e
Could a Bicycle's Speed Affect How Motorists Treat It in Traffic?
A potential way to increase vehicle equality on crowded city streets
Driving psychology: For the Manhattan motorist in a rush, the worst thing to be stuck behind is a bicycle. Along certain narrow corridors like lower Broadway that lack bike lanes, it's not uncommon for cyclists to ride in the center of a lane, to better preserve their own safety and avoid getting "doored." This can be frustrating for the motorist behind, who feels they could make the next light if only this slow bicycle wasn't in the way.
As a result you will often see motorists veer around them, creating a potentially dangerous situation. I have been both the motorist and the cyclist in this scenario, and it's the latter situation that is the more eye-opening.
However, driving behind a two-wheeled vehicle with only a slightly bulkier form, the motorcycle, provides motorists with no urge to pass. Motorcycles are faster than cars so even if you could overtake one, there's no reason to. In over 20 years of driving in the city I don't think I've been prevented from reaching a light by a motorcycle even once.
Which makes me wonder: If bicycles were as fast as cars, at least in practical city-traffic terms, and if drivers realized this, would they be less tempted to overtake them? Outside magazine recently tested out a $7,000 e-bike for a month, using it for daily commutes, and here's the excerpt from their review that sparked this thought:
Where I live, west of downtown [in Austin, Texas], there are no bike lanes or shoulders, but there are plenty of drivers who insist that the car is king. I ride and train on my pedal-powered racing bike a lot, and sometimes drivers come around me when there's little room to spare.
My e-bike changes the game. On one steep stretch of Westlake Drive, the charged machine has me traveling, with only a slight amount of pedaling, at 21 miles per hour uphill—or three times as fast as I'd go on a regular bike. My joy is genuine, and my speed is just fast enough that the woman driving the Suburban behind me decides to follow rather than attempt a pass. As I approach the intersection…I'm in the middle of the lane.
What's alluring about this is that the motorist naturally gave the bicycle the same amount of respect as a car. I don't mean respect in the corny gee-I-feel-good-about-myself kind of way, I mean respect in terms of practical behavior. It suggests an alternate future where cars and bicycles might experience something like equality on the roads.
Of course, cyclists being overtaken is not the only reason for accidents, and proponents of the "speed kills" philosophy could argue that faster bikes might lead to more accidents and less survivable collisions. More studies with more details need to be conducted; for example, in 2014 New York City media outlet WNYC reported that cyclist deaths in the city had doubled over the course of a year, but the accident reports are inconsistent in providing context about each case. As an example, some reports are as specific as "Anna Maria Moström was riding a bicycle on Main Street when she was struck by a bus making a left turn," but many only say "This death was reported in the Police Department's Motor Vehicle Collision dataset but we are missing information describing the incident." Without consistently detailed data, it's nearly impossible to figure out what misperceptions and errors led to the accidents, and whom was at fault.
Urban cyclists among you: In the absence of a bike lane, do you ride in the center of a car lane? In what specific situations do you feel you're most at risk of being struck? And do you think e-bikes, with their greater speed, would improve bike/car road-sharing, or be offset by a greater amount of non-survivable collisions?
-
oFavorite This
-
Q38Comment
Directory Company Profiles
Core77
Industrial Design
Resources
Industrial Design
Resources
-
Core77 Directory
Find the Best Industrial Design CompaniesGo -
Bould Design
BOULD DESIGN is a strategic partner for bringing highly functional, beautiful and successful product...
-
Doris DevDoris Dev is a New York and Hong Kong-based product development agency with a proven track record of...
-
Astro Studios
Astro Studios of California launched in 1994, and since then our multidisciplinary teams have design...
-
aruliden
Aruliden is a global design agency born in 2006. We are a collection of people who care deeply about...
-
Zack Group LLC
Zack Group is an award winning brand & package design firm specializing in visual revitalization of ...
-
Y Studios
Y Studios is an award-winning Industrial Design and Research consultancy in San Francisco with exten...
-
DesignThink, Inc.
DesignThink is a full service product development group focused on defining, developing and deliveri...
