Mobility and advocacy agencies must be aware of differences not only among different mode users but within their constituencies, and be prepared to tailor their message accordingly.This past summer, a Roanoke, Va., circuit court awarded a cyclist $300,000 for injuries she had received as the result of a collision.
After an article in the August 5 edition of The Roanoke Times detailed the specifics of the accident, many in the community were up in arms over the decision, particularly the charge of negligence the verdict leveled against the other party. Those voices held that it was really the cyclist who had been acting irresponsibly, and the verdict was unfair.
This case and resulting debate highlights an ongoing challenge for transportation advocates – one rooted in considerations of the needs of all road and trail users.
Before you jump to conclusions, you should know that the only vehicle involved in the accident was the bicycle. The cyclist was riding on the Roanoke Valley’s expansive off-road trail, the Roanoke River Greenway, and the negligence charge was leveled against a jogger who allegedly turned suddenly in front of the bicyclist as she attempted to pass. The cyclist crashed and suffered a number of injuries requiring expensive care. She sued the jogger, for medical expenses and lost wages, and won.
Debates about responsibility instantly played out over social media and the comments section of the original article and a follow-up column from the Times’ Dan Casey, himself a cyclist and frequent champion of cyclists. And while it’s easy to armchair quarterback the court’s decision, the general public isn’t in a position to understand the specifics of the case sufficiently to comment.
The validity of the judgment aside, the incident and the public conversation it started has interesting implications for the promotion of cycling as a transportation option. Specifically, it highlights the need to be very careful how transportation agencies and other advocacy groups talk about cycling and target their messages.
In the same way we try to avoid segregating people into “cyclists” and “drivers,” opting instead for formulations like “people who cycle” and “people who drive,” it’s important to acknowledge that cyclists themselves are not a single coherent bloc. Within that group, there are many different needs and expectations. Sometimes, these expectations are at odds with each other.
In the ensuing public discussion in Roanoke, two things became obvious:
- There was a growing perception of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on the region’s greenway network.
- Trail users, regardless of how they used it, expected radically different accommodations in how other users should treat the greenway
By way of background: the Roanoke Valley’s greenway network is a series of mostly-paved off-road trails. The spine of the network is the Roanoke River Greenway, which follows the Roanoke River that bisects the valley in two. Other greenway sections either connect to that spine or run independently across the valley. As a system, it is classified as a linear park – indeed, many sections of the greenway connect with or pass directly through picnic areas, playgrounds, and sports fields. The Roanoke River Greenway is the longest section by far, closing in on 26 contiguous miles that run through the valley’s urban and village centers and connect them to its more rural borders. As such, the greenway is highly used by three primary groups:
- Casual cyclists and pedestrians who may be hopping on it from their neighborhoods (in some cases, the greenway runs, literally, through people’s backyards)
- Commuters who use it to connect from their neighborhoods to workplaces, particularly downtown Roanoke and the area’s main medical facility, Carilion Clinic, and
- Performance cyclists who ride the entire contiguous length of the greenway, using it to bypass congested or dangerous on-road routes, as well as to connect to the winding rural rides at either end.
In commenting on the case, greenway users tended to fall into two camps: pedestrians and other slower users complaining about the speed of cyclists and the lack of signaling or notification when passing, and performance cyclists complaining about unpredictable pedestrians and joggers, many of whom often wear earbuds or walk several abreast, making it difficult to signal and navigate around them.
While each side certainly has valid concerns, what became most disturbing to me was how quickly the language of people on bicycles, in complaining about pedestrians, began to mirror the language of people behind the wheel complaining about cyclists.
Pedestrians were often described as an annoyance who slowed the cyclists down. Some cyclists complained about having to signal each time they passed a cyclist. A follow-up letter to the editor in the Times called for the greenway to be striped like a road so that each person knew to stay on “their side.” Commenters leveled complaints at walkers who moved too slowly and took up space by walking abreast and chatting, at parents pushing strollers, at dog-walkers with pups on extra-long leashes.
In short, the complaints of many cyclists were that other, slower greenway users got in their way and slowed them down. They felt as if any behavior that forced them to reduce speed needed to be regulated, and that the proper use of the greenway was for fast-moving cyclists to ride unimpeded on their trips.
To the extent that it could be determined, this kind of complaint was made almost solely by performance cyclists. Those who cycled primarily for transportation either didn’t have a large presence in the discussion, or tended to agree with the pedestrians.
The intention here isn’t to call out a segment of the cycling community; but rather, to highlight how two different subgroups within one of our cycling constituencies have very different and equally valid needs and expectations from their infrastructure. In this case, performance cyclists – to the extent we can define them as a single bloc – are looking for a cycling experience that tests their physical endurance and the performance of their machines. They are looking for the thrill of speed, of distance traveled, of effort expended.
Practical cyclists, on the other hand, are looking to get from A to B. They are looking for comfort and safety. In fact, they are probably riding in a way to reduce effort expended – who wants to get to work sweaty? They ride as if maneuvering in traffic – at a slow enough pace that keeps them prepared for the unexpected. Since they are less concerned with speed and performance, they are likely less annoyed at having to slow, signal, and move around other trail users. Many are simply trying to reach their destination.
And while there is overlap in the groups, the former rider is generally going to be frustrated with infrastructure with lots of different users moving at different rates of speeds and taking up inconsistent space on the path, and the latter is not going to have a problem navigating through pedestrians and others.
What this presents to transportation programs is a communications conundrum.
In Roanoke, we have invested incredible amounts of time and not a small amount of money into fostering a cycling culture, and what we are seeing now is that simply encouraging cycling is not enough, as not everyone wants the same thing out of cycling.
Promoting cycling means acknowledging the differing needs and concerns of all infrastructure users and working to support the safest and most equitable solutions. It also means wading into often uncomfortable conversations with our existing constituencies, entering into debates with people who might seem to be our natural allies.
As the conversation in Roanoke has shown, the need to educate does not discriminate based on the vehicle – both people on bicycles and people in cars can be equally hostile to the goals of increasing the option of bicycling for transportation, for everyone.
Photos: Top, a cyclist rides on the Roanoke River Greenway (Cheesedunx, Flickr, Creative Commons). Bottom, a path in the University of Manchester (BinaryApe, Flickr, Creative Commons).