This topic came up on NewRadio 9.38 Live! on Thursday morning, about accidents involving cyclists on pavements. One of the presenters made a rather crude remark that one might as well just walk on the road in future (presumably with vehicular traffic zooming past).
Should cyclists be regulated off the pavements?
Let’s look at this a little deeper. What is the underlying mentality of such pedestrians who wish cyclists off (their) pavements? As both a pedestrian and cyclist, I have seen too many pedestrians woefully unaware of their surroundings – of other traffic as well as other pedestrians – perhaps they choose to remain irresponsibly unaware, instead expecting the red-carpet treatment: ever recall the “wall” made by a group of two or more people walking abreast along the pavement, which you as a poor lone ranger had to squeeze past on the side, or the cellphone-armed pedestrian standing his ground on the pavement making the latest fashion statement with his mobile rather than moving to the side to make a call?
Too many people expect the pavement to be theirs and theirs only – calling for cyclists to be regulated sounds to me to be a blatant excuse in the case of pedestrians v. cyclists, for the pedestrians to expect the red-carpet treatment they so wish for so that they may remain irresponsibly uncaring about others and their surroundings. Where public transport infrastructure is concerned, no one should get the red-carpet treatment – it does not mean that just because one is a pedestrian, one should be elevated above all other forms of traffic – even in the case of pedestrian v. car where the pedestrian often takes his own sweet time to leisurely stroll across the zebra crossing or traffic junction with a few seconds left on the green man, holding up all other traffic on the road, especially during peak hours. No one should be able to be irresponsible for his own use of a public commodity just because one is a pedestrian.
This also brings me to my next point: irresponsibly uncaring cyclists. Accidents happen because one or frequently both parties involved refuse to take up responsibility for the safety of themselves and others. A common excuse all too frequently heard is, “I did not know, I did not see him coming”, “he should have got out of my way” or the plain old denial of responsibility – “not my fault”. These are nothing but excuses to absolve oneself from all responsibility for personal and public safety. The problem with bicycles is they are silent – no one has any warning of their approach until the last second – all too often cyclists are found without a bell or other warning device installed and do not bother to signal their approach from behind by other means such as yelling, “hey, excuse me” – don’t laugh, I did that when my bicycle, brand new, temporarily did not possess a bell – there is no excuse not to signal to a pedestrian your impending approach from behind. Again, it is simply callous to choose to remain irresponsibly uncaring about the safety of oneself and others.
In summary, many accidents happen could have been avoided had the parties involved had an ounce of responsibility for their individual use of public infrastructure. Pedestrians – you share the pavement with others: don’t expect the red-carpet treatment; cyclists – for God’s sake get a bell. Be aware of your surroundings and other users, and watch out for each others’ safety.
Oh, one more thing. Pedestrians who insist cyclists be off the pavements on principle… are you not also irresponsibly putting someone else (the cyclist) in a more dangerous situation than yourself, if you thought cyclists on the pavements were dangerous, considering the reaction times and relative speeds of traffic on the roads vs. on the pavements? Better someone else than yourself, as always, right? Heh.
11 responses so far ↓
Ponder Stibbons // Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 10:35 pm |
Actually I’m pretty much on the pedestrians’ side on this issue, and I say this as a cyclist (who religiously keeps off pavements). My reasons are more pragmatic than ethical: I think that if we want to transition to a cycling-based society in the long term (which, barring miraculous new developments in energy, we probably must), we have to get cyclists on the roads. And the mindset that cyclists ’should’ be on pavements is, in my opinion, a major barrier to helping cyclists get better treatment on the road, which is where it’s really going to matter for the long term. As long as we ‘allow’ cyclists on pavements, drivers are going to think that they are entitled to feel angry at cyclists who are on the road, and are going to kick up a fuss about any proposals for accommodating cyclists on the road. It is incredibly frustrating to have drivers honk at you randomly, even when you are doing nothing but sticking to the leftmost side of the leftmost lane on the road. I should also mention my highly infuriating experience with comments on a letter I wrote to the ST; comments telling me that deliberately dangerous driving is OK because we have no right to be on the road. It is instructive that the most cycling-friendly cities in the world have incorporated cyclists safely onto their roads — I do not know of a single example of a city that has both a strong cycling culture and widespread sidewalk cycling. Furthermore, each additional road cyclist brings positive externalities to other road cyclists — the more cyclists there are on the road, the safer the road becomes for all cyclists, due largely to greater driver awareness and tolerance. I think the short-term pain of riding on the road in fear is necessary if we want to bring about the long-term transition to bike commuting as major lifestyle option. It is, in fact, why I still ride on the roads even though it scares me sh*tless at times and always angers me.
