# 059
B ICYCLING AT S TANFORD :
A N E MPIRICAL S TUDY ON THE R ELATIONSHIP B ETWEEN THE L AW &
S
OCIETY
A BSTRACT
This empirical case study on bicycling law and behavior at Stanford explores various 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 unasked questions (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. i

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
A
BSTRACT
............................................................................................................................
I
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS ........................................................................................................... II
L
IST OF
T
ABLES
..................................................................................................................
III
I. I
NTRODUCTION
: W
HY
B
ICYCLING AT
S
TANFORD
? ....................................................1
II. S TUDY M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................3
A. Survey of Stanford Student Bicycling Habits & Knowledge of the
Bicycling Laws ............................................................................................4
B. Observation Experiment on Stanford Bicyclists ..........................................7
III. R ESULTS & D ISCUSSION ...........................................................................................7
A. Knowledge of & Compliance with Bicycling Safety Laws .........................8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bicyclists Must Come to a Complete Stop at Stop Signs. .............10
Bicyclists Cannot Ride on Street Sidewalks. .................................12
Bicyclists Must Use Hand Signals When Turning Right or
Left. ................................................................................................13
Bicyclists Must Observe the Right-of-Way with Cars &
Other Bikes. ...................................................................................14
Bicyclists Must Ride with the Flow of Traffic. .............................16
Bicycles Must Be Registered. ........................................................19
Bicyclists Must Use Front & Back Lights when Riding in the Dark. .........................................................................................21
Bicyclists Must Wear a Helmet. ....................................................23
B. Compliance Scores in Comparison ............................................................24
C. Sources of Knowledge of the Law .............................................................25
D. Deterrence Effect .......................................................................................27
E. Role of Gender, Age & Educational Studies .............................................30
1.
2.
3.
Gender Matters: Females Significantly Comply More with the Law than Males ........................................................................31
Age Matters: Older Students Comply with the Law
Significantly More than Younger Students ....................................33
Academic Program Matters: Law Students Report Both the
Most Knowledge of the Law and the Highest Degree of
Compliance. ...................................................................................35
F. Comparing the Observation Results with the Survey Results ...................37
IV. C ONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................39
ii

L IST OF T ABLES
T ABLE 1: K NOWLEDGE OF B ICYCLING L AWS
…………………………………………… 8
T
ABLE
2: M
AKING A
C
OMPLETE
S
TOP AT
S
TOP
S
IGNS
………………………..………… 10
T
ABLE
3: B
ICYCLING ON
S
IDEWALKS
…………………...………………….…………... 12
T ABLE 4: U SING H AND S IGNALS W HEN T URNING
……………....……………………… 13
T ABLE 5: O BSERVING THE R IGHT OF WAY
………………………..………………......... 14
T
ABLE
6: R
IDING WITH THE
F
LOW OF
T
RAFFIC
………………...………….………......... 16
T
ABLE
7: R
EGISTERING
B
ICYCLES
……………………………………………………… 19
T ABLE 8: U SING L IGHTS AT N IGHT
….………………………………………………….. 21
T
ABLE
9: W
EARING A
H
ELMET
…………………………………….…………………… 23
T
ABLE
10: C
OMPLIANCE
S
CORES
……………………………………………….. ……... 24
T ABLE 11: S OURCES OF K NOWLEDGE OF B ICYCLING L AWS
………………………......... 25
T ABLE 12: D ETERRENCE E FFECT OF V ARIOUS S ANCTION O PTIONS
…..………… ……... 27
T
ABLE
13: R
OLE OF
G
ENDER IN
K
NOWING
& C
OMPLYING WITH THE
L
AW
…..……......... 31
T ABLE 14: I NFLUENCE OF A GE ON K NOWING & C OMPLYING WITH THE L AW
.………….. 33
T ABLE 15: R OLE OF S TUDIES ON K NOWING & C OMPLYING WITH THE L AW
………......... 35
T
ABLE
16: R
EPORTED
V
ERSUS
A
CTUAL
C
OMPLIANCE
………………………................. 36
iii

