Bicycling is more and more becoming an accepted form of transportation in cities the world over. Nonetheless, with the mainstreaming of bicycling has come the call for rules of the road, setting up a clash between rival camps of bicyclists.
On one side are the bicycle-as-vehicle proponents who argue that in order for bicycling to become fully accepted bicycles have to be treated as vehicles and bicyclists need to conduct themselves as motorists are expected to, following all guidelines of the road. On the other side are those who still think in the original roots of bicycling as a carefree mode of transport that was informal and unregulated. These "bicycle originalists" believe that one merely hops on a bike and pedals - even if on the sidewalk, against traffic, and without a helmet.
The bicycle-as-vehicle crowd argues for rules, even in a park. It's a veritable cultural war within the bicycling community, and has been for ages. This is an interesting, and even amusing, situation, when one considers how uniform motorists are compared to cyclists who, true to form, are as free-thinking as their free-ranging ways may suggest.
But a bicycle isn't a "vehicle," unless one defines "vehicle" as being synonymous with "means" - in which case our feet are vehicles, or means, too. A bicycle nearly by no means kills, whereas auto accidents give rise to multiple industries. It's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that the mainstreaming of bicycling ought to attract literalists, literal-minded souls and soulless minds which are blind towards the spirit of things and can only perceive, robot-like, according to rigid rules which can by no means fully encompass all the situations that arise in life - real life, as really lived...and ridden.
A bicyclist is nothing more than an "extended pedestrian." A bicyclist is nothing more than an empowered pedestrian - a pedal-powered pedestrian. While essential precautions should be taken, precautions unique for the act of bicycling, in no circumstance does bicycling ever even begin to approach all which is involved with operating a car.
On one side are the bicycle-as-vehicle proponents who argue that in order for bicycling to become fully accepted bicycles have to be treated as vehicles and bicyclists need to conduct themselves as motorists are expected to, following all guidelines of the road. On the other side are those who still think in the original roots of bicycling as a carefree mode of transport that was informal and unregulated. These "bicycle originalists" believe that one merely hops on a bike and pedals - even if on the sidewalk, against traffic, and without a helmet.
The bicycle-as-vehicle crowd argues for rules, even in a park. It's a veritable cultural war within the bicycling community, and has been for ages. This is an interesting, and even amusing, situation, when one considers how uniform motorists are compared to cyclists who, true to form, are as free-thinking as their free-ranging ways may suggest.
But a bicycle isn't a "vehicle," unless one defines "vehicle" as being synonymous with "means" - in which case our feet are vehicles, or means, too. A bicycle nearly by no means kills, whereas auto accidents give rise to multiple industries. It's unfortunate but perhaps inevitable that the mainstreaming of bicycling ought to attract literalists, literal-minded souls and soulless minds which are blind towards the spirit of things and can only perceive, robot-like, according to rigid rules which can by no means fully encompass all the situations that arise in life - real life, as really lived...and ridden.
A bicyclist is nothing more than an "extended pedestrian." A bicyclist is nothing more than an empowered pedestrian - a pedal-powered pedestrian. While essential precautions should be taken, precautions unique for the act of bicycling, in no circumstance does bicycling ever even begin to approach all which is involved with operating a car.
No comments:
Post a Comment