When I first moved to Amsterdam, I was told in order to cycle like an Amsterdammer I would
need to pass several tests.
Number 1. Cycle home drunk
Number 2. Send a text message while cycling home drunk
And if I was feeling truly ambitious
Number 3. Cycle home drunk
at night without working lights in a rainstorm on the wrong side of the street
with a passenger sitting on the back.
Of course, cycling in these conditions increases your chances of injury,
and most of what I listed is technically illegal, but few police actually enforce traffic laws
for cyclists. Disobedience of traffic systems seems incredibly
commonplace. As a result, public opinion on this topic
is divided, some appreciating the current relaxed legal
structure, while others feeling the rules of the road
should be enforced to the same degree for each road users,
be it cyclists, motorists or scooter driver.
There was a popular study performed by the University of Groningen
that received a lot of attention in the media. 7510 cyclists were given breathalyzer tests
between 1 and 3am in the streets of Groningen and The Hague.
Of those tested, 89% had been drinking and 68% were above the legal limit.
There are no statistics for Amsterdam, but traffic experts estimate the numbers would
be similar here in the country’s capital. Newspapers latched onto this story
and it fanned the flames of debate.
But besides biking home after a couple of beers,
it is also common for cyclists to travel by night
without working lights, cycle on sidewalks,
fail to stop at pedestrian crosswalks and blast through red lights at intersections
… the list of common infractions is quite long.
There are fines to discourage this rolling rebelliousness,
yet the threat of penalty does little to curb this behavior.
To a visitor in the city, it’s easy to think that Amsterdam
is a lawless wild west of cycling, but maybe there is a method to all this madness.
The term used in active transportation circles for cyclist disobedience is
non-conformist behavior. This behavior was first studied
in Amsterdam by the Urban Cycling Institute at 9 different points in the city.
A system developed by the team at Copenhagenize called the Desire Line Analysis tool,
recorded the movement of more than 18000 cyclists during the morning rush hour.
Of these cyclists, the vast majority obeyed the rules of the road.
In fact, less than 5 percent of all cyclists impeded vehicle movement.
These studies were also important because they highlighted how swarms of bicycles
during peak hours exceed the physical space designated for cyclists.
During rush hours, bicycles are bottlenecked by roads, kerbs,
crosswalks, traffic lights and other physical barriers,
and cyclists need to navigate a complicated maze
of obstacles and traffic in order to cross busy intersections.
Taking shortcuts, using sidewalks or zipping across on red lights
is often the most rational decision a cyclist can make during these peak times.
Disobedience of traffic rules is inevitable, and in some ways justifiable,
for bottlenecked cyclists, especially if the laws
or built environment were not designed to match their needs.
Studies are underway to collect data for a greater swath of Amsterdam in order to understand
cyclist behavior across the city, but for now, the debate continues, and unfortunately
the narrative often paints all cyclists as rule-breaking rogues.
In another way, cyclist disobedience illustrates the high status that
bicycles have on Dutch roadways. Just consider accidents involving vehicles
and cyclists. In the vast majority of cases
the motorist is liable. Full stop.
While it is theoretically possible for a motorist to argue
that the cyclist was at fault, this is a difficult case to make.
Even if an accident occurs when a cyclist runs a red light,
the motorist cannot argue that the cyclist’s behavior was
“unexpected and unavoidable.” After all, non-conformity among cyclists is
norma l in the Netherlands,
and a driver has to be prepared for the erratic behavior of cyclists at all
times. Judgment between these two modes of transport
differ because vehicles can and do take lives during
accidents, while bicycles rarely, if ever do.
Dutch traffic laws for cyclists exist in that grey area similar to the country’s
drug policies. Despite the international fame that the Netherlands
has for coffeeshops and marijuana paraphernalia,
most would be surprised to know that cannabis is still a controlled substance.
The Dutch law enforcement policy is actually one of non-enforcement.
And it works because it encourages police to focus on bigger criminal issues
rather than making small busts for soft drugs. And the tax revenue from marijuana sales offset
the potential public health risks associated with soft drug use.
There are many international cities where strict laws are enforced on cyclists,
laws such as mandatory helmet laws. While these policies are rooted in concerns
for public safety, they also discourage many from taking their
bikes to work, school or for a night out.
And ultimately, a system of punishment decreases the likelihood of
fostering a strong cycling culture. Thereby losing the social and economic benefits
gained from fostering an active cyclist culture. While countless cities are discussing ways
to promote cycling in society. all too often, the discussion hinges solely
on bicycle infrastructure. But a cycling culture is created from
morethanbikelanes. It is a complicated balance between
infrastructure, policy, and laws enforcement (or lack thereof).
The question I keep asking is whether or not cycling disobedience
can be indicative of a successful active transportation system.
If cyclists feel safe enough to ride through red lights without concern
for injury and fine maybe the system is working perfectly.
I don’t have an answer to this. But I do have a bicycle without working lights
and some friends to meet for some beers.
Problem?
In Amsterdam, I think not.