An Empirical Study on the Relationship Between the Law & Society

# 059

Bicycling at Stanford:

An Empirical Study on the Relationship Between the Law & Society

Abstract

This empirical case study on bicycling law and behavior at Stanford exploresvarious essential relationships between the law and society—e.g., the role of legal knowledge in compliance, sources of knowledge, the deterrent effect of various sanctions, and the roles of gender, age, and educational studies in legal knowledge and compliance.In addition to confirming several fundamental findings of the law and society literature (i.e., deterrence theory, sanctions, sources of knowledge, as well gender and age differences), this study also explores relatively unaskedquestions (e.g., the relationship between knowledge and compliance and the role of educational studies). Noteworthy findings from this study include:

• Women significantly comply with the law more than men;
• Older students significantly comply more with the law;
• Law students significantly know and comply with the law more than other students;
• Reported behavior differs dramatically from actual behavior;
• Stanford bicyclists do not know the law in its entirety, perhaps because they learn the law primarily through informal means;
• Compliance does not necessarily have a direct correlation with knowledge of the law;and
• Findings support Friedman’s deterrence curve theory, but not Grasmick and Bursik’s argument about shame and embarrassment;

By surveying a field of law that has not been examined before, this article makes several meaningful contributions to the law and society literature, as well as producing numerous avenues for further research and discussion.

Table of Contents

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Tables

I.Introduction: Why Bicycling at Stanford?

II.Study Methodology

A.Survey of Stanford Student Bicycling Habits & Knowledge of the Bicycling Laws

B.Observation Experiment on Stanford Bicyclists

III.Results & Discussion

A.Knowledge of & Compliance with Bicycling Safety Laws

1.Bicyclists Must Come to a Complete Stop at Stop Signs.

2.Bicyclists Cannot Ride on Street Sidewalks.

3.Bicyclists Must Use Hand Signals When Turning Right or Left.

4.Bicyclists Must Observe the Right-of-Way with Cars & Other Bikes.

5.Bicyclists Must Ride with the Flow of Traffic.

6.Bicycles Must Be Registered.

7.Bicyclists Must Use Front & Back Lights when Riding in the Dark.

8.Bicyclists Must Wear a Helmet.

B.Compliance Scores in Comparison

C.Sources of Knowledge of the Law

D.Deterrence Effect

E.Role of Gender, Age & Educational Studies

1.Gender Matters: Females Significantly Comply More with the Law than Males

2.Age Matters: Older Students Comply with the Law Significantly More than Younger Students

3.Academic Program Matters: Law Students Report Both the Most Knowledge of the Law and the Highest Degree of Compliance.

F.Comparing the Observation Results with the Survey Results

IV.Conclusion

List of Tables

Table 1: Knowledge of Bicycling Laws…………………………………………… 8

Table 2: Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs………………………..………… 10

Table 3: Bicycling on Sidewalks…………………...………………….…………... 12

Table 4: Using Hand Signals When Turning……………....……………………… 13

Table 5: Observing the Right-of-way………………………..………………...... 14

Table 6: Riding with the Flow of Traffic………………...………….………...... 16

Table 7: Registering Bicycles……………………………………………………… 19

Table 8: Using Lights at Night….………………………………………………….. 21

Table 9: Wearing a Helmet…………………………………….…………………… 23

Table 10: Compliance Scores………………………………………………..……... 24

Table 11: Sources of Knowledge of Bicycling Laws………………………...... 25

Table 12: Deterrence Effect of Various Sanction Options…..………………...27

Table 13: Role of Gender in Knowing & Complying with the Law…..……...... 31

Table 14: Influence of Age on Knowing & Complying with the Law.………….. 33

Table 15: Role of Studies on Knowing & Complying with the Law………...... 35

Table 16: Reported Versus Actual Compliance………………………...... 36

1

I.Introduction: Why Bicycling at Stanford?

