This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/15/new-york-citibike-scheme-launch-popular

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Bikes are the mainstream now. It's time to start stopping at red lights Bikes are the mainstream now. It's time to start stopping at red lights
(4 months later)
'Cyclists aren't "special", and they shouldn't play by their own rules' reads the headline on a post by Sarah Goodyear at The Atlantic Cities that had me bouncing up and down on my saddle in agreement. These are great days to be a casual cyclist in the US: in a few days' time, New York's long-awaited CitiBike scheme will launch, joining successful forerunners in smaller cities. Americans are relying on their cars less and less. The reactionary anti-bike forces are in steady retreat: this week, apparently desperate for a new angle, the New York Daily News resorted to the line that the bikeshare bikes are too sturdy. (Or is that they're not sturdy enough?)'Cyclists aren't "special", and they shouldn't play by their own rules' reads the headline on a post by Sarah Goodyear at The Atlantic Cities that had me bouncing up and down on my saddle in agreement. These are great days to be a casual cyclist in the US: in a few days' time, New York's long-awaited CitiBike scheme will launch, joining successful forerunners in smaller cities. Americans are relying on their cars less and less. The reactionary anti-bike forces are in steady retreat: this week, apparently desperate for a new angle, the New York Daily News resorted to the line that the bikeshare bikes are too sturdy. (Or is that they're not sturdy enough?)
And so we come to the next dilemma in the mainstreaming of cycling in America: is it really still justifiable for cyclists to shoot through red lights and stop signs, to travel the wrong way down streets or bike lanes, weave around pedestrians using pedestrian crossings, and do all the other things that cause them to be labelled with my favourite word in the whole of American journalism, viz., "scofflaw"?And so we come to the next dilemma in the mainstreaming of cycling in America: is it really still justifiable for cyclists to shoot through red lights and stop signs, to travel the wrong way down streets or bike lanes, weave around pedestrians using pedestrian crossings, and do all the other things that cause them to be labelled with my favourite word in the whole of American journalism, viz., "scofflaw"?
To British readers, the question might seem silly; to Danish or Dutch ones it will probably seem insane. These countries have their fair share of red-light-ignorers, of course, but you'll rarely find them trying to justify their behaviour as a matter of principle. The difference is partly down to the grid layouts of many US cities, which vastly increase the occasions on which the law-abiding cyclist will find him or herself waiting at a light when it's self-evidently safe to continue. More generally, it can be hard for those elsewhere to appreciate just how far American streets are designed for cars alone. As Goodyear explains:To British readers, the question might seem silly; to Danish or Dutch ones it will probably seem insane. These countries have their fair share of red-light-ignorers, of course, but you'll rarely find them trying to justify their behaviour as a matter of principle. The difference is partly down to the grid layouts of many US cities, which vastly increase the occasions on which the law-abiding cyclist will find him or herself waiting at a light when it's self-evidently safe to continue. More generally, it can be hard for those elsewhere to appreciate just how far American streets are designed for cars alone. As Goodyear explains:
Riding a bike in the United States has long been perceived as a statement. Being a bicyclist has been an identity, burdened with its own identity politics. The cyclist as renegade, outsider, maverick, or outlaw – that has been the image, or self-image, depending on where you stand on the "issue" of cycling. But in the last couple of years, we have been moving at an almost imperceptible pace toward a different kind of reality… biking is slowly, slowly becoming just another way to get around.Riding a bike in the United States has long been perceived as a statement. Being a bicyclist has been an identity, burdened with its own identity politics. The cyclist as renegade, outsider, maverick, or outlaw – that has been the image, or self-image, depending on where you stand on the "issue" of cycling. But in the last couple of years, we have been moving at an almost imperceptible pace toward a different kind of reality… biking is slowly, slowly becoming just another way to get around.

When I first started biking in New York, as a British transplant, I was amazed at the extent to which any friend I rode anywhere with – not just the capital-C cyclists, for whom it was a lifestyle – considered themselves free to ignore the traffic laws. I'd be lying if I said I've never given in to peer pressure and done the same. But I'm usually the rider waiting at the red light, while cyclist after cyclist cruises by. I feel self-conscious and a bit stupid, but then I also get to feel the massively supercilious sense of occupying the moral high ground. So it balances out.
