« Assorted links | Main | Geo-engineering to cure global warming? »
Should the driving rules favor cars or bikers?
Not everyone likes DC drivers and more here, both from Megan. I am more sympathetic to the position of cars and their drivers (NB: I don't ride a bike.) I see two major arguments:
1. Riding a bike is dangerous no matter how considerate the drivers, at least in the car-intensive cities of the United States (maybe not in Amsterdam). Furthermore accidents and potential accidents impose costs on both parties and more generally Coasian externalities are symmetric. The first best equilibrium involves less mutual contact and the cheapest way to bring that about is probably to discourage biking. (After all, they're the ones who can be scared off with risk of death and dismemberment.) That means road rules which discriminate against the interests of bikers.
2. If a bike has to stop and wait ten seconds for a car, that biker loses ten seconds of travel time. If a car has to stop and wait ten seconds for a bike, the driver loses ten seconds of travel time. The expected loss in distance traveled is much greater for the car, especially in areas where cars are going fast (i.e., the disputed areas when safety is a concern). Furthermore the cars are more likely inhabited by people with a higher value for their time, at least on average if not for every biking blogger.
The case for favoring the bikes is that taxing the privileges of cars will lead to truly safer behavior through greater driver caution. Maybe.
Will chimes in, Arnold too. Arnold is unhappy.
Vroom!!!
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 10, 2008 at 06:40 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
Per #2: I'm not sure loss in distance traveled is they main concern for the cyclist. I might argue that loss of momemtum is the key. The cyclist probably expends more "personal" energy (in a physics sense, the car does more work) getting back up to speed after a stop, not to mention a buildup of cars to contend with.
After reading all the associated links, I think the poorly behaved cyclists, drivers, and pedestrians are all deserving of some sort of incentives (besides reduced risk of dismemberment) to change their behavior. Drivers have every right to be mad at cyclists who are not obeying traffic laws, and cyclists who do (me) should be furious at those (expletive) cyclists for giving us a bad name and fueling the anti-"equal road rights" movement.
Posted by: Jason at Jul 10, 2008 7:29:47 AM
Actually, biking is safer than driving - according to a study in Toronto. And when you add in the health benefits the cyclist will certainly live longer on average. Since this is true, the cheapest way to change the transportation system - once you add health costs is to discourage driving.
On 2, bikes actually reduce traffic congestion, so the 10 seconds you lose here is gained through 20 seconds averaged out. 50,000 people bike to work in DC every day. Add those to the roads and see if congestion gets better.
Posted by: VC at Jul 10, 2008 7:33:21 AM
"Furthermore the cars are more likely inhabited by people with a higher value for their time, at least on average if not for every biking blogger."
I would dispute such a claim. I reckon that my commute is shorter on a bike than it would be in a car. In fact, I would venture that this is the case for most commuters.
Posted by: Alex at Jul 10, 2008 7:43:07 AM
Sorry, but the argument "The first best equilibrium involves less mutual contact and the cheapest way to bring that about is probably to discourage biking. (After all, they're the ones who can be scared off with risk of death and dismemberment.) That means road rules which discriminate against the interests of bikers." is utterly ridiculous.
Would the solution to the problem of hooliganism be to discourage regular people from attending sporting events?
After all, they're the ones who can be scared off with risk of death and dismemberment.
Posted by: Micke at Jul 10, 2008 7:43:45 AM
I ride a large scooter (highway capable, top speed is almost 80 mph), a bicycle, and drive a car (and drove a cab full time for 6 years).
When riding a motorcycle or a bicycle, the good riders assume car drivers do not see them. Don't assume car drivers are ignoring you - they often don't see you. It is common after a car hits a motorcycle that the car driver says something like, "I never saw him!" That is one reason many motorcyclists like LOUD exhaust pipes and LOUD horns. What might be mildly annoying when you are driving a car can be life threatening when you are riding a motorcycle or bicycle.
Drivers in the DC area are from all over the world and come with many bad driving habits from all over the world. (For what it's worth, I am always VERY Careful around any car with a Maryland plate.) (For the many delightful cuisines these folks from all over the world bring with them, see Tyler's Ethnic Dining Guide.)
I have no problem with bicyclists not stopping for stop signs and red lights, if they can do so safely, especially in regards to pedestrians.
When vehicles collide, they are not "accidents" they are crashes.
Most crashes are preventable by 1) slowing down, 2) not tailgating, i.e., following the car ahead of you by at least 2 seconds (yes, even in rush hour and too bad if someone cuts or merges in front of you - no need to drive like an aggressive 6-year-old bully who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his way), and 3) minimizing distractions when driving (pull off the road to read, apply makeup, use your cell phone, yell at your kids, etc.).
Did I mention to watch out for Maryland drivers?
Posted by: chug at Jul 10, 2008 7:46:03 AM
There are some important substitution effects you're not taking account of. VC nails the first: biking and driving are substitutes, so discouraging biking increases driving. The second is that biking in the street and biking on the sidewalk are substitutes; decreasing bike-car contact leads to more bike-pedestrian "contact."
