By Jonathan Yardley (yardleyj@clark.net)
The Washington Post, December 1, 1997
Doing a long stretch of brisk walking in Manhattan the other day, Ifound myself easing back into habits that had been learned while livingin that strange and wonderful place 3 1/2 decades ago. New Yorkers, forall their rudeness and pushiness, have an extraordinary tolerance for therhythms by which others live. A Manhattan sidewalk is choreographed bysome mysterious higher power, allowing each person to move at his or herprivate pace, without interference or insult.
There is one notable exception. The odd camaraderie of the New Yorksidewalk is repeatedly interrupted these days -- as I was reminded by severalnear misses of my own -- by bicyclists for hire, messengers and deliverymenwho repeatedly violate (a) common courtesy, by riding recklessly and withutter contempt for the pedestrian, and (b) the law, which forbids ridingbicycles on sidewalks. Generally they do so with impunity, for until recentlythe police, presumably on the assumption that they have more urgent mattersto which to attend, often winked at these violations.
That is true no longer. A few nights ago a visitor from New Jersey steppedonto the sidewalk after dinner at a restaurant on the Upper West Side.One can only hope he enjoyed his meal, for it was his last. The unfortunategentleman was broadsided by a bicycle deliveryman -- for something calledChirping Chicken -- and killed on the spot.
The one happy consequence of this most unhappy event was that MayorRudolph Giuliani promptly ordered, and the police promptly undertook, acrackdown on illegal cycling. "Bicycles are a very big quality-of-lifeproblem," the mayor said, according to the New York Times. "Itmay be the thing that was most mentioned to me when I was campaigning,particularly in Manhattan."
All of which leaves one to wonder whether there is any chance that wordof this might filter a couple of hundred miles to the south. Though thereare many differences between New York and Washington -- sidewalk manners,for one thing, are a good deal worse here than there -- the downtown centersof both cities are plagued by the bicycle menace. If gendarmes of the Districtof Columbia can find time to hand out exceedingly expensive parking ticketsfor the most trivial offenses imaginable, is it too much to hope that theymight find time to cite a homicidal bicyclist or two?
Civic complaint not being as deeply ingrained here as it is in New York,not much has been heard about the marauding cyclists, but that is scarcelyan accurate reflection of reality. As one who often walks the sidewalksof this city, in particular those of the area roughly bounded by UnionStation to the southeast and Dupont Circle to the northeast, I have beenendangered more times than I care to remember by helmeted cycle Nazis rushingtheir unimaginably urgent business from one office to another, and I haveseen innumerable others similarly put at risk. Am I alone in thinking thisa threat to public safety that should be attended to by what passes, here,for local government?
Probably I am not. Yet the predictable response to any call for actionagainst illegal and irresponsible cycling will be bleats and moans fromthe Birkenstock crowd, wailing about ozone depletion and global warmingand auto emissions and all the other ills for which bicycles are allegedto be the ultimate cure. Any threat to messengers and deliverymen on wheels,it will be claimed, is a threat to all those angels of mercy who keep theircars in the garage -- if they own any at all! -- and cycle in high righteousnessaround and about the points of their compasses.
The argument is arrant horsefeathers. Crackdowns on stupid and recklessmotorists, whose numbers are legion, pose no risk to safe, law-abidingdrivers; quite to the contrary. Why should action against stupid and recklesscyclists have any different effect on those who ride safely and withinthe limits of the law? For that matter, if a sidewalk is off-limits toan unsafe rider, why should a safe one be allowed to use it? Sidewalksare for pedestrians, not for people on wheels, unless they are in wheelchairsor other devices for the transportation of the disabled.
It is quite true, as one Manhattan deliveryman told the Times, thatcyclists "sometimes ride on the sidewalk to be safe from cars."There are relatively few spaces in Washington or any other city that areset aside for cyclists, with the result that they often must cope withconditions that are set, albeit unwittingly so, to their disadvantage.Obviously, as more and more businesses turn to cycles as speedy alternativesto automotive gridlock, this must change. The establishment of speciallanes and other privileged zones for bicycles should be part of any comprehensiveapproach to the cycle problem.
But tolerating intolerable risk to pedestrians is hardly the way togo about the job. As a dedicated walker (talk about self-righteousness!),I have long and occasionally vivid experience of the ways in which motoristsblithely threaten the safety of pedestrians in crosswalks, intersectionsand parking lanes, among other places. But at least cars don't use sidewalks,except for the rare one that lurches out of control. There is no prevailingassumption that cars have some "right" to use sidewalks. Butpeople who ride bicycles make just such an assumption about themselvesand the vehicles they ride, and -- so anecdotal evidence suggests -- thepolice silently abet them in this.