I. I NTRODUCTION : W HY B ICYCLING AT S TANFORD ?
One of the defining characteristics of the Stanford University 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 Clara County 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 spend a significant portion of our Stanford experience 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.
1 Website of Stanford University Parking & Transportation Services, at http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_transportation/BikingAtStanford.shtml#bikefacts (last visited August
21, 2004).
2 Id.
1

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 sanctions could 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
3 Harold G. Grasmick & Robert J. Bursik, Conscience, Significant Others and Rational Choice:
Extending the Deterrence Model , 24 L AW & S OC
’
Y R EV . 837, 838 (1990).
4 Id.
; see also T OM R.
T YLER , W HY P EOPLE O BEY THE L AW (1990), reprinted in L AW & S OCIETY :
R EADINGS ON THE S OCIAL S TUDY OF L AW , at 483 (Stewart Macaulay, Lawrence M. Friedman & John
Stookey eds., 1995) (“The sociological framework focuses on three factors that influence compliance: deterrence, peer opinion and personal morality.”).
5 See, e.g.
, Charles R. Tittle & Alan R. Rowe, Moral Appeal, Sanction Threat, and Deviance: An
Experimental Test , 20 S OC .
P ROBS . 488 (1973) (failing to find that teachers’ moral appeals had a significant deterrent effect on cheating). But see Richard D. Schwartz & Sonya Orleans, On Legal Sanctions , 24 U.
C HI .
L.
R EV . 274 (1967) (finding some significant effect of moral appeal on paying taxes).
6 See, e.g.
, Harold G. Grasmick, Robert J. Bursik, Jr. & Bruce J. Arnelev, Reduction in Drunk
Driving as a Response to Increased Threats of Shame, Embarrassment, and Legal Sanctions , 31
C RIMINOLOGY 41 (1993) (finding that shame and embarrassment have a larger effect on deterrence than legal sanctions with respect to drunk driving).
2

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. S TUDY M ETHODOLOGY
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
3

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.
First, we surveyed a sample of 585 people at Stanford University via an Internet survey instrument.
7 This survey took place during April and May of 2003. We targeted student groups at Stanford University 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 Stanford University 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):
Do you come to a complete stop at stop signs? a.
b.
c.
Do you wear a helmet while riding?
Do you expect cars to yield for you as if you were a pedestrian?
7 An electronic version of the survey was created and carried out utilizing an online survey instrument from www.surveymonkey.com. The complete results are on file with the authors.
4

d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Do you ride on the street sidewalks?
Do you use hand signals when turning right or left?
Do you ride against the flow of traffic?
Is your bicycle registered?
Do you ride in the dark without lights?
6.
To the best of your knowledge, please indicate whether the above activities are mandated by California law, university rules, or common courtesy only: e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Bicyclists must come to a complete stop at stop signs.
Bicyclists cannot ride on street sidewalks.
Bicyclists must use hand signals when turning right or left.
Bicyclists must observe the right-of-way with cars and other bikes.
Bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic.
Bicycles must be registered.
Bicyclists must use front and back lights when riding in the dark.
Bicyclists must wear a helmet.
Cars must yield to bicycles as if they were pedestrians.
7.
Where did you learn of the bicycling rules? a.
DMV or Stanford pamphlets/information sources
Observation of other bicyclists b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Bike safety course or video
Word of mouth
Instructions from law enforcement officers
Other (please specify)
8.
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)
WARNING: Police will stop offenders and warn them. a.
b.
c.
NOTICE: Offenders' names will be published in school newspaper.
COMMUNITY SERVICE: Offenders will be required to perform 10-
20 hours of community service. d.
e.
f.
FINE I: Offenders will be fined $25-$50 for each offense.
FINE II: Offenders will be fined $250-$500 for each offense.
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 behavior
5