I am also unconvinced that sidewalk bicycling is safer than road cycling. This may sound ludicrous, but I have witnessed a lot more near-accidents from sidewalk cyclists than from road cyclists. This may just be because road cyclists are on average more competent cyclists, but the near-accidents that I’ve witnessed tend to be due to things like sudden movements on the part of pedestrians, or motorists not noticing that a sidewalk cyclist is crossing the road in front of them (motorists tend to notice cyclists who are crossing in front of them but on the road more easily, because they are watching out for traffic on the road).
Ambrose // Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 9:03 pm |
First, as a driver as well (as a pedestrian and a cyclist), I strongly condemn the comments you received (on your second link). As I have said before, no individual should receive red-carpet treatment for use of public infrastructure – that includes motorists v. cyclists. Cyclists are allowed on all roads except those on which they are expressly forbidden, such as expressways. All drivers are obliged to give cyclists plenty of room and be conscientious of cyclists. ANY DRIVER WHO DOES NOT SHOULD RE-READ HIS/HER ADVANCED THEORY MANUAL. And I daresay have his/her license revoked until he/she takes and passes the Advanced Theory Test again. If you have the 6th Edition of the Advanced Theory Manual by the Traffic Police, it is on pages 92-93, points 203 – 206. To any driver, there is no excuse here to be in denial that cyclists are allowed on roads – I’ve even given you the exact pages and exact numbers of the points – if I catch you in the act I’ll report you to the Traffic Police. A warning to all of you out there who may be reading this.
Second, my post was to bring out the issue of pedestrians v. cyclists, not motorists v. cyclists, so if I did not offer any points regarding the latter, please do not misinterpret it.
Third, pedestrians making sudden movements have probably not been warned of the impending approach of a cyclist as bicycles are silent – I have addressed this issue already. If everybody looks out for each other’s safety, the chances of that happening are very low.
Fourth, what is the momentum transferred by a cyclist to a pedestrian v. a vehicle to a cyclist in the event of a collision? The mass x velocity of a 1500kg vehicle will easily send a cyclist flying off a bicycle v. a cyclist’s and bike’s combined 75kg mass against a pedestrian.
Have you heard horror stories of cyclists who have broken teeth, wrists, arms, legs and even had their faces mauled by the road after being hit by a vehicle? A cycling enthusiast – one of my friends – who cycles regularly with safety precautions, broke his wrist after being thrown from his bike by a BUS – now that weighs at least 3 tons – which cut him too sharply. The bus driver was even unaware it had happened.
The Chinese saying goes that you may take a million precautions but you still fear that one chance an accident may happen, and when one DOES happen – which scenario is more survivable for both parties? The one in which a cyclist hits a pedestrian vs. the one in which a cyclist is hit by a vehicle? You are a physicist, I suppose I don’t have to do the calculations for you. Also I shall underline that here I am not saying that the million precautions are unimportant or trivial.
Fifth, I grant that my scenario is limited to instances where there is a low cyclist:pedestrian ratio and where pavements are not jam-packed with pedestrians. When the ratio rises significantly, there is a case for moving cyclists onto traffic conduits other than narrow pedestrian sidewalks given two collective bodies of traffic which travel at different speeds (cyclists and pedestrians). Imagine traffic as conforming to atomistic movement of faster and slower particles. If the faster ones have to slow down considerably because of large concentrations of slow particles or (ie. large body of pedestrian traffic) or when the fast ones have to jostle for space with slow ones (large body of cyclists and large body of pedestrian traffic) – it is probably safer to have separate conduits for the two. That I endorse, but there should not be a blanket rule for all scenarios banishing cyclists from pavements – there are probably many that are lightly utilised.
Last but not least, no one should have to utilise public transport infrastructure in fear – all it takes is responsibility on everybody’s part. This is sorely lacking here and this is what I wished to and still wish to address.
