On June 3, Emma Woolley, a web editor and writer, posted an open letter on her blog to her fellow Toronto cyclists. Though impassioned, the language was clear and the message fairly simple: let’s follow the road rules, and stop for lights. Signal turns. Stay off the sidewalk. We'll all be safer if we do.

The post immediately garnered reaction among cycling Tweeters, was soon after picked up by Spacing, and by the end of the day had erupted into a Web-wide debate about how cyclists should behave on the road. Woolley spoke on Metro Morning earlier today about the issue.

Plenty of the reactions have been emphatic as they are divisive. A couple of city cyclists have posted open letters of their own. We passed a few questions along to Woolley and James King, a fellow respondent, about divided communities, whether rules are bendable, and if the majority of Toronto cyclists really do adhere to road rules.

One of the cyclists who responded to Emma's original letter brought up binary views about cyclists within the cycling community as an issue. You’re either for them or against them. Why do you think it’s so hard to have a productive discussion about how cyclists should act?

EW: I think it’s so difficult to have a productive discussion about cyclist behaviour because cyclists are, essentially, second-class citizens. Our roads were made for motor vehicles and we’re trying our damnedest to make a place for us, which isn’t easy with all the ignorance (on all sides) regarding traffic. We’re vulnerable to injury and assault because we’re not protected by anything except, sometimes, a helmet. It’s very risky to be a cyclist and we suffer a lot of abuse from motorists, so I think that may make us more sensitive to criticism and more likely to be defensive and deny wrongdoing. I hear a lot of: cars are the real problem, they’re the ones that kill people, et cetera. And I get it. Riding alongside cars and trucks can be really scary.

When I first moved here, one of the first roads I rode down was Spadina and I swear, between erratic motor vehicles and jaywalkers I almost peed my pants. So we unite in that vulnerability to make ourselves known and respected, but sometimes that fosters the very prevalent us (cyclists) vs. them (motorists) attitude out there, to unify and protect us I suppose, but I think that does more harm than good.

JK: It’s not a very constructive way to frame any dialog, but it is very effective at getting people to respond to something emotionally. I believe it has much to do with our inherited “tribal” mentality: the desire to belong and more importantly, to exclude. People can get very smug when they think this way. I think a lot of cyclists are apt to get as smug and defensive as any motorist. As long as someone believes they ought to win then there will never be a resolution. It makes for lively debate but you’ll never reach a consensus.

The reality is that there is a solution. Every one just needs to be open to discovering it. Not everyone is going to like it, but that’s life.

Emma: reader reaction to your letter was both vociferous and supportive. What were some of the most common objections people had, aside from mistaking it as a judgmental missive?

EW: One major common criticism was that following the law never 100% guarantees safety. I tried to address this when I mentioned my being hit by cars, but I don’t think I made it clear enough that I think safety trumps law. If we’re to expand this beyond the traffic world, safety always means more to me than following laws does. But when it comes to traffic, actions need to be as easily anticipated as possible to ensure safety, and that’s where I think traffic laws come in. Even with law reform, I don’t see why cyclists should ever be exempt from having lights, signalling, or stopping at red lights.

Another common criticism was variations of: “If it doesn’t hurt anyone, why do you care?” One woman told me that because I’d never seen a cyclist get hit while breaking a rule (despite my seeing many, many close encounters), I didn’t have the right to tell anyone to do anything. And okay sure, if you’re a seasoned, attentive, and mindful cyclist you probably won’t ever hurt yourself or anyone else. So there goes my safety argument, aside from it setting a bad example to less, um, intelligent cyclists. But I know that no matter how safely one rides through a red light, there are drivers who see that and think poorly of us all. I’ve heard a lot of drivers cuss in their cars, call us “assholes who don’t give a shit about the rules of the road,” that we just do whatever we want, et cetera. And that’s important to me, because cyclists don’t get to make laws, you know? Citizens do and we all have to be on the same side. So I think that respecting existing rules may be key to fostering a better relationship between travellers.

JK: Anyone who says that following the law never guarantees 100% safety is absolutely right. But the point they’re making is absolutely stupid. If anything, choosing not to follow the law on the road is akin to putting your life and the lives of others in your hands (though, more often than not the odds are stacked highly against you). Even something as benign-seeming as riding across the pedestrian sidewalk can potentially cause harm to pedestrians. There has to be a framework of rules to regulate the motion of so many people and vehicles in such close quarters or there is very little we can all do to help each other stay safe. Any argument against which laws will keep you safe and which ones should be changed or broken is going to require substantial evidence in my opinion. At this point in the discussion I don’t think anyone has brought any of this evidence forward.

And regarding “If it doesn’t hurt anyone, why do you care?”: I think I agree with Emma here. The manner in which you conduct yourself on the road is certainly a matter of safety for everyone. One reckless individual is all it takes to cause an accident.

Confirmation bias re: inconsiderate cyclists. Do you think this is a problem, that people are assuming most cyclists are careless because they notice the few bad experiences more? (James, I’ve noticed in a follow-up post you mentioned you’re going to start recording runs, jumps and crosses over the next week. I’m interested in hearing more about that.)

EW: It could be. I try to make note of the cyclists who do stop, signal, et cetera and even show appreciation. Sometimes I even smile! But I won’t lie—when in a bad mood, it’s very easy for me to focus in on the cyclists who do things that bother me. For the most part I think I’m fairly centered. The day I wrote the letter I paid attention to everyone around me and complying vs. non-complying was a 60-40 split.

JK: I started recording this data yesterday. I’ve made a subsequent post on my blog about my set up. I plan to run the same route in the morning and at night during rush hour and record the results for a week. It should prove enlightening and give us some more concrete talking points.

The comment threads from each of your open letters seem to boil down to two questions: should bikes be treated as cars, or their own separate modes of transportation? And if the latter, does that justify breaking laws currently in place for bikes?

EW: I don’t think bikes should be treated like cars, but I’m not exactly sure what the different rules for bikes should be. I have a hard time imagining a world in which they don’t have to pass properly, signal, and stop, though. I do like the model of Idaho, which allows cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. I think that one is particularly useful, especially on back roads and routes less travelled.

That said, I don’t think anything justifies breaking what I’ve deemed the “important” rules. Because cycling is relatively undefined (while legally held to the same standard as driving), it actually makes things more dangerous. When a cyclist breaks a rule, other travellers may not be expecting it. This goes back to the idea of everyone knowing rules and using them to be able to anticipate the actions of others.

JK: Our roads are designed for motor vehicles. The law could simply ban non-motorized vehicles from the streets in the name of safety. Except for the odd law-breaker or group of demonstrators you’d probably see bicycle accidents plummet. We would be more safe and motorists could be less stressed out. However, we don’t live in fictional societies.

Yet the fact remains that our roads were designed for cars. So there is an element of risk for slow-moving vehicles such as bicycles. No matter where we take the discussion we cannot pretend that there will be a day when there are no cars on the road. Not in our lifetimes. So any solution is going to involve looking at it from the motorists perspective. They already have a good system of conventions for navigating the streets that is in common usage. It only makes sense for cyclists for now, to adopt those conventions. If there are better ones that increase everyone’s safety I don’t think anyone would disagree with them. I like to believe that there are very few motorists who actually want to mow down a cyclist. I think most of them are simply shocked when they nearly hit one. I’ve been in a car when a bike whips past on the right. It’s scary! Nobody wants to hurt anyone.

So could there be better laws? I don’t know. I think the ones we have are good. Most people who argue against them haven’t really offered any good alternatives, so I’m still waiting to hear good proposals.

The best proposal I can think of is to start incorporating bike lanes on the super-wide side-walks like they do in Paris. Separate traffic lights for bikes too. But the best place we can start right now is just by following the rules we do have before we go off and make our own.

Have or will any of your cycling habits change as a result of your #bikeTO exchange?

EW: I think I’m going to try to come up with a nicer, more constructive way of expressing my grievances. Shouting and self-righteous questioning probably aren’t the most ideal methods.

I’ve also noticed that I actually break a law quite frequently that I didn’t consider because I felt I broke it for my own safety: Crossing with pedestrians. I do this at busy intersections in which I’m afraid of turning left. Of what? Of angry drivers. There’s no easier way to piss off a motorist than simply being in the left-hand turning lane, even though that’s where we’re supposed to be. So more recently I’ve started doing all legal left turns to you know, not be a hypocrite. Or if I do cross with pedestrians, I get off and walk.

Blog photo by sfllaw via Flickr.