rather 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 studentconducted 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
8 See generally F LOYD F OWLER , I MPROVING S URVEY Q UESTIONS : D ESIGN AND E VALUATION (3d ed.
2002) (providing an overview of questionnaire design issues); L AWRENCE M.
F RIEDMAN & S TEVEN
M ACAULAY , L AW AND B EHAVIORAL S CIENCES (2d ed. 1997) (outlining specifically the pitfalls of various legal empirical studies that involve surveys and other empirical methods); S URVEY R ESEARCH M ETHODS : A
R EADER (Eleanor Singer & Stanley Presser eds., 1989) (providing a more comprehensive analysis of survey limitations and biases).
9 See, e.g.
, T HOMAS M ANGIONE , M AIL S URVEYS : I MPROVING THE Q UALITY (1995) (outlining the common flaws with written, paper-based surveys, which include the respondents’ ability to go back and change answers to previous questions).
10 See infra
note 16 and accompanying text (discussing the Consistency Principle and how it affects
survey participants’ reported behavior).
11 F OWLER , supra
note 8 (explaining that survey respondent anonymity is one of the best methods for
obtaining less biased results).
12 See supra
note 8 (citing various background sources on how surveys do not typically provide a
perfect depiction of reality).
6

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. R ESULTS & D ISCUSSION
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
7

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.
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
13 L AWRENCE M.
F RIEDMAN , L AW AND S OCIETY : A N I NTRODUCTION 111 (1977).
14 Id.
at 115.
8

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
15 Website of California Department of Motor Vehicles, at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/bicycle.htm (last visited August 20, 2004); see also C AL .
V EH .
C ODE §
21200 et seq (2002) (outlining the specific regulations for bicycling on public roads).
9

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
16 G.
R ICHARD S HELL , B ARGAINING FOR A DVANTAGE 42 (1999) (“Social psychologists have discovered that people have a deep need to avoid the disjointed, erratic, and uncomfortable psychological states that arise when our actions are manifestly inconsistent with previously expressed, long-held, or widely shared standards and beliefs.”). For more detailed information on the Consistency Principle, see
R OBERT B.
C IALDINI , I NFLUENCE : T HE P SYCHOLOGY OF P ERSUASION 167-207 (2d ed. 1993).
17 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 21200 (2002).
18 Id.
§ 21453(a).
10

result is significant in that it demonstrates that Stanford bicyclists know that state laws exist with respect to bicycling.
Interestingly, when comparing knowledge and compliance, stopping at stop signs received the second lowest overall score for compliance (2.95) of all California state laws examined.
19 Only the law of using hand signals when turning received a lower score
(2.26).
20 Almost 65% of respondents (337 of 522) reported compliance at least
“sometimes,” but only 7.7% (40) reported that they “always” complied. This is particularly noteworthy since 91.4% (477) of participants knew that it was a state law.
Table 2 outlines a comparison of knowledge and compliance with respect to making a complete stop at a stop sign.
These results provide a glimpse into the relationship between knowledge and compliance, which is inconsistent with the common-sense notion that legal knowledge should increase compliance. Alternatively, perhaps this finding just confirms popular culture’s reference to the “California stop.” Popular culture aside, the relationship between knowledge and compliance clearly merits further research and discussion.
19 Compliance scores were calculated by assigning a numerical value to each response (never=1, seldom=2, sometimes=3, often=4, and always=5). Questions asked inversely—e.g., where compliance would really be never to do such thing—were inverted to reflect this change. Therefore, perfect compliance would receive a “5” score, while complete noncompliance would receive a “1” score. See infra Table 10 for a list of compliance scores for each of the eight bicycling behaviors measured.
20 See infra Part III.A.3. (detailing the survey responses with respect to using hand signals when turning at Stanford).
11