Megan and Will raise the interesting question of regulating bikes using car-based traffic laws. Megan's point about merging into the exit lane is a call for bikes to be treated as vehicles on an equal footing with cars; Will's argument is that bikes shouldn't be judged by inappropriate car laws. I'm sympathetic to both points of view, but they don't sit well together, because it's hard to say with a straight face to car drivers that bikers ought to be able to claim the benefit of traffic laws when and only when it suits them.
Posted by: James Grimmelmann at Jul 10, 2008 7:49:46 AM
I ride my bike with the paranoid idea that I have a large bullseye on my back and every driver is looking to take me out. I'm the interloper on the road, so it's my responsibility to keep myself safe. When I'm driving, I have no problem driving 2 inces away from a cyclist NOT obeying the rules of the road. It might teach them something.
With his attitude, if ol' Will lived in Boston, he'd be dead.
Posted by: Brutus at Jul 10, 2008 7:58:06 AM
Furthermore the cars are more likely inhabited by people with a higher value for their time, at least on average if not for every biking blogger.
And by the same logic, luxury cars are likely to be inhabited by people with a higher value for their time than economy cars, so right of way rules should be rewritten to give priority to the most expensive vehicles ;)
I have to say that Megan's on a roll in making life here (Ann Arbor) seem sweeter. First the mugging stuff and now bike safety. Perhaps it's just the case that to be maximally livable, cities should not exceed 100,000 or so and be surrounded by countryside.
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 10, 2008 8:27:52 AM
I don't think cyclists are poorer than drivers on average. Most of the bike commuters I know have cars at home, but prefer the convenience and fitness of cycling. On my morning commute, arguably when there is the biggest competition for the road, almost all of the cyclists are white collar professionals, and I would bet their median salary is higher than the median driver's. Granted this is probably not true in DC.
But why do we have to choose bikes over cars or the other way around? They can coexist. As the number of cyclists increase, it needs to be less of a free-for-all - cyclists need to be fined for riding recklessly, because the bad ones make it worse for everybody. Drivers need to be trained that cyclists are allowed to be on the road, just like pedestrians and slow-moving construction vehicles.
And drivers need to relax a little. You don't fume when you lose 10 seconds waiting for an old lady to cross the street, so why do you fume when there's a cyclist in your lane for 10 seconds?
It seems like people are offended just by the idea of cyclists. I ride faster than most of the cars on my commute so I definitely use less of people's time than cars. And still the irritated honkers.
Posted by: paul at Jul 10, 2008 8:28:09 AM
Another option is to separate out bicycles and motor vehicles as much as possible, like we do with pedestrians. This could be through cycle lanes, dedicated cycle paths or some other means, perhaps even shared pedestrian/cycle spaces (which of course would reduce dangers for cyclists but increase them for pedestrians).
I see plenty of roads in this city that could easily accomodate a dedicated cycle section cut off from the rest of the road. Instead, they tend to have shared cycle and bus lanes. Which, considering the buses around here, may be the council putting Tyler's idea of scaring cyclists off the road.
I also wonder if higher rates of cycling actually increase or decrease the number and severity of accidents. Or if there is a critical point after which these decrease? I can't imagine a city with a large number of cyclists would have as great a number of serious accidents. Incidentally, if you're considering costs, what about the costs of repairing damage to motor vehicles in even minor collisions? And the much lower costs of infrastructure needed for bicycles?
Posted by: Tim at Jul 10, 2008 8:32:20 AM
As a sidenote to those that are bringing up the beneficial health effects of biking, I would like to remind them of Ulrich's paper on the environmental paradox of biking:
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf
In other words, if you bike more, you live longer, which is bad for the environment.
As someone who only recently moved to the Netherlands, let me say that one of the greatest fears I have in my everyday life is to be rolled over by a bicycle. They are silent, fast, and they have all the privileges. By the way, for those that never lived in The Netherlands, multiply your stereotypical image of bikers in Dutch cities by a factor of 5 and you will have a realistic image of how bike paths look in the morning. And a final comment that will make all libertarians out there happy: **nobody** here wears a helmet.
Posted by: londenio at Jul 10, 2008 8:32:33 AM
It seems as if a lot of this is based on bikes and cars sharing the same road. In many parts of Europe, sidewalks have been made wider to accommodate a special bike lane.
Granted, you still have the risk of collision at intersections, but most of those are integrated into the same rules and signals as pedestrian crossings.
Posted by: Johan at Jul 10, 2008 8:32:58 AM
I ride my bike with the paranoid idea that I have a large bullseye on my back and every driver is looking to take me out.
Also known as the Zodiac approach: always assume the cars can see you perfectly, and are trying to kill you.
cf: jwz
Posted by: Mike at Jul 10, 2008 8:55:59 AM
The statistic that cars are safer than bikes is a myth.
http://davesbikeblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/dispelling-myth.html
Bikers simply aren't going that fast, and even if they were they don't have that much inertia to damage themselves with. (oh and Fit people are more likely to recover from injury faster)
Posted by: thelonecabbage at Jul 10, 2008 8:56:19 AM
Paul and others above who argue against the opportunity cost hypothesis are probably correct. Most bikers who I know are educated and financially comfortable. Google up a few on-line biking supplies catalogs to see the very high prices all the gear. Many riders, especially outside of city centers are not commuting and are riding for fun, but that recreational biking carries time opportunity costs that track their income levels.
