Very few of the runners, stroller-pushing parents, drunks
and others who wander into my path each day on the cycle lane up New York ’s Hudson River
Greenway strike me as especially brilliant people. If they were, they might
spot the signs telling them they’re not allowed on the path and stick to the
rather pleasant waterside walkway that’s been provided for them.
The runner on the left has, remarkably, chosen the footpath on the Hudson River Greenway. One can only hope she made the kind of solid risk assessment the Invisible Visible Man advocates |
But, disturbingly, the cycle lane obstructors (CLOs) seem to
be better at prioritising the risks facing pedestrians than the head of the New
York Police Department’s traffic squad. The CLOs have decided that, if they’re
going to obstruct traffic, it’s many, many times safer to get in cyclists’ way
than cars’. Having so far seen hundreds – possibly thousands – of CLOs in four
months’ cycling in New York ,
I’ve yet to see one choosing to take his or her chances running down the
fast-moving, multi-lane West Side Highway next to the cycle path.
Yet Brian McCarthy, a deputy chief of the NYPD with
responsibility for traffic policing, explained in October to WNYC, the public
radio station, why its ironically-named Operation Cycle Safe – the programme
that focuses police resources on fining cyclists, rather than the road users
that cause traffic deaths – was now mainly tackling riding on the sidewalk
(pavement, British readers). This behaviour, he reasoned, posed particular
dangers to pedestrians. But, while I can find no recent record of a cyclist’s
killing a pedestrian on a New York
City sidewalk, it is depressingly regular for
motorists to do so through excessive speed or lack of attention. The NYPD
barely ever prosecutes the motoring offences that lead to such deaths. Its
prioritisation is so skewed that, for it to be correct, I should probably be
spotting runners every morning taking their chances with speeding SUVs on the highway,
away from the terrifying bicycles.
The contrast between the CLOs and Deputy Chief McCarthy
illustrates something profound about the vagaries of human beings’ efforts to assess
risks. Most humans are reasonably adept at spotting and assessing the most
immediate dangers. It’s pretty clear even to a stupid, inconsiderate runner unconcerned
about inconveniencing others that it’s less foolish to take the chance of a
collision with a cyclist riding at 20mph than a motorist driving at 50mph (the
West Side Highway speed limit is 35mph – fun fact that most motorists entirely
ignore). Very few people, however, are good at assessing risks in an abstract
context such as a decision about how to allocate police resources. The NYPD, as
I pointed out in a previous post, hands out 5 per cent of its traffic violation
tickets to cyclists, way out of proportion to cyclists’ roughly 1 per cent
share of city traffic. But a cyclist last killed someone in New York City in March 2009 – and even that
incident wasn’t on the sidewalk. Around 1,000 people have died in the time
since at the hands of motor vehicles. A sober risk assessment aimed at bringing
down the number of deaths in the city would target an entirely different set of
behaviours.
The problem appears to be a widespread one. In the UK,
newspaper reporting about the crash that injured Bradley Wiggins – one of my great heroes – ended up producing the same, predictable commentary claiming
cyclists endanger pedestrians and, somehow, cars. That’s even though the Tour
de France winner’s accident involved his colliding with a car that seems to
have pulled out into his path from a filling station without looking. In other
words, people started complaining on the basis of the kind of accident that
happens quite a lot (one where a negligent motorist injures a cyclist) about
things that hardly ever happen – accidents where cyclists hurt other road
users.
The question is whether it’s possible to get better to get
better at understanding the risks the roads and other places pose - and to
start reacting to them more rationally.
A subway station closed for Hurricane Sandy. New York's subway turned out to be better at assessing risk than many New Yorkers. |
My mind’s been particularly drawn to risk assessment in the
last three weeks because of events in my new home city. At the end of the week
when superstorm Sandy hit New
York , I took a trip to Staten Island
to report on some of the damage there. Person after person told me they’d
ignored the evacuation order for the area on the grounds that a previous
hurricane last year – Hurricane Irene – had mostly turned out less damaging
than expected. As the sea swept in and inundated their street, they found
themselves cowering in their homes’ upper storeys, with waves lapping at the
windows even there. A person died in the basement of one of the houses in the
street I visited, electrocuted when he stepped into flood water that had
electric current flowing through it. The storm was on an entirely different
scale from Hurricane Irene.