2. Bicyclists Cannot Ride on Street Sidewalks.
The California Vehicle Code applies equally to both motorists and bicyclists 21
— except for the specific provisions for bicyclists, which include the regulation that bicyclists “ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.”
22
Bicycles should not be ridden or even parked on sidewalks.
23 The Department of Motor
Vehicles explicitly outlines this regulation:
Cyclists must ride in the same direction as other traffic, not against it. They should normally ride in a straight line as near to the right curb or edge of the roadway as practical. Not on the sidewalk.
Cyclists can legally move left to turn left, to pass a parked or moving vehicle, another bicycle, an animal, or to make a turn, avoid debris, or other hazards.
24
While this is clearly a state law, only 45.6% (238 of 522) of Stanford students surveyed thought this was a state law. In total, 223 students (42.7%) indicated that it was neither a state law nor a university policy, and fewer students knew this state law than any other
California bicycling law measured in this study.
25 See Table 3 for more information on the survey questions and results with respect to bicycling on street sidewalks.
While this was the least known bicycling law tested by the survey, compliance to the regulation was relatively high. Of those surveyed, 47.7% (249 of 522) indicated that they “sometimes” to “never” ride on street sidewalks, while only 1.9% (10) always break this law. Forty-six respondents (8.8%) stated that they never ride on street sidewalks. The total compliance score of 3.14 ranks third out of all laws tested, behind only riding with
21 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 21200 (2002).
22 Id.
§ 21202.
23 Id.
§ 21210.
24 Bicycle Section of Driver’s Handbook
, C AL .
D EP
’
T OF M OTOR V EHS ., available at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike (last visited August 20, 2004) (emphasis added).
25 See supra Table 1 (listing the results of the knowledge section of the survey).
12

the flow of traffic and using lights in the dark.
26 Once again, this finding casts doubt on the common belief about the relationship between knowledge and compliance.
3. Bicyclists Must Use Hand Signals When Turning Right or Left.
According to California state law, bicyclists are required to use hand signals when turning left or right.
27 Two-thirds (345 of 522) of those surveyed indicated that this was a state law, while almost one-third (164 of 522 respondents) indicated that it was neither a state law nor Stanford regulation. Similarly, with respect to compliance, 60.3% (315 of
522) reported that they “never” or “seldom” use hand signals when turning, which is significantly less compliance (2.26 compliance score) than stopping at stop signs (2.95).
In fact, using hand signals received the lowest compliance score out of all state laws measured in the survey.
28 Table 4 summarizes the responses of Stanford students with respect to using hand signals while bicycling.
Significantly fewer Stanford students use hand signals when turning than make complete stops at stop signs. However, firm conclusions as to whether Stanford bicyclists knowingly break this law more than that of stopping at stop signs cannot be reached since significantly fewer students (twenty-five percent less) knew that the use of hand signals
26 See infra Part III.B. (explaining the compliance scores and evaluating the overall results).
27 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 22111 (2002).
28 See infra
Table 10 (listing the results of all compliance scores) and note 19 (explaining how
compliance scores were calculated).
13

was indeed a state law. This finding reinforces Friedman’s imperative that empirical legal research must measure not just compliance, but also knowledge of the law.
29
4. Bicyclists Must Observe the Right-of-Way with Cars & Other Bikes.
With respect to observing the right-of-way, student responses produced interesting results. The California Vehicle Code stipulates that bicyclists, just as all other motorists, must yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic according to the standards set forth therein.
30 In other words, under California law bicyclists are not given the same priority as pedestrians, but instead, must observe the right-of-way in the same way as other motorists. Bicyclists must always yield to pedestrians and also to oncoming vehicles—cars, bicycles, or other motor vehicles—that arrive at the intersection simultaneously and are to the right of the bicyclist.
31
In formulating the survey questions concerning students’ knowledge of this law, we decided to phrase the same question in two different ways—one asking whether bicyclists must observe the right-of-way and another asking whether cars must yield to
29 See supra
notes 13-14 and accompanying text.
30 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 21803 (2002); see also supra
notes 15, 17-18 (explaining that bicyclists in
California are bound to the same laws and regulations as motorists).
31 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 21803 (2002).
14

