Sharing the Space: Possible Ways That Cyclists Can Coexist with Motorists On The Road

The evergreen feud between cyclists and motorists is a well publicised topic here in Singapore. With a seemingly growing number of cyclists on the road in recent years, incidents and altercations between motorists (mainly drivers) and cyclists are also happening with increasing frequency. Some of the more serious ones, or those captured on dashcams, are often publicised, while there are plenty more that happen on a day to day basis, away from the public eye. The issue seems like it stems from a general lack of understanding between motorists and cyclists, with both sides offering reasonable perspectives on why they feel annoyed by the other camp, while conveniently failing to see how their own actions could be perceived as undesirable. Personally, I am of the opinion that people just aren’t mature enough to sort this out on their own, and that the authorities would do well to take a stand on the matter, and draw up clearer laws on how motorists and cyclists should function on our very busy and very congested roads.

As a driver myself, I have my fair share of grievances toward cyclists. However, my annoyance is not directed toward the general act of cycling on the roads itself, but rather, toward the attitude that some cyclists display. For example, I am never upset when held up by a Grabfood rider trying to make his rounds and earn a living. I am however, terribly irked when faced with Lance Armstrong Wannabes riding two abreast during peak hour traffic. When speaking with drivers from various walks of life, you realise quite quickly that the unhappiness directed towards cyclists is a soup of many different emotions and reasons. As such, it is hard to pinpoint exactly what upsets them, and therefore hard to begin addressing these issues. It does not help that the authorities have remained very impartial on the matter, refusing to genuinely take a stand on the detailed aspects of how the relationship between motorists and cyclists need to be governed. In an environment that will only see increased interaction between the two camps on the road, neutrality only breeds more discontent, and is akin to simply sweeping things under the carpet. Obviously, drivers want cyclists off the road altogether, but to indulge that thought would be very backward and borderline chauvinistic in nature. Conversely, cyclists want equal rights on the road as motorists, but to grant that without any supporting guidelines would invite immense backlash, especially in a country like Singapore where car ownership and usage comes at such a premium. So what can we do to bridge the gap and reduce conflict on the roads? - Here are some possibilities that the authorities could perhaps work on establishing.

Are cyclists considered pedestrians or motorists, and what are their liabilities when it comes to accidents? How many times have we seen cyclists behave like motorists on the roads, only to mount the pavement and continue on their way via the pedestrian crossing when the other cars have stopped at the red light? This may not immediately seem like an issue to some, but it matters when it comes to accidents and liabilities. Before cyclists became a mainstay on our roads, the relationship between motorists and pedestrians was clearly defined, not just in terms of liability, but also in terms of domain. With cyclists however, the domain is blurred, and so does the liability. If drivers are to be made to share the roads, I feel that it is only fair that they know what their liabilities are if they really were to get into an accident with one of their fellow road users. At the moment, it does feel like cyclists take advantage of this ambiguity, and ride like a motorist when it suits them, but cross into the domain of a pedestrian when it suits them. Worse of all, cyclists will claim the liabilities of a pedestrian when an incident does occur and push comes to shove. This “best of both worlds” attitude is perhaps one area that raises feelings of indignation among drivers, who perhaps feel “blackmailed” into giving way to these cyclists. If the authorities were to take a clearer stand on the matter, perhaps drivers would be a little less hostile toward cyclists.

When drivers are put through driving school, it isn’t just about learning how to operate a vehicle. It is also about learning the rules and regulations of road use, which is covered during our Basic Theory Test (BTT). This includes the manner in which motorists should behave toward one another, as well as how they should behave toward pedestrians. It makes total sense that a road user should learn how to navigate their environment. Out in the real world, and on the road, there is therefore the expectation among motorists, that the motorist next to you, has also been taught, informed, and tested on the same topic. How then, is it possible that motorists are made to share the roads with cyclists, a group of people who may or may not have the necessary tools and knowledge to adequately conduct themselves on the road? Personally, I think it would be a step in the right direction if all cyclists who wished to cycle on the roads, be made to take the Basic Theory Test that all other road users at the moment (except cyclists) have studied for and passed.