Ambrose // Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 9:49 pm |
Ah – I must add – the very last comment on your second link – that view is extremely misguided. The purpose of a cyclist’s bell or other warning device is to warn a pedestrian who DOES NOT KNOW of a cyclist’s presence behind, of the cyclist, before something bad happens – it is the same function as a vehicle’s horn to let other drivers who DO NOT KNOW of your presence, of your presence, before they make some manouevre that endangers both parties.
Both these devices aren’t intended to mean “get out of my way” – which is unfortunately what most people intend them to be or interpret them to be. Shame on them.
Ponder Stibbons // Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 10:22 pm |
I have nothing in principle against sidewalk cycling if sidewalk cyclists do it safely. The problem is that in order to do it safely anywhere with a reasonable amount of foot traffic, even if we assume greater courtesy on the part of cyclists, current sidewalks have to be widened — i.e. a Tampines-style solution. But if we’re going to add a bike lane beside a sidewalk then it seems to me to be a better solution to simply add a bike lane alongside existing car lanes instead. That would save us, amongst other things, those silly ‘dismount and push’ signs every 100m or so. Designate a safe area for cyclists which motorists must avoid by law, and keep cyclists out of the way of pedestrians.
In any case, call me a cynic, but as a pedestrian, I really would be skeptical of any initiative to let cyclists on high-traffic pavements on the basis of trusting that cyclists will ride safely and courteously. And I say this because even on the roads, where cyclists put themselves in danger when they ride, erm, rudely, I still see many cyclists with poor riding etiquette (cutting in front of vehicles who have the right of way, not signalling, etc.). I can’t claim that it’s impossible that cyclists’ mindsets could change — just skeptical.
There is also a possible ethical point against pavement cycling that you haven’t considered. The pedestrian has no choice about using the footpaths — he is not allowed to walk on the roads. The cyclist is allowed to ride on the roads. If he feels it’s too dangerous then he has other [public] transport options. The footpath is thus a much more precious commodity to the pedestrian than the cyclist — the pedestrian almost always has no choice but to walk on the footpath, but the cyclist has two choices: a dangerous one (cycle on the road), and a safe one (walk/public transport).
I didn’t interpret your post as addressing the motorists vs cyclists debate. I was hypothesizing that accommodating cyclists on footpaths leads to worse treatment for road cyclists, because motorists feel that the latter “do not belong” on the roads and hence think they are entitled to run them off it. Of course, such an attitude on the part of motorists is utterly wrong; yet I personally know many people who hold it. That is, they aren’t offended by the mere fact that there is a cyclist on the road — they are offended that the cyclist is on the road when he/she should be on the footpath instead. Now, it is not impossible that my hypothesis is wrong, but I find it plausible and it fits whatever conversations I’ve had with drivers. So I was arguing, on the assumption of the truth of this hypothesis, that sidewalk cyclists create negative externalities for road cyclists, in that they heighten drivers’ hostility towards road cyclists.
Finally, I too have heard many horror stories of cycling accidents, and as I said I am scared sh*tless myself of certain junctions on my commute. But I take the long term view that the only way to make the road safer for cyclists is to have more cyclists on the road. Every cyclist I see out there on the road counts. Of course, if you decide you do not want to endanger your own lives for the greater cause, it is not a morally wrong choice — it is perfectly acceptable to value your own life above the cause. I am merely trying to make the case for road cycling for those who might be willing to be the guinea pigs for the cause, as it were.
Ambrose // Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 10:49 pm |
In response to your first 2 paragraphs, I have conceded that point under the fifth point in my previous comment. What I am enraged at is some pedestrians’ mentality that the pavement is theirs and theirs only – even on those where pedestrian traffic is low, and even against other pedestrians sharing the same space with them.
In response to your third paragraph, the footpath may indeed be more precious to the pedestrian, but the most survivable circumstance for all parties has been addressed under my fourth point in my previous post. Elevating choice above life here seems less ethical to me. (And please don’t bring in abortion here; keep it on topic – and no hard and fast rule applies to all circumstances equally as well.)
