Cyclist, cars, and pedestrians have been competing for the rights and obligations of the roads for a long time. It has been a story of entitlement, arrogance, and disrespect. Pedestrians have a sense of entitlement for the use of the road yet they ignore the risks. Cyclists expect to share the road but show a unabashed disrespect for the rules of road, the other users, and even the pathways that have been created for cyclists and pedestrians. And cars show a competition for the road between each other, for other types of motorized vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. They stand their ground and assert their “right” to own the road.
Pedestrians disregard for the rules of the road an pathways are numerous. It’s as if they are challenging the rules that are they to protect them. How often have we seen pedestrians weave through one direction of traffic, only to be standing in the middle of the roadway waiting for a clear space to cross the remainder of the road. We see so many pedestrians walking against the light or not looking both ways before they cross, assuming that because the light changed, everyone else is following the rules of the road. Whether it be on the roadways or pathways, the dangers of potential hazards become significant if people don’t follow consistent rules of the road.
Cyclist represent an anomaly: they are bound by the laws of the road but take advantage of the pedestrian mobility. Cyclists weave in an out of traffic without signalling or respecting the other users of the road, riding two abreast (motorcyclist are not permitted so when did cyclist have this right), approaching intersections and either not stopping or making turns onto the shoulder of the opposite lane before moving over to the correct one, and not signalling when making turns. All this represents a sense of entitlement, arrogance, and disrespect for others on the road, not to mention creating a bad image for all cyclists.
In the case of cars, people with cars think that motorcyclists are a moving targets, trucks represent an obstacle that slow the traffic flow, and cyclists--because they can't flow with the speed of the traffic--should be designated to cycle paths, only. Pedestrians represent an inconvenience. Because of this approach to the roadways, cars excessively speed, drive to close behind other vehicles, don’t signal when changing lanes or making turns, running through either yellow or red traffic lights, and stopping too close to the car in front. When it comes to cars and cyclists, cars dangerously pass cyclists by trying to squeeze by in traffic, thereby crowding the cyclist and pushing them further into the curb. Others honk and curse cyclists for being on the road at all. Still others, don’t heed for pedestrians--even when they have the “right of way”.
Whether it is a pedestrian, cyclist, or car there is a brazen sense of entitlement, arrogance, and disrespect for each other on Canadian roadways. At the same time, however, whenever an incident results in an injury or a fatality, it is labelled a tragedy with demands to change the system. Whatever the case, the result of the competition between the types of people on the roads is neither a tragedy or requires changes to the system. A tragedy implies that the event was somehow outside of the individuals control. Injuries and death on the roads is, generally, human error in judgement. There is nothing tragic in this: it is a cause and effect. As for changing the system, the only change is a change in attitudes toward the multiple users of the roadways and pathways. There needs to be a greater emphasis on cooperation and not competition for the use of these transportation networks. Respect for the various users is the key. Anything else does nothing more than placate the politics of interest groups and the guilt to address the symptoms.