There is a clear and distinct difference between the objectives of cycling for leisure versus cycling for transportation, and I think there should be emphasis placed on this difference. Put into action, I would suggest that leisure cycling be banned during peak hour timings on certain roads. The reasoning here is very simple - It does not make sense that motorists have to deal with bus lane timings, while cyclists continue to hold up traffic during the busiest periods of road use, sometimes even holding up busses in the bus lane (how is the bus supposed to keep 1.5m away from the cyclist?) This is especially pertinent to cyclists who are cycling for leisure and are on their “Tour de Singapura”. If you think of our busiest roads during peak hour traffic and imagine a leisure cyclist “making his way downtown” while thousands of working class people are trying to make their way to work or home, it would not be overboard to say that such behaviour is socially unacceptable. These suggested restrictions would not apply to food delivery riders, and individuals who are cycling purely as a form of transport (for e.g. from their office to the nearest MRT station to get home). While this means that there may still be some cyclists on the road during peak hour traffic, it would greatly reduce the number of obstructions on the road. The truth is, motorists aren’t heartless people, and we are more than happy to accommodate the humble Ah Ma on the bicycle trying to get home, even if it means that we have to change lanes to avoid her. What motorists find hard to accept are the wannabes who are “too environmentally conscious to drive a car” and inconsiderately hamper peak hour traffic. Naturally, on roads that are far flung, like Changi Coast Road, or roads with no bus lanes, cyclists should be able to cycle at any time they like. Some of you might think that this suggestion intrudes a little bit too far into an individual’s civil liberties - and trust me, I initially thought so too myself. However, upon thinking about it further, I realise that in Singapore, we all live with some sort of restrictions that may not fit within our lifestyle, and perhaps intrudes into our civil liberties as well. For example, I have to stop playing tennis at 10pm, because of noise restrictions in my condominium. This is a common rule found in most condominiums. Car washes beside housing estates have to cease vacuum services at 9pm for the same reasons. Usage of street soccer courts and basketball courts in the neighbourhoods shut off their lights at 10pm for the same reasons. We all abide by certain rules that are imposed in the spirit of being considerate to our community members. Why can’t the same concept be applied to leisure cyclists during peak hour traffic?

If a cyclist is going to be on the road, then there is every possibility that a cyclist can knock into a vehicle and damage it. And if that is a possibility, then cyclists need to be equipped with insurance. The rationale for this is no different from why it is mandatory for all other motorists to have insurance on their vehicles. If a motorcycle or another car were to rear end my car, I would simply make a claim against their insurance. Now if a cyclist were to rear end me (perhaps as a result of not being BTT equipped, and because of inferior braking mechanisms), it could potentially leave quite a bit of damage to my car. However, I would not have any insurance to claim against. Moreover, I might not even be able to get proper identification off the cyclists (i’m guessing cyclists don’t carry their Identification Cards on them when they cycle). It’s not like with motorists, where we have a driver’s license that pertains to the vehicles we operate. What sort of identification would a cyclist provide me with? - An NTUC card maybe? Who knows? I would not even have a registered license plate number for any sort of reference. To me, having a clean and organised insurance structure for all road users makes sense as it safeguards not just the other motorists, but also the cyclists from crippling debt due to the accident. Imagine a cyclist damaging the rear bumper and exhaust system on a Ferrari or Lamborghini - Good luck settling that bill in cash without insurance coverage. I won’t comment on how much the insurance should cost a cyclist, but I would imagine that each individual would be assessed for risk by the insurance companies based on a series of factors like age and years or riding experience (from the date of passing their BTT).

I accept that cyclists are a part of the road using community and will continue to be a part of it. In fact, I expect that it is likely that in the future, cyclists will form an even bigger part of the community than what we are already seeing today. It is exactly these circumstances that lead me to say that a more established and clearly defined legal structure be introduced to govern the use of bicycles on today’s roads. If that is not done, then there are going to be a lot more altercations on the roads with an increased number of cyclists on the roads. At the end of the day, if the authorities place all the legal responsibilities and liabilities on the motorist, then their reactions would become counter-intuitive to the end goal of getting motorists to be more accepting of the situation. Motorists would get more hostile, more disgruntled, and more may act out irrationally due to their underlying disdain for cyclists. As such, the responsibility must be shared and must be enforced from an institutionalised standpoint. From the motorist standpoint, expensive car ownership, high COE rates, and high road tax rates, it is unlikely that motorists will be gracious in volunteering to share the roads with cyclists. Similarly, the road cycling community, with their 10-men pelatons (even during circuit breaker), inconsiderate peak hour riding, and sometimes “holier than thou” attitude, make it abundantly clear that they are no more gracious than the motorists they so often criticise. Until such time that the authorities take a less neutral stance, it would seem that the government’s promotion of cycling as part of a car-light society could be perceived as both naive and reckless.

Credits: