‘Cyclists’ are sub-cultural and I completely understand how motorists in countries without any real, established bicycle culture are wary and suspicious of them.

The key is mainstreaming cycling and removing it from the sub-cultural category. When more regular citizens start cycling - as we’re seeing all over the world - there is less animosity in traffic. Paris - a hell’s kitchen of traffic only three years ago - has been transformed into a - relatively - bicycle friendly city. Not because the hard-core enthusiasts have increased their numbers but because regular citizens have embraced the bicycle.

The key to developing a healthy bicycle culture is not to swell the numbers of bicycle clubs. It is making it possible and feasible for citizens to choose a bicycle instead of a car.

We have 500,000 daily cyclists in Copenhagen and very few of them are ‘cyclists’. The vast majority doesn’t see themselves as ‘cyclists’. They are just using the fastest and easiest way to get around the city.

There’s something to look into there, that’s for sure.

But seriously… in my neck of the woods, doing counts at lights when I wait for someone or riding among friends, the majority of cyclists run reds and stop signs. The level of knowledge obout proper roadways cycling among both drivers and cyclists is extremely low in the U.S.

It’s not surprising as for at least 30 years education has been incorrect or absent. It’s primarily cultural than anything else in my opinion, and that involves many cultural attitudes about different aspects/expectations/beliefs regarding cycling and those regarding motoring. PhD theses await writing.

Colin – your hierarchy comments are sadly too true – I’m sure as an aussie you are all too aware of the abuse (sometimes rightfully) directed to truck drivers who are seen as a menace to cars. Regardless of the fact that truck drivers are professionals whose qualifications to operate a vehicle, and licence restrictions are more rigidly enforced than car licences, the fear of a considerably larger vehicle’s ability to catastrophically damage smaller vehicles and their occupants– it is after all only physics – is in many senses similar to the threat that cars of all sizes pose to cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians.

Quinn – your comments seem self-fulfilling, in stereotypically characterising all cyclists as being ‘environmentalists’, I cycle for fitness, because the parking is more convenient, and also drive a car on most other occasions. This in no way gives me ‘licence to do whatever the hell I want’, and nor should it. I stop at red lights, and think that we should target rule transgressions, regardless of whether you are a pedestrian, bike, car or B-triple. It is exactly this kind of characterisation that leads to the ugly incidents listed above.

Bikes aren’t cars. “weaving in and out” of traffic usually happens when the cars are standing still, and why not? There is more than enough room for me to roll by, if drivers would actually stay in their lane in a consistant way no weaving would be required.

As for “running red lights”, I don’t see that very often (and I do bike every day), I do see cars passing too close, cutting of pedestrians or making “the yellow” on a daily basis.

The problem most car drivers seem to have is that they just don’t like the idea that someone is faster than them or dares to take up a lane on the road when THEY could just be so much fast at the red light if that darn bike wouldn’t be in the way.

My bike for me is transportation, that it is “green” is coincidence but yes I smirk when I see the faces of drivers filling up a tank and realizing how much they just spent (yet) again to essentially do the same thing I can do for free.

The next day in casual conversation she told me she thought it was dangerous for me to be riding on that road, especially not wearing a helmet. She went on to say, rather casually, that if I got hit by a car it would be what I deserved, for not wearing a helmet. Another woman who was part of this conversation agreed.

I was flabbergasted. I sure if pressed on the issue, which I did not, she would attempt to disassociate herself with the comments. I can only assume that there is some really scary stuff buried in our subconscious mind.

I think Quinn makes the point perfectly. Some cyclists run red lights… and some drivers drink drive, speed, forget to indicate and have been known to crash killing 1.2 million each year. The problem is cyclists misdemeanours are perceived as an attribution of the ‘renegade’ character of anyone on two wheels whereas many driving misdemeanours are merely called ‘accidents’. A strong perception of cyclists as ‘renegades’ is sometimes used to justify some drivers aggression. This is a kind of perverse vigilante justice, to “teach them a lesson” as Colin has identifed.

In relation to your question… does marginality actually encourage some to adopt a certain “outlaw” stance? I think a flip side of being an ‘out group’ can create its own ‘in group’ narcissism in which some people may be attracted to the idea of cycling because of this edgy, radical-chic, rule breaking appearance. Why would all those hipster fixie cyclists ride without brakes if there wasn’t some appeal in being a bit deviant? However, I think most cyclists just want to get around without feeling endagered by fast moving cars. The problem is that the laws, culture, and design of roads socially devalue cyclists (just like what Jan Gehl was saying about the pedestrian waiting in your book). Cyclists get around the best they can within a society geared for motorcars. Theoretically they are “equal” road users but they are not really taken seriously as road users in terms of law enforcement, education, training or traffic design and management. I don’t think the cars vs bikes blame game will end until the broader culture shifts to value and recognise cycling as a much more normal and positive way of getting around. Of course, redesigning more spaces for cycling would be a major step in creating such a shift.