If some higher public good were being served by this menace, perhapsa way could be found to tolerate it. But the deliverymen are carrying pizzaand fried chicken, and the messengers are hauling legal boilerplate andother junk. All this is about as urgent and pertinent to the commonwealthas the literary endeavors of a fourth-grade composition class. We put upwith it because an offended public is slow to express itself, much lessto organize, and because the bellicose, bullying behavior of thugs on wheelscows the rest of us into reluctant acquiescence.
Well, since everyone else on this benighted planet is whining the chorusof victimization, why can't we poor pedestrians get in on the act? Rocket-poweredcyclists careering around sidewalks are far greater threats to far morepeople than most of the other nuisances against which huge, fierce lobbieshave assembled. So let's get nasty and put the bicycles in their place:the street.
Reply from the District of Columbia Bicycle Courier Association toMr. Yardley's article, "Messenger of Mayhem" in the 12-1-97 washingtonpost Delivered to the Washington Post, 12-6-97
Dear Editor:
Jonathon Yardley's Washington Post article "Messengers of Mayhem,"dated 12/1/97, exemplifies a very distressing bit of demagoguery I'm notused to finding in the pages of the Washington Post. It is a surprisinglyambiguous and disappointing piece of journalism which does little to addressthe accusations it raises. In addition, Mr. Yardley employs abusive phrasesand elementary literary chicanery like "helmeted cycle Nazis"and "bellicose, bullying behavior of thugs on wheels" to bolsterhis weak position. Although the article appears to target bicycle messengers,it by no means exempts cyclists in general from being categorized by behaviorYardley refers to as a menace to urban society.
Ultimately, his lack of information and the generalizations he usesto cover his tracks are offensive to anyone who regularly negotiates thecity by bicycle, regardless of whether they do so for a living or not.
As it happens, there are several hundred individuals who are employedto ferry various items via bicycle all over DC; the majority of these peoplework as bicycle messengers. It follows that there are thousands of individualsutilizing the service of bicycle messengers, many of whom probably considerthe value of the items delivered for them as something more than "theliterary endeavors of a fourth-grade composition class." Hundredsof those same packages are delivered by messengers to the Washington Postevery business day.
On one hand, the article does bring to light some very serious issuesregarding the safety of pedestrians and cyclists in urban centers. Ridinga bicycle on DC sidewalks within the downtown business center is forbidden,and violating this rule might result in confrontations between pedestriansand cyclists. Unfortunately, Mr. Yardley's message is lost in the kindof hyperbole which declares that:
"Rocket-powered cyclists careening around sidewalks are far greaterthreats to far more people than most of the other nuisances against whichhuge, fierce lobbies have assembled."
Clearly his priorities were overwhelmed by his zeal, but what is moretragic is that the real issue of public safety is shunted in favor of hisapparent vindictiveness for cyclists. Obviously, cyclists just like pedestrians,are forced to adapt to grid-patterns designed to move a great deal of vehiculartraffic along very congested urban corridors.
Many "near misses" occur when one or the other of these parties(sometimes both) operate outside of the established rules of the road.These activities are not limited to sidewalk riding, but also include:pedestrians standing in the street while waiting for a light to change,cyclists riding the wrong way on a one-way street, individuals riding orwalking against red lights, and jay-walkers crossing the street betweenstalled or parked cars. All of these activities are potentially dangerous,yet all are committed everyday by many cyclists and pedestrians who aretrying to make the most of their time while negotiating a cityscape dominatedby 2000 lb. automobiles.
Ironically, the focal issue of Mr. Yardley's piece involves the unfortunatedeath of a New Jersey man who was killed in New York City after being struckon the sidewalk by a person delivering fried chicken. For all of the relevancyrevealed by these points, the title of his piece - addressed as it wasto a Washington audience - might well have read: "Chicken Fingersof Death Terrorize Manhattan Sidewalks"; or "Gotham Chicken-EatersOrder In; New Jersey Man Checks Out." Certainly the few facts presentedby Mr. Yardley creates a more nebulous chain of blame than the simple answerof decrying the obvious dangers of the "bicycle menace." Noneof this, however, pertains to DC bicycle messengers. The delivery personmentioned in his article was not a messenger, and the incident in questiondid not occur in Washington, DC.
