Are Cyclists Reckless Lawbreakers?

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in
cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In
New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a
not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a
master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected
bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe to
say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or
driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these infractions
are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful driving behaviours
have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley E. Marshall, Daniel
Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’ decisions about
breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making rational, albeit
illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and pedestrians—or are they
reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save
time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such behaviours.
They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other
participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling
scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent
would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly
18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to some
form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of
the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal
safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s
visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless:
they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to
themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety,
because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system
dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed with
bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving. The
study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less to do
with who you are than where you live: the overall context, norms, and
social processes of a city play a meaningful role in bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a newspaper
competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed Prohibition
laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break social norms.�
They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational individuals
trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are
doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the
transportation system put in front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes
about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps, fewer
laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in
cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In
New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a
not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a
master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected
bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe to
say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or
driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these infractions
are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful driving behaviours
have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley E. Marshall, Daniel
Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’ decisions about
breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making rational, albeit
illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and pedestrians—or are they
reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save
time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such behaviours.
They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other
participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling
scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent
would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly
18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to some
form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of
the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal
safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s
visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless:
they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to
themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety,
because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system
dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed with
bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving. The
study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less to do
with who you are than where you live: the overall context, norms, and
social processes of a city play a meaningful role in bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a newspaper
competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed Prohibition
laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break social norms.�
They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational individuals
trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are
doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the
transportation system put in front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes
about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps, fewer
laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in
cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In
New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a
not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a
master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected
bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe
to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign,
or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these
infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful
driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley
E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’
decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making
rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and
pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to
save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such
behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents
recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented
hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions
about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey
takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to
some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules
of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is
personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and
increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists
are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little
harm would come to themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own
safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation
system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed
with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving.
The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less
to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context,
norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in
bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a
newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed
Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break
social norms.� They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational
individuals trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it
means they are doing so illegally, given the social norms of where
they live and the transportation system put in front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes
about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps,
fewer laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others !
I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge.

On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote:
On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others ! I didn't
expect you to display such lack of knowledge.

Remember B&Q? Perhaps Nugent was one of the many thousands of accessories.

On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote:
On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly
in cities, where biking has become the safest means of
transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning
Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment,
recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected,
high-capacity, protected bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe
to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop
sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these
infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful
driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley
E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’
decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making
rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and
pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to
save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such
behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents
recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented
hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions
about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey
takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to
some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules
of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is
personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and
increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists
are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little
harm would come to themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own
safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation
system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed
with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving.
The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less
to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context,
norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in
bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a
newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that
disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not
necessarily break social norms.� They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists
tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and
efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the
social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in
front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in
attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then,
perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others !
I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge.

The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws
need to be broken.

It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed.

Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and
democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality.

On 19/09/2020 11:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote:
On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others ! I didn't expect
you to display such lack of knowledge.

Remember B&Q? Perhaps Nugent was one of the many thousands of accessories.

TMS320 excels himself in the production of gibberish.

He's getting better at it all the time.

On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 20:59:22 UTC+1, colwyn wrote:
https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly in
cities, where biking has become the safest means of transportation. In
New York, for example, the Regional Planning Association, a
not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment, recently shared a
master plan for 425 miles of interconnected, high-capacity, protected
bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe to
say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop sign, or
driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these infractions
are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful driving behaviours
have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley E. Marshall, Daniel
Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’ decisions about
breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making rational, albeit
illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and pedestrians—or are they
reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to save
time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such behaviours.
They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents recruited other
participants—for an online survey that presented hypothetical cycling
scenarios along with multiple-choice questions about what the respondent
would choose to do in each scenario. Survey takers, numbering nearly
18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to some
form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of
the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal
safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and increasing one’s
visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists are not reckless:
they mostly break laws in situations where little harm would come to
themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own safety,
because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation system
dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed with
bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving. The
study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less to do
with who you are than where you live: the overall context, norms, and
social processes of a city play a meaningful role in bicycling behaviours..


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a newspaper
competition “to coin a word to describe those that disobeyed Prohibition
laws for rational reasons that did not necessarily break social norms.�
They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists tend to be rational individuals
trying to function safely and efficiently, even if it means they are
doing so illegally, given the social norms of where they live and the
transportation system put in front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in attitudes
about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then, perhaps, fewer
laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

You only have to look at these cyclists ignoring red lights to form your own conclusion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLcu0PJcCiY&t=32s

On Saturday, 19 September 2020 at 14:33:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote:
On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly
in cities, where biking has become the safest means of
transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning
Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment,
recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected,
high-capacity, protected bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe
to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop
sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these
infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful
driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley
E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’
decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making
rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and
pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to
save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such
behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents
recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented
hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions
about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey
takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to
some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules
of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is
personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and
increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists
are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little
harm would come to themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own
safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation
system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed
with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving.
The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less
to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context,
norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in
bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a
newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that
disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not
necessarily break social norms.� They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists
tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and
efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the
social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in
front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in
attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then,
perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others !
I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge.
The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws
need to be broken.

