Are you a curb hopper?

This article, that I first saw on Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space was hard to find, but I found a cached version so I've put it here in it's entirety.

Revelations of a curb hopper.

As long as transportation costs continue to increase, the ranks of bicycle-riding voters will grow.

ALBERT HOWELL

Now that spring is here I'll be riding my bike more. I want to explain my bike-riding habits: I am a curb-hopper, which means I occasionally ride my bike on the sidewalk or travel the wrong way on one-way streets -- I've even run red lights. I don't like doing these things but as long as current traffic laws put cyclists in harm's way, I'll do whatever I need to so I don't end up crushed under a truck by a driver who didn't see me. No cyclist wants to ride on the sidewalk; it's slow and full of obstacles but when the alternative is being injured or killed by a car, I go where I have to. And to those who yell at me "It's called a sidewalk!" let me say this: if you have ever jaywalked you've given up your right to be upset. Nine times out of 10 a cyclist is on the sidewalk to avoid danger but all jaywalkers knowingly put themselves in danger for the sake of convenience (I have yet to see a cyclist yell at a jaywalker "It's called a road!"). I've even had pedestrians stand in front of me on the road, not moving, looking for a break in traffic and forcing me to swerve deeper into that traffic just to avoid them. Another reason I curb-hop is that I am riding a bike. There's a mistaken attitude that a bike is the same as a motorized vehicle. A person on a bike has far more in common with a pedestrian than with the driver of a car. You put someone on a bike and you've increased their weight by maybe 40 pounds, given them a top speed of 30 kilometres and hour and added no protection except for a helmet. You put a person in a car and you've increased their weight by some 2,000 pounds, given them a top speed of 120 km/h and encased them in a steel frame.

I'm not saying cyclists can ride on a sidewalk the same way they do on a road; they have to be respectful of the people walking. But there's also no reason for pedestrians to treat bicycles like they are some huge danger, the most recent statistics that I could find show that in Canada, vehicles kill one pedestrian every day, on average. Bikes are not killing you, cars are; either quickly by running you down or slowly by fouling your lungs. Governments, in the meantime, keep advocating bike riding as a fun and cheap alternative but refuse to build proper bike lanes to make it safer. It's the equivalent of telling people to go walk in traffic, but wear a helmet. What cyclists need is one uninterrupted lane that is physically separate from traffic and pedestrians. I wish painted lines were enough but drivers either don't see them or don't care. Unfortunately, cycling gets only lip service from governments. So I've thought of three things cyclists can do to that might help light a fire under the seat of politicians: Stop calling bicycles "alternative" transportation. It makes cycling sound weird and dangerous. From now on refer to a bike simply as transportation or non-polluting transportation. Always wear a pollution mask. Not only is it good for your lungs, it's a nice visual reminder to drivers about how bad the air is. Take a picture of yourself in your mask in front of a local landmark and send a copy to your city's tourism board and let them know you'll be sending this photo around the Internet. Since the government won't listen to cyclists maybe the local tourist industry can encourage them to make cycling safer. (While you're at it, get an air horn; it makes people think you're a car and noise is the only offensive weapon cyclists have.) A lot of cyclists are involved in an event called Critical Mass, where a large group of people ride bikes together. Drivers don't take this seriously; they see it as a temporary nuisance. If we really want to build an appreciation for what bicycles do then let's consider changing Critical Mass from bike-riding to car-driving. On the first workday of every month, every cyclist would drive a car into the city, to show the government how many cars aren't on the road when people ride their bikes.