One of the defining characteristics of the StanfordUniversity campus is the hundreds of bicycles that serve as a major means of transportation and leisure activity for students, staff, and faculty.Many students commute to class each day by bicycle.In fact, fifty percent of all Santa ClaraCounty bicycle commuters have Stanford origins or destinations.[1]Seven out of ten people arriving at Stanford science and engineering buildings come by bicycle, and over twenty-one percent of Stanford staff bicycle to work each day.[2]The ubiquitous bicyclist is one of the hallmark figures of Stanford’s picturesque atmosphere.

To campus visitors, the bicyclists may be the symbol of Stanford’s laid-back lifestyle.For motorists and pedestrians on campus, however, Stanford bicyclists can be anything from a nuisance to a threat to life and limb.Because we spenda significant portion of our Stanfordexperience dodging bicyclists in our cars and almost getting trampled by them while on foot, we decided to explore the legal implications of bicycling at Stanford.We were interested in whether Stanford bicyclists purposely break the law when they recklessly race across busy intersections and what, if anything, could deter them from endangering others.For these reasons, we conducted two distinct studies on bicycling at Stanford:a survey of student bicyclists and an observation project.This article reports the findings of both those studies.

This exploratory case study also serves as empirical evidence to better understand the relationship between the law and society and the effect of legal sanctions on knowledge and compliance.As Harold Grasmick and Robert Bursik, Jr. point out, there exist “sources of compliance with the law other than the threat of legal sanctions.”[3]Grasmick and Bursik identify two additional variables that affect compliance: “(1) moral beliefs about right and wrong and/or (2) attachments to peers, family and various significant others.”[4]Consequently, researchers are often led astray in their attempts to measure the effect of legal sanctions—and other sanctions for that matter—because they do not take into account or cannot measure these two omitted variables.For instance, with respect to testing in school, teachers’ moral appeals to students’ conscience or condemnation of cheating would likely play a significant role in deterrence, so that if omitted, the observed effect of sanctionscould be grossly over- or underestimated.[5]Or, consider empirical studies on drunk driving, where the effect of legal sanctions pale in comparison to that of public shame and peer pressure in deterring potential offenders.[6]

Bicycling laws provide a unique study sample, since these influences have an only muted effect on bicyclist behavior.First, there exists little, if no, peer pressure to follow acceptable community norms when bicycling, since such bicycling norms are not strongly established in the community.Second, the internal conscience is perhaps not as easily offended by riding on sidewalks or not stopping at intersections as is the case with more blatant morally reprehensible criminal behavior.For instance, moral conscience would be much more offended by violent crimes and other actions that physically harm others. Equally important, bicycling also avoids much of the influence of legal sanctions, as bicycling laws at Stanford have sanctions that are seldom enforced.Consequently, a study of bicycling behavior can provide an analysis of the relationship between the law and human behavior that is relatively free from the distorting influences of sanctions, peer pressure, or moral conscience.

In particular, this study aims to address several main issues in the law and society literature:

• Whether and why people follow the law;
• Whether people who know the law are more likely to follow the law;
• Whether the law is disseminated more effectively through formal or informal sources;
• Whether compliance differs with respect to gender, age, or level of educational study;
• Whether those who study the law are more likely to comply with it;
• Whether more severe sanctions serve as a greater deterrent; and
• Whether people’s reported compliance matches their actual behavior.

We will first present the study methodology for both case studies in Part II.The study results will be discussed and analyzed in Part III, followed by a brief conclusion that presents questions for further research and discussion.

II.Study Methodology

We conducted two separate evaluations: an online survey of Stanford students concerning their bicycling habits and knowledge of the law and an observational study of Stanford bicyclists.In order to have a controlled, yet diverse, sample group, both studies were aimed at capturing the undergraduate and graduate student populations at Stanford.Stanford faculty and staff were not observed in this study.