bicycles as if they were pedestrians.
32 Of the 522 surveyed, 453 (86.8%) responded that the former was a state law, while 93 students (17.8%) responded that the latter was a state law. This result corresponds with our expectations since the questions were posed inversely, but there still exists unexplainable overlap in the responses. At least twentyfour students indicated that both are state laws, demonstrating a stark inconsistency.
Perhaps students do not understand what it means to observe the right-of-way, or maybe respondents interpreted the first question as applying only to other bicyclists. Regardless, this topic deserves further analysis in order to determine whether bicyclists understand this law correctly. Table 5 sets forth the questions asked and results collected with respect to bicyclists yielding to the right-of-way.
While it is unclear whether Stanford bicyclists know the law regarding observation of the right-of-way, it is equally uncertain from the results whether Stanford students actually observe the right-of-way when bicycling. This uncertainty, however, is due to an entirely different reason: the survey question did not measure the respondent’s perception of personal behavior, but instead, her expectation of the behavior of others.
32 See infra Table 5 (listing the questions asked and results found with respect to yielding to the right-of-way).
15

Specifically, the question asked: Do you expect cars to yield for you as if you were a pedestrian? The answers were divided almost equally between “never” (20.3%),
“seldom” (21.6%), “sometimes” (25.7%), and “often” (24.9%) with only 7.5% indicating that they “always” expect such behavior by motorists. This would be equivalent to a compliance score of 2.78, but since the question was phrased to measure expectations, such score is not comparable with the other results. Indeed, this entire question should be reworked in subsequent research—both with respect to compliance and knowledge.
5. Bicyclists Must Ride with the Flow of Traffic.
Under California law bicyclists must abide by the same traffic laws as motorists, 33 and at least in the United States, cars are driven on the right side of the road.
Furthermore, the California Vehicle Code specifically stipulates in which lane one should operate a bicycle:
(a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a
"substandard width lane" is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.
33 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 21200 (2002).
16

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.
(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.
34
Therefore, bicyclists must ride with the flow of traffic, and this includes riding on the right side of the road when on a two-way street. As noted in Subsection (b), bicyclists may only ride on the left side when they are on a one-way street with two or more marked traffic lanes.
35
Like yielding to the right-of-way, riding with the flow of traffic should probably produce confusing results, since the term “flow of traffic” is somewhat unclear— especially since the law allows for riding on the left side of one-way streets.
Nevertheless, 454 of the 522 participants (87.0%) indicated that riding with the flow of traffic was a state law. This result was the second highest response—following the 91.4% response for making a complete stop at stop signs—in the knowledge section of the survey. Clearly, most respondents did not take into account the one-way-street exception to the general rule, with only sixty-eight students (13.0%) indicating that it was not a state law. However, we did not provide an option in the survey for respondents to note such exceptions, and the general rule is that bicyclists must ride with the flow of the traffic. More importantly, riding on the left side of a one-way street is not considered riding against the flow of traffic. Table 6 presents the survey questions and answers relevant to riding with the flow of traffic.
34 Id.
35 Id. § 21202(b).
17

To further clarify the “flow of traffic” question in the compliance section of the survey, we defined riding against the flow of traffic as bicycling “on left side of road.”
While we thought this would provide further clarification, it might have actually confused those students, if any, who knew of the exception for bicycling on one-way streets.
36 To determine this, further research is required. Regardless, the responses produced fascinating results. Of the 522 surveyed, 236 (45.2%) responded that they
“never” ride against the flow of traffic. Since this question was asked inversely (opposite of the law), it must be inverted. In other words, almost half of those surveyed always comply with this law. This was by far the highest compliance score at 4.22, which is almost 0.8 points higher than the second highest score (riding in the dark with lights).
37
It seems appropriate here to revisit our introductory discussion on sources of compliance. Namely, this finding reveals an additional source of compliance not mentioned by either Grasmick and Bursik 38 or Tyler 39 : personal safety or protection.
While hand signals, complete stops, and right-of-way bicycling all might help protect
36 Id.
(“Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.”).
37 See infra
Table 10 (listing the results of all compliance scores) and note 19 (explaining how
compliance scores were calculated).
38 See supra
notes 3-4 and accompanying text.
39 T YLER , supra
note 4, at 483 (“The sociological framework focuses on three factors that influence
compliance: deterrence, peer opinion and personal morality.”).
18