One press release I read estimates there are more than 930,000 cyclists in the greater Toronto area. If only 10 per cent of those were willing to participate, that's still 93,000 cars being added to the traffic -- that should attract some attention. This, I hope, would get commuters screaming and governments seem to listen to commuters more than to cyclists. To really illustrate the point, you might put a sign in your car window that says "When you build a bike path then I'll ride my bike." A lot of people think that cyclists make up a small minority and don't deserve much attention. Well, there are more of us than you think, and as long as gasoline, insurance and parking costs continue to increase in price the ranks of bicycle riding voters will continue to grow. I'm not anti-car, I drive a car; cycling is simply an easier way to travel through my neighbourhood. I just don't think I should have to take my life in my hands just to get around and until the government makes it safer, I will do whatever I need to avoid being added to an already too long list of cyclists killed in traffic. Just a side note: Drivers, when a cyclist is eyeballing you it's not an insult or a challenge, we're simply watching you to see what you're going to do. If you make a mistake in traffic it's an expense; if a cyclist makes one, it's a lot of pain and possibly death. And pedestrians, when a cyclist rings a bell, we're not giving you attitude we're just letting you know we're there.

The op-ed brings up a lot of good points.

First, that bikes just aren't welcome a lot of times. Drivers get angry when cyclists are in the road. Pedestrians get angry when cyclists ride on the sidewalk (which is illegal in downtown). I've even seen people complain about bikes on the CCT (they go too fast and are too aggressive). It's well documented that it's dangerous for two vehicles to travel on the same road at widely different speeds (So cars and bikes, bikes and peds, cars and peds) and while there is space for cars, and often sidewalks for pedestrians, there are few places just for bikes. There are occasional bike lanes (or bus/bike lanes), which cars pull into without shame and which have their own issues, but no bikeways - and by bikeways I don't mean "trail," I mean space for bikes and bikes only. I think it would be great if the Met Branch trail became a bikeway, at least during rush hour. It might seem I'm being hypocritical since I always complain about Metro's rush hour restrictions, but my concern is one of safety - not convenience. And let's reserve the term "bikeway" for bicycle only facilities.

Second, I also don' t like the term "alternative transportation." Every transportation choice is an "alternative." For some people it's their primary transportation method and it should be treated as such.

Third, Montgomery County has a "Bikes and Sidewalks" department. Since bikes do not belong on sidewalks (and I agree) putting these two together makes as much sense as a "Trains and Sidewalks" department. Split the two up.

BTW, I'm a curb-hopper. Do we need a support group?

"My name is Albert, and I'm a curb-hopper."
"Hello Albert!"

Comments

[Contrarian]

I ride thousands of miles a year in the street in DC and I think your concerns are overblown. Have you ever tried it? Once you get the hang, it's actually quite easy to get around by bike in DC. I find I get honked at less on my bike than I do in my car.

This blog way over-emphasises the role of facilities. Think of this: DC has roughly 1,000 miles of paved roads and 30 miles of trails and bike lanes. Those roads will take you far more places than the trails ever will. Get off the sidewalk and on the road.

[washcycle]

I do bike in the streets of DC, maybe not "thousands of miles" a year but somewhere close to 500...and it is easy once you get the hang of it, but I think that newbies are intimidated by it. I know when my less-experienced friends ride with me, they're often surprised by what I'll consider a bikeable road.

Not all of DC's roads are bikeable. In addition to freeways there are freeway-like roads such as New York Avenue NE and North Capital - both of which I've biked, but I wouldn't recommend them.

When you point out the miles of road compared to the miles of bike facilities you make my point. You can walk on railroad tracks, but it's dangerous. When you bike on a road, you're often biking someplace that was designed for cars going 25-40 mph not for bikes going 12-25.

Still, I agree that cyclists should get off sidewalks and I only use sidewalks going up particularly steep hills (mostly in Maryland) or when I'm on the block I'm stopping at.

[Chris]

Hmmmm, I think the article is not about riding on sidewalks, it's about the defensive moves one must make riding on the road, which includes hopping sidewalks. That's how I read it anyhow.

I'd say I ride thousands of miles a year in the DC area, and I would agree that roads in DC are not difficult once you get the hang of it. Having said that, I don't think a day goes by when I don't see some car or SUV or truck doing some stupid thing in the vicinity of me on my bike that could result in something really dangerous for me if I wasn't careful.

