• home
• documentaries
• blog
• awards
• buy docs
• about
• trailers
• contact

Interview with John Pucher
John Pucher, Ph.D. is a professor of Urban Planning at Rutgers University in New Jersey. His doctoral dissertation was on equity in public transit. He’s now one of the world’s pre-eminent “bicycle scholars”. Pucher’s recent work focuses on what is being done in the most advanced European cities to create urban spaces where cycling is a viable and valuable form of transportation.

Interview with Christopher Sumpton

One of the problems for cycling in New Jersey is, we have the densest traffic, motor vehicle traffic, of any state in the United States, and that is the biggest obstacle to cycling, all the motor vehicles, it really is. And what happens, because we have so much congested traffic, the motorists get in a really bad and aggressive mood, and that makes it even more dangerous for the cyclist. I don't know how to deal with that, but I find the attitude of the motorists here in New Jersey is the biggest obstacle to cycling in a way. That's why it's even more necessary to have separate cycling facilities on any sort of an arterial road. Well, they definitely, motorists definitely do not take seriously the rights of cyclists on the roadways, there's no question about it. They believe bikes don't belong on the road, which I completely disagree with. But they believe roads are for cars, bikes shouldn't be on the roads, and therefore almost they have the right, maybe even the duty, to intimidate cyclists and force them off the road. This is one of the biggest safety problems for cyclists because you get aggressive motorists, they're in a hurry, they don't want to have to bother with the cyclist on their road. They figure well the cyclist isn't travelling fast enough, doesn't deserve to use the road. Well technically you do have the right to use the roadway. The New Jersey law states that cyclists have an equal right to the road, but that you're expected to keep to the right or to the left of the road if it's a one way street. And so, in a sense, technically, you have, the cyclists have the right to ride on the road, but as a practical matter, number one, many of the roads simply have too much motor vehicle traffic or it's too fast, or there's a lot of trucks involved which make it unpleasant or unsafe to ride on the road.

And what's really important, if a cyclist gets hit by a motorist, you can pretty much be guaranteed there will be no consequences for the motorist. Normally there's not even a summons issued, and there's virtually never a severe penalty. It's not as if the motorist is going to go to jail or face a large fine, it just doesn't happen. There was a study done of 1,000 cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in New York City over a three year period. 1,000 fatalities. Not just serious injuries, but fatalities. What was the result of this? Using police reports what they determined was in 1/3 of those cases, of 1,000 cyclist and pedestrian fatalities, 100% of the fault was the motorist. How many summons do you think were issued to those motorists? In only 2% of all of those cases, including those 1,000 fatalities, in only 2% of the cases was there any summons, any fine, any consequence of any kind for the motorist. What that does, it sends a signal to the motorist that they can get away, literally, with murder. Because the vast majority of police and judges are motorists. And they never get on a bike. They haven't a clue what it's like being a cyclist. I'm in the middle of a trial in New York City, which is dealing with group bicycling riding. Well, the judge who makes the decision in this trial, there's no jury, it's just...I think it's called a bench trial, so there's no jury. He makes the decision on his own. He hasn't ridden on a bike in decades and the police, almost all the police get free parking in New York City, and so they get their jobs by car. The judges are driving cars, so no one is issuing tickets to the motorists for not respecting the rights of cyclists.

And that's what makes cycling so much safer in northern Europe. It's twofold. On the one hand you have much greater enforcement of the legal rights of cyclists to ride on the roads in northern Europe. Secondly, however, you have much better separate facilities. So you have protected bike lanes, bike paths, special priority traffic signals. You get an advanced green light, you have bike boxes, which are these advanced stop lines for the cyclists. From A to Z things are really geared toward making cycling safe and convenient and pleasant and fast. So you have lots of cut-throughs, for example, for cyclists in the Netherlands or Germany or Denmark.

