And I am an outlaw.
I've been chided by motorists and harrumphed by pedestrians one time too many. And in the wake of a recent bill explicitly cracking down on bicycle couriers who bend the law, it's about alls I can stands. I'm not a courier, but I'm a cyclist, and we of two wheels and carbo-powered motors stand in solidarity.
Until recently, I've been a modest scofflaw, bending the rules gingerly to fit my agenda. I'm no Abbie Hoffman. Nor am I Henry David Thoreau. But now I brazenly proclaim myself Bicycle Civil Disobedient Number One. I ride on sidewalks, I wrong-way one ways, I run reds -- and I don't care. I dare you to stop me.
In May, City Council passed a bill requiring bicycle messengers to carry photo ID and display the name of their company in large letters on their person in order to make it easier for the city's poor, beleaguered pedestrians to report non-abiding couriers. But the witch hunt comes to an end here. In my mind, owning a bicycle qualifies one for a dual citizenship of sorts: equal and respectful access to both motor and pedestrian thoroughfares. And here's why:
Riding sidewalks: While the image of a sidewalk system overrun by rampaging cyclists is distasteful, there are reasons why bikes should be accepted, to a degree, on walkways. First and foremost, it's just too easy. The bicycle, by nature, is made for easy navigation up and down curbs. The innovation of the mountain bike, a.k.a. the curbhopper, drives home the point. Why are bikes so light and maneuverable if cyclists aren't to take full advantage of their versatility? And with the nearly citywide presence of handicapped access ramps further heightening sidewalk accessibility, it would be a crime of omission not to make use of them. However, riders should respect the folks for whom these wonderful shortcuts were built (it's careless riding that's brought this issue to a head to begin with); a leisurely roll down the sidewalk is still quicker than standstill traffic. To ease the tension, I even bought a bell for my bike, inspired by the pleasant duplicity of the bike-loving denizens of Amsterdam. And besides, drivers, cyclists on sidewalks means fewer bikes on the street.
Wrong way on one-ways: Most infractions of this sort take place on infrequently traveled side streets, and who really cares which way you're going on a street that no one drives anyway? Motorists have been doing it for years. Granted, it's not necessarily advisable to ride into traffic on, say, Walnut, but even so, as long as a bike can squeeze between lanes, no harm, no foul. And besides, pedestrians, cyclists on one-ways means fewer bikes on the sidewalks.
Running reds: This one's academic. If no one's coming, a red light is a glorified stop sign. I have no pity for a cyclist who willingly sits through a red without at least attempting to squeeze through a break in traffic. Running a red is merely the cyclist's equivalent of jaywalking. And pedestrians have been jaywalking since time immemorial.
---
As a cyclist who depends on a bike's flexibility in strategically bending the ever-rigid grid of Philly's traffic tangle, please look the other way in light of the advantages cyclists do provide (reduced traffic, pollution, parking problems).
Granted, there should be a better way -- like perhaps the implementation of a citywide bike path system. But I'm not holding my breath.
Until then, let the passive/aggressive resistance begin.
-- Brian Howard