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.