibly poor. This is really the crux of the problem of antagonism. Drivers and riders are not treated equally with respect to enforcement of the laws that apply to both of them. If a driver runs a red light, it is a huge deal with major potential consequences. I ran a red light one time directly in front of an officer, who didn’t even notice, or if he did, he didn’t care enough to do anything about it.
Once I inquired to the University of Minnesota police as to why they don’t enforce the law regarding biking the wrong way down a one-way bike lane. I was told that it is not “a priority” for them. Understandably, there must be many more serious offenses that require their attention. But this also means that someone will have to be hit by a car and killed before the matter will enter into public awareness. The tendency of bikers to violate traffic laws is not a feature of “biker mentality,” of course, but of human nature (not all humans, necessarily, but most). Nearly everyone would break laws if they felt there were no penalties for doing so.
With some bikers, I think, this becomes a habit and their attitude on the road is aggressive and brazen. There is also a pretentiousness with some bikers who feel (rightly so) that their mode of transportation is superior to automobiles and the city would be a much safer, cleaner, quieter, and more amicable place if bicycles were the only means of transport. As a result, these bikers develop a pompous distain for automobiles and their operators. These riders sometimes make rude gestures to drivers or kick their vehicle as they ride by. At times, this is in response to a driver-initiated action, such as driving in the bike lane, which deserves a verbal message or minimally a communicative glare. Other times, it is unmotivated and dogmatic.
In light of the massive numbers of wholly ignorant (and frankly stupid) bikers who break the laws without knowing, combined with the relatively few self-righteous bikers who intentionally antagonize, it is no wonder that drivers are so angry. In light of the drivers who are exclusionary and unwilling to share the road, combined with those who are careless and don’t think about such things as driving in the bike lane, it is no wonder bikers are so angry.
There is much to be done that could ease the tension. First, everyone involved must understand that neither automobiles nor bicycles are here temporarily. They each have a long history and a long future. This is a plain reality, so people would do well to accept it. Together, drivers and riders make up traffic. Anyone who is part of traffic must have an attitude that balances efficient transport with fairness to those involved, and a smidgeon of politeness never hurts. No one can improve driver-rider relations except drivers and riders.
Second, it is the city’s responsibility to provide adequate and equal enforcement. Bikers should be held to the same standards as drivers. From a capitalistic perspective, it is a wonder that the city misses out on thousands of dollars worth in potential fines every day. Such enforcement is sure to drastically reduce rider violations, thus cultivating a more acute awareness on the part of bikers to be more cognizant of their actions and to check their aggression. In time, hopefully, drivers will see an overall change, and their animosity will lessen, which will in turn give riders less motivation to antagonize.
At least in principle.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
