I am a driver of now, almost 8 years. Like most drivers in SG, that is enough time to have experienced the basic set of accidents that our increasingly hazardous roads are bound to cause. Other than the bumper kisses, the speeding and red-light fines, the close calls with jay-walkers, I have also been fortunate enough to have lived through a bigger scale accident which involved me crashing head-first into a concrete road barrier at 3am. I consider myself ‘educated’ enough on life on SG roads to form an opinion about the recent plea by cyclists for a bicycle lane on the roads.
I’ll say it as it is; I frowned when I heard about the plea and letter to PM Lee and instinctively, violently said NO to the idea. When I calmed down, read the letter and thought more about how plausible this is, I came to a conclusion that our minister is right.. One critical problem in implementing bicycle lanes is that it would create the dangerous illusion of safety for cyclists out on the open road. Perhaps the minister in question could have addressed and elaborated, explained the issues with regard to the plea. More importantly though, he is right. They teach us first day in driving school that a red-light is not a concrete wall that stops other cars from trying to run it. How will a line on the floor keep cyclists safe? Surely it cannot repel vehicles that touch it or go across it.
Think about drawing a line on the road for a bicycle lane. It will likely be on the left isn’t it? How much is 1.5m across? That’s about the height of petite local girl. How many cyclists can fit side by side safely? 2 I would think. Where will these lanes be? The cyclist who penned the letter suggested ‘scenic’ roads like Loyang Avenue, Upper Thomson Road etc.
These are important questions that will show you how difficult it really is to give these cyclists what they are asking for. It will perhaps also enlighten those who voted for bicycle lanes that they have voted without having thought through the issue as much as they think they did.
What’s on the left lane? Buses, trucks, heavy vehicles, lorries and pickups are assigned to left lane because they are slower-moving, bulkier and basically more of a road hazard than other vehicles to drivers. We drivers sit on the right side in SG. Now imagine you’re sitting in the cab of a container truck driving and a cyclist pulls up next to your massive front left wheel at a red-light. Will you be able to see him if you do not make a conscious effort to look? Moving off after a stop and making left turns together with a motorcycle are some of the scariest moments of driving to me. One second I’m checking for oncoming traffic and the next, a motorcycle appears in the small space of my curb allowance and it’s almost too late, I almost have him squashed right then and there. Big vehicles have more inertia and cannot stop like a car can. If you notice, they constantly roll over the road shoulder line as it is to make space for motorcycles on their right. A container truck driver slamming his brakes in surprise in this sort of scenario can either skid right into the bicycle lane or have his tail end swing out from the abrupt halt. This does not bode well for a motorcyclist, much less a cyclist at all. Imagine now it is a public bus. How many passengers will be injured because of a negligent cyclist?
Is 1.5m across a lot? Not by itself, but remember we have bus lanes and road shoulders in some cases? Roads like Upper Thomson even have public parking and illegal parking going on on the left side of the road. When you consider all that, a 1.5m lane for bicycles will end up requiring road widening by up to the width of yet another lane isn’t it? As it is right now, how many roads in your area are slated for road widening already to deal with increasing traffic flow? Case in point, Yio Chu Kang Road where this is being done to cater to the new estates of Fernvale and Sengkang-Punggol. I drive this road at least 4 times a week. It is a scenic road with a canopy of trees not unlike Upper Thomson, passing along a nice quiet stretch of private estate. But YCK is also an extremely busy road on which large vehicles are a constant thing with new flats being built in the area and an army camp nearby. The road there is being widened as much as it possibly can be without compromising the drain that runs down its middle. Still, going from 2 to 3 lanes means being less generous with the width of each individual lane. It is not unusual for cars on the right lane to not risk drawing up to a truck on the left which is treading its lane marking. It is that tight. So tell me again, is 1.5m too much to ask here? Elsewhere on other roads, road widening is going on as a necessity for vehicles. Space for bicycle lanes is a luxury in some places and downright impossible in others.
I live in Woodlands, in an area sharing the border with the light industry factories. If you live in Boon Keng or AMK or other estates with this similar set-up, you would have seen the phenomenon I’m about to describe. 7am and rush hour traffic is just beginning. The roads are filling up with carloads of kids heading for school. Suddenly, a swarm of cyclists descend upon us waiting on a red-light. It is almost like a mini version of the scenes we see on TV in front of Tienanmen Square or downtown Vietnam, or even a little like the Tour De France, except these are factory workers on the way to clock in. I remember being amazed by the number of cyclists there were the first time I experienced this. They were on the pavement, on the entire first lane, jam packed onto the little square with pedestrians waiting for the green man.. I couldn’t tell if they were behaving as road-users or pedestrians or a hybrid. It was, and still is an absolute mess. We have since had a a bicycle lane on the pavement built just for them that is about 1.5m across. Except, why is it still a mess in the mornings with cars honking, buses unable to turn out of stops, pedestrians fearful of being knocked over? Because 1.5m across will surely not be enough if people take to biking to work en masse.
I know we are supposed to be talking about ‘recreational’ cyclists here. But in all honesty, how are we supposed to segregate the hobbyists from the people who use bicycles as their transportation? If we say yes to bicycle lanes, we will be saying everyone who has a bicycle is welcome to use them isn’t it? From the daredevil punk kids, to the factory worker, to the recreational cyclist.. It will have to be an open invitation no matter the cyclist’s skill or level of responsibility because it is impossible to police. Will the responsible recreational cyclist vouch for every other fellow cyclist in their plea for a bicycle lane? I think not.
We drivers honestly hate to see cyclists on the road because we see them as road hazards. To keep cyclists safe, we would rather give them a wider berth, run into the 2nd lane a little than risk catching a cyclist with our side-mirrors.. We would brake down drastically and risk being hit by the car behind or skidding ourselves when we suddenly spot the cyclist riding in the dark with no warning lights whatsoever on himself or his bike. There is not enough social responsibility to trust ALL cyclists will follow the rules of the road if they were to share it with drivers. I particularly don’t understand how is it we should allow cyclists to be on the roads when at a red-light, they can suddenly decide to become a pedestrian. This just causes sheer confusion doesn’t it? Be one or the other. Yet cyclists can be both because it is impossible to police.
Given an accident between a vehicle and a bicycle, drivers are very much aware that they will most likely have to take the blame unless they have video proof. Will a negligent cyclist, or driver for that matter step up to admit if it was his fault? Perhaps the question is if a cyclist can even stand up at all after an accident with a car or truck. Somehow just because a cyclist is hurt and the driver unscathed, the cyclist tends to be assumed blameless. Will bicycle lanes prompt drivers to install video cameras in their vehicles? I definitely would. While cyclists call themselves ‘recreational’, many of us drive for a living and cannot afford to lose our licenses unjustly. Cyclists can just take to the road again when their scrapes and cuts heal while we get suspended for years. And then again, who will pay for this expense of video cameras? The government? The cyclists in the form of tax? Us drivers? Did you consider this when you voted yes?
The roads of our garden city were never designed for bicycles no matter how scenic a route they take. That is why the government built us parks and park connectors, and bicycle lanes on the pavement where necessary. I don’t understand how it is appealing or healthy to ride side-by-side with the big trucks and thousands of cars spewing exhaust fumes on our roads. Isn’t it a better and safer experience to cycle along East Coast Park? These cyclists call themselves ‘recreational’, so why put your lives on the line for a sport and some fun? The plea implores PM Lee to think about the 70 cyclists who died on the roads. But how many more motorcyclists and drivers and pedestrians have spilled blood on our asphalt? The roads are no place for ‘recreation’ and the moment these cyclists put their wheels down in this territory, they agreed to play by the rules of the roads and are at the mercy of its odds. Drivers understand that, and more chillingly so do motorcyclists who understand that the chances of getting grievously hurt in an accident for them is staggering. So why is it any different for cyclists who insist on using the roads? Motorcyclists do not have a choice, but these cyclists do and yet gamble with their lives for ‘recreation’. I really don’t understand and cannot empathize. They made their choice and suffered for it and there is nobody else to blame is there?
In the plea letter, a ‘parallel’ was raised in the new law that forbade maids from cleaning windows after several fell to their deaths this year. After reading everything I have written above, I hope readers can see how this comparison is like comparing apples to oranges. In the case of the maids, the solution to the problem is to simply forbid the action that is the direct cause of the deaths. Here in the issue of ‘recreational’ cycling lanes, the only way I see to keep cyclists from their deaths is to keep them entirely off the roads. Yes, some people will conclude that drawing lines on the floor and road widening and policing costs money and that’s why the government is saying no. But think about it, is this cost a necessary one? Is this money really going to solve the problem or create even more externalities? Is this really about money at all? Running a government and doing the best for a nation is not easy. If you have empathy to spare, may I suggest you spare the government some.
The case of ‘recreational’ cycling in SG on roads, or for SG to follow in the path of European nations to promote cycling as a mode of transport will require a total overhaul of everything from facilitating for it to happen on the roads, to educating people and changing a nation’s mindset. This can happen, but it is not now and not soon. SG is a pragmatic people first, and the effort involved for such a thing to happen is unlikely.. Unless we are making preparations in advance for the day oil runs out. We are not eco people, nor are we big on a sporty lifestyle. It seems unjustifiable if the government spends this sort of time and money to ‘promote a lifestyle’. This is not just drawing a line on the road after all. Fundamentally, think of how ‘scenic’ our country is, and then take into account our weather, and our shortage of land. Do you think we can ever be like the Europeans pedaling through acres of parkland, charming little streets and quaint bridges over picturesque canals? For the minority of you ‘recreational cyclists’ among us, I am totally in agreement that you have the right to enjoy such a lifestyle.. Just not on the roads please.