Bicycle messengers are routinely injured in traffic accidents in scenarioswhich, regardless of blame (and the messengers do not own a disproportionateshare of it), find the messengers at a severe safety disadvantage comparedwith the operators of motor vehicles. I work as a cycle messenger. I willsay without reservation that as a result of riding my bicycle in the cityfive days a week all year long, I have experienced several "near-misses"as well as scores of stitches and a few broken bones accrued from somenear-fatalities. Some of these incidents were my fault, others were not;I am not infallible. I am careful to avoid all collisions, however, becausemy health and life depend upon staying out of those situations. Becausethere are no safety valves available to me (corridors, ramps, lanes orother bicycle specific avenues), I must compete for space and time withautos and their operators, many of whom have little regard for my safety,in an environment which clearly gives them the advantage. When in doubtI have taken the safe road over sidewalks, and though I have never comecloser to hitting a person on the sidewalk than I might have done whilewalking with my bicycle beside them, I know this to be wrong. But untilsuch time as equal precautions are made available to pedestrians, cyclistsand motorists alike, I will be forced to protect myself in an environmentwhere I consider the rampaging tons of steel all over this city a greaterhealth risk to public safety than human-powered bicycles.
Mr. Yardley asks "if is too much to hope that they (DC police)might find time to cite a homicidal cyclist or two," making lightof the enormous toll that real homicides take on this city every year,while failing to produce evidence of any pedestrians killed by cyclists(let alone messengers) in the District of Columbia, on the sidewalk oranywhere else, over the last several years. In fact, there have not beenany, but I know that conversely, many pedestrians and cyclists have beenmaimed or killed by motor vehicles. What shall we do Mr. Yardley? Employmore cars? I suggest that if the Washington Post and Mr. Yardley want realsolutions, they should find the proper "huge, fierce lobbies"to exhort who might have some answers to the questions of public safetyon the streets and sidewalks of our city. In the meantime, more responsiblejournalism could be issued which does not utilize inflammatory rhetoricand jr. high-school literary devices to fancifully de-construct pertinentsafety issues.
James Kerns
Vice President, District of Columbia Bicycle Couriers Association
More letters to the washington post editor - Re: "Messengersof Mayhem"
To the Editor
As a professional Bike Messenger, I have found that the interchangesbased on generalized ignorance are the most hazardous part of my job. InJonathan Yardley's December 1st article "Messengers of Mayhem,"Mr. Yardley makes several common misjudgements. Very often there is nointerest in the reality behind the vision of a, "homicidal bicyclist.,""helmeted cycle Nazis..." This polarization of urban cyclists, specificallymessengers, with the "rest of the public," is often difficultto navigate when the players are so alienated from each other.
This attitude explains why someone has to lean on the horn and yellout their window, "Get off the street, bikes belong on the sidewalk."It also helps me understand motorists who try to kill me with their cars.Then there are the icy stares in the elevators, the refusal of an office"professional" to allow me to use the restroom even though I'mabout to wet my pants. It explains why UPS can go in the front door andI must go around the back to the loading dock where cretins harass me because,I had it coming, after all, I'm a woman and I'm a messenger to them I'mone step up from a prostitute.
It is tragedy when any cyclist hurts, maims or kills a pedestrian. Particularlywhen the pedestrian, a gentleman in NYC, was doing absolutely nothing thatshould've put him at risk.
As a messenger of nearly six years, I myself have nearly been hurt byidiots on bikes in traffic. Everyone of them was either an urban interloper(week-end warrior type) or a rookie messenger. We messengers tend to policeour own. A veteran messenger will get just as hot over bad riding as anybody.
So the leap in the assignment of blame, blaming all messengers for badcycling is misguided. There are hundreds, thousands of messengers, onenever hears about. Why? They somehow manage to go to work day after day,year after year, taking chances and not getting themselves or anyone elsehurt for that matter. That is skill. Considering the number of times amessenger could be maimed killed or do others damage on a 10 hour shift,a 5 day work week, it is quite amazing that these incidents in NYC andBoston are really quite rare.
They are tragic all the same. There is some selective attention goingon, though. Around the same time of the "Chirping Chicken" incident,a bus driver, also in NYC, had an epileptic seizure, his bus drove outof control hitting a bike messenger and sending this messenger flying throughthe air. The messenger did not survive.
There are irresponsible people in every sphere of life. Why on earthwas an epileptic man allowed to drive public transportation? I've seenpedestrians flout the law and cause car wrecks. I've nearly been hit bymotorists running red lights.
