Do we ride our bicycles or drive them? And does the choice of words we use matter?
As a scholar of rhetoric I can assure you of one thing: The language we use always matters. How it matters is the thing we have to figure out.
In the comments section of my latest posting from the draft cycling booklet we have a mini debate about drive versus ride. Keri, of Commute Orlando, thinks “drive” is the proper verb for what we do in traffic. She points to the following video (circa 1954) as an example of its long use.
The booklet must use consistent language. Right now the draft is not consistent in a number of wordings, e.g. cyclist, bicyclist, bicycle, bike.
Here’s what Randy of Kansas Cyclist, asked about “drive”: “I’ve always disliked the use of the term “drive” when referring to operating a bicycle … is that really the correct word?”
I agreed with Randy’s dislike. I find “drive” aesthetically ugly. But that doesn’t mean it is incorrect, i.e. (as I understand it) corresponding to what it is we do or should do with a bicycle.
Keri’s first response is persuasive to me because she makes a case for “drive” as a means of persuasion:
I believe using the terms “drive” and “bicycle driver” is an important part of changing the cultural perspective toward bicycles. Bicycles are vehicles (not toys), their operators are drivers with the same rights and responsibilities of other vehicle drivers.
I agree with her in the sense that “drive” seems to indicate what it is we do or should do with a bicycle in the car-centric American cultural context. But I wonder if the word has this intended effect on beginners. I do not know. I wonder because “drive” appears to me to be of the cycling world and not of the non-cycling world (in regard to cycling). This is surely the rhetorician in me over-thinking it 
Despite my aversion to the word for aesthetic reasons, I’m persuaded that it is the correct term. But I’m also thinking I should write a short paragraph for the booklet explaining why “drive” rather than “ride.”
UPDATE: David Hembrow’s response in the comments is particularly interesting. Note that I’ve now added a cultural reference in the penultimate paragraph. I do not assume this challenges the issues he raises.
Comments 49
Although I prefer to use “ride” for bicycles and “drive” for cars, it really makes more sense the other way. Drive means to power and propel, which we do using our legs on a bike, and ride has more of a passive meaning, which applies more to cars, where we are really just steering and pressing a pedal with minimal effort. But the common usage might make for easier reading (less distracting).
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 9:46 am ¶As you’re writing something for non-cyclists, a non-specialist audience, and it’s supposed to be persuading them that this is something easy to do, I’d stick with the more common usage, i.e. ‘ride’. At the moment you’re aiming to change behaviour, changing the language can come later.
But maybe that’s more of a UK perspective … sorry for butting in! I just found it an interesting question
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 10:52 am ¶whoa!!!
That was “randy” who said they dislike “drive.”
I actually like that term for reasons I described in the other comment section.
Have you ever watched, “cyclist eye view?”
He uses the term “drive” and then points out that he uses that term because we will drive our bikes like we drive our cars.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 11:08 am ¶Adopting the motoring term to me sounds like a sense of inferiority vs. motoring. No need for that at all.
There appears to be an idea that the word “ride” somehow implies that a bicycle is a toy. Does that same apply if you ride a horse ? Let’s use the correct verb.
Horses are both driven and ridden. When “driven” they’re pulling a carriage which you sit on. When “ridden”, you sit on the horse. Unless we’re going to start sitting on carriages behind our bicycles, I suggest that ridden remains the correct verb to use.
Or, are we to see sailors start to refer to “driving” ships and pilots refer to “driving” aeroplanes, both also due to a
If I wanted to “drive” I’d use a car, or perhaps get some sheep.
It’s drivers (of cars, not sheep or carriages) who have a problem, not those of us who ride bicycles.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶Robert… Oooops. My bad. I’ll correct the error.
disgruntled… I’m always happy for the input!
David… What you’re pointing out plays into why I find drive an “ugly” term for what we do on a bicycle. I’m leaning toward it now, however, because it may be that Keri is right in terms of our car-centric culture and cycling’s place in it. But, in any case, I’m going to have the committee discuss this before a final decision is made.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 1:49 pm ¶In Germany it’s ‘drive’ (‘Fahren’) for bikes, horses, cars or trains, even as a passenger. I think it’s a good thing because all road users are equal (most of the time).
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 2:16 pm ¶David, this really is a cultural thing. The American attitude toward bicycling and bicyclists is a hurdle you don’t have to overcome where you live. Whether you use a road or a well-constructed facility, you benefit from a culture which respects the bicycle as a transportation vehicle.
We suffer a disrespect for both the vehicular characteristics and the operational needs of bicycles and their drivers in every aspect of bicycling from engineering to acceptance on the road.
I believe if we brought people into bicycling with more respect for themselves as drivers, they wouldn’t tolerate the half-assed crap that’s built simply to get them out of the way… that would result in better-quality infrastructure.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 2:49 pm ¶Andy,
I think writing a paragraph to explain the word use is an excellent idea! It might shine light on an issue the average person has never considered.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶Andy Cline: Sorry about the incomplete sentence. I was trying to point out that there is no inferiority implied when sailors and pilots do not refer to “driving” their vehicles, and nor should there be.
So long as cyclists in English speaking countries consider themselves to be an inferior minority vs. a majority who drive cars they are likely to remain such. That’s why I don’t like this nod to car dominance being written into cycling documentation. Is there nothing more for cyclists to aspire to than to be thought of as slower and more vulnerable drivers ? If so, then forget the idea of encouraging people to cycle. Cyclists deserve better than that, and they get it too in places like this where cycle routes are more direct and convenient than driving routes.
It also simply bugs me to see my language abused in this way. These words have well defined meanings. Why change them ? Who should be next to jump on the “driving” bandwagon ? Pedestrians ? Or does it only apply to pedestrians pushing a pram ? (perhaps closer to the true meaning of the verb “to drive” than anything involving riding a bicycle can ever be).
