Position on the Philadelphia Bicycle Courier Bill (1997)
 

Philadelphia City Council, in response to pressure by (largely elderly) pedestrians concerned with bicycles running red lights and riding sidewalks, introduced a bill to require bicycle couriers to be licensed by the city.

The Bicycle Coalition maintains that bicycle couriers are scapegoats, that any cyclist moving quickly is assumed by many non-cyclists to be a courier. Current traffic law adequately addresses the problems and concerns cited without creating new and unneeded bureaucracy or regulations.

We are also concerned that licensing couriers will lead to requiring all cyclists to be licensed.

N.B.: BCDV position is that all cyclists should obey all applicable traffic laws. The courier bill doesn't change traffic law, but rather singles out a very small group of people for extra enforcement.

The bill was reported out of committee with favorable recommendation (against our advice) and went to the full Council.

Testimony for Jeff Abrahamson, board member, Bicycle Coalition of the Delaware Valley. April 16, 1997:
 

The Bicycle Courier Bill is a well meaning bill that, unfortunately, just isn't a good idea. It doesn't significantly change existing law, but it does increase bureaucracy. It doesn't have significant teeth. It discriminates. It means well, it's just not a very good bill.

But let's look at the bill itself.

"Whereas, On average fifty pedestrians are killed each year and over 2,400 pedestrians are injured in the City of Philadelphia."

These are grave concerns.

But this bill doesn't address these issues. No one has ever been killed by a bicycle in Philadelphia. Only a few have been injured by bicycles. Cars, trucks, and buses, however, handily take up the slack, dispatching those 50 and 2400 to macadam everlasting and local hospitals.

"Whereas, Basic traffic laws are routinely ignored by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians in our City."

Agreed. But why are couriers being singled out today? They're an infinitesimal fraction of the vehicle mix. Even if they commit a disproportionate share of violations, which is not clear in a city where even the police routinely run red lights without exigent cause & emdash; even if they commit twice their share of the violations, twice a small number is still small.

Traffic law violators are a problem. So let's target the behavior, not occupations. If you run a red light, I really don't care who your employer is or what you do to get your pay check: you broke the law. Full stop. End of story.

"Whereas, The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code [says that cyclists have mostly the same rights and responsibilities as motor vehicle operators]."

And again, how many times shall we pass the same law? Is our life improved by the weight of the law books rather than by weight of law? The Commonwealth already provides for preventing the very behaviors that concern us. What issue brings us here today?

We don't need new laws that repeat the old ones. If we can't find it within ourselves to enforce the old ones, what do we gain by repeating ourselves in the statutes? Do we have so little faith in our police and our judges that we hope, by mere repetition, to bring attention to the law? Does the simple addition of bureaucracy (training, licensing, and so forth) improve anyone's life?

OK, so this bill doesn't address the real issues. So it isn't needed. Aside from a little extra bureaucracy, what harm does it do?

Plenty. For one thing, it's nigh unenforceable. And laws that we can't or don't enforce teach people that laws maybe aren't so important after all.

To begin with, suppose you're a police officer who's noticed that a cyclist, dressed in tights and dark cycling clothes, low bag slung over the shoulder, doesn't have the required courier ID. Do you stop him? If he's a courier, he's violating the law by not having the ID. If he's not a courier, or he's a courier who's off duty, he has no obligation whatsoever to carry the ID. So you have to choose between harassing innocent bicyclists by enforcing the ID law, or you have to just assume that no ID means he's not a courier.

Now, suppose you're that same police officer who's noticed that a cyclist just ran a red light. Do you flag him off the road and ticket him? You bet you should! Does it matter now whether he's a courier? It shouldn't. He ran a red light!

So how did the courier bill help? Well, if you pull him over and he's a courier (I don't know how you'll know that) and he's on duty, not, say, on his lunch break, I guess you now have the right to fine someone $25. Of what benefit does society see the fruits when this elaborate bill merely disguises the right to levy the occasional $25 fine?

Next, why should an employer care how his delivery person delivers goods? The pizza shop down the block from me has had, over the years, deliverers who walk, skate board, bicycle, and drive cars. Should the proprietor endure different regulations depending on how the chap bringing my pizza travels down the block?

Now, about those ID cards. On cars, license plates work pretty well. Put it on a nice, solid piece of metal and there it stays. But on these bendable, moving bodies of ours that we cover with soft fabrics that wave and ripple in the wind, just where were you hoping that the ID card would rest?

I could put it on my back, where you might see it if my jacket isn't flapping around too wildly. I could put it on the bike, of course, but then just where would I put it so that it is never blocked by the boxes that I carry? And don't forget that it can't block my tail light!

OK, fine, you might say. But at least we get to know that couriers are being adequately trained in the rules of the road. But what's adequate training? Here I am, courier company owner, and I have to train you as a courier. Do you have a valid PA driver's license? Great: just sign this paper here saying that you acknowledge that bicyclists have to follow the same rules of the road as cars. I'm done.

Does that scare you a bit? It should. Because all those cars out there, the ones that are killing 50 pedestrians in the city every year and injuring 2400 more--those cars aren't really following the rules of the road very well. And jay walking pedestrians and errant cyclists don't help, although they can't kill with quite the same force as a ton of Chevrolet at 30 mph.

And that's pretty much the point of all this: if we want safer streets -- and we do! -- then we need to educate everyone who uses them. And we need to enforce the traffic laws against everyone who violates them.