It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed.

Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and
democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality.

Without the Kinder Scout Trespass there would be no public footpaths left in this country.

On Saturday, 19 September 2020 at 14:33:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote:
On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly
in cities, where biking has become the safest means of
transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning
Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment,
recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected,
high-capacity, protected bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe
to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop
sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these
infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful
driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley
E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’
decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making
rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and
pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to
save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such
behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents
recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented
hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions
about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey
takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to
some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules
of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is
personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and
increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists
are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little
harm would come to themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own
safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation
system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed
with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving.
The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less
to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context,
norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in
bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a
newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that
disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not
necessarily break social norms.� They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists
tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and
efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the
social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in
front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in
attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then,
perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others !
I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge.
The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws
need to be broken.

It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed.

Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and
democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality.

So you do not believe in votes for women.

On 19/09/2020 22:07, wrote:
On Saturday, 19 September 2020 at 14:33:45 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/09/2020 07:51, colwyn wrote:
On 18/09/2020 23:26, JNugent wrote:
On 18/09/2020 20:59, colwyn wrote:

https://daily.jstor.org/are-cyclists...s-lawbreakers/


COVID-19 has hugely increased the numbers of cyclists, particularly
in cities, where biking has become the safest means of
transportation. In New York, for example, the Regional Planning
Association, a not-for-profit pillar of the planning establishment,
recently shared a master plan for 425 miles of interconnected,
high-capacity, protected bike lanes.

Yet despite their growing numbers, cyclists continue to suffer from a
negative image: supposedly reckless, rude, and lawbreaking. It’s safe
to say that nearly everyone has jaywalked, rolled through a stop
sign, or driven a few miles per hour over the speed limit, but these
infractions are often dismissed as normal. Noting that unlawful
driving behaviours have been studied extensively, researchers Wesley
E. Marshall, Daniel Piatkowski, and Aaron Johnson turned to cyclists’
decisions about breaking the rules of the road. Are bicyclists making
rational, albeit illegal, choices—similar to most drivers and
pedestrians—or are they reckless and dangerous?

While drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules of the road to
save time, for cyclists the most common reason is personal safety.
Marshall, Piatkowski, and Johnson asked bicyclists as well as drivers
and pedestrians to analyse the factors associated with such
behaviours. They used snowball sampling—meaning that respondents
recruited other participants—for an online survey that presented
hypothetical cycling scenarios along with multiple-choice questions
about what the respondent would choose to do in each scenario. Survey
takers, numbering nearly 18,000, were able to explain their rationales.

It turns out that 100 percent of the sample population admitted to
some form of lawbreaking. But the rationales differed by mode of
transportation: while drivers and pedestrians mostly break the rules
of the road to save time, for cyclists the most common reason is
personal safety, followed by saving energy, saving time, and
increasing one’s visibility. The overwhelming majority of bicyclists
are not reckless: they mostly break laws in situations where little
harm would come to themselves or others.

Additionally, they are often motivated by concerns for their own
safety, because they feel like an afterthought in a transportation
system dominated by cars. Our infrastructure simply was not designed
with bicycles in mind, so most bicyclists seem focused on surviving.
The study concludes that lawbreaking while riding a bicycle has less
to do with who you are than where you live: the overall context,
norms, and social processes of a city play a meaningful role in
bicycling behaviours.


The authors conclude that “most bicyclists can…be described as
scofflaws.� They note that the word originated in 1924 with a
newspaper competition “to coin a word to describe those that
disobeyed Prohibition laws for rational reasons that did not
necessarily break social norms.� They continue, “scofflaw bicyclists
tend to be rational individuals trying to function safely and
efficiently, even if it means they are doing so illegally, given the
social norms of where they live and the transportation system put in
front of them.�

One rare benefit of the COVID-19 crisis could be a change in
attitudes about biking and improved conditions for doing so. Then,
perhaps, fewer laws would need to be broken.

Who would have thought it?

Laws *need* to be broken?

Says who (apart from criminals)?

Emmeline Pankhurst comes to mind as many,many others !
I didn't expect you to display such lack of knowledge.
The United Kingdom is not some banana republic or fascist state. No laws
need to be broken.

It's the exact opposite: civil society needs laws to be obeyed.

Changes of the law are a matter for the operation of persuasion and
democracy, not violent riot, bullying or criminality.

Without the Kinder Scout Trespass there would be no public footpaths left in this country.

Simple trespass, unaccompanied by breaking and entering or criminal
damage to property, is not a crime.