After 25 years of cycling on roadways and watching the road advocacy community, I’ve come to some conclusions.

I believe road cycling “advocates” often operate under a flawed assumption – that being that the motorists that pass them aggressively, cut in close, jam on their brakes in front of a pack of cyclists or otherwise offer up some other form of assault – actually DON’T want to hurt them. I don’t believe this is the case.

I believe that these type of motorists actually would like to hurt or even kill the cyclists they are assaulting as they stand in the moment of confrontation. For some, this is a “road rage” induced moment that may subside for them once they get home and have a moment to reflect. However, for some of these motorists, the rage against cyclists doesn’t subside even outside of the moment. (The psychology of this mentality is, unto itself, worthy of a lengthy essay.)

So what stops these type of motorists from killing or injuring cyclists? I believe there are a few main factors:



1.) They don’t want to get “in trouble”.



Driver Thought Process: “I’d like to clip that queer on the bike, but if I do, I might get in trouble. Maybe I can come in close on them and wipe them out and get away with it. Probably not. I don’t know…maybe. Ah, not worth the risk.” (Of course, sometimes the emotion gets the best of them and they decide it IS worth the risk.)



2. They don’t want to damage their vehicle.



Driver Thought Process: “No bike a-hole is worth stratching my truck. Maybe I can come in close and teach ’em a lesson without contact?” (Thought process goes then to #1 above.)



3. Even if they don’t ultimately get charged or fined, or, have damage to their vehicle, they don’t want to have to deal with the potential time and hassles if they did hit the cyclist.



Driver Thought Process: “It wouldn’t be worth having to try to convince the police that ‘I didn’t see them’. What if the cop didn’t believe me? What if my friends or other people found out? Maybe I’d get a bad name with people in the community.”



So, in the realm of driver assault on cyclists, I’d say the breakdown is probably currently about 50/50 in the conscious attempt vs. unconscious attempt. The unconscious relates to drivers who assault and batter a cyclist due to distraction or dullardry. This includes the texting teen, the DUI guy or the person too old to drive. All will hit you with negligence, but not intent. The conscious relates to they person who, with intention and malice, tries to strike out at a cyclist – their pure hatred overcoming factors 1., 2. and 3. above.



If you accept everything I’ve said up until now to be true, even to a lesser degree, I have to ask, “How will the 5 foot pass law help keep cyclists safer?” I guess what I’m saying here is that I don’t believe a lot of conscientous folks who try to do the right thing by cyclists are just “passing a bit too close”, subsequently hitting cyclists and causing them harm. I’m not saying that a friendly cager has never accidently and unwittingly come too close and caused a cyclist to go down, but I think this type of interaction is fairly miniscule in the realm of car-bike accidents.



That said, is the “unconscious” assaulter going to be impacted by the 5 foot law? No. They didn’t even know the cyclist was there in the first place! Is the “conscious” assaulter going to be impacted by the 5 foot law? No. There are already laws in place that they should be concerned with, however, they already choose to ignore them and decide that they will try to get away with the assault. I mean, really, is the guy who intentionally sideswipes a cyclist or “stops short” in front of them within our current laws? Do we really think things will start to change with the 5 foot law?



The truth is that there are already laws on the books that SHOULD result in criminal charges against the aggressive driver choosing to assault a cyclist. However, without video (and assuming no hit and run), it is hard to prove intent. A driver can just say, “Gosh, sorry, I didn’t see the cyclist.” The hard truth is that our legal system and prosecutors kind of “give drivers a pass” when it comes to accidents with cyclists. Intent is difficult to prove, and they don’t want to lock up that poor 70 year old man who maybe just didn’t see that cyclist – the cyclist being a person who, like it or not, most of our society sees as “totally f’ing crazy to be riding on the road with cars”. This is why the cyclist almost always loses with the law. Our society doesn’t view them, as some other countries around the world do, as vulnerable users to be protected. As a society, we view road cyclists the same as players of Russian Roulette – a kind of “yeah-they-are-crazy-but-it-is-their-right-to-die” attitude. When they do get killed, society responses with a “that’s-a-pity-but-they-brought-it-on-themselves” position. So the analogy is that, even though the driver may actually load bullets in the chamber, the cyclist is viewed as the risk taker putting the gun to their own head.



So, how does our society make it safer for cyclists? The simple answer is that law enforcement must put the burden of proof on the motorist, not the cyclist in car v. bike reports. This is currently not the case. When a car v. bike “accident” is reported, the media, the general public and law enforcement all often revert to a kind of institutionalized “victim shaming”, not unlike the classic victim shaming that goes on with rape victims. With rape victims, it is asked, “Was she wearing provocative clothing?”, “Was she walking alone at night?” “Was she drinking earlier?” All these questions imply that, even though the person did nothing LEGALLY wrong, perhaps they really did something to cause their own misfortune. It is no different when a cyclist is run down while legally obeying the laws of the road. It is asked, “Was the cyclist wearing a helmet?”, “Were they ‘experienced”?” or “Were they riding on a busy road?” Again, none of these is germane if a driver of a motor vehicle chose to disobey the laws of the road and assault a cyclist.



Given all this, I think the best way to impact positive change to keep road cyclists safe is to aggressively call out law enforcement and prosecutors who do not work to bring perpetrators of vehicular assault to justice. So, when an assault on a cyclist occurs, do all cyclists and the victim a favor. Don’t lament it as an “accident”. Don’t “stop riding because it is too dangerous”. Don’t internalize your grief. Get really f’ing angry. Externalize your anger. Get vocal. Cause a ruckus. Call out law enforcement and prosecutors. In short, make them all uncomfortable. Because it is only when non-cyclists start to become uncomforable with the status quo, that the tide will start turning for cyclists that are the victims of vehicular assault.

Posted in Uncategorized