"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
-Pogo; Twentieth Century American historical philosopher
I recently attended a Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation workshop put on by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The course was put on for TxDOT engineers and safety coordinators, as well as local law enforcement officers and transportation planners. The presenters were the former Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for a southern state favored by retirees and by an Effective Cycling instructor who is also a bicycle police officer and a board member of IMBPA. The three-day course was an overview of bicycle/pedestrian transportation issues. There were many great case studies of bike paths, lanes, wide outside lanes, tunnels, bridges, and other treatments to make cycling safer and more convenient-including bike helmets and conspicuity (I love that word-it sounds like something my grandfather did that required him to keep a spittoon handy).
But there was an over-riding message (although beneath the surface) that needs to be addressed. By focusing so much attention on bicycle safety, we are communicating an entirely different message-one that has been picked up by cycling's foes.
The unintentional message that we are sending is this: "Bicycling is an unsafe activity." Add to that message our preoccupation with expensive gadgets and highly specialized equipment (not to mention Lycra shorts), and we are reinforcing the all too common belief that cycling is a remote and esoteric activity. The more we talk about "bike safety," the more we shoot ourselves in the foot, or unwittingly give ammunition to anti-cycling forces.
A city council member in my community, in explaining why he was voting for a mandatory bicycle helmet ordinance for all ages, compared cycling to sky diving! Now see if you can follow me on this: jumping out of a plane a couple of miles above land and hoping that a glorified bed sheet will stop your fall doesn't require a law making the skydiver wear a helmet, but getting on a bicycle to ride a mile to the local grocery store does. If that doesn't make sense to you, then look at the visual similarity between a cyclist dressed for a winter ride, and a skydiver preparing to jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet. Goggles, gloves, bright colors, helmet, and tight-fitting clothes are all common between the two. But is the attitude? And does the highly specialized cyclist fairly represent the average cyclist?
I always find it ironic for a bicycle/pedestrian planning expert to show slide after slide of cyclists in Europe and Asia safely using bicycles for transportation, but then to launch into a warning about the dangers of cycling by showing all the hazards that exist here, complete with one tragic story after another. The irony is compounded when the expert offers the magic elixir of bike safety: a bike helmet (or as some more accurately prefer to call them, a bicycle crash helmet). I too have been guilty of pushing bike helmets beyond their reasonableness. I won't launch into this except to point out that the design speed of bike helmets matches the safety requirements of life on the bike path (mirroring the conditions of European and Asian cycling, oddly enough), not life on the streets. If a bike helmet offered real protection from automobiles, it wouldn't say inside it, "Not for use with motor vehicles."
The simple fact is that such a lightweight helmet (lightweight by design and necessity) can only offer protection from low-speed crashes. But don't mistake low speed for low danger. At relatively low speeds, the sudden stop caused by a head hitting a concrete curb at only a few miles per hour can cause severe trauma to the brain. Falling off a bike while standing still, if the head strikes a hard surface, can be very dangerous. On occasions, it can even be fatal (but then so can your bathtub, and more frequently).
Very rare occasions, it turns out. But we are reacting like Death is at our door, inviting us along on a bike ride! If bicycling was as dangerous as many wish us all to believe it is (cycling professionals as well as politicians and pro-helmet activists), our political and economic tensions with Communist China, Japan, and Asia would be greatly reduced. There wouldn't be anyone to threaten us (perhaps all those bodies in Teineman Square were only cyclists who had died while riding around the square).
Because the rhetoric is so intense, it's easy to be misunderstood on this issue. But we need to look at the monster we have created in "bike safety." I have even heard one nationally prominent cycling advocate compare bike safety to gun safety. There we go again, equating bicycling with life threatening activities, when we should be emphasizing (both to cyclists and noncyclists) the health benefits of cycling. Do you think for a second that a representative from AASHTO (the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) would tell Congress story after story about fiery automobile crashes on highways as part of a lobbying effort for more highways? Of course not. But we cyclists are doing just that.
