In Praise of Riding Like a Jerk. by BillDozerHere at MESS, it's our interest to bring all bicyclists in the urban setting together. And we want not only to bring us together with a cry of unity, but to celebrate the differences that make the city the great American melting pot that it is. On this note, however, I have reached an impasse. There is a division among city cyclists that cuts me to the heart, and I feel the difference is nearly irreconcilable. I'm talking, of course, about commuters versus messengers. This difference is most analogous to the political differences between liberals and radicals. Now, in my last blog, I wrote about how being a bicyclist doesn't make you a revolutionary. I still believe that to be true, but I also believe that riding your bike a certain way can make you like a revolutionary. (read on in the comments or follow the link above)
3 comments:
Like revolutionaries, those who ride their bicycles for work are often operating not so much against the law as outside of it. Whether against or outside the law, they operate in opposition to liberal ideology.
The modern liberal philosophy is based, like the conservative philosophy, on faith in the general goodness of the law, and therefore of the state. Liberals believe that by adjusting the law to make it more fair, the society as a whole can be forced to become more egalitarian, and thus move closer to the democratic utopia of organic food co-ops, ethnically diverse neighborhoods, and large corporations who treat workers well and pay their taxes. In short, making the whole world one giant college town. Likewise, commuters and "cycling advocates" work within the law to make cycling more safe in the urban setting. A noble pursuit, to be sure. They are concerned deeply for the respect of law that all vehicle operators, motorized or not, should carry with them. They generally expect nothing less than strict obedience to the traffic code. This includes stopping at all traffic control devices, riding or driving ONLY in the appropriate lanes, signalling for all turns or adjustments in behavior. If there is a conflict between the necessity to perform an illegal action and the commuter's on moral outlook on rule of law, the liberal commuter will make his/her own commute more difficult, and address the city by legitimate means to make his or her travel more safe and convenient at some eventual date. Failing to respect the rule of law would result in anarchy*. That, of course, would be bad.
The radical philosophy has little respect for the law. "The law doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?" is a common mantra. It is the belief, well-founded many would say, that the rules of the game are made by and for the winners, and the only way to escape is to play a different game. Similarly, the bicycle messenger is interested in accomplishing a task in the most efficient way possible. The outlook is that liberty, not order, is the more important of virtues. This often conflicts with the rule of law, which necessarily prizes order over liberty. A messenger will almost certainly violate the rule of law in order to accomplish a task, if it is in his/her interest. Ninety percent of the time (estimated), this infraction occurs without incident, and without any sort of victim. "So," the messenger asks,"what's the harm?" It is an "ends-justifies-the-means" outlook without a doubt. But following the letter of the law would result in longer travel time, less efficiency, and therefore lower pay. There is also the issue of comfort with the street, and total knowledge of yourself and your bicycle. This is something that a messenger, who spends 40-plus hours per week on his/her bike, has in much greater quantity than the commuter, who generally spends 20 hours per week or fewer on his/her bike. This philosophy may seem immature to the liberal/commuter, but on the flipside, the liberal philosophy seems naive to the radical/messenger. The radical sees trust in the state or law as trust in an absentee father. One who doesn't really care, but throws little trinkets at you to feign some sort of caring relationship. It's just not worth the effort to reciprocate.
One other, and I feel most important, dividing issue of these ideologies is trust, and the watching of backs. The stardard liberal line that I learned from living in Portland, Oregon for four years, is such: Liberals believe that all people should always watch out for each other. Nothing wrong with that. However, it is often carried out to the belief that liberals EXPECT all people to be watching out for others, thus reducing the requirement for one to look out for one's self. Here's an example. Two cyclists are riding in a bike lane on a busy stretch of downtown street. A speeding car approaches from behind and on the left, only to make a right turn, cutting off the two cyclists. One cyclist, expecting that the driver saw him, doesn't notice until it is too late and is forced onto the sidewalk, screaming and cursing at the driver. This rider presumed, foolishly, that the driver not only noticed the cyclist, but was interested in the cyclists safety - moreso than the driver's concern for his/her own convenience. The other cyclist, upon hearing the accelerating car, expects that the car would pull some dickhead maneuver, just like a driver would. He/She instead slows down, cuts into traffic to pass the offending automobile on the left. This cyclist, although in violation of the law, continues on his/her merry way. If you live in a city, with thousands or millions of other inhabitants, you should never, ever expect anyone in a car to be watching out for you. Drivers, as a rule, do NOT see you as traffic. And no matter what the law says, they will never see cyclists as the same as them. This is rude, pushy America, where cars rule and cyclists are second-class. Traffic laws, even those regarding bicycles, are written in the interest of cars and car drivers. Until we have our own streets, like those in Europe, it will always be that you are playing the car's game on the car's turf. The law will never legitimately change that.
At least the writer of this aricle admits he's "riding like a jerk".
The whole "The law doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?" thing is a pretty lame justification for endangering other people too.
His bike lane example bothers me for a couple of reasons:
"Two cyclists are riding in a bike lane on a busy stretch of downtown street. A speeding car approaches from behind and on the left, only to make a right turn, cutting off the two cyclists. One cyclist, expecting that the driver saw him, doesn't notice until it is too late and is forced onto the sidewalk, screaming and cursing at the driver. This rider presumed, foolishly, that the driver not only noticed the cyclist, but was interested in the cyclists safety - moreso than the driver's concern for his/her own convenience. The other cyclist, upon hearing the accelerating car, expects that the car would pull some dickhead maneuver, just like a driver would. He/She instead slows down, cuts into traffic to pass the offending automobile on the left. This cyclist, although in violation of the law, continues on his/her merry way."
1) The cyclist that left the bike lane was in violation of the law? Holy hell, I hope that never happens around here. If they build a crappy bike lane that encourages right-hooking, then I'll do my best to avoid those streets. Same with crap bike lanes like the Runnymede door-zoner...
2) You don't have to be a "jerk" to take evasive action. In Ontario, thankfully, that courier's decision to slow down and pass on the left is perfectly legal. A skilled/trained/practiced "commuter" would have done the same.
great blog!
Great find too, the "mess" thing. Those guys don't have a clue. most messengers i have met ride very well and safely and admit that the "pirate" image is just a few punks that think more about that stuff than the job they do
i havebeen reading old blog of yours for a day, it is very good
Post a Comment