Written by Simon Gomez Villa | Online Tutorial Series
The city of Paris is doing loads to promote cycling to be one of its main modes of transport. From the pop-up cycle lanes massively developed during the Covid pandemic, to the ambitious plan to make Paris a 100% cyclable city during the 2024 Olympics, this city has seen its cycling infrastructure expand considerably during the last decade. As a result, cyclist numbers have grown drastically and now represent a larger modal share than the car for daily trips in the French capital, with 11.2% against 4.2% respectively (l’Institut Paris Région, 2023). As more and more cyclists are taking up the public space, conflicts (or better yet “interactions”) between other users are naturally more evident. Interactions caused by rule-breaking cyclists trigger public opinion, particularly among motorists (for cyclists who run red lights), and stigmatise them as reckless and dangerous to society (Marshal et al., 2017). In order to control “conflicting” situations, a policy reflex is to increase police presence and enforcement (Brömmelstroet et al., 2014). This corrective measure may have a negative impact on cycling numbers, as fines can be dissuasive, and it overlooks the real problem. Why do cyclists break the rules? Understanding this question and accepting cyclist’s non-conformist-behaviour can be beneficial to unravel the cycling city.
Forsyth & Krizek (2011) propose that bicycling experience should have a more central place in bike infrastructure design. This is generally approached from a technical standpoint, with traffic experts and engineers (who may not even be familiar with urban cycling), as if bikes were comparable with vehicles. It is then no surprise when their bike infrastructure is not used as intended, because bikes are more on the human side than on the vehicle side. This flaw may lead to non-conformists-behaviour, as shown in the image below.
Should this behaviour be considered reckless and dangerous enough to need police intervention? Marco te Brömmelstroet et al. (2014) sought to demystify the common notion that all cyclists behave recklessly, through a qualitative analysis in some of Amsterdam’s intersections. Three cyclists categories were identified: conformists, momentumists, and recklists. The study concludes most cyclists abide by rules (conformists: 88%), some adapt certain rules to suit them without causing conflicts (momentumists: 7%), and a few behave recklessly. Cycling in Paris, you can easily find these types of behaviours, and that is what I did. The image below shows a busy intersection where the majority of cyclists wait until the traffic light turns green. Some will run the red light, but not before the last car has cleared the way. Reckless behaviour does happen in Paris, but like the study made in Amsterdam, I believe they are a minority.
In the next image, you can see that the first cyclist stops for pedestrians to cross over. The other cyclists arriving will not completely stop, but slow down and then cross when there are no pedestrians. Riding a bike is a physical task and certain cyclists will do some manoeuvres to conserve their energy (hence the category momentumists). One way cyclists conserve their energy at stop signs is to slow down, but not stop. Slowing down then accelerating is 25% more energy efficient than stopping then accelerating (Fajans & Curry, 2001).
All cyclists in the last example ran a red light, but no danger was created and momentum was partially conserved. The city of Paris is beginning to understand and accept this non-conformist-behaviour. A solution is the placement of signs above the traffic light that mean that cyclists are allowed to by-pass a red light under certain conditions. A condition is that the priority of pedestrians is respected and that there is little or no automobile traffic likely to cause conflict situations (Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement durable, 2012). This sign may allow cyclists to conserve energy, but its main purpose is to allow cyclists to get out of danger’s way. Marshal et al. (2017) explain that cyclists, as opposed to cars and pedestrians, don’t necessarily break the laws to gain time, but primarily for personal safety, to increase visibility, among other reasons.
Another solution to accept non-conformist-behaviour would be to get rid of traffic lights altogether, as it was done in Alexanderplein intersection in Amsterdam. Meredith Glaser’s (2017) article on the Guardian concludes that without traffic lights, not only traffic improved but road users were more alert, slowed down, and interacted more with one another. This is a successful example of adapting the environment to human behaviour (like non-conformist-behaviour), not the other way around.
I did this essay to convey a message from the MOOC, Unravelling the Cycling City, that struck me personally. As a three year-long urban cyclist, I understand the stigma, lack of empathy and incomprehensiveness we constantly receive for breaking the rules. So why do cyclists break the rules? They do it to avoid danger, to keep their energy and admittedly to save time (like pedestrians and motorised drivers). It is important to add that the risk of a cyclist running a red light is not comparable to when a car or a scooter does it. Another aspect that struck me personally is that there is so much more to bikes than cycling infrastructure. As an engineer working in the field of urban mobility, my approach to problem solving is only quantitative, thinking exclusively on the quality of the cycle lanes, whereas urban problems also need a holistic and qualitative approach. Cyclists’ behaviours, sensations and feelings are something engineers tend to ignore, but are fundamental when unravelling a cycling city.
Remaining Questions
- What is the effect of e-bikes in the non-conformist-behaviour discussion?
- Would it still be justified for e-bikes to run red lights to maintain momentum?
- How does e-bikes behaviour differ from regular bikes? Why are we hearing that Amsterdam is studying a way to control e-bikes speed when entering pedestrian zones, is there a reason to fear for street safety due to e-bikes reckless behaviour?
References
- Brömmelstroet, M. t., Harms, L., Sezneva, O., & Rottenberg, A. (2014, March). The Reckless Cyclist. In Dispelling the myth. Plan Amsterdam Magazine. https://issuu.com/rutgerklootwijk/docs/plan-amsterdam-cycling-policy-and-d/24
- Fajans, J., & Curry, M. (2001). Why Bicyclists Hate Stop Signs. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fajans-J.-and-M.-Curry.-2001..pdf
- Glaser, M. (2017, September 22). What happens if you turn off the traffic lights? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/sep/22/what-happens-if-you-turn-off-the-traffic-lights
- Forsyth, A., & Krizek, K. J. (2011). Urban Design: Is there a Distinctive View from the Bicycle? Journal of Urban Design, 16, 531 – 549. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233058352_Urban_Design_Is_there_a_Distinctive_View_from_the_Bicycle
- l’Institut Paris Région. (2023, December 1). Enquête régionale sur la mobilité des Franciliens. Institut Paris Région. Retrieved May 23, 2024, from https://www.institutparisregion.fr/mobilite-et-transports/deplacements/enquete-regionale-sur-la-mobilite-des-franciliens/
- Marshal, W. E., Johnson, A., & Piatkowski, D. (2017, March 8). Scofflaw bicycling : Illegal but rational. The Journal of Transport and Land Use, 10(1), 805 – 836.
- Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement durable. (2012, November 12). Arrêté du 12 janvier 2012 modifiant l’arrêté du 24 novembre 1967 relatif à la signalisation des routes et des autoroutes et portant création d’une signalisation visant à autoriser un mouvement directionnel pour les cyclistes dans les carrefours à feux [French law that created the sign M12]. Retrieved May 26, 2024, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000025202146
