Bicycle Law Enforcement Proposal
Wheel Life column - 21 August, 1999
by Todd Litman and Suzanne Kort - Victoria Transport Policy Institute

There is an easy solution to almost any problem. Simply divide everybody into "us" and "them", and force "them" to solve the problem. Of course, this is usually unfair and creates more conflict, but it sure is easy.

Last Monday's column by Catherine Ford, ("Air-headed cyclists are giving all two-wheelers a bad name," Times Colonist, 16 August, p. A8) is a good example. She argues that since some cyclists misbehave, all of us should be "cleared from the main streets maintained for the use and convenience of cars and public transit."

First we'll describe why Ford is wrong, and then we'll propose a more constructive solution to the problems she identifies.

Ford wants to divide everybody into either cyclist or motorist. Each side can then claim to be victims and blame the other group for their problems, like bickering kids or combatants in some miserable, war-torn part of the world.

It's tempting. Ford lists common traffic infractions by cyclists to justify banning us from main roads, but we could beat her - set, game, and match - with a litany of common motorists' offenses.

Bicyclists constantly risk being hit by motorists who fail to yield when required or suddenly open a door when parked on the street. These drivers inevitably blame the cyclist, claiming, "He just appeared out of nowhere," as if we are simply a cruel conjurer's trick intended to harm drivers by shedding blood on their vehicles.

It's cruel to claim that cyclists cause excessive risk to motorists. Several cyclists have been disabled or killed in our community due to motorist error, but we can't recall hearing of a single motorist being injured when a cyclist hit their car.

We could also point out that the road system does not exist simply for motor vehicles. Local roads are public facilities funded by property taxes paid by both motorists and cyclists. Since cyclists impose less pavement wear, require less road space, and travel fewer kilometres per year than motorists, we tend to pay more than our fair share of road costs. Rather than banning cyclists for the convenience of motorists, we could just as well demand that cars be banned for the safety and comfort of cyclists and pedestrians.

But we won't play that game. Let's recognize that many people both cycle and drive. The line dividing "us" and "them" is a blur. Both motorists and cyclists can be either cautious or careless. A driver or cyclist may be lawful one moment and lawbreaking the next.

The question is not whether cyclists are better or worse than drivers. The point is simply that everyone benefits if vehicle operators are predictable and cautious. Achieving this requires effective enforcement of cyclists' rights and responsibilities. We believe that bicyclists and motorists must both be cited if they violate traffic laws, although drivers should have larger punishments drivers due to the greater risk they impose on others.

There are practical problems that must be overcome if bicycle traffic laws are to be adequately enforced. One barrier is that police cannot cite a child less than 12 years old. They seldom cite cyclists of any age because many people consider the fines ($75 or more, the same amount for drivers) to be excessive. Another problem is that some cyclists simply ignore traffic tickets that they receive.

We have a specific proposal for improving bicycle traffic law enforcement. We suggest that police departments sponsor regular, 2-hour bicycle safety classes that bicycle traffic law violators can attend instead of paying a fine. Police would send a letter to the parents of a child caught breaking traffic laws which describes the violation and asks the parent to bring their child to the bicycle safety class.

Adult bicycle law violators would get a citation that is waived for their first offense if they take the class. If they fail to attend within three months, the citation is processed. In addition, a system is needed to prosecute cyclists who fail to pay their traffic fines.

Such programs are quite popular where they exist because they emphasize safety rather than punishment, and create an opportunity for positive interaction between police and cyclists. Many parents bring law-abiding children to the class for traffic safety education.

This approach allows traffic officers to cite cyclists without fear of a negative public backlash, leading to increased enforcement and more responsible cycling. Criminologists find that the chance of getting caught has a much greater deterrent effect than the magnitude of the punishment. If we want cyclists to obey traffic laws, police must write more citations, with a modest punishment that escalates with each offense.

This program is particularly important for helping young people develop traffic safety habits. Society currently allows children and teenagers to flaunt traffic laws when bicycling, but expects them to suddenly change their attitude when they begin driving. It's little wonder that teenage motorists have a relatively high crash rate.

The city of Victoria's Bicycle Advisory Committee was developing a bicycle traffic law enforcement program just before it was disbanded three years ago by City Council in the name of "cost savings." This shows that local officials don't take bicycling seriously.

If you want safer and more responsible cycling in our community, raise these issues in the coming municipal election. Ask candidates if they support a bicycle advisory committee, bicycle facility improvements, and a bicycle law enforcement program. It's not a matter of "us" or "them". Everybody benefits from safe and responsible bicycling.