Here basically there's nothing special that's being done for cyclists. Certainly there's nothing in the way of traffic priority. But the other thing that's really a problem, there's nothing in the way of law enforcement to put motorists, in the sense, on the defensive, which is the case in Northern Europe. If a motorist hits a cyclist or a pedestrian in northern Europe, you pretty much have to prove that the cyclist was deliberately causing the accident. Otherwise it is assumed by law it is the fault of the motorist.

Now just imagine for a second, what are the consequences of this for the driving behaviour of the motorist? The motorist knows if you hit that cyclist or that pedestrian, you have to prove that they cause the accident, otherwise it's automatically your fault. That means you truly are on the defensive as a motorist. You are going to drive very carefully, and whether you like cyclists or not, you know if you hit those cyclists you are in trouble. And that is one reason why I think driving by motorists is so much safer vis-a-vis cyclists than it is here in the United States. 37 years. I haven't had a car since 1972 and I only owned a car for three years. You know, it's not just a matter of principle. Partly it is a matter of principle. I think not having a car is a great thing. It's easier. I have less to worry about. I save money. But in a way, strangely enough I even save time, because by not having a car I don't have to park the car, I don't have to wash the car, I don't have to get it repaired. I don't have to work. You know that most people work two months a year just to earn the money to finance their cars. And yet people think they're saving money by having a car. I'm sorry. They think they're saving time by having a car.

So, by not having a car and by cycling, I'm saving time in all sorts of ways. Number one, I'm not working those two months of the year that the average American works in order to earn the money to finance their cars. Plus, medical studies have shown that for every hour you're cycling you're adding more of an hour to your expected healthy lifetime. Vehicular cycling is this notion that there should be no separate cycling facilities of any kind. No lanes, no paths, no intersection modifications, no advance stop lines or bike boxes, and that really makes it almost impossible for most elderly to cycle or children to cycle or women. There have been a number of surveys that have actually examined just this. And what they find is, the only way you're going to get most women and children and elderly to cycle is, in fact, to provide those sorts of traffic protected separate cycling facilities.

I suppose the argument is, for practical purposes in the United States many cities such as here in New Jersey, in New Brunswick, simply don't have these lanes and paths. And so what are you going to do? But it's the vehicular cyclists who, more than anyone else have been preventing the construction of separate cycling facilities, because they feel it's an inferior way to get around. And that you should simply learn to cycle on the road like a motor vehicle, which is insane. It's absolutely insane.

These vehicular cyclists, they're really fanatical, because my argument is, if people want to vehicular cycle on the roadway, that's fine. I mean, if they feel comfortable doing this, and many young men see this as a challenge. They enjoy the stimulation of vehicular cycling, but it's very stressful. It means they're sort of weaving in and out of traffic, they're having to constantly look behind, navigate in moving traffic, and it is very dangerous. One mistake can be fatal. And but totally aside from that, cycling in moving traffic such as this, is viewed by almost everyone as being unsafe. They feel, whether it's unsafe or not, and I do think it's unsafe, but it's simply not comfortable. It's not convenient and most people are not going to do it. There is an interesting concept of carrots and sticks. And that is, on the one hand to get people cycling you have to revive them with convenient, safe, attractive cycling facilities. Bike lanes, bike paths, intersection modifications such as bike boxes or advance stop lines, advance traffic signals, good bike parking is absolutely crucial. Integration of cycling with public transit facilities. Those are the carrots. But you also have to have sticks. What are the sticks involved? It's reduction of car speeds. I think that's the number one and most important stick in terms of encouraging cycling.

Because the number one hindrance, or fear, of cyclists is motor vehicles travelling too fast. The faster the car is travelling or the truck is travelling, the more likely the cyclist will be killed or very seriously injured. So, reducing motor vehicle speeds in general and also traffic calming of residential neighbourhoods to no more than 30 kilometres an hour, which is the standard in Europe. I think it's absolutely crucial to traffic calm your residential neighbourhoods. If you look at even large cities, such as in Berlin, Germany, 80% of their streets are traffic calm. 3,000 kilometres of streets in Berlin are traffic calm.