K
{Welcome
Create a Core77 Account
Already have an account? Sign In
By creating a Core77 account you confirm that you accept the Terms of Use
K
Reset Password
Please enter your email and we will send an email to reset your password.
Comments
This is a tricky subject, and one that I think you have addressed well, being that I'm assuming your sympathy lies more with the cyclist population and all too often (and judging by most or all of the comments here) cyclists have a very negative opinion of drivers. Sure, they're the one's that are travelling at slower speeds (unless in traffic) and only have a helmet (at least they should) for safety, but a road without a bike lane is still a road, and if cyclists don't feel safe being at the side of a road without a bike lane then they simply shouldn't ride down the side.
My sympathy definitely lies more with the cyclist population. But I only
gained that appreciation after first regularly switching to a bicycle
myself, after more than twenty years of only driving a car. If I was a
dictator with omnipotence over transportation policy, I'd mandate that
when getting a driver's license, one would also have to achieve a
license for/experience with riding bicycles, motorcycles, delivery
trucks and every type of vehicle you're expected to share the road with.
The hope would be that experiencing the variety of vehicles would give
you an increased awareness of what they go through, and hopefully that would break through the inherent selfishness our roads are plagued with.
Very well said. The problem is multi-faceted and it seems you have addressed this well.
Ollie, totally true. I think folks who take a simplistic view of the problem only want to assign blame. I'm less interested in culpability and the "in an ideal world" scenarios, and more interested in the psychology of what makes people behave a certain way, and in examining potential solutions.
I've been hit a few times, always by a car on my left turning right. I most of those cases I was in a bike lake traveling FASTER than the automobiles (who were stuck in traffic).
Eitan, when you were hit, how did the impacts unfold? And did you find your helmet helped? I started out wearing the helmet all the time, but on some days if I need to run a quick errand I somewhat hesitantly leave it behind. I'm thinking that's a bad habit.
I commuted by bicycle for over 10 years and got hit a few times - always by cars on my left turning right (without signaling).
I always wear a helmet when riding (to the point of feeling strange if for some reason I get on a bike without one). But if you want to feel better about not wearing a helmet read:
As a year round cyclist, my number one fear is cars not noticing me in time. The solution is to be:
a) Visible. Clothing helps. Lights at night.
b) Predictable in your trajectory, like not weaving in and out of lanes of parked cars vs. moving cars, and signaling with arms when changing lanes.
c) Give ample time to vehicles when forcing them to make evasive manoeuvers
Faster biking, which I generally try to do with my body, can help with c), in that if you are moving faster, you give cars more time to see you before they arrive at your level. I will not stop in the middle of a lane to make a left-hand turn unless traffic is slow-moving and it's daytime. On the other hand, when I am cycling faster than other cyclists in the cycling lane, I tend to move towards the car lane, especially at intersections, to avoid having to make sudden evasive manoeuvers. So sometimes I am behaving like a bike, and other times like a faster vehicle, depending on opportunity.
A faster eBike, in capable hands, could help with c) also. But speed requires fast reflexes and traffic experience. As they approach motorbike capabilities, fast eBikes would tend to imply regulation and licensing, to help reduce the inevitable accidents they will create, as any new vehicle does. But nothing is a substitute for experience.
Patrick
Patrick, that's a good point. If the bike is an order of magnitude faster, but the rider is not trained to handle it, a disaster is surely not far off. I just read something about NYPD cracking down on e-bikes in the city, it appears to be a new priority.
Your point is clear. You want the cyclist to take responsibility for the unsafe motorist by accommodating their "needs". It is like saying the customer is using the product wrong, like a typical arrogant IDer.
David, by your combative, simplistic re-framing and accusatory tone, I can see you're not one of the readers with whom I'll have a meaningful, potentially constructive exchange that might lead to some future shared insight. I won't engage you further. But, please do feel free to spend more time re-contextualizing my words to prove that I am "wrong" and you are "right!" Have fun!
Rain, your "solution" to the problem of potential danger from the motorist to the cyclist is that the cyclist should use something other than a bicycle.
