Scofflaw bicycling: Illegal but rational

Abstract

Abstract:Nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but most such offenses face no legal consequences. Society also tends to see these relatively minor infractions that almost all people make-though they are unmistakably illegal-as normal and even rational. Bicyclists who break the law, however, seem to attract a higher level of scorn and scrutiny. While the academic literature has exhaustively covered unlawful driving behaviors, there remains little research on bicyclists who break the rules of the road. This paper examines rule-breaking bicyclists and the factors associated with such behaviors. We also explore the question: are bicyclists making rational, albeit illegal, choices-similar to most drivers and pedestrians-or are bicyclists reckless and dangerous? Because it's proven effective for reaching hard-to-reach populations, we employed a snowball-sampling framework and an online, scenario-based survey completed by nearly 18,000 respondents. Via multi-level statistical analyses, our results suggest that younger people and males tend to exhibit higher levels of illegal bicycling behavior, but even when combining high-risk factors, the overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless. Controlling for the context and social norms of the city where one lives tends to outweigh individual bicyclist characteristics such as race/ethnicity and income. Unlawful drivers and pedestrians tend to rationalize their behaviors as time saving; bicyclists similarly rationalize their illegal behaviors but were more inclined to cite increasing their own personal safety and/or saving energy. Most bicyclists can generally be described as rational individuals trying to function safely and efficiently given the context and norms of where they live and the transportation system put in front of them.

Rules of the Road: Compliance and Defiance among the Different Types of Cyclists

“…Though Johnson et al ( 15 ) use rationale to recommend policy changes, Huemer ( 16 ) on the other hand disregards rationale to argue for increased compliance. A final study aimed to contextualize rule-breaking through comparisons with motorists, suggesting that cyclists make rational decisions to contravene the law and are not reckless in doing so in the vast majority of cases ( 6 ). Cyclists were grouped by the level of risk taken in their responses to a set of scenarios, with relatively few cyclists categorized either as law abiders or undertaking reckless endangerment.…”

“…The cycling risk and cycling scenario sections were modeled after Marshall et al’s survey design ( 6 ), with the first section asking respondents to rate their level of confidence with several aspects of cycling and their attitude toward risk. Though this approach relies on respondents’ self-reporting their attitudes and behaviors, it allows for the capturing of their perceptions toward safety and risk.…”

“…The respondent is asked to choose between four reactions, one of which follows the Highway Safety Code and three of which do not in increasing levels of riskiness. Respondents who choose an illegal option must provide their rationale for doing so, with potential answers again reflecting Marshall et al’s design ( 6 ). All four scenarios and their accompanying reaction choices can be seen in Figure 1.…”

“…Though many typologies of cyclists have been generated, none as yet have included risk-taking in their classification. Rule-breaking and risk-taking in cycling literature has largely focused on explaining why some cyclists run red lights ( 4 , 5 ), though one major study aims at answering who the rule-breakers are ( 6 ). Building on the existing literature, this study generated a unique typology that includes risk-taking behaviors, derived from a 2018 survey of 1,329 cyclists in Montreal, Canada.…”

Bicycle Backlash: Qualitative Examination of Aggressive Driver–Bicyclist Interactions

“…During that time, the survey garnered attention through social media and the popular press, which resulted in an international sample of nearly 18,000 users (36,37). [Marshall et al provided the quantitative analysis of the complete international sample (38).] Respondents were not required to answer all questions.…”