If you look at smaller cities, Frieberg, Muenster, many, many cities in Europe through Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, as a matter of having a civilized neighbourhood, having livable, safe sustainable neighbourhoods, one of their key strategies is traffic calming. Reducing car speeds to no more than 30 kilometres an hour. And they also established certain home zones, they're called. In home zones, you're only allowed to go at maximum 7 kilometres per hour. I think there's probably an exception for cyclists going somewhat faster.

But basically what they do is they make a street a place for kids to play, a place where you can go to walk, a place to cycle. So that's one of the sticks. But of course in Europe they have a number of sticks. High gasoline prices. We're talking about eight or nine dollars for a gallon of gasoline. We're talking about...to get a driver's licence in Germany, and in most European countries, you pay $3,000. $3,000 for mandatory lessons for getting the driver's licence. And there's none of this jazz of free driver's lessons in the schools such as you have in the United States. From A to Z there are much, much higher taxes and fees on car ownership and use than there are in the United States.

So, on the one hand you make car use expensive, you make it inconvenient, you put in artificial dead ends. And at the same time you have short cuts for cyclists. You make things faster and more convenient for cyclists at the same time that you make driving a car a pain in the neck. You make it more expensive, less convenient, you make dead ends so you can't get through a residential neighbourhood, it forces cars to go around residential neighbourhoods. All of this things, having sticks and carrots together is absolutely crucial. And I think that's why cycling policies in Europe have been so much more effective than they are here in the United States. That's one of the problems - who owns the roads? Because if you look at the Netherlands and Germany and Denmark, they've changed their minds, and that's the hopeful thing. Because if you go back to the 1950s, 1960s, early 1970s in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the motorists thought they owned the roads. Over the past three decades those views have completely changed, and now it's the pedestrians and the cyclists and the transit vehicles who own the roads. And so, priorities have completely shifted around if you look at these northern European countries, because they recognize all of the very negative energy impacts, environmental impacts, safety impacts of excessive car use.

So where they used to be car parks they've done away with them and now they're pedestrian plazas. Where there used to be, maybe five, six lane streets, they've...it's called the road diet. They've actually narrowed the roads and produced more space, anyway. They've widened sidewalks and also, then, put in bike lanes, more facilities for cyclists and for pedestrians. Now, I think in the United States we need to do the same thing. There's no question that it's possible, and it doesn't happen all at once. But I think we have to come up with some really good arguments, politically, and from a practical point of view to convince the public that it's really worthwhile to promote cycling. And I think the health reason is the number one reason.

Because all studies show...I did a review recently. Like there's 20 different scientific studies that show beyond any doubt whatsoever cycling is really good for your health. You're healthier, you live longer, and you also impose less in the way of health costs and traffic dangers on everyone else. And so I think it's really, really important to convey this message to the public and to politicians. One way to look at this, you can say well 1% of all trips by bike in the United States now, that's like nothing, that's just insignificant. But look at all the potential. It means there's a huge potential, and this is really crucial. 40% of all trips in American cities are shorter than 2 miles and 25% of all trips in American cities are shorter than 1 mile. Now let me tell you, cycling 1 or 2 miles is nothing. Almost anyone can cycle 1 or 2 miles. So there's a huge potential there.

I think the hope is the concern of people with their children. There's an obesity epidemic, even among children in the United States, the level of childhood obesity has quadrupled over the past three decades, because they're driven everywhere. It's like 90% of the kids in the United States, they don't walk to school, they don't bike to school. They get driven by their parents to school. 90% of the kids in the United States. Well, they're not getting any of the physical activity they could by walking or bicycling to school.

Now, in addition to that, parents driving their kids to school are one of the main sources of congestion, air pollution and traffic dangers. Now I think, we talked about hope. How do we get policies changed? How do we get people to start cycling? I think the way you do it, you start with kids. Kids...to get someone who is 80 years old to start cycling is not maybe terribly realistic. But I think it is realistic to try with children. Safe foods to schools programs. Better parking at schools. Bicycling programs of various sources. Bicycle training programs, for example, in schools.