I moved to London two years ago from Amsterdam (where cycling is just seen as the most obvious and logical way of getting from A to B, and the only drama is when it snows) and was very surprised at how militant the cyclists are here, dressed in full combat gear and ready for a fight.
In which case Rain may have a point with the role of the electric bike...
Don't get me wrong, I too don't hang about when on a bike. It is, as far as I am concerned, the fastest way of getting across the city. Also, like everyone else, I immediately went to buy a helmet and a High-Vis jacket, but I still stubbornly insist on cycling to work in my normal attire and refuse to be part of the Lycra-suited-army, and I feel very strongly that we, as cyclists, would greatly benefit from a more relaxed and understanding relationship with other users (pedestrians as well as motorists)...
THAT SAID, one thing puzzles me. A quick look at the morning crowd of cycling commuters clearly shows a large majority of male (and rather macho) cyclists, however, the statistics for fatal accidents in London show a disproportionately high number of female casualties. Could this suggest that a more aggressive style of cycling is the key to staying alive? (Please don't hit me David Beck, I'm only asking).
As for cycle paths, they may help, but in my experience they are more of a danger than anything else if badly considered as they often propel you with a false sense of safety right to the middle of a complex intersection and then dematerialize, leaving you at the mercy of the traffic, generally in the wrong place.
Thanks for sounding off Fred, it is interesting to hear about cultural differences/attitudes about biking from country to country. New York sounds a bit like London in that regard and nothing like Amsterdam, which I'd prefer we emulated.
It's also fascinating to hear the statistics about predominantly male riders but higher female casualties. Surely that warrants some study. I remember reading in an NYC-based cycling study, that women here will only bike in particular areas/routes and will not ride along routes they perceive as being more dangerous, whereas men tend to ride anywhere. I am very curious as to what's behind the London figures!
My favorite cycle paths in the city are the ones, like that along 8th Avenue, that provide separate traffic lights for bikes and cars (preventing, for instance, cars from making a turn and allowing cyclists to proceed through the intersection). Sadly these set-ups are few and far between.
I think David Beck has totally missed the point of this article. This isn't about the e-Bike. It's about speed relative to traffic. I cycle daily in London on a road bike and I find that other slow-moving cyclists can cause many more problems than just frustrating impatient motorists. As well as being slower they are often less in control of their bicycle, and less confident in their road position (i.e. where they should be rather than where they want to be).
Matt, he has indeed missed the point; it sounds as if he's taking an earlier, separate argument he had with someone else and trying to map it onto this discussion. (And judging by his tone, I'm guessing he lost the earlier argument.) But thankfully there are plenty of you providing useful insights and experiences here.
I think you've hit it on the head with the "where they should be" vs. "where they want to be" observation. That's an area surely worthy of study, and I bet the key to a potential solution lies within that area.
I also ride pessimistically, particularly after the close calls that crop up every now and then.
No, I don't think I missed the point. Rain posted a single piece of anecdotal evidence and asked us readers to draw a conclusion from it. I can't conceive of a worse way to make a decision or a recommendation.
But there is no victim or perpetrator if the "accident" is avoided? Doesn't your line of argument suggest, in a different narrative, that we should all leave our houses unlocked and thieves should just stop stealing?
Hi Matt. For some reason I cannot reply directly to you post.
I believe "taking the lane" is also legal here in NYC, but you wouldn't know it based on how motorists react....
Why is the unsafe behavior of a motorist the responsibility of a cyclist?
I think you are giving impatient drivers too much of a pass. If I had a dollar for every time a driver swerved around me, risking my life, to get to the next light faster and watch me ride past them to front of the line and them have them do the exact same thing when the light goes green, I'd be rich.
It's not so much giving them a pass, as it is admitting that they're never going to do the right thing. Enforcement is just about impossible. The other day I was on the bike and a motorist veered past me, then cut in sharply to make a turn, so I had the choice of either slamming on the brakes or steering into a row of parked cars. In that situation, I'm not willing to take the hit in order to teach the driver a lesson; I'm more curious about what some practical, workable solutions are.