The difference I see between a grousing pedestrian and myself is thatwhen I break a law, I pay attention. More than that, I pay attention tothe pertinent matters. I feel for an office worker, the tourist or othersimilarly distracted individuals. For whatever reason, they have difficultyprocessing the urban scene. In my six years as a messenger, I have wornout more than a dozen pairs of shoes. I didn't wear them out riding mybike, I wore them out walking. Suffice to say, I walk quite a lot. It amazesme how pedestrians seem to have so much difficulty walking around towns.I myself have yet to have a problem with a messenger running into me, evenwhen I jaywalk. Thank you, Mr. Yardley for opening up this debate. Insteadof finger pointing and alienation, the better option is to reason the argumentand collect the facts.
Lambchop
RE: Bicycle Messengers commentary in Washington Post
To: Jonathan Yardley
I was a bicycle messenger in Washington, D.C., in 1992. I have sincemoved to San Francisco where I am a freelance reporter for,among otherpublications, the Mercury News and Rodale's Bicycling mag.
Jonathan, I was profoundly dismayed by the meanspirited tone of youressay in the Post, to wit:
" If some higher public good were being served by this menace,perhaps a way could be found to tolerate it. But the deliverymen are carryingpizza and fried chicken, and the messengers are hauling legal boilerplateand other junk. All this is about as urgent and pertinent to the commonwealas the literary endeavors of a fourth-grade composition class. We put upwith it because an offended public is slow to express itself, much lessto organize, and because the bellicose, bullying behavior of thugs on wheelscows the rest of us into reluctant acquiescence."
Jonathan! These people are earning a living in a trade that is a) underpaid,b) uninsured, c) nonunionized, d) extremely competitive!
I didn't judge whether my deliveries were worth delivering when I wasa messenger! I had a job to do.
It is consummate arrogance for you to speak so vindictively of the tradeof messengering. People support families as messengers. Furthermore, yes,more bikes means less pollution, less mayhem on the street. Jonathan, carskill. Bicycles rarely cause anything worse than bruises. You wisely notedthe lack of bicycle facilities in D.C. I think your energies would havebeen better spent expounding on that regrettable subject, because thereinyou will find the root of bicylist behavior.
There is nowhere safe to ride in a city. Not just D.C. or SF. Anywhere.People don't bike commute because it isn't safe. People who do, have tostoop to the same degree of daily misdemeanor as an automobile does, simplyto stay afloat on the street. How often do you see a car run a red lightor switch lanes without signalling? That is behavior that kills bicyclists.
We had two bicyclists, two pedestrians, and one motorcyclist killedby reckless car drivers in downtown San Francisco in the space of one monththis year.
Who is the problem? What's creating this mayhem? Why has Critical Massspread from San Francisco to more than 40 cities around the world?
Because cyclists are an international community, and a marginalizedone at that, in desperate need of recognition as a legitimate and importantpresence in the unrban landscape. You are right, an idiot on a bike isa bad thing. But that person is an idiot first, not a bicyclist first.Perhaps you should be glad that person is on a bike, and not in car.
Please address the issue at hand: A dominant, intolerant car-culturewhich enforces unsafe city streets and is a global pollution problem. Recognizethat bicyclists have adapted to the situation they have been given.
Please, Jonathan, if you really are a reporter, then you know whereto put your meanspirited editorializing. Do the job right, report on theproblem. Why don't you try riding your bike to and from work for a week?
Come on. You can't very well shoot your mouth off on the subject ifyou don't immerse yourself in the lifestyle.
Josh Wilson
Re: Jonathan Yardley's - "Messengers of Mayhem" The WashingtonPost, December 1, 1997
To the Editor
Mr Yardley's column begins with one of its few truths - bicycles donot belong on the sidewalk, but his article quickly descends into anotherignorant attempt at vilifying the bicycle messenger community. It is fraughtwith opinion based on unsubstantiated, anecdotal evidence and biased perceptions.Just because Yardley disguises his column as a commentary, it does notrelieve him of a responsibility to journalistic ethics - such as the truth.His comments are akin to a book review based solely on the book's jacketnotes and photographs without bothering to read the book's contents. (Isthat how he reviews books?)
If Yardley's concern is with the behavior and threat of messengers,it would serve him well to search for some truth. The reality is that messengersare routinely the victims of bigoted stereotypes put forward by peopleobstinately and unreasonably attached to their opinions. It is unfortunatethat the "extraordinary tolerance for the rhythms by which otherslive" does not extend to common couriers. Yardley cannot find a localincident in Washington to promote harassment of messengers so he importsone from New York City. He should also import some statistics and factsfrom New York.