A.Survey of Stanford Student Bicycling Habits & Knowledge of the Bicycling Laws

First, we surveyed a sample of 585 people at StanfordUniversity via an Internet survey instrument.[7]This survey took place during April and May of 2003.We targeted student groups at StanfordUniversity via email postings and encouraged participation with a prize raffle.While the surveys were anonymous, participants could optionally include their email address in order to enter the raffle drawing.

Of the 585 surveys submitted, 63 surveys were discarded due to incomplete submissions or because the submissions were from the non-Stanford student population.Of those 522 remaining participants who completed the survey, 247 were male and 275 were female.Our study includes 248 undergraduate students, 107 law school students, 107 business school students, and 60 students in other graduate programs.The survey included the following questions:

1. Are you enrolled at StanfordUniversity in either an undergraduate or graduate studies program?If so, which one?
2. Gender
3. Age
4. Do you have a driver’s license?
5. When riding a bike on campus (never – seldom – sometimes – often – always):
6. Do you come to a complete stop at stop signs?
7. Do you wear a helmet while riding?
8. Do you expect cars to yield for you as if you were a pedestrian?
9. Do you ride on the street sidewalks?
10. Do you use hand signals when turning right or left?
11. Do you ride against the flow of traffic?
12. Is your bicycle registered?
13. Do you ride in the dark without lights?
14. To the best of your knowledge, please indicate whether the above activities are mandated by California law, university rules, or common courtesy only:
15. Bicyclists must come to a complete stop at stop signs.
16. Bicyclists cannot ride on street sidewalks.
17. Bicyclists must use hand signals when turning right or left.
18. Bicyclists must observe the right-of-way with cars and other bikes.
19. Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic.
20. Bicycles must be registered.
21. Bicyclists must use front and back lights when riding in the dark.
22. Bicyclists must wear a helmet.
23. Cars must yield to bicycles as if they were pedestrians.
24. Where did you learn of the bicycling rules?
25. DMV or Stanford pamphlets/information sources
26. Observation of other bicyclists
27. Bike safety course or video
28. Word of mouth
29. Instructions from law enforcement officers
30. Other (please specify)
31. What impact would the following police enforcement actions have on your compliance with bicycling safety rules?(n/a – no impact – some impact – significant impact – complete compliance)
32. WARNING: Police will stop offenders and warn them.
33. NOTICE: Offenders' names will be published in school newspaper.
34. COMMUNITY SERVICE: Offenders will be required to perform 10-20 hours of community service.
35. FINE I: Offenders will be fined $25-$50 for each offense.
36. FINE II: Offenders will be fined $250-$500 for each offense.
37. IMPRISONMENT: Offenders may face prison time of 6 to 9 months.

Participants were provided our contact information if they had further questions or comments.

It is important to note that, while this survey provides useful data on bicycling habits at Stanford University, like all reported behavior surveys, it is limited by the fact that it measures participants’subjective perceptions of their knowledge and behaviorrather than measuring knowledge and behavior directly.[8]We took several steps to reduce the subjective nature of the survey instrument.First, we utilized an online application that would not allow participants to return to prior questions.[9]For instance, Question 5 asks the participant to rate their compliance with various laws, regulations, and customs of bicycling.Question 6, on the other hand, inquires whether they knew that the behaviors mentioned in Question 5 were mandated by law.Thus, while many might be tempted to change their answers in Question 5 to reflect the mandates of law, the online application would not allow such reversal.[10]

Furthermore, the survey was purposely left anonymous, so that there would be no pressure to submit an answer that corresponds with the legal or social norm.[11]We also mentioned on the introductory page of the survey that it was being used for a student-conducted study at the law school—having nothing to do with the Stanford administration or police enforcement.While these safeguards might help reduce the subjective nature of the survey, the limitations of surveys based on self-reported behavior should be bourn in mind.[12]

B.Observation Experiment on Stanford Bicyclists

To explore the possible divergence between perception and reality, we also conducted an observation experiment of Stanford bicyclists.In order to achieve a representative sample that mirrored the composition of survey participants, we had to capture both the graduate and undergraduate populations.Consequently, we worked equally from two observation posts—one intersection in the predominantly undergraduate student side of campus and the other in the graduate student section of Stanford.A total of 450 students were observed, and the following observations were recorded:

• Whether the student stopped completely at the stop sign.
• Whether the student rode on the sidewalk.
• Whether the student rode on the wrong side of the road or against the flow of traffic.
• Whether the student wore a helmet.
• Whether the student used hand signals when turning.