That miscalculation, it seems to me, is of a piece with
people’s miscalculations about road use. In both situations, people rely far
too much on personal experience and the evidence of their own senses. In the
run-up to the storm, it was clear that the city was very windy but not
immediately obvious that the storm would cause historic levels of damage. To
realise that, one had to pay attention to something one couldn’t see – the vast
storm surge that forecasters were predicting that was preparing to push its way
into New York Bay to flood large tracts of the
city.
Many people assessing the risks of cycling, meanwhile, look
at cyclists in traffic and conclude that the slender, unprotected machines
among the big metal boxes are more vulnerable than most figures actually
suggest them to be. They see a cyclist on a sidewalk and assume that his
greater speed compared with the pedestrians makes him a significant risk to
them. It only adds, it seems to me, to people’s irritation with cyclists that
bikes are quiet and people tend to notice them only at the last minute. This
seems certain to trigger the kind of last-minute, fight-or-flight response that
must have been useful for vulnerable cavemen. It’s a far less reliable
indicator than people think of the risks around in a complex, modern urban
streetscape.
Most people have particular lacunae when it comes to rare
events that pose catastrophic risks. A hurricane is precisely such an event.
There are fine, hard-to-discern differences between a hurricane that will do little
damage – as Hurricane Irene did – kill scores of people and do billions of
dollars of damage – as superstorm Sandy
did – and one that will kill many hundreds – as Hurricane Katrina did. It is
far beyond a normal person’s gut instinct to discern which storms need special
attention, yet ordinary people continue to use their gut instincts to assess
how they should react.
The motorists are blocking the bike lane. The cyclist's too close to the cars. And they'll probably all get away with the risks they're taking. |
In a road context, the catastrophic events are crashes
involving cars, buses and trucks. It’s so common to see motorists driving while
‘phoning, speeding, giving cyclists too little room and so forth that it’s easy
to conclude that these behaviours are trivial and pose little risk. Many people
compare them with the alarming experience of finding a cycle messenger rush
past their nose on a pedestrian crossing and conclude that it’s the cyclist who
poses the real danger. The truth is that each time a motorist drives too fast,
drives while distracted or turns without looking for cyclists he or she is
involved in profoundly risky behaviour – and it’s only the luck of the
particular circumstances that divides the outcome from nothing at all and a
multiple-fatality crash.
People are still more blind to their actions’ long-term
consequences. Almost no-one sees a cyclist on a busy street and remembers that
he or she is far less likely to die of heart disease or diabetes in several
decades than the neighbouring motorist cursing him or her from the
exercise-free cocoon of his or her motor car. The global warming that may be
making hurricanes more frequent is a still more remote such risk.
None of this is to excuse stupid behaviour by cyclists. It’s
worth stopping for red lights, giving pedestrians plenty of space and going the
right way up one-way streets. It shows an example of good practice and avoids annoying one’s fellow citizens. I do my best to obey the rules.
But industries prone to catastrophic but rare risks –
the nuclear power industry, for example, or railways – tackle them by looking
for the near-misses and minor accidents that suggest people are indulging in
risky behaviour. Police forces that hold off warning motorists about dangerous
behaviour and minor accidents explicitly miss the chance to follow such a
policy.
I at least can do my part. I accept that runners will bound
into my path on the Hudson River Greenway and cycle at a speed and on a line
that means I should avoid them. I know that cars sometimes sweep across even
some lightly-used crossings on the route from angles that are hard to see. So I
stop for those red lights as other cyclists and runners speed past me, no doubt
thinking me an over-cautious worrier. I do my best to assess when I’ve done
something foolish and to avoid repeating the mistake. I can only hope that, as New York and other
cities start to grapple with a future made more complicated by extreme weather,
far more of those around me start to give the matter the same consideration
too.