In response to your fourth paragraph, I concede your interpretation – but I don’t believe in looking at this from externalities. Responsibility is the key here, not externalities – not all decisions should be made on the basis of economics-like cost-benefit-analysis. As I have said I strongly condemn drivers who are not mindful of cyclists. Shame on them. Shouldn’t even have been allowed to pass Advanced Theory. If they were taught so by instructors (one of the comments in your previous second link) – the instructors should have their licenses revoked as well for teaching learner drivers the wrong things. Operation of heavy, dangerous machinery should be done by the most responsible. The rest, if I may say so – just get out of my sight – and off the roads. Responsibility should be emphasised on all fronts, whether pedestrian, cyclist or driver. No exception to any. The footpath may be more precious to the pedestrian, but it does not mean they should be allowed to feel entitled or privileged. Similarly, drivers should not be allowed to feel entitled or privileged on the roads, against cyclists.
In response to your last paragraph, as long as you are mindful of pedestrians, they are mindful of you and you are responsible towards them – both you and them face minimal danger. But to put your life on the line and jump into needless (heightened) danger in the name of a cause – to me I interpret that as suicidal.
If and when it is written into law that a separate lane be marked on the road for cyclists, then by all means cycle on the road – in this case three conduits have been made for each mode of traffic: walking, cycling, driving – kept separate there is no problem.
But the key point which I cannot stress enough is responsibility. On all fronts. Are you going to tackle the root cause, or are you just going to tackle the symptoms?
Edit:
Ah – let me add – I forgot, I’m sorry. I illustrate: where the pedestrian and cyclist conduits merge or are not well-defined, at traffic light crossings, or in schools or HDB block void decks and lifts, who is going to give way? Pedestrian, or cyclist, even if the cyclist has gotten off and is pushing his bike? Or each one will again feel entitled? Or are you going to paint a line down the middle again since there was already a precedent? When a line down the middle of a lift happens is when you know you have really failed at educating people.
The second half of the second sentence may be slippery slope and I’ll concede, but the first half of it – traffic light crossings – is a practical concern that is going to have to be settled. Left turns don’t seem to be so much of a problem, but are cyclists going to be made to filter all the way to the right for a right turn instead of using the traffic light crossings? Or will a line be painted down the middle of the crossings, one half for pedestrians, one half for bikes (being pushed, or cycled), since pedestrians are wont to feel entitled to their walking space since it now belongs to them only, or because cyclists most probably won’t get off their bikes and push them because they too are wont to feel entitled to a space to cycle, since they’ve also got one now which is theirs entirely (the usual “eh, get off MY lane lah!” mentality when it isn’t even theirs to begin with)? I will shake my head at society when that happens. Whatever happened to “give way and be courteous”?
Ponder Stibbons // Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
Talking about ‘a’ root cause here is misleading. Presumably the ‘effect’ in question is bad cyclist behaviour on pavements. Well one cause of that is, as you point out, a lack of a courteous culture. Another cause, though, is the fact that they perceive the roads as too dangerous for them to cycle on. I’m all for people trying to make pavement cyclists more courteous. I just think that promoting pavement cycling undermines another long-term effort.
The analogy with pedestrians’ entitlement versus motorists’ entitlement is misleading. Pedestrians feel entitled because, most obviously, it is their legal right to have vehicle-free pavements. Secondly, they are the more vulnerable party on pavements and hence have a right to demand protection from possible assault. Motorists, on the other hand, are far from the vulnerable parties on the road and hence have no right to be entitled to cyclist-free roads. Their claims to exclusive rights are based entirely on considerations of speed.
Finally, I seem to have given the wrong impression that I cycle on the roads instead of the pavements because I want to promote a cause. What I meant was that I cycle to work instead of taking the MRT because I want to promote a cause. I will never cycle to work on pavements for the simple reason that if I were to do so at a safe speed, it would take me 3 hours to get to work. Pavement cycling is viable only over distance of less than 5km, unless you live somewhere with long stretches of empty pavement (and as Singapore fills up such places will disappear). If we want to transition to cycle-commuting as a major transport mode, we must not have criss-crossing pedestrian and cycling lanes (except at traffic lights where cyclists have to stop when pedestrians are crossing). I’m looking at a long-term vision (which I think most cities will eventually have to adopt, unless some amazingly cheap renewable energy source is found) of a Copenhagen-like system, where the average speed of a cyclist is 20km/h. It is simply impossible to have safely criss-crossing pedestrian and cyclist lanes at such speeds, courteous behavior or not. I am asking for cyclists to be treated like vehicles, with all the attendant rights and restrictions on vehicles — one reason why I often have so much trouble trying to filter right on roads (whereas motorcycles don’t), even when the traffic is heavy enough that I’m as fast as motor vehicles, is that drivers find it offensive that a bicycle should behave like a vehicle, even though it is well within our rights to make right turns, so long as (like every other vehicle), we display the appropriate signals. Even if one waits patiently for a huge gap in traffic with a large buffer distance, one still gets horned at irately. Behaving like a vehicle includes not cycling into HDB void decks. When you get off the road, get off your bike and push. It’s only an extra 20m from the road to most HDB void decks anyway.