Andy in Germany: In Dutch the verb “rijden” (i.e. “ride”. IJ is pronounced much as the word “eye” in English) is used for both cars and bikes. Luckily they already have decent and ever improving conditions for bikes, so this doesn’t create confusion. However, I’d say this is an instance of where Dutch lacks a subtlety that we have in English. There is a difference between riding and driving (and it is not that one is inferior to the other). “Varen” (the same word as “Fahren” in German) refers to sailing.
The differences between languages don’t go all in one direction, of course. English doesn’t have different words for older or younger sister, nor does it have different words for male and female neighbours or two completely different words with completely different roots for bicycle (“fiets” and “rijwiel”). What’s more, the concept of gezelligheid is sadly completely lacking from the English language. That is especially a shame as it can also be used to describe pleasant cycling adventures.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:08 pm ¶Keri: I missed your reply while I was typing mine.
I have seen and and for most of my life lived in very much the same culture in the UK as you have in the US: 1% of journeys by bike & and no respect for cyclists. This is no reason for cyclists to wish to be considered to be drivers. That’s actually what causes the problem in the first place.
The roads are also “half-assed crap” for cyclists. They’re not designed with any thought for the safety and convenience of cyclists, but instead to cater for and to control the excesses of drivers of automobiles.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:16 pm ¶Let’s play out the hypothetical. Let’s say the term “driving” and “driver” becomes the accepted terminology for bicycle usage.
Should a cyclist now be required to be licensed?
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶Bike Jax,
I do not think so.
I see nothing but positives can come from saying “driving a bicycle.”
David,
People do not operate airplanes and ships the way they do bicycles in the United States. The respect that pilots and sailors has for their craft and for themselves is much too high for that.
Here most bicyclist behave like rats. They scurry about trying desperately not to be seen and certainly do not want to get into anyones way. They jump from the sidewalk onto the street and back onto the sidewalk. They ride at night without lights and they ride down the wrong side of the street.
Motorists who do not know any better think those bicyclists are being scofflaws or being arrogant. I think most of them are just feeling insecure. They think if they get in the lane someone will run them over and so they never really feel comfortable anywhere that they are. That explains why they ride in so many different places….sidewalk, road, sidewalk, road etc.
Many bicyclist blow stop signs because they are afraid of having an automobile close behind them.
Insecurity can make you do foolish things. The University of Missouri Police Department refuses to enforce traffic law for bicyclists because they say that people already do not consider them to be “real” police officers and pulling over a bicycle would just reinforce that.
The City of Columbia Police Department must have higher self esteem because they participated in some training and went from pulling over 0 bicyclists to per month to pulling over 100 the month after training.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶Bike Jax,
Motor vehicle drivers are tested and licensed because they operate a heavy machine at speeds that can cause severe property damage, injury and death to others.
The right to travel on the public way is entirely separate from the privilege of operating a motor vehicle. That right vs privilege is not defined by the act of “driving” but by the characteristics of the vehicle being driven.
And Robert,
Right on, man! The safety/lack-there-of in bicycling is so totally tied to self-respect!
You mentioned Dan & Brian’s videos in an earlier comment, I think those are brilliant for demonstrating how safe and easy bicycling is (even on high-speed roads) when the cyclist acts like a driver.
Here’s a beautifully-written essay from Adventure Cyclist magazine about how this simple adjustment in thinking makes a world of difference in a cyclist’s experience.
I wrote a piece about it here, as well.
There is a disturbing trend in bike advocacy to try and coddle and enable in an effort to convince more people to ride bikes. I fear this strategy will have long-term consequences for bicycling. We will never connect every person to every destination using separate facilities, cyclists will always have to rely on the roads. We must educate and empower them for their safety and long-term enjoyment of bicycling.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 4:44 pm ¶Keri,
How true. Have you ever been to Portland?
I was there in August and was really disturbed at their bicycle lane design. I never saw a single bicyclist leave the bike lane at an intersection and they are all striped all the way to the stop bar.
They did that because they do not think that a bicyclist can learn the skills necessary to merge with traffic at intersections in order to avoid the right hook. When I asked Mia Burke, previous bike/ped coordinator, about it she became angry….she was no doubt sensitive to the fact that two bicyclists in two weeks died thanks to their ridiculous design. Their answer, the bike box, does nothing to reduce this danger when the light is green. She could not explain to me how it would help but she could criticize LAB principals and tell me that “no one” can learn how to “take the lane.” I did not respond but I have yet to have a single student fail to learn how to do those things after training.
Lets hope that folks like Andy understand this danger and stop it from happening in Springfield. He has the advantage because as far as I know they do not have any/many miles of bike lanes currently. He is starting with a clean slate.
In Columbia all of our bike lanes end 200′ before the intersection and we typically have a sharrow in the middle of the lane between the end of the bike lane and the stop bar.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 9:17 pm ¶Robert,
Yes, I’ve been to Portland a dozen or so times, but it’s been 4 or 5 years since the last time.
Bicyclists don’t leave the bike lanes because there is a law keeping them there. The law also requires cars to turn at the intersection and not merge into the bike lane ahead of time. Motorists are also required to yield to any cyclists that might be overtaking them on the right in their blind spots. It’s absurd. And if you hang around forums and comments sections you’ll see people whining about all the times they’ve been right-hooked (hit or almost hit).
I followed the aftermath of the 2 fatalities you mentioned with interest and horror. Those occurred as I was really delving into bike advocacy and studying all the various points of view. Both fatalities were a perfect storm of bad facility design, bad law and lack of education. The advocacy response in the aftermath was the most disturbing thing I’d ever witnessed. No one wanted to look at the core of the problem. They wanted to solve the problem as if their bike lane design and stupid law is God’s chosen way for bicycling. As a result, all the solutions are only going to create more problems. It’s an endless spiral of unintended consequences… where 19-year-old college students die.
It’s because, as you said, they believe bicyclists can’t or won’t learn to merge.
I really like the idea of terminating bike lanes 200′ before intersections and using sharrows to encourage a merge. I’m not a fan of bike lanes, but if you’re gonna have them THAT is how to do it right! If you have photos or satellite views of this treatment, I’d love to see it!