Riding in the middle of the lane is (at least in my humble experience based on cycling in Bulgaria) a pretty good recipe to annoy drivers. Moving faster does make it better (I ride a road bike, and that changes the way you're looked at), but as far as I'm concerned, it's more of a psychological problem.
Registered just to chime in on this thread, though I've been reading Core77 for years now. So first off, Rain and company: kudos on your excellent work.
Now, on topic; I have had the pleasure of living in Amsterdam and London. The former for the past decade, London between 2002 and 2004.
In those years London was developing bike lanes, but they were few and far between. I had never cycled with a helmet (other than competitive or sports riding, be it on road or atb bikes) but London traffic made me reconsider. I also adopted a more aggressive, or rather: assertive riding style. I quickly figured out you needed speed and visibility in London traffic. No one (save the lone lunatic) will willfully try to run you over or off the road, but most drivers in cities like London simply do not anticipate cyclists.
This is quite different in Amsterdam. Cycles are and have been for decades part and parcel of any city environment - or even any more or less built up area. So they are just there. This does not mean there are never any accidents, far from it, but by and large, drivers anticipate cyclists and cyclists know this and are fairly confident they will be seen.
In the 90s the government decided to up the legal protection for cyclists. In case of an accident it was up to the driver to prove they were not at fault. And even when they were not at fault they were still liable for 50% of the damage.
Also, a fairly comprehensive separate infrastructure had been build for cyclists. We've long had dedicated bike lanes, but where possible they are now raised from the car level, and often separated from the car lane by parking spaces. Only on residential streets traffic is mixed.
All this came about as a result of decades of steadily increasing bicycle traffic, which meant cyclists were not a bunch of spandex-clad activists but regular citizens on their way to work. And the numbers could not be ignored. So there was a critical mass which forced (and made feasible) the construction of additional infrastructure. It's a bit chicken and egg.
Speaking as a cyclist, motorcyclist, and automobile driver, E-Bikes at least address the immediate present problem at face value, which is the speed differential between vehicles on the road. But as the comments show, the problem is multi-faceted.
If you take a bike and make it fast - you end up with a motorcycle. We already have powered two-wheeled machines. Anyway, I am a typical car commuter and get very annoyed with cyclists who, during rush hour of course, insist on riding right in the middle of the road, oblivious to the mile long line of cars baked up behind them. In my opinion, the cyclist here is the one who is being inconsiderate and ignoring the world around them by insisting they have the right to plod along in the middle of the lane and not at least move over a little, especially on the more rural roads. I know a motorcycle is not the same exercise but at least you won't be imposing your slow pace on thousands of other people who are late for work.
The notion you've put forth, that "the cyclist here is the one who is being inconsiderate," is an argument many a motorist would surely make. But the cyclist has an equally defensible counterargument. What's interesting about all this, in my opinion, is how entitlement--particularly our American entitlement, I believe--plays into all of this.
In my estimation, your average American driver thinks "How dare this cyclist block my roadway" and the average American cyclist thinks "How dare this motorist risk my life." I think that these attitudes lead only to finger-pointing and no solution, unless one side can get a law passed that makes them happy and the other party miserable (the way we like to do it here in the U.S.!)
Something I found amazing is the vehicle traffic I saw in Vietnam in the '90s, a country where folks don't have the same sense of self-entitlement that we do. The roads in Hanoi were clogged with bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds, scooters, and the occasional car--and there were no traffic lights or crosswalks anywhere!
I learned how to cross the street by copying the locals. Since traffic never abates, you literally step out into the middle of it and walk across the street at a deliberate pace. Every rider is paying attention and because they can calculate your speed versus theirs, simply factors you in and swerves around you, while the riders to either side give way slightly. In short, everyone is aware of the other and no one feels like they have priority--so the whole system works together.
It can't be perfect, of course. On my last day there, I saw a head-on collision (bike-to-bike) in a particularly crowded part of town.
Interesting article!
