There was an article in the Collegiate Times today: “New Program to Educate Cyclists.” Because of the nature in which the entire article was written, and the perspective that it perpetrates, I cannot help but respond. Mostly it explains the partnership between Yield to Life and Virginia Tech. A partnership of a “campaign funded entirely by Yield to Life. The organization has given the university the brochures and ads as a part of the partnership” says the CT according to Deborah Freed the Virginia Tech Alternative Transportation Manager at Tech. It is great that Yield to Life is supporting the University in this way. The organization seems to have a very positive message that is equally aimed at cyclists and drivers alike. Both cyclists and drivers occupy space legally given to them on the roadways and Yield to Life expresses both legal, courtesy and common sense advice for both parties on how to respectfully share that space. Yield to Life was also formed by the pro-tours most comical rider, Dave Zabriskie. And of course I do not mean to belittle the good that Virginia Tech has done for cycling advocacy, equality among the roadways, and generally safety. However, I believe the University, or members within it, fall short in many ways actually believing in the program, by not implement the structures necessary, and by not striving for success with this matter.
To begin with, the article is entitled “New Program to Educate Cyclists.” Alone this implies that it is the cyclists that must learn something, that the cyclists that must be educated, and that it is the cyclist who is currently the source of roadway strife. Regardless of whether that is reality (and I really do not think that it is) the program Yield to Life is as much about driver education as it is about cyclist education. The program within Virginia Tech should be as much, or greater, about driver education than about cyclist education. We exist in a paradigm where in many way it is supposed that by turning 16 you are entitled to your majority of the road way. It is assumed that by passing a driving exam you are qualified to be a driver, or worse, that by passing a driving exam you are a good driver. This is the mentality that predominates, and it is one that leads drivers to believe that they are entitled to a majority. The reality is that driving is a privilege granted by the state, not something innate. Driving carries a huge level of responsibility that many people neglect when they drive. If a driver, or anyone is on a roadway, is not perceptive of that responsibility, then they are not worthy of the privilege to drive.
With regards to cyclist’s and driver’s burden of responsibility. While both parties are equally responsible legally to understand the legal system and abide by laws, I must acknowledge that the majority of responsibility lies with drivers. It may seem fair that since two parties are equally responsible in a legal sense to abide by laws, that they should also be equally responsible for the outcome of any incident, that is not the case. When driving an overwhelmingly powerful and massive vehicle, the consequence of a mistake on the driver’s part is of catastrophic consequence to a cyclist. I cannot conceive of a scenario in which a cyclist would win a fight with nearly a ton of steel. For that reason it is of paramount importance for drivers to be educated, both legally and in practice, of the weight of responsible they bear when driving a car. Yes, cyclists should know and follow the legal system, but ultimately it is the vehicle which should acknowledge the frailty of life, to yield to the cyclist, and to yield to life.
Ritchie Vaughan is quoted as saying that cyclists don’t know “whether to bike in the straight lane or the turning lane at the West Campus Drive/Prices Fork stoplight when biking down Prices Fork.” Imagine this intersection. In fact imagine many of the intersections on campus and in town. With regards to both car and bicycle traffic, many of them are vague. In this case the roadway structure has signage telling cars to “yield to bikes in turn lane.” Here the bike has precedence over the car. In nearly identical roadways there are bike lanes that say “end” every time a road way crosses it, does that mean that the cyclist has to yield every time the approach this “intersection”? In other cases bike lanes arbitrarily start and end, they cross roadways in confusing manners, and in a few instances the bike lane actually leaves the road way and onto its own surface structure/path. Cyclists not knowing what to do; the infrastructure within this town is outdated and inconsistent leading to both cyclists and drivers unsure of the right of way and what legally should be done. This is cause for education to both parties, but also a push for roadway consistency within town and campus.
Unfortunately it is difficult to make these changes, or acknowledge the system’s weakness when there is inconsistency within the town and campus legal structure. In an October ’09 Collegiate Times article "Local bike policies differ" Blacksburg Police Officer Sgt. Nathan O’Dell acknowledged these discrepancies.
"Students have recently been following Tech’s new campus policies, which allow cycling and skateboarding on sidewalks on campus. The town still has the ordinance in effect, in which students are not allowed to operate a bicycle, skateboard or in-line skates on the sidewalks. On the other hand, bicycles are allowed on public roads, but must act as if they were vehicles, and the riders must obey all traffic laws as if they were driving a car. One of the town’s ordinances is for bicycle use on sidewalks in a specified downtown area. Outside of that area, it is acceptable."
Nothing makes cycling more popular and appealing then making it accessible. Deborah Freed claims that “with Virginia Tech trying to promote cycling on campus … we decided we need a more inclusive policy that addressed the way bikes were being used and should be sued on Virginia Tech Campus.” That Tech is trying to address the issues of bicycle use is admirable and desired. If it is an aim of the town and Virginia Tech to increase bicycle use as an alternative to car use, then that needs to be done in a consistent way. The roadway systems and legal systems need to be established in a consistent manner that allows for ease of understanding. There is no sense in investing money in educating cyclists and drivers on the use of one road way system when it is surrounded by a separate and sometimes contradictory system.
In order for programs of alternative transportation, of cyclist/driver education and cooperative roadway existence to succeed there must be consistency and belief in such a system’s success. Deborah Freed: “We are trying to create, I guess, a sort of community and a cycling attitude on campus as well as among motorists that is one of mutual respect.” Does she “guess” that she is trying to adjust everyone’s perspectives and beliefs in the roadway system for an improvement in everyone’s safety though mutual respect? Does she “guess” that is what needs to happen, or should she believe it? We need the entire community, the entire university, and those who wield the powers of positive change within them to be determined and devoted to a cause of a better and safer place for which everyone in our community can benefit.
Reality Cheque
20 hours ago