And yeah, anyone can learn to merge. There is no need to dumb down bicycling. People don’t ride properly because they’ve been warped by a car-centric culture, not because they’re incapable of learning. They don’t value bicycle education because the power-structure of bike advocacy is not out there promoting it as something to value!
The motorcycle industry uses education to build confidence. They sell motorcycles that way. The public values motorcycle education because it’s been promoted as something to value. The bicycle industry and cycling advocates could do the same.
A year and a half ago, I was told by defeatist bike advocates that adults won’t take bike ed. Three months later, I filled a Road I class with 20 adults. I did it with a single post on a club message board. That class had a waiting list and there have been 5 more since. Right now we have pent up demand for more classes and are trying to set up a partnership with an organization that can handle the administrative end.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 10:35 pm ¶Keri,
It sounds like we think exactly the same.
We taught Road 1 to 125 people last year. This year I am really hoping for closer to 300.
We call the course, “confident city cycling” which may or may not be a good name for it. Most of our students are women who I think really respond to that name. Typically when I talk to a man about the course they respond that they are already confident even if they are completely incompentent.
Regardless we do a follow up survey for our classes. The most important question asks, “if your amount of cycling has increased, what percentage of your automobile trips have you replaced with bicycling trips?”
The average answer is right at 25%. It actually used to be higher but we had a large targeted class for the health department and some of those workers have long driving commutes and live out of town etc.
Regardless, I’m convinced that bicycle education is the key to getting people to drive less and bike more.
Back to Portland – I agree that it is madness. I would never live in Portland because of it. They do have a high mode share there which they use as justification that anything that they do is the best way to do it. Its hard to argue with that.
Mia Burke told me that the california law which you described earlier was anti bike because it allowed motorists to cut off bicyclists the bike lane. Seems to me that mandating that bicyclists stay to the right all of the time regardless of the danger is much more anti bike.
I really like the california law but I like our model in Columbia better. It will be interesting to see what kind of mode share numbers we get here in another 1.5 years.
Posted 14 Feb 2009 at 11:46 pm ¶Some of you people live in a very topsy-turvey world. Just think about it. You’re happy to see more cyclists pulled over by the police (have you ever seen a motoring organisation happy to see more motorists pulled over ?). You describe other cyclists as behaving like rats. You talk of “never” when there already exist examples of whole countries where universal decent conditions for cyclists have already been achieved.
The insecurity is all yours. The feeling of inadequacy as a cyclist is all yours. Treating cyclists merely as wannabe drivers is no way of encouraging cycling. Creating good conditions for cycling is absolutely not “dumbing down” cycling. Quite the reverse, in fact. What you’re asking for is for cyclists to be merely dumbed down drivers. For quite a few decades this has been the approach taken in all the English language countries. How attractive is it as a proposition ? Are people desperate to cycle in such conditions ? Just take a look at your modal shares and you will see the answer. Those countries where cyclists have this low status also have the lowest rates of cycling in the world, and high injury and death rates too.
And now the final indignity is that you want to start calling cyclists “drivers”. No motorist is going to think any more of cyclists for this. A two wheel bicycle will still be considered to be inferior to an 18 wheeler, to an SUV, even to a Smart car. You will simply make it easier for cyclists’ interests to be ignored.
You may scoff at those places which have higher cycle usage, but they have achieved what you have not (I’m not defending Portland’s infrastructure. I’ve not seen it, and in any case the modal share is still low)
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 3:09 am ¶This is great stuff – especially David’s take on it.
I’m going to try & open up this can of worms even further though. I have a problem with the word ‘cyclist’. In my mind it’s associated with those specialist shops where you can go and buy machines made from exotic alloys and composites, where Lycra & Spandex are everywhere, and where you’d have to be a ‘serious’ cyclist to have a conversation with the staff.
If we are to raise the status of bikes and their use, then we have to associate them with people, as this is where they win out over the impersonal cult of the car. We have to make it clear that it’s a normal, everyday thing to do for normal people.
So the terms I’m using are variations on “person riding a bike”.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 4:31 am ¶Excellent discussion. I appreciate all the the concern and passion for this topic. I’ll be sure that the committee gets a copy of this entire thread.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 8:24 am ¶One other thing: This discussion again points up how divided my own thinking is. If I could wave a magic wand and create a system such as they have in the Netherlands, I would do it. I think we’re coming to the end of oil. We will soon reach the point where oil is just too expensive to burn. We need another system. And I think the bicycle should be, and will be, the local foundation of that system. So I read writers such as David with great interest.
On the other hand, we’re not there yet politically, economically, socially, or culturally. We have certain realities we have to deal with. America is a stubborn place. We can look the right thing in the eye and say “no” out of mere (ideologically driven) cussedness. If we are to grow bicycling in the short term, we must deal with the streets as they are and drivers as they are and laws as they are. So I read writers such as Keri with great interest.
Again, I appreciate this excellent discussion.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 8:37 am ¶David,
Its disingenuous to think that there are no differences between (insert European Country Here) and the United States.
I do not know where you are from but I believe that you were from overseas if I remember correctly. I am also going to assume that you have been to the United States. For the sake of discussion I will go ahead and admit that I have never been to Europe. It could be that you are from Texas and I just have no idea what I am talking about!
European cities are smaller since they were built WAY before the automobile. Its the exact opposite in the United States. Our roads, cities and everything else was designed based upon the fact that every single person would own at least one auto. Right now I am sitting across the street from just one parking lot on the campus of the MU parking lot. This one parking lot is 40 acres (no exaggeration) and will be full by 8:30 tomorrow morning.
In some European countries if a motorist hits a bicyclists than the motorist is at fault PERIOD. Its not even up for discussion.
There is no right turn on red like there is in the United States.
Turning radius at intersections are much sharper turns which makes people actually slow down before turning. Not true in the United States.
