diegob@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (11/12/84)
After reading the on-going dialogs of bikies for and against:
o All-terrain riding in preserves and wilderness areas,
o Cyclist's need to heed traffic-control signals,
I must say that there seem to be two (at least) widely divergent opin-
ions as to what bicycling is all about.
In the school I'm from, we were taught (and feel that we believe)
that bicycles are to give the rider 1) transportation,, and 2) pleas-
ure. Nothing in that school's lessons ever indicated that either of
the above objectives could be placed above the lessons from the School
of Life run by the Human Socialization Cooperative. Instructions from
the latter institute dictate that all personal pursuits must be con-
ducted with due regard for the rights, liberties, and safety of others
who may be affected by our actions. Thus, in conducting ourselves on
our single- or multi-speed pedal-powered conveyances of all types we
should probably be cognizant of the other life forms (pedestrians,
motorists, beasts, and vegetation) existing between points A and B.
My personal rule of thumb has been to keep my riding to paved or
surfaced areas. I think most of us visit the mountains or the shore
to re-identify our place within a natural world which the trappings of
our civilization often hides from us. I also think that in these
environs, we assume more contemplative attitudes. The intrusion of
mechanized equipment (trail bikes, off-road vehicles, tourist busses,
overhead jet aircraft or helicopters) into this space is disturbing.
It seems only marginally less so for the all-terrains. If I had taken
to the trails of a state or national park to enjoy the quiet solitude
of nature, I think I would feel somewhat threatened and violated by
the presence of mechanized equipment on or off the trail. I remember
someone pointing to some tracks on the desert pan below Julian, Cali-
fornia and saying how many years would pass before nature could eradi-
cate the scar left by a careless "dirt-biker." It just isn't the same
afterwards, and the romance movies depict stemming from such deeds
indicates a sickness in Hollywood's idea of "communing with nature."
My experience riding a bicycle in traffic (by which I mean on road-
ways according to the prevailing vehicle code) dates back to 1959.
Any of you who have driven or ridden in Massachusetts are well aware
of the general attitude toward adherence to the rules of the road. I
count myself among the few motorists or bicyclists who does, in fact,
obey the rules. This includes observance of the traffic signs, pedes-
trian walkways, and signal lights. I credit my close observance of
the laws and common sense with an accident-free record and long equip-
ment life. Long ago I realized that by traveling the wrong way on
one-way streets, "blowing off" stop signs and traffic lights, and cut-
ting across parking lots and service stations at corners I _c_o_u_l_d
"save" time in bicycle travel. However, considering the small amount
of time to be saved and the greatly increased risk of accidents, I
simply have never been able to justify this type of riding. (Anyone
who advocates such practices should find no reason why motorcycles
should not also follow suit. And why not cars and trucks as well?)
For those of us living cyclists in Mass. who are fully aware of the
growing number of motorists who are running amber (and now almost as
commonly, red) traffic lights, the idea of doing the same -- under any
circumstance -- should cause the hair on our necks to stand. It
doesn't for some; every morning I see riders stake their lives on the
alertness, good will, and reflexes of the Boston morning rush hour
drivers. I wouldn't!
I guess I practice and advocate caring and self-protective use of
bicycles. It doesn't make much sense to me to have good equipment and
strong legs and an enjoyment of cycling and then to disregard sane use
of these. As we've been telling the nuclear power developers: "Just
because you have the capability, doesn't mean that it's safe or good."
Many of the damages we have done to our natural environs we won't see
for another several years hence. The poor example intersection
runners give to our youth (who already are quite confused as to which
side of the road they should ride) little incentive to learn correct
cycling techniques. As knowledgeable riders, shouldn't we consider
what we are doing. Is it really such a hassle to downshift and brake
that we cannot observe the rules we _e_x_p_e_c_t motorists to follow? Is it
necessary to ride through the parks that others find perfectly suit-
able for walking? I don't think so, and I find all the rationalizing
just a bit too self-centered for my taste.
Thanks for your patience with my diatribe. I hope that perhaps a
few of our net readers might pause to consider what their acts and
words are really advocating.
Diego@CCA