When I first started biking in New York, as a British transplant, I was amazed at the extent to which any friend I rode anywhere with – not just the capital-C cyclists, for whom it was a lifestyle – considered themselves free to ignore the traffic laws. I'd be lying if I said I've never given in to peer pressure and done the same. But I'm usually the rider waiting at the red light, while cyclist after cyclist cruises by. I feel self-conscious and a bit stupid, but then I also get to feel the massively supercilious sense of occupying the moral high ground. So it balances out.
And let's face it: I am occupying the moral high ground. Except perhaps if you're (say) a food-delivery cyclist, operating under extreme time pressure just to make a living wage, there's almost never a decent justification for not sucking it up and playing by the rules. Meanwhile, there's a very strong positive argument for doing so, road safety aside: every time you stop at a red light or a stop sign, you'll be helping to deny the anti-bike forces their final remaining scrap of a credible argument – which is that cyclists are dangerous scofflaws.And let's face it: I am occupying the moral high ground. Except perhaps if you're (say) a food-delivery cyclist, operating under extreme time pressure just to make a living wage, there's almost never a decent justification for not sucking it up and playing by the rules. Meanwhile, there's a very strong positive argument for doing so, road safety aside: every time you stop at a red light or a stop sign, you'll be helping to deny the anti-bike forces their final remaining scrap of a credible argument – which is that cyclists are dangerous scofflaws.
Goodyear's colleague Henry Grabar disagrees with all this:Goodyear's colleague Henry Grabar disagrees with all this:
I don't glide through stoplights to declare my independence from society; it's simply a central pleasure of riding a bike. It can be hard work going long distances under my own power, and these small conveniences make a big difference. I'm no proponent of riding on sidewalks or "salmoning" up a one-way street, but I've done both from time to time to avoid long detours or dangerous streets. We bike riders lose ground to cars on straightaways and hills, but we make it up at red lights and in traffic, nosing through lines of stalled cars.I don't glide through stoplights to declare my independence from society; it's simply a central pleasure of riding a bike. It can be hard work going long distances under my own power, and these small conveniences make a big difference. I'm no proponent of riding on sidewalks or "salmoning" up a one-way street, but I've done both from time to time to avoid long detours or dangerous streets. We bike riders lose ground to cars on straightaways and hills, but we make it up at red lights and in traffic, nosing through lines of stalled cars.
Grabar makes the decent point that the overzealous pursuit of cyclists for breaking traffic laws risks "upend[ing] the fragile system of incentives that leads thousands of people to undertake a long and sweaty commute each day". Those traffic laws have evolved to suit motorists, not cyclists, and there's a strong argument that some should be modified. (In Idaho, for example, cyclists are allowed to move slowly past a stop sign if it's safe to do so, instead of coming to a halt.)Grabar makes the decent point that the overzealous pursuit of cyclists for breaking traffic laws risks "upend[ing] the fragile system of incentives that leads thousands of people to undertake a long and sweaty commute each day". Those traffic laws have evolved to suit motorists, not cyclists, and there's a strong argument that some should be modified. (In Idaho, for example, cyclists are allowed to move slowly past a stop sign if it's safe to do so, instead of coming to a halt.)
But in the meantime, the everyday ethical question remains: should you – you, personally – stop at every red light and every stop sign, and obey every one-way instruction, next time you're out on your bike? Even though it might make you feel a bit uncool, or extend your journey by three minutes? Luckily, there's a simple answer: yes. Yes you should. "It's called civic responsibility," writes Goodyear. "Playing by the rules. Making nice. Whatever you want to call it, it may mean that you're going to have to give up your identity as a special person who does some special activity known as cycling." My only real worry is that the word "scofflaw" may die out from under-use.But in the meantime, the everyday ethical question remains: should you – you, personally – stop at every red light and every stop sign, and obey every one-way instruction, next time you're out on your bike? Even though it might make you feel a bit uncool, or extend your journey by three minutes? Luckily, there's a simple answer: yes. Yes you should. "It's called civic responsibility," writes Goodyear. "Playing by the rules. Making nice. Whatever you want to call it, it may mean that you're going to have to give up your identity as a special person who does some special activity known as cycling." My only real worry is that the word "scofflaw" may die out from under-use.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.