Right now a price of gas is $1.79 per gallon. I’m sure its 5-6 USD where ever you are today.
Some European cities now even have a congestion charge requiring motorists to pay a toll just to take their automobile downtown. My city, bike friendly by american standards, is getting ready to build the largest building in the city…….a parking garage!
In the United States virtually all traffic engineers and city councils refuse to slow automobile traffic even if it puts bicyclists and pedestrians at less risk. Right turn on red is an example, refusal to put in mid block pedestrain crossings is another. My city is building a sidepath along a 4 lane arterial that will cross at the intersection in the crosswalks just like any other sidewalk in the united states. They refuse to signalize this “path” because it would cause motorists on the arterial to be slowed. Someone will be injured or killed on this contraption someday and they will be rightfully sued. Thats another discussion though.
I challenge you on your notion that cycling on cycle tracks (must have been what you were referring too) is safer. I’ve seen many studies showing just the opposite.
Finally, I took offense at your notion that pulling over bicyclists will only make people want to cycle less. I think it is having the opposite effect here.
Those bicyclists blowing the red lights and riding at night without lights ultimately get hit by a car. When they do we have headlines in the local paper like, “TRAFFIC CRUNCH Commuting Puts Two-Wheelers At Risk” That is a real headline/tagline from our local paper. They ran that headline despite the fact that one girl was riding home without any lights or reflectors on a 4 lane arterial at 1 am and the other crash victim was riding on the sidewalk….or american cycle track.
They also terrorize motorists. I give a presentation to a group of motorists or go on talk radio etc almost every week talking about bicycling and I have a pretty good idea what people are concerned about.
Finally, every bicyclist I talked to really appreciates it including the ones who came into our office to ask me where to buy lights because they had been pulled over.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 8:48 am ¶One other note.
As I watch this video of Amsterdam I’m struck by how educated these cyclists seem to be.
#1. They can scan and ride a straight line.
#2. They are signaling.
Those are two skills that Kari would agree most Americans do not have.
Its obvious that they have some serious education programs going on there.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 8:57 am ¶
My problem with the terms ride vs. drive has to do with the passivity that “ride” implies (or has come to imply).
In the USA, the verb “ride” originally had more to do with “straddling” a conveyance than with action or intent (as noted above, one rode a horse, but one drove a buggy).
As attempts are being made to encourage bicyclists to take more responsibility for their actions (following the trend set by motorcycle operator training), the term “driver” has come into use by responsible-cycling activists, and is meant to indicate the “active” nature of using a bicycle, whereas “rider” too often conjures images of passivity, vulnerability, helplessness, and incompetency. The obvious fact that so many bicyclists seem intent to demonstrate those negative qualities forces us to reconsider how to describe competent cycling. Bicycle driving/driver makes a clear distinction between the two attitudes.
The response of segregationists like Mr. Hembrow is to use the typical propagandist’s ploy of accusing their opponents of the very things they practice. Karl Rove was/is very adept at this type of reasoning.
Sadly, his approach always plays into the hands of the anti-cycling lobby: Bicycles DO NOT belong on the roads, they require “special” treatment at all times, “special” rules, and “special” facilities.
Once the “riders” achieve a consensus that bicyclists are inherently not safe on the streets, they begin to see anti-cycling rules put into place (ostensibly to protect them)… but with “sugar on top”. They get a bike lane, but they ignore the mandatory bike lane law. They get the MUP (or cycle-track), but they ignore the bike ban nearby. They get 20 miles of special facilities, but effectively give up access to thousands of miles (sounds extreme, true, but I’ve witnessed it… the more miles of “special” facilities that are provided, there is a disproportionally large increase in the sense that normal roads are no longer safe or allowed).
Back to the point. What’s so fascinating is the hysteria that segregationist cyclists feel towards adopting the active term “driver” in place of the passive “rider”. What are they afraid of?
Segregation is never empowerment. It is always what it is.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 9:17 am ¶Robert… re: cyclists in Amsterdam
I assume what we see in those videos is more a matter of immersion in a culture than a matter of specific education. Be that as it may, count me among those who wish to see more U.S. cyclists scan and signal (and ride/drive on the right, etc. etc.).
My first audience for the new cycling booklet will be the working class and working poor cyclists I’m seeing in greater numbers on the roads these days. They have been forced into the saddle by the economy (yes, I’m making assumptions here, but I think they are good ones). They fail to scan and signal. They ride against traffic on ill-fitting bikes. They wander on and off the sidewalks. And they get killed doing theses things.
But I’m glad they are out there. If we can turn them in the right direction– If we can get them to see that they are “driving” when they “ride” a bicycle– If they can come to see cycling as something other than a hardship (another assumption), then we may have a real shot at creating the numbers necessary for political action.
Are you seeing the same kinds of riders in Columbia?
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 10:10 am ¶Using the term “bicycle driver” is a very effective strategy for making people understand the operational characteristics of the bicycle and the inherent rights of using a bicycle on roads that have been systematically eroded, especially in places that have dedicated bicycle facilities.
Watch a politician’s, planner’s, traffic engineer’s, layman’s, or bicycle user’s brain go into overdrive the first time they hear the term “bicycle driver.” Lights bulbs blaze!
There’s plenty of historical evidence that in “…whole countries where universal decent conditions for cyclists…” exist according to David Hembrow the bicycle facilities were placed to get bicyclists off the roads for the convenience of motorists.
One source is:
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/history.html
Here’s a small snippet:
1920: Quote from the first Dutch roads congress: “After all, the construction of bicycle paths along the larger roads relieves traffic along these roads of an extremely bothersome element: the cyclist.”
It’s much easier to discriminate against a cyclist than a bicycle driver.
In the U.S. the first bike lanes were placed in Davis CA which ALREADY had many many bicyclists to the point that Davis motoring residents started complaining to officials. A couple of cry baby bicyclists led an effort to partition a couple of wide roads into a crummy narrow bike lane and a “motor vehicle” lane. That’s a reduction of bicyclist space and rights.