I commute daily to work/school using my bike and I must say that my behavior on the road isn't far different from that of a driver's. In other words, if I find myself behind a slower cyclist, I will seek out any opportunity to pass him as safely as I can. If "stuck" in traffic, I will weave between cars, and hopefully convince a few to leave their cars at home the next day, heh. I do believe that most prefer the car/bike over public transportation because of the greater sense of control it provides us; over the path taken, over the modulation of the time needed to reach point B, etc. As we are also naturally friction-adverse, and will look for any opportunity within our power to make the commute as short as possible, dealing with elements considered to be nuisances on the road will often be met with a cavalier attitude. After all, transportation is a means, not an end.
I get irritated when stuck behind a mob of slow cyclists too, and although I don't drive, I can definitely understand how a driver might feel when he could be traveling at twice the speed but is prevented from doing so because of a much slower vehicle. I thus refrain from passing judgement, because as seen so far, blame is and can definitely be thrown both ways. I do however think dedicated bike lanes are a step in the right direction.
Otherwise, and this might be a far stretch, but tolls could help... Drivers typically externalize the costs related to the usage of the car on the road onto others without realizing that they make a tangible impact in regard to each and any one's desire to travel from point A to B in a timely manner. Increasing road width or the # of roads is simply met with more traffic due to induced demand; tolls are the only proven method that I know of that consistently lower the amount of cars on the road by making those externalities financially tangible.
This could provide every driver with more maneuverability, hence potentially safer commutes for all.
Most drivers also commute alone, and thus occupy a much too large footprint on the road. Smaller, nimbler cars could also help in solving this issue.
I am probably going left-field with all of this, but it's because I don't see the state of the interactions alluded to by the article changing any time soon. I still ride as close to the curb as possible when cycling at 25mph to let drivers pass me.
Increasing the speed of the 'bike' is not the issue and I doubt will solve anything. I often am travelling faster than the traffic I am in, so the idea that making the bike faster is mute.
"Anyone...will know no matter how much speed you are sitting on, it does not make the scant bit of difference to the attitude of the driver" - If that's so, how do you explain the example cited by the author of the Outside article?
"If that's so, how do you explain the example cited by the author of the Outside article?"
That is fascinating to me, the notion of "perceived confidence vs. true confidence." That observation, I feel, is getting closer to the psychology behind what's really going on here. As for education being the answer, that seems obvious, but I have no faith it will happen in this country. Driver education here is poor--consider that during the average driver's license test, one doesn't top 30 miles per hour; but if you pass, you can now legally drive a 3-ton Tahoe at 65 miles per hour. (Also, the amount of people I see driving cars, both in the city and on the highway, while staring into their phones makes me certain that the average motorist does not give a damn.) It will be interesting to see what happens if e-bikes become commonplace, and what adjustments society will or won't make.
Judging by the responses here, I gather I have not clearly articulated my point. It's nothing to do with "the responsibility of the cyclist." Here in Manhattan, as I imagine it is in other cities, motorists behave according to their own self-interest, with little regard for the comfort or even safety of those around them. In my estimation, they cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, or assumed to possess even basic human decency. Thus my question is, if swifter e-bikes can remove their urge to overtake; in other words, to get their selfish self-interests to align with what is safer for the cyclist. The secondary part to that question is whether a swifter e-bike would make a cyclist safer on-balance, or if that would be offset by the inherent greater danger of traveling on a faster vehicle. Any thoughts?
Amazingly - I actually sometimes feel LESS safe when in a bike lane. I have had more close calls with drivers seemingly not paying attention and turning right in front of me when I was in a bike lane than any at all in the multiple years of biking more suburban Cleveland where there aren't bike lanes.
I hear you. When the bike lanes are contiguous with the driving lanes, I don't feel I have any protection, and I find that trucks seem to have poor visibility when I'm in their rear 3/4s. And even on the new-style NYC bike lanes, where you're protected from traffic by a row of parked cars, I've found that the greatest hazard is pedestrians (usually staring down into their phones) who seem to think the bike lane is an extended sidewalk and will heedlessly step into it. I'm not sure what the solution is there, as I suppose the priority ought to be Pedestrian > Bicycle > Motor Vehicle.