Necessity or Culture?

The debate over bicyclist behaviors/responsibilities/philosophies while out on the road continues (see Unofficial Guide's latest post on this topic). While there are clearly pros, cons, and good points made by both sides of this debate, I wonder how much of this debate is driven, not so much by actual cycling experience and needs, but by local cultural pressures.

In my own experience, I have only ever been scolded for not following all car traffic laws in smaller communities like Boulder. Here, the general atmosphere regarding cycling is definitely one in which cyclists are entitled to rights only through strict obedience to all traffic laws. This general attitude leads to a hyper-awareness and sensitivity to how well a cyclist does or does not obey these regulations, thus creating a scenario in which car drivers and even other cyclists feel that scolding a cyclist for running a red light or rolling through a stop sign is appropriate.

What is interesting is that this attitude and general atmosphere seems to really exist only in smaller communities, while in larger cities, people just travel without really stressing the ways other people are traveling. Pedaling in Denver is an entirely different story than pedaling in Boulder – as long as you don't crash into anybody or anything, people seem content to let cyclists ride, and no one scolds a biker for running through a red light. This trend holds even more true when we look at larger cities. Recently, I was in Chicago, and every traveler, whether pedestrian, taxi cab, automobilist, or cyclist, just did whatever was the quickest and most efficient, and as long as nobody did anything stupid or dangerous, there were no problems. Obviously, conflicts still arise and accidents still occur, especially when one group of travelers (in particular, car drivers) are inattentive, but as long as all parties are smart about what they're doing, nobody seemed to care enough about the principle of bike laws enough to scold and argue with a cyclist over an impractical and inefficient law, such as waiting at an empty red light for it to turn green.

In comparing these two cycling settings, what must be called into question is why there are such differing attitudes, and actions; why in some places, cyclists are scolded for not following all traffic rules even if they are still being safe and practical, and other places they are not. While proponents of the approach that requires all cyclists to follow all car traffic laws would maintain that it is necessary for safe, efficient, and cooperative traveling and road usage, the experiences of cyclists in large cities seem to prove this to be inaccurate. If it is possible for cyclists to travel in a safe and practical way while not necessarily being compelled to follow each and every road regulation (especially when they require impractical or inefficient actions on the part of cyclists), then perhaps they should be allowed to do so, and in the end, perhaps the trend of pressuring or scolding cyclists is one driven more by specific cultural attitudes rather than actual cycling needs or safety.

Against Nostalgia

After spending time with various sets of parents and grandparents, I've noticed a definite trend in common attitudes and modes of thinking among these generations. One of the most troubling is in regards to automobiles.

The generation of the Baby Boomers, led of course by their parents, grew up in the post-World War II cookie-cutter landscape of "Leave it to Beaver" America where it was assumed that boys would grow up, go to college, find a wife, and get a job. Girls would grow up, become the wife, and have a bunch of kids. One of the central components to this manicured-lawn style of perfection and stability was the automobile.

These were the days of the giant, boat-like Cadillac. Gas was somewhere around 25 cents a gallon. For really the first time, cars became a major part of the normal American lifestyle: drive-thrus, Route 66, dad's commute to and from work, road trips, and family vacations to Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon all revolved around the family car. It was assumed that the automobile was the way to get around in life, period.

Now, as I spend time with the parents and grandparents of our generation – the people who created, lived, and grew up in this environment – I often notice a sense of nostalgia for those good old days when cars were beautiful, when boys talked about motors, and when the car was the assumed, necessary, and cool thing to have.

I see this nostalgia become evident in the attitude that it's entirely nonsensical, irrational, or silly to attempt to go through life without an automobile. This nostalgia drives those who think that to attempt to go through life with nothing more than a bike (along with public transportation) is somehow naive, idealistic, and childish. Attempts to pass this nostalgia for "Happy Days" America down to our own generation is seen in attitudes that encourage people to idealize, romanticize, and become dependent on the automobile.

This nostalgia is outdated. It should not be passed on to us. It is for a day that no longer exists; that can no longer exist because it cannot sustain itself. While a car-centered lifestyle may have been sufficient for those earlier generations, it has by now entirely run its course. It is no longer feasible or even remotely necessary to rely on cars in our daily lives.

We have the opportunity to change these attitudes, and to keep the nostalgia for America's automobile-driven history where it belongs: in the irrecoverable past. By continuing to use bikes as a primary mode of daily transportation, and by demonstrating this to be a valid lifestyle, we help accomplish this. Hopefully, by the time our generation has become the wise elders of society we can pass on a healthy, sustainable love for the bicycle and by then, the automobile will seem an object more akin to the dinosaurs than an actual part of life.