Wayne
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 1:32 pm ¶Great discussion! I too prefer “drive” over “ride” or “cycle”, for reasons very much like P.M. Summer described. (I personally don’t mind “cycle” as much, but I think that it can sometimes conjure up the image of “serious” club riders in lycra.) I agree with many others that the attitude required for safely operating a bike in traffic is very similar to driving a car, so to me, thinking of myself as a “driver” is a good way to reinforce the proper attitude at least in myself, if not others. Like it or not, operating a bike in traffic is not just “a Sunday ride in the park”, as the saying goes. IMO, the *only* difference between me and the other drivers is that I’m driving a narrower vehicle whose maximum speed is not as great as that of motor vehicles. This of course implies some differences in how I operate, but those differences are the exceptions, not the rule. And the attitude should be exactly identical regardless, IMO.
A corollary of this is that when I refer to a driver of a motor vehicle, I don’t just say “driver”, because I’ve just explained why I feel that I’m a driver too. Instead, I say “car driver” or “motorist” when I mean just those. Similarly, I also try to say “car” or “motor vehicle”, instead of just “vehicle”, when I mean just motor vehicles.
As a result, I find myself increasing frustrated when I interact with traffic engineers and DOT people who repeatedly refer to “drivers” and “vehicles” when they clearly mean “motorists” and “motor vehicles”. Drives me nuts. I correct them as often as I get a chance, which they accept graciously, but I’m sure they find it annoying and I don’t think it really “takes”. Too bad, I’ll keep doing it anyway.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 1:40 pm ¶I agree with P.M. Summers’ comments on passivity. I think ride is the wrong word. But I agree with drive having its definite problems.
I guess there’s “operate” but I think cycle is the best.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 2:21 pm ¶To follow up, I guess it is context sensitive. I’m not saying bicycle riders should *always* be called “drivers”. If they really are just out on a Sunday ride in the park (or the trail, or whatever), I’m fine with them being “riders”. It’s only while sharing the road with cars that I feel strongly about the “driver” label.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 2:53 pm ¶John… Your distinction seems properly descriptive to me, although I sympathize with David’s aversion to “drive.” Something I find fascinating in all of this is the (IMO) still open question of whether “drive” puts bicyclists at a rhetorical advantage or disadvantage. My initial assumption was for disadvantage (re: beginners). But I made that assumption based on no real data. I think there’s no real data to argue for advantage either. Like so many other such choices, I think we’ll either have to 1) wait and see, or 2) do a better job of researching past usage in context (i.e. get some data).
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶robert: There are of course differences between different countries. Even between different places in the same country. I’m afraid you have a lot of misconceptions about Europe. I’ll explain below one at a time:
FYI, I an British but live in the Netherlands. I have also visited and worked in the US, and many other countries. However, I have most experience of the UK and NL.
There are some great contrasts between these two countries. While the cost of running a car is similar in both of these countries (gas is about $7-8 a gallon), the UK has the same low cycling rate as the US while NL has the highest cycling rate in the world. You’ll see that fuel price alone has little to do with the cycling rate.
The city I live in is 750 years old. However, not that far away is Almere, where the first house was built in 1976 on reclaimed land. It’s one of the newest cities in the world. During the 1950s there was extensive post war reconstruction on the American model, with wide boulevards for cars. However most of that has now been changed to suit cyclists and pedestrians (see here and here).
In all cases, no matter the history or whether cities are old or new, Dutch cities are good to cycle in. Every city here has a cycling rate higher than any in an English speaking country.
The law of strict liability means that a motorist driving into a cyclist in the Netherlands is held responsible unless they can prove otherwise. It is a reflection of the damage in such a collision being due to the mass and speed of motor vehicles. Motorists are not held legally responsible if it is shown that they were not at fault.
There is actually right turn on red here, but it’s only for bikes. However, it doesn’t exist at all in the UK.
Turning radii at intersections are much smaller in NL than in the UK. However in the UK they resemble US radii. Motorists have to go around corners rather slower in NL. This is of course a deliberate policy to make conditions safer, and could easily be copied in the UK or USA.
London is just about the only city with a congestion charge. However, the cycling rate there is very low. No Dutch city has a congestion charge. People are encouraged to cycle by the carrot instead of the stick.
Car parking is cheap in the Netherlands compared with the UK. It’s quite often free of charge. People choose to cycle because it is pleasant and convenient to cycle, not because driving is expensive.
Where cyclists cross the ring road here (it’s a major multi-lane road, perhaps similar to your “arterial”), they get treated very well indeed, skipping past the traffic lights. In the UK, a cyclist would be on the same road as the driver and have to stop at the same traffic lights. Dutch traffic engineers have no problems at all in slowing cars to speed up bikes, and the directness and speed of cycle journeys is considered to be important. Average bicycle speeds are higher than average car speeds by design.
There is much twaddle spoken about cyclist safety by vehicular cyclists. Much selective quoting of statistics which don’t show what people want to think they show. The safest country in the world to cycle is the Netherlands and cyclists here spend most of their time on segregated paths. If you think your figures show differently then you have to wonder about their accuracy.
This winter my daughter was stopped by the police on the way to school due to her lights not working. I had to pay the fine, but I was glad to do so knowing that it also taught her a lesson. If something goes wrong with them now, she’ll tell me about it instead of being caught again.
P.M.Summer:
You live in a country where the “anti-cycling lobby” is already victorious. Barely 1% of journeys in the US are by bike, vs. 27% here. In many cities here there are more cycle journeys than car journeys, and in those where that isn’t the case they are trying desperately to advance to the point where it is.
Dutch cyclists are not being pushed aside onto inferior infrastructure by motorists. Instead, they are pushing motorists aside. Cyclists get the best facilities. They get the most direct routes. They get fewer traffic lights to stop at, and shorter delays at those traffic lights that they do stop at. In 2007 one of the direct roads into the city centre of Assen was taken from motorists and turned into a bicycle road on which cars are considered to be “guests of the bicycle”. This is the way it is. Cyclists come first.