I think we might be talking past each other here, because you obviously value the idea of convenience to cyclists more than the vision of a long-term package in which bicycles are treated as legitimate and viable vehicles, and pedestrians remain safe from vehicles of any sort. Whereas I don’t see how we are going to transition into a cycling-based society until bicycles are treated as vehicles. (Oh, and when that day comes, I wouldn’t mind paying road tax or ERP either — only note the smaller space that a bike takes up versus a car, and that the wear and tear imposed on a road by a car is thousands of times more than that imposed by a bicycle, and scale accordingly. Also note that the current road taxes do not cover the full cost of road construction and maintenance — the rest of it already comes out of the taxes that everyone pays.) In my vision, cyclists get safety, reasonable speed, and respect, and pedestrians get their safety. Solutions like the Tampines bike trial, and the park connector network, impede that vision because they continue to propagate the notion that cyclists should not use roads. If we are ever to have bike lanes on roads, the first hurdle to cross is to argue for the right for bicycles to use roads. If we don’t, we’re only going to get more Tampines bike trials, i.e. more situations where either you cycle extremely slowly in a small neighborhood, or you get on the roads and risk your life if you actually want to cycle to anywhere other than the nearest MRT station. I view the Tampines bike trial as a distraction that’s impeding the route to a better solution, rather than as a boon to cyclists, and I suspect that you don’t.
Ponder Stibbons // Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 5:52 pm |
I should have said ‘you obviously value the idea of short-term convenience to cyclists more than the vision of a long-term package in which bicycles are treated as legitimate and viable vehicles, and pedestrians remain safe from vehicles of any sort.
Ponder Stibbons // Sunday, April 6, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
Oops, slight mistake — the average speed of adult cyclists in Copenhagen is 16-18 km/h. Still way too fast for safe integration with pedestrians.
Ambrose // Monday, April 7, 2008 at 6:31 pm |
Perhaps we have differing views of bicycles as a mode of transport – where the difference lies in terms of the distance travelled and speed of a bike – that would explain most of the differences in the views we hold.
And I must state again in response to, “motorists, on the other hand, are far from the vulnerable parties on the road and hence have no right to be entitled to cyclist-free roads,” perhaps for the third time, that I am opposed to motorists claiming exclusive rights to roads. I have repeated time and again that motorists must give way to bikes on roads and I must say I’m starting to dislike repeating myself.
I have also not only repeated that in my next post on motorists, but also pointed out that the road tax argument is a fallacy, and that road tax is going to be phased out anyway so out goes the road tax argument.
In fact in my original post, I did not argue any way in favour either of bikes on roads or on pavements. I merely pointed out that pedestrians should be mindful of others and cyclists should be mindful of pedestrians (should they be on pavements), that either party should not insist on right of way and not deny responsibility for use of infrastructure (that is not theirs and theirs only), and that many accidents between cyclists and pedestrians could have been avoided had both parties had an ounce of responsibility – for each other’s safety.
Perhaps you read too much into the very last paragraph of my post. I put it there as a telling example of Singaporean inconsiderate mentality – “better someone else than myself”. Take that paragraph with a pinch of sarcasm and you’ll realise it’s a jab at society.
Another thing: I don’t view the Tampines bike trial as what you suspect. Rather, to me, and from a completely different perspective, it is the final nail in the coffin saying we are, ultimately, an ungracious society.
Ambrose // Monday, April 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
I don’t mind whatever party in whichever place – as long as responsibility is exercised: cyclists and pedestrians on pavements, or cyclists and motorists on roads. That should pretty much sum up my stand.
Sidewalk Cycling « One Less Car // Tuesday, April 15, 2008 at 10:10 am |
[...] Bicycling Tags: cycling Ambrose and I recently had a lively discussion of this issue over at his blog. I’m pretty firmly against allowing sidewalk cycling, not just for reasons of pedestrian [...]