There exist no studies, statistics nor facts to show that bike messengerscause more accidents or injuries to themselves or others. In 1992, theAutomobile Insurance Society of Quebec prepared a study on the safety concernsinvolving bike couriers based on the "experience, opinions and perceptionsof municipal authorities in Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Vancouver, Seattle,New York City and Washington, D.C. as well as those of cyclists' associationsin Canada and the United States." This study concluded that couriers'"behaviour draws attention because their clothing and bag make themmore visible," and in fact couriers "have no more of a propensityfor accidents per kilometre travelled than other bicycle riders...and forthat reason caution is advised in imputing accident risk to couriers inorder to justify specific intervention targeting this type of road user."
The tone of Yardley's article is completely and absolutely prejudicial.We are to believe that Washington is "plagued by the bicycle menace"and "messengers of mayhem," which consist of "maraudingcyclists," "helmeted cycle Nazi's", and "rocket-poweredcyclists careening around sidewalks." "The bellicose, bullyingbehavior of these thugs on wheels cows the rest of [Washington] into reluctantacquiescence." Sounds scary.
Meanwhile, the dangers of the roads which scare many cyclists on tothe sidewalks in the first place, are dismissed as coping with "conditionsthat are set albeit unwittingly so to the [cyclist's] disadvantage."These same roads killed 761 cyclists throughout the United States in 1996.
Yardley is also upset that the police might not "find time to citea homicidal bicyclist or two." "Homicidal bicyclists" areMr Yardley's fairy tale. The "real threat to public safety" onthe sidewalks is the motor vehicle. Although three pedestrians lost theirlives to cyclists in New York City over the last two years, it has beenmany years since a sidewalk cyclist has resulted in a fatality. In factbetween the years 1989-1994, the average number of pedestrians killed bycyclists each year was ZERO. During the same period an average of 284 pedestrianswere killed by motor vehicles each year including 9 killed, and 483 struck,by cars on the sidewalk (Yes, that is each year and not cumulatively.)This year alone 15 pedestrians lost their lives to motor vehicles on thesidewalk.
Although the homicidal bicyclist is non-existent, the police do findthe time to cite the average messenger for all types of "intolerablerisks to pedestrians" such as riding without commercial identification.This year New York City police issued 9,867 summonses to cyclists.
It is clear that the most serious threat to public safety is relatedto cars yet some pedestrians, like Yardley fail to the recognize the overwhelmingevidence. The reason may lie in the fact that most self-proclaimed pedestriansspend most of their transportation time in a motor vehicle. I suspect thisis also true of Yardley. (How does he commute from Baltimore - power walking?)
In addition to inflaming anti-messenger sentiment, Yardley also attemptsto vitiate the value of the service provided by bicycle couriers. He wonders"if some higher public good were being served by this menace, perhapsa way could be found to tolerate it." And he rejects the service as"urgent and pertinent to the commonwealth as the literary endeavorsof a fourth-grade composition class". Washington's messengers providemany advantages to the city. They not only provide benefits in the areasof " ozone depletion and global warming and auto emissions, "but also reduce other forms of pollution such as noise and smell. Messengersmake the streets and sidewalks safer for pedestrians because they replacecars that kill and injure many pedestrians every year. They also save themoney that would be necessary to treat these injuries. They reduce trafficgridlock and congestion. They do less damage to the roads, take up lessspace and save the city and its taxpayers money on construction costs.They act as goodwill ambassadors, providing information and directionsto tourists. They provide a fast, efficient, value added service that Washington'sbusiness and legislative community not only relies upon but insists upon.They are sought out by businesses to increase their profits and reducecosts and stress in the workplace. Couriers save these institutions aninordinate amount of money every year. Their speed is the last line ofdefense against office workers' and executives' natural tendencies towardprocrastination.
If Yardley is sincere in his concern for pedestrian safety, he willcondemn the harassment and prejudice toward any type of road user. He willcall for increased enforcement and education of all road users on an evenhanded basis. He will demand Washington to look toward ways of improvingits design and use of its roads and he will want efforts directed at spendingthe limited tax dollars in a way that considers the welfare of all Washington'sresidents.
Joe Hendry
Toronto
| main | articles | laws | zines | report | 10-9 day |
If you have comments or suggestions, email me at messvilleto@yahoo.com