You are seriously misunderstanding who has the upper hand here. If I were to cycle here as using the inferior motoring facilities then my journeys would be much less direct and they would take much longer. To reach the centre of the city from my home I would have to stop at two sets of traffic lights vs. none by bike. I can cycle right to the centre, but would have to park a distance out and walk if I went by car. To reach the industrial estate at the North of the city I would have to stop at four sets of traffic lights vs. none by bike. I can ride from my home to the city of Groningen 30 km North of here on a direct route and see just one set of traffic lights. However, if I were to drive I would see four sets before I even leave this city, would be be sent on a less direct route, and have to negotiate several more sets of lights to reach my destination. If my destination is in the centre of Groningen then I again can’t drive there at all.
I suppose I could feel sorry for the motorist having to suffer these indignities, but I don’t. Virtually all drivers here are also cyclists. All their children cycle. All their partners cycle. There is popular support for these policies.
It’s segregation, but it’s not like racial segregation where one group of people are constantly considered to be greater than the other. There are no losers with this type of segregation. If you sometimes have to drive then you put up with the inconvenience of doing so as you also benefit from being on the opposite side of the obstructions when you cycle.
You have to leave your American and car-focussed biases behind. This country really is very different.
Merely asking for what motorists have is selling cyclists short.
Wayne Pein:
John Franklin’s website which you quoted from is not remotely impartial. If you want to read the history of cycling in the Netherlands I suggest you find a Dutch source. In the period after the second world war when motorists dominated policies, cycle paths were removed in order to make more space for cars. This has since been reversed. There’s a bit of history here:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The%20Dutch%20Bicycle%20Master%20Plan%201999.pdf
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 3:43 pm ¶Well I am too tired to argue anymore as I just finished a beautiful 65 mile ride.
While riding I remembered something that I once read and I think it fits nicely in this discussion of U.S. vs. other facilities.
The United States has some of the greatest bicycle facilities in the world….we just need to use them.
Take Missouri for example. The only places that I know of in Missouri where bicycles are banned is the travel lanes of the interstate system. Even the shoulder of these routes is open for business.
Andy, I have some experience teaching those from the lower end of the education and income range and its not easy. I’ll send you an email about my experiences on Monday. Send me a note if I forget….which is a real possibility.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶Maybe we are “America biased” because we live in America.
None of the things you talk about are going to happen here. So you can keep commenting on why/how you think that your country is the cats meow when it comes to cycling but its not going to make any difference in Springfield Missouri.
Andy, lets say the mayor of Springfield decides to make Kansas Expressway a 2 lane road for motorists and the other two lanes for bicycles only. How long would he stay in office? 2 or 3 seconds? Hell we cant even get the gas tax raised to over 30 cents per gallon despite the fact that it does not even come close to covering road construction costs. While Andy and I might think that is a bad thing the truth is that most Americans love to drive. They love to be able to live 20,30 even 50 miles away from work and get there in just a few minutes and for relatively little money. For everyone of us saying that we need to invest in non motorized transportation there are 2 or 3 people saying its a waste of money.
Frankly, I’m not sure that any of the things that you are writing are helpful in anyway at all. Perhaps making you feel superior but not helpful.
I’m shocked that the % of cycling trips is only 27%. Thats high, but not as high as one might imagine considering all of the points you have made. It makes the point that no matter what facilities and all of the anti-car legislation that you pass most people are still going to choose the automobile.
I do have one question? How far do you think the average Dutch bicycle commuter rides per day? I would imagine that in a city that is 750 years old that everything is pretty close.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶Robert: I’m really sorry that you take offence. I find it a strange way to react.
It is possible to change people’s minds. Indeed, that it what happened to cause infrastructure built in the 1950s to be changed as I pointed out before. Did you watch those (very short) videos showing the US style boulevards transformed ?
You have to ask yourself what you ultimately want. Do you want progress or not ? The path taken so far in the US (and my home country the UK) has lead to a very low cycling rate. NL started down the same path in the 1950s, the cycling rate plummeting dramatically at that time just as the cycle paths were being removed to give more space to drivers. However they reversed it in the 1970s and the rate has climbed steadily back up since then. It’s not over yet and progress continues at a pace.
I don’t think Americans are more stupid than Dutch people are, so why would they not make a similar decision if given a similar good reason to do so ?
There are many things around which it might be possible to focus public opinion. Here are some examples of things that could work towards encouraging cycling:
o The high rate of death and injuries on America’s roads.
o The rate of childhood obesity.
o Increasing dependence on foreign oil.
o That the USA has greater debt than all the other countries in the world put together.
Any of these things is more likely to focus societal change than arguing about which verb to use to describe what cyclists do.
Anyway, back to your questions about here. There are many options other than car and bike. 27% of journeys by bike does not imply 63% by car. When people take the train and use the bike (as around 40% of railway passengers do) they are counted only in the train figures. All the figures are out there if you care to find them.
Average journey lengths in NL by all modes are from memory about 10% shorter than the average journey lengths in the US. That’s not a very significant difference and certainly not enough to explain the difference in take-up of cycling.
There are plenty of people here who commute the same distances as you write about. I know people with 1 mile commutes, I’ve just started a commute of about 20 miles each way (once by bike, and once by bike+train so far). Someone around the corner does the same as I do, and I know someone who does a bit over 30 miles each way. Most cycle commutes are a bit shorter, and planners here work to a rule that journey lengths of over 5 miles in each direction are enough that they can begin to put people off cycling.
There are many other journeys which are not commutes to work. Some of my daughter’s school friends ride 12 miles each way to get to school. Others live virtually next door.
That the centre of this city is 750 years old doesn’t imply that the whole place is the same age, and you will find similar patterns in other cities including Almere, established in the 1970s.
However, the thing that makes this country different is that people’s attitudes are definitely not 750 years old.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 5:19 pm ¶I’m not going to ruin this discussion by responding.
