u/nyuncat

Wrote this in response to something else, but I think it's worth sharing as its own post, as a helpful argument to use when engaging with people who, in good faith, are concerned about the reckless behavior they see on NYC streets during the recent cycling boom.

Yes, I did say in good faith! There are reasonable people who are reasonably concerned about this, and it isn't because they are ignorant assholes. Carbrain affects us all, and it's worth having serious discussions with people who are still struggling with its effects. And if we're being honest, we have to acknowledge that there is a highly visible minority of cyclists who are largely responsible for the negative reputation of riders at large: the deliverista who is salmoning because going another block to ride the right way is taking money out of his pocket, or the citibike finance bro wearing noise canceling headphones and swerving into your lane. Other people see this behavior too, and it's not a crazy leap to think "oh no, bikes are dangerous, I don't want even more of them"

So, here is my rebuttal to the argument "because some cyclists are reckless, therefore we shouldn't build additional bike infrastructure". This is usually accompanied by the implication that cyclists haven't "earned" proper infrastructure (setting aside for a moment that drivers haven't exactly earned it, either), or that encouraging cycling as a whole will inherently encourage more reckless cycling.

The opposite is true here. Reckless cyclists are currently overrepresented in NYC because when you decline to build safe cycling infrastructure, the only people willing to cycle tend to be more comfortable with risk and have a higher bar for what they consider inappropriately reckless behavior on the road. The only way to combat this without banning cycling entirely (a policy as unrealistic as it is stupid) is to build a comprehensive and protected network that allows more prudent individuals to cycle safely in the city.

This changes the cycling culture of a city overall, and encourages more of the people in the middle of these two groups to follow their example. It also makes reckless cycling harder to do and less rewarding through the sheer volume of reasonable cyclists on the road. To the latter point, as I said in another comment here recently:

>Want to zip past the curb at motor vehicle speeds and close-pass pedestrians waiting to cross? Sorry, that space is now occupied by 25 moms on cargo trikes who are riding slowly with their kids.

The comprehensiveness of the network matters too - remember the deliverista riding in the wrong direction? We solve this with contraflow bike lanes and traffic calming for motor vehicles. If nearly every street in the city had a safe cycling option in both directions (contraflow or sharing a lane with calmed motor vehicle traffic, depending on the direction), there would be zero incentive to salmon or ride on the sidewalk.

tl;dr When you build dangerous roads for cycling, you get dangerous cycling. When you build safe roads for cycling, you get safe cycling. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but next time you encounter someone with this opinion, consider that you might be able to change their mind with this argument rather than simply telling them they're wrong.

The meeting started out alternating 3 speakers at a time, going back and forth between opponents and supporters of the safety redesign. It's been about 30 minutes now since they ran out of opponents and it's just been a steady stream of supporters ever since, all out here until well past 10pm to lend their support to this project. Bravo to all!