We intended this second study to be merely an exploratory tool to evaluate whether students’ survey answers concerning their bicycling behavior generally correspond to actual behavior on campus.We targeted only five bicycling actions in order to compare the results with several of the survey responses reported in Question 5.Obviously, no concrete conclusions can be reached since the sample groups inevitably differ, and we could not survey and observe the identical students.However, the results provide an illustrative sample, which merits further research and discussion.

III.Results & Discussion

The present Part examines the results of the survey and observation project with a brief discussion on each significant finding.We first analyze whether Stanford bicyclists know and follow the law, then we examine the compliance scores, evaluate the deterrence value of various sanctions, and discuss the role of gender, age, and academic program.A comparison of the observation project and survey will follow.

A.Knowledge of & Compliance with Bicycling Safety Laws

Determining whether individuals know the law constitutes a primary function of early law and society literature.Specifically, Lawrence Friedman remarks in his foundational introduction to law and society: “A legal act (rule, doctrine, practice), whatever functions it serves, is a message. It must be transmitted to an audience, or it can have no effect on behavior.”[13]Likewise, legal studies on compliance, impact, and deterrence are incomplete unless the participants’ knowledge benchmark can first be established.Friedman continues:

Communication of a rule or an order is essential to its impact.Otherwise, there can be no response.But communication is only a beginning.When the message is received, how do people respond, and why? . . . The question is, when an order is given, or a rule announced, what will follow: compliance, noncompliance, evasion; use, nonuse, misuse; by whom, when, and how?[14]

Thus, an inquiry into bicyclists’ knowledge of the law provides a baseline against which to measure compliance.If bicyclists are unaware of a particular law, it would prove problematic to draw conclusions as to compliance with the law.Equally important, analyzing the knowledge of and compliance with multiple bicycling laws casts light on how knowledge affects compliance.

Under California law, bicycle riders on public streets have the same rights and responsibilities as automobile drivers and are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other vehicle on the road.[15]A prerequisite for evaluating whether Stanford bicyclists follow the law involves determining whether they know the law concerning bicycling.In Question 6, we presented nine questions that test bicyclists’ understanding of the law. Each question evaluates a different aspect of bicycling safety. Table 1 depicts the specific questions posed concerning bicyclists’ knowledge of the law and the overall results.

With the baseline knowledge levels ascertained, compliance with bicycling laws can be appropriately measured. We first asked survey participants to document their bicycling habits or behavior in Question 5. Then, Question 6, as outlined in Table 1, proceeded to inquire into their knowledge of the law. In fact, the survey does not even mention the word “law” until Question 6. This sequencing of reporting conduct before legal knowledge aimed at avoiding skewed compliance responses due to the Consistency Principle, or the tendency for humans to want to appear as consistent and rational in the way they make decisions.[16] By responding about their behavior before being presented with questions about legal obligations, survey participants are less likely to exaggerate reported compliance. Responses to each question will be discussed in further detail below, comparing the respondents’ knowledge of the law with their level of compliance.

1.Bicyclists Must Come to a Complete Stop at Stop Signs.

Under the California Vehicle Code, “[e]very person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division.”[17]Consequently, bicyclists must abide by the same provisions concerning red signals and signs.California law requires:

A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).[18]

This bicycling law was the most known by Stanford students with 91.4% (477 of 522) of Stanford bicyclists responding that it was a state law that bicycles must come to a complete stop at stop signs.While it might be expected that bicyclists know this law, the result is significant in that it demonstrates that Stanford bicyclists know that state laws exist with respect to bicycling.