You know that old saying about if you cant say anything…..
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 7:26 pm ¶Here are the foundations of Dutch infrastructure (just a guess, but most of these probably existed there prior to 1970):
Cultural respect for alternative transportation
Availability of quality alternative transportation for long and short distances
Political will to tax fuel to provide for alternative transportation
Cultural respect for bicycling
Cultural respect for sustainability and the environment
Higher emphasis on community than individualism
Socio-political orientation toward the public commons
Socio-political orientation toward the greater good of a community
Cultural value on community interactions rather than hours alone in a car listening to hate radio
Greater emphasis on driver responsibility/testing
Compact land use
Lack of huge expanses of cheap land to sprawl into
Pre-automobile planning and layout of cities
Pre-auto-dominance roadway infrastructure in cities
Higher bicycling mode share then than in the most bike-oriented US cities today
I’m sure I’m missing some.
We could debate all day long about virtues and drawbacks of integrated vs separated systems, but it’s all academic. The bottom line is, any attempt to copy the Dutch system here will fall victim to the lack of cultural and political support necessary to create more than reckless tokenism.
OTOH, I believe there is nascent public support for solving the problems that make the roadway environment feel hostile… if we put our minds to it, we could make a difference.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 8:32 pm ¶Keri… I think that’s an accurate list at least of the differences between the U.S. and much of Europe. What it points up for me is the need to change our society. Now, we just have to figure out how to do that.
Posted 15 Feb 2009 at 11:15 pm ¶Andy,
I can tell you from personal experience and from talking to people smarter than me from around the country……if you start talking about penalizing automobile travel, start talking congestion charge, start talking intentionally rerouting auto’s to length their trip etc etc than you are going to get nowhere fast in the United States.
Portland started by getting the city government to put 1% of its transportation funds into non motorized transportation because that is what % of its population was using the bicycle for transportation then. That in itself is a huge victory. Nationwide I would imagine that its much closer to 0% than 1% at the city level.
Now they are at an 8% mode shift and recently have started being able to do some of those things that David is talking about.
You need a critical mass of sorts to get people realizing that a significant portion of the population really is using the bicycle for transportation. If you ever travel to Portland and witness its wheel to wheel bike traffic you will see how much easier it would be for a politician to be a little anti car.
I would imagine that in Springfield you have less than 1% of the trips made by bicycle. If you started talking about taking 35 miles of streets and turning them into bicycle boulevards it would HURT and not help your cause I’m afraid. ESPECIALLY if you get a bike boulevard and then hardly anyone uses it…..that would be a death blow.
I think I am being a realist. David would probably think I am just not trying.
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 9:24 am ¶Robert… While I do hold some strong anti-car attitudes, I do realize that voicing them too loudly, or in the wrong venue, is counter-productive.
You make an interesting point re: a bicycle boulevard. But we’re talking such modest distances here that I think it’s worth the gamble. Although the politics here will make even a modest proposal difficult to achieve.
What I want to do now is try to take advantage of the current recession. There are more people utility cycling in Springfield now. Some of them, I believe, have been forced into it by economic circumstances. I’m wondering if they can be reached and helped.
So I am especially interested in your offer to discuss this socio-economic situation further. This is your reminder to send that e-mail
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 10:50 am ¶I think the key to improving conditions for cyclists lies in expanding the stakeholders with creative win-win ideas and framing. For example, if a network of bike boulevards reduces traffic flows and makes a neighborhood safer for kids and more desirable, the homeowners are additional stakeholders.
I’m under the impression that the traffic diversions which made the Berkeley bike boulevards possible, was actually done for the residents of the streets. The bike permeability and encouragement were later additions.
The more win-win situations we can create, the more we can get done. And the less we risk backlash against us as a special interest group competing for pork and looking for special treatment.
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 10:58 am ¶Keri… That approach would work in Springfield (not claiming ease). The key, obviously, is discovering and selling each side’s “win” point. I think we might have a shot at this along Holland (re: my earlier video).
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 11:28 am ¶I think you are on the right track.
I am *very* anti car which is why I do not own one. : )
That said, we just need to be careful as to how we go about things. Clearly Springfield, like any American city, has a long way to go. Many of the arterial streets do not even have sidewalks. There are cow paths alongside most of the heaviest driven streets in town.
Some new street design standards where all new streets have well designed bike lanes and sidewalks might be a good first step. It stops the bleeding and ensures that bike/ped issues cannot be the first thing cut when sales taxes start to drop.
The recession is an opportunity but it is also a good excuse to no longer build roads with “extras” like bike lanes and sidewalks. Andy Clarke from the LAB wrote a note saying that some of the DOT’s with complete streets policies are now using the current economic situation as a good reason to do away with those policies.
Posted 16 Feb 2009 at 12:01 pm ¶In Dayton we are putting out our own brochure to encourage cycling, and we decided to go ahead and title it “Drive your Bike.” The decision was not unanimous.
The phrase comes out of a short paragraph that encourages the reader to look for destinations near their homes (like the 1MS). Then it suggests if the weather is right and you have the time, leave the keys at home. Why not drive your bike?
The hope is that the reader will see the bike as a simple substitution for the car. We also hope to shift thinking about bikes as exclusively for exercise or leisure. They are also transportation vehicles that can be used for purposeful trips to destinations to accomplish tasks.
There is no reason for the verb “drive” to be the domain of the car. “Operate” is a verb for both vehicles. “Ride” applies to car passengers (as they are not driving).
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 7:53 am ¶I have been reading all the comments since last night. Riding the bike versus driving it is a good debate and a fresh one as compared to helmet-mandate debates.
I completely agree with David Hembrow that bicycling infrastructure in parallel with development is the way to go towards a world-class bicycling city. I also think the Dutch and Danes have the system closer to perfection with every day.