One thing in the article I read which I could really relate to was the line: "Drivers, when a cyclist is eyeballing you it's not an insult or a challenge, we're simply watching you to see what you're going to do." Two nights ago, I had an experience where this was really true. I was turning left from a busy street onto my street in the Petworth area. I gave the signal that I was moving to the middle of the lane to turn, and the car behind slowed down to let me in. Something wasn't right with that person, though, so I kept looking back. It's a good thing I did, because our of nowhere, just as I was about to make my left turn, she sped up unexpectedly and whizzed past my on my left side. Had I not been "eyeballing" her, there is no doubt -- I would have been a goner!

[Chris]

One other thing -- you talked about Bikeways, and it reminds me of some of the newish trails in Pittsburgh. One in particular -- known as the "Jail Trail" because it finishes at a downtown location where, oddly enough, a jail sits on a well-appointed riverfront site -- has designated separate lanes for cyclists and runners/walkers. Seems like a sensible way of designing a municipal trail to me. Now if they can just get more Pittsburghers to use the darned thing!

[contrarian]

There's just so much wrong with the statement: "I just don't think I should have to take my life in my hands just to get around and until the government makes it safer, I will do whatever I need to avoid being added to an already too long list of cyclists killed in traffic. "

As a cyclist, you have a choice that almost no other mode of transport gets: you can ride in traffic, but you can also ride apart from traffic. The thing is, these two ways of riding have very different rules and issues. If you choose to ride in traffic, you're on the roadway, and you better follow the rules of the road. If you choose to ride outside of traffic, you can ride on a bike path, a shoulder, a sidewalk, a bike lane, and even the edge of the roadway, and you have to be very careful when interacting with traffic because they're not expecting you.

Now, here's the thing: nobody disputes the right of cyclists to ride outside of traffic, except in special circumstances like city sidewalks. However, riding in traffic is something that a lot of people have a problem with. A lot of motorists don't realize that it's legal, or that there are two modes for cyclists, so their brains perceive an in-traffic cyclist as an out-of-traffic cyclist in the wrong place -- hence the honking and yelling. Many cyclists have an exaggerated fear of in-traffic cycling, even though in many situations it is safer than out-of-traffic cycling. Using out-of-traffic techniques in traffic is particularly dangerous. As a result, for the past 30 years or so Cycling Advocacy (capital C, capital A) has focused on promoting in-traffic cycling among cyclists, and promoting awareness of in-traffic cycling among motorists.

I wouldn't say that one is better than the other -- each has its place. What's important is to be aware of the differences and the risks. Riding out-of-traffic has its place, but you have to be aware that at driveways, crosswalks and intersections drivers will not yield to you, even though they may be legally required to do so.

The other important point: pick one or the other. If you're riding in traffic, ride in the traffic. If you're out of traffic, stay out. Riding along the margins just confuses others and gives the worst of both worlds.

So if Albert Howell wants to ride exclusively out of traffic, that's his right. However expecting the government to build an entire parallel transportation network to accomodate his choice, when a perfectly good network already exists, is just balmy. If we want to get more people out on bikes, we should be working to make the 1,000 miles of existing roadway more accomdating, rather than trying to get a few more miles of paths and lanes. And by promoting the idea that the only way to ride a bike is out of traffic he does a disservice to those cyclists who opt to ride differently from him.

[thebizofknowledge]

I have nothing against cyclists sharing our roads, but it seems that too often they think the rules of the road apply only to motor vehicles. I see cyclists constantly running stop signs and red lights, for instance, putting us all in danger.

[Francesca]

It's nice to be reminded that there are bicycle lanes-I wish the cyclists would stay in them!

Simply put, cyclists do not belong on the road with cars. And no amount of environmentalist scare mongering and its attendant junk science changes that.

So there, an early Christmas present, something to fuel your cyclist victim stance!

[Francesca]

You know I would have no problem with cyclists who stay on sidewalks rather than the road with the cars. Just as I have no problem pedestrians who don't jaywalk. Or cars that don't park in moving traffic.

[washcycle]

Well Francesca, your belief about where bikes belong is in direct contrast to both the law and transportation planning in the region (and really nationwide), so I'm afraid you have a lifetime of disappointment ahead of you. Simply put, according to the law and public opinion, bikes do belong on the roads.