When did cycling begin to be seen as a health threat and not as a healthy activity? In talking to some friends in the bicycle retail industry, it seems that it was the aftermath of the 70s Energy Crisis that sparked "the great bike fear." Recall how an existing bicycle boom was fueled even faster by the gasoline price shocks. Nationwide, people who otherwise used bicycles only to define ceiling height in their garages, began riding their bicycles to work, to school, and on short errands.
Where did inexperienced (noneffective) bicycle commuters ride their bikes? On the same streets where they drove their cars, usually because it was the only route they knew. These ineffective cyclists soon found that mixing with high-speed automobiles on multilane thoroughfares and on crowded, narrow roads, wasn't much fun. It not only felt dangerous, but without the proper skills it was dangerous.
When fuel supplies increased (and gasoline prices decreased slightly), these people abandoned their bikes for the "safety" of their cars. The bike boom went bust. A panicked cycling industry began looking for reasons for the bust and identified "safety" as a prime suspect. Two solutions were adopted: bike paths and bike lanes to protect bicycles from cars, and bike helmets to protect the cyclists.
The great irony here is that "safety" didn't fuel a new cycling boom-mountain bikes did. But how were (and still are) mountain bikes advertised? As gonzo fun toys for death-defying risk takers! But what was the real appeal to the bike-buying public? The upright, stable riding position is what most buyers of "mountain bikes" and hybrids prefer.
In a classic marketing campaign borrowed from the automobile industry (sex + excitement = sales), consumers are shown gonzo wild men (and wild women) flying through the air in Northern California, Utah, or Colorado. In the store, however, the vast majority of consumers were buying low-pressure, fat tired, upright riding bikes that have about as much in common with pro racing bikes as your Chevy in the driveway has to do with a NASCAR racer.
Do you see what we are doing? We are promoting bicycles to gentle people by showing them how dangerous they are as part of the advertising. Their experience is that cycling is safe and fun, but we are telling them that it is dangerous. People all too often believe what they are told by ad agencies, rather than what they learn from experience. How many guys with beer guts and a six-pack of Bud really pick up super-models in thong bikinis? How many young women become successful entrepreneurs by smoking Virginia Slims? That's the power of advertising overcoming reality.
Here's the message we should be sending out: Cycling is safe and fun! Very safe and very fun. Crashes happen (and can be avoided), and a helmet is a very good safety precaution. I never leave home without mine, because it is pretty cheap insurance. But cycling must be put into relationship with other risks. Statistically, stairs are a more dangerous place than bicycles. Bathtubs are a far more dangerous place. Jungle gyms? Give me a break (no pun intended).
How much more dangerous are stairs, bathtubs, swing sets, and riding in a car than riding a bicycle? I don't know, because the Head Injury Prevention lobby won't release that data for fear of showing that their demands for mandatory bicycle helmet laws are unjustified. The physician-chairman of a local bike helmet law advocacy group withheld that information because he felt that the data would "...be used against mandatory helmet laws." The co-chair told a meeting of the largest local bike club that "cycling is inherently unsafe" and got no argument from the brain-washed cyclists.
I don't know about you, but when I get on my bicycle, I'm not looking for a thrill ride to get my adrenalin pumping. I'm looking for a safe and convenient way to get from Point A to Point B. The fact that I am going to have some fun is a great bonus.
Now say after me: Cycling is safe and fun. Cycling is safe and fun.
That's the point that the League of American Bicyclists makes in Effective Cycling. Effective Cycling courses teach cyclists how to be prepared for most any conditions they will meet on the road: how to behave in traffic, how to dress for the weather (cold, rain, and heat), how to keep your bike in good mechanical condition. Why it's a good idea to wear a helmet. These are the skills that prevent crashes, not just mitigate the danger. And perhaps more important, there is no false sense of security imparted in developing Effective Cycling skills, only the confidence gained from understanding your environment.
Obey the laws, wear your helmet, don't be foolish (riding at night without good lighting is about as smart as working on your toaster without unplugging it), and have fun. Live long and prosper.
Repeat after me: Cycling is safe and fun. Cycling is safe and fun. Cycling is safe and fun. Cycling is safe and fun.
Now let's ride!
Reprinted from the April 1999 issue of Austin Cycling News Fred Meredith, Editor