Having said that, I would also have to partially agree with Robert and Keri. If it was physically able to transplant the Dutch system to the US, even if it was to just one city in the US, it will be a major failure. The change of the highest magnitude here is not infrastructure but of attitude and culture of the people. I think Americans should visit other countries more often, not as tourists but as explorers.
Fighting for equal rights on the road is an adjustment at best. I do not have bike lanes for 80% of my journeys, and by living car free, that is a high diversity of journeys. I aggressively control the lanes where cars travel upwards of 50 mph (80 kmph). I merge properly at intersections to avoid the right hook etc.
That fight does make me feel safe but makes me dissatisfied. I feel stressed to take extra steps to run a normal errand like pick up clothes from the dry cleaner. I feel belittled and a minority when I should be rewarded for reducing debt and dependence on oil. I should be rewarded for saving money and for contributing to consumerism (I am not totally down with the concept of consumerism but every 26 yr old needs a 42 inch TV and an iPhone).
The fight for equal rights is merely a temporary patch to the real objective of actual infrastructure towards bicycling. We need a plan to shape the future, not adapt to the future that is being shaped by people that probably do not ride (or drive) a bike.
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 10:13 am ¶I was thinking more about drive vs. ride yesterday, and talking with my wife about it as we were riding in our car (and I was additionally driving it
). Purely from a linguistic standpoint, here are the conclusions I came to.
It seems to me that “drive” is a more action-oriented verb, implying you as subject operating a means of locomotion, such as a horse or a car. By this definition, operating a bicycle *is* another mode of driving. “Ride”, OTOH, is more passive, implying only the spatial relationship of the subject to the object, not anything about your behavior while doing so. You may ride a bicycle, or a horse, but you may also ride a mechanical bull, or simply ride in a car as a passenger, without driving it.
(It may be objected that before the advent of motor vehicles, “drive” originally had a spatial dimension as well, causing forward motion in something in front of you, such as driving a horse or driving cattle. Technically, then, I suppose you could say that operating a car is driving and operating a bicycle is not, since in a car the engine is in front of you, and on a bicycle, it is not. (You *are* the engine and the transmission is underneath you.) But then some cars have their engines in the back. Can we agree that this connotation is obsolete?)
So from this perspective, disregarding the previous paragraph, one word is not really a substitute for the other. They are really completely independent concepts. If you are holding the reins in a horse-drawn carriage, you are driving the horse, but riding in the carriage. If you are on horseback, OTOH, you are both driving, and riding on, the horse. Similar with a bicycle. Similar, for that matter, with a car.
So I think the convention of applying either one word or the other, but not both, to different modes is purely a matter of historical usage, not of linguistic purity. I don’t know where that gets us in this particular debate, but maybe at least it helps clarify the meaning of the words?
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 12:50 pm ¶Here’s where it gets us, I think. It hopefully shows that it’s not linguistically wrong to talk of driving your bike. Rather, it’s a purely tactical decision which term to use.
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 12:54 pm ¶John… Yes. I would assert that the use of “drive” is “correct” in the sense of our being in control of the bicycle. And “drive” is certainly a rhetorical maneuver (as is all language choice). I’m generally more comfortable making decisions for rhetorical reasons rather than for reasons of correctness. It would be fascinating to look into why the term “ride” holds so much currency (David makes a good case for it). I still believe “ride” is the more aesthetically pleasing choice.
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶I really like Abhishek’s comment. There’s some really good framing in there. Driving a bike on an arterial road is safe, even if it is not pleasant. We need to address both the need for better conditions AND the mythologies which inhibit our operation in the current conditions. IOW, we have to function with what we have while we work for something better. Kicking the mythologies of danger and delay are absolutely necessary to gaining respect and acceptance in our real world environment.
What is pleasant? Everyone will probably have a different idea about this.
For me, quiet is pleasant. I dislike the noise pollution of busy roads. Like Abhishek, I feel secure controlling a lane on a major road. However, I’d prefer a quieter route and will usually take one it if exists, even if it’s slightly longer. I also find having to deal with busy traffic and the potential for harassment (even if it doesn’t happen all the time) a bit of a drag for every little trip.
The biggest impediment to quiet routes is crappy land use planning. It annoys me to no end when I can’t get from here to there because this section of roads was built by developer A and this other one (separated by 20 feet and a retaining wall) was built by developer B.
I’ve ridden in bike lanes on busy roads. I don’t find them any more pleasant than claiming the lane. It’s just exchanging one stress (potential harassment) for another (potential turning and crossing conflicts). And the noise of passing cars is the same (only they’re closer when I’m in a bike lane).
We have numerous trails in the Orlando area. Some of them offer a lovely, quiet escape from traffic, if only for a short time. The available land to build these will always be a limiting factor, and the lack of respect for integrated cycling can be seen clearly in the way these trails interface with the road network at their termini. (I have a post about this in the cooker.)
Ultimately, I think retrofitting our current bad land use with bike spurs to increase permeability and connect quiet streets is more feasible than creating a useful network of off-street paths, and safer and more pleasant than a network of on-street paths or lanes.
Back to Shek’s comment. Equality and respect are paramount, and yes we should strive for more. That more probably won’t look like the Dutch system for reasons of both culture and scale. IMO, the most functional thing would be a combination of social structure change (equality/respect/civility) with targeted infrastructure change (land use/permeability/access-oriented facilities).
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶Keri… Yes. Shek, as he is known from his fine blog, has a lot of interesting insights. I think “pleasant” compares in some respects to David Hembrow’s idea about “subjective” safety.
Posted 17 Feb 2009 at 4:05 pm ¶Great discussion. Though I admit that the term “drive” still strikes a sour note to my ear, I’m beginning to come around…
I do like that “drive” is an active verb, as opposed to the more passive “ride”.
On interesting note is that, prior to this discussion, I’d very seldom seen or heard “drive” being used to refer to a cyclist. And most of the places where I do recall seeing this were government documents (statutes), police reports, or in newspaper articles quoting police officers.
Posted 22 Feb 2009 at 11:01 am ¶