Posted by: liberalarts at Jul 10, 2008 9:02:02 AM
Brutus, Mike: my version, tested in decades of motorcyling without a crash:
"They're in steel boxes and I'm not."
Posted by: Monte Davis at Jul 10, 2008 9:14:56 AM
I don't bicycle but I am sympathetic to bicycles. I think 1 is just stupid, doing something dangerous doesn't just mean dangerous to the person doing it, for example firing a machine gun with your eyes closed is very dangerous not because of bullets ricocheting and hitting the person firing the machine gun but because it is dangerous to other people. In this sense cars are more dangerous than bicycles because a collision of two bicycles is safer than a collision of two automobiles. Additionally drivers being courteous makes riding a bicycle safer at the margin.
Posted by: Michael Foody at Jul 10, 2008 9:18:18 AM
And drivers need to relax a little. You don't fume when you lose 10 seconds waiting for an old lady to cross the street, so why do you fume when there's a cyclist in your lane for 10 seconds?
Are you kidding? I absolutely do get irritated by slow-moving pedestrians. Driving around Chicago the cyclists don't bother me that much, but when I lived in Montreal they all seemed to want to ride in the middle of the right-most lane of traffic. They just don't go fast enough for that, and if there's not room to pass them it is crazy-making. Of course here in Chicago they are just a menace to pedestrians instead, never stopping at stop signs in my neighborhood and zooming down sidewalks in some almost car-free areas.
I love Will but he's right when he says he would lose many of the benefits of cycling if he had to follow the rules of the road. If everyone just had to watch carefully not to hit me as I raced around in my little car I might feel the same way. There are good cyclists out there, but all too many are disruptive. And I get in a whole lot more trouble as a driver if I hit a bike than if I hit another car (which I can see much better), so it's hard not to see them as a menace—compounded by the fact that you can't even complain about it because they're just so good for the environment!
Posted by: nicole at Jul 10, 2008 9:22:38 AM
The second point is incorrect because in most major metropolitan areas a biker can actually beat a car to where they're aiming to go. Bikers actually value their time MORE than drivers. That is one major reason people DO ride bikes in the city. For an more entertaining exposition on this idea see: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/2008/05/bsnyc-interview-great-nyc-commuter-race.html
Posted by: KRM at Jul 10, 2008 9:37:58 AM
if car drivers valued their time more, they wouldn't live in the middle of nowhere and drive 2 hours a day just to commute to work.
i'm looking at you, fairfax county.
Posted by: rdg at Jul 10, 2008 9:54:55 AM
Separate dedicated bike paths and walking paths, paralleling the major roads. There are a few ways this can be done:
On Tramway Blvd in Albuquerque there is extensive landscaping on off-road and the paths wind through there.
We also have a bike path that cuts diagonally through the city and crosses the streets but does not parallel them.
In some neighborhoods we have a network of alleys the garbage trucks used to use decades ago. Those could be turned into bike paths in those neighborhoods.
There is a quiet street one block south of Central and north of the busy one-ways, called Silver Ave. There is talk of making this a bicycle street. Whether this means banning cars, or whether it means permitting cars but with a very low speed limit, I'm not sure.
IN one of Gordon Dickson's novels, set in the sort of place where tech levels varied enormously with region and affluence or poverty, there was a multi-lane set of roads leading out of the airport: a high speed lane; an ordinary freeway land by our standards; a lane reserved for farm vehicles; etc.
Posted by: Pat Mathews at Jul 10, 2008 10:05:31 AM
My big thing is, when I'm biking, I get at least half the lane. I'm going fast, I'm not going to ride in the spoil on the side of the road, and if you want to pass me, you have to change lanes.
The big safety concern comes from drivers who think they can pass you without changing course or velocity.
Posted by: Zach at Jul 10, 2008 10:10:27 AM
I, like many(?) drive cars and ride bikes. Like a few in SoCal, I sometimes walk a few miles across town.
My first comment is that with proper design it isn't either-or.
My second comment is that safety issues are much more subtle than a non-rider is likely to get, and vary much more with location to location that you might expect. Not only does bike planning vary, but the aggressiveness of car drivers toward bikes (and rarely vis-versa) matters greatly.
In general, a town with a high percentage of bike riders has more bike-friendly car drivers, and a smoother flow all around.
Posted by: odograph at Jul 10, 2008 10:14:46 AM
(In one town near me I cut through the "illegal alien" block, because they are more bike-friendly than the anglo blocks further north.)
Posted by: odograph at Jul 10, 2008 10:16:13 AM
Reduce carbon footprint and therefore favor cars! When cars have to wait an extra 10 seconds the carbon footprint is higher. Lovely
Posted by: Student at Jul 10, 2008 10:30:52 AM