bicyclists, riding against the flow of traffic clearly is much more dangerous.
Consequently, increased concern for safety is likely the predominant variable that explains the drastically higher compliance level.
6. Bicycles Must Be Registered.
Bicycle registration is not required under California law. The California Vehicle
Code states that “any motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole or pipe dolly, or logging dolly” must be registered, but it does not mention bicycles.
40 However, the law does provide for local governments to require bicycle licensing or registration: a) b)
A city or county may adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution providing that no resident shall operate any bicycle on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the city or county, unless such bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division.
Any bicycle not licensed under this division may be additionally regulated or licensed pursuant to local ordinance or may be licensed upon request of the owner.
41
Interestingly, there is no city or county ordinance at Stanford that requires bicycle registration, and yet the Stanford police claim—in a official statement explaining the importance of bicycle registration—that bicycle registration is required by California state law:
A bike registration is essentially the only means the Department of Public Safety and other law enforcement agencies have to identify bikes that come into their possession. If your bike is ever stolen and recovered, a registration will allow the police to return the bike to you. Likewise, if your bike is ever impounded because you left it locked to a rack for an extended period of time, a registration will allow us to return your bike to you. And, of course, registering your bicycle is required by California law .
42
40 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 4000 (2002)
41 Id.
§ 39002.
42 Website of the Special Services Unit (SSU) of the Stanford Police, at http://police.stanford.edu/index2b.html (last visited August 20, 2004) (emphasis added) (“The Special
(continued...)
19

Consequently, students undoubtedly receive contradictory information concerning the law on bicycle registration, and this should affect the survey results. Furthermore, no document explicitly states that bicycle registration is a mandatory Stanford rule; however, the fact that the Stanford police believe it is a state law might have influenced why there is not an additional university regulation.
There appears to be similar confusion in students’ beliefs as to whether bicycle registration is necessary. Of the 522 students surveyed, 175 students (33.5%) stated that bicycle registration is a state law, while another 268 (51.3%) affirmed that it was a
Stanford rule, but not a state law. Only seventy-nine students (15.1%) indicated that it was neither a state law nor university regulation, and yet this seems to be the correct answer. Table 7 provides information on knowledge and compliance with bicycle registration.
While it is unclear whether bicycle registration is compulsory at Stanford, the fact that 84.8% of respondents believe it makes the compliance question nevertheless important. However, since the survey listed all of the compliance questions in one box— with options to choose varying levels of compliance from “never” to “always”—we could not tailor the bicycle registration into a dummy variable of “yes” or “no.” As a result,
________________________
(...continued)
Services Unit is the lead agency for bicycle management on campus. SSU maintains the campus-wide bicycle registration database, impounds abandoned bicycles, stores found bicycles and bicycles which are evidence in police cases, and promotes bicycle safety and security.”).
20

fifty-eight respondents (11.1%) indicated that they had their bicycles registered “seldom”
(1.9%), “sometimes” (5.4%), or “often” (3.8%). Of the remaining respondents, 265
(50.8%) indicated that they “always” had their bicycles registered, and 199 (38.1%) responded “never.” The overall compliance score is 3.27, which would rank third of the laws evaluated if it were indeed a state law.
43 While it is clear that over half the respondents comply with bicycle registration, because the question was flawed, there is a variance of 11.1% for which we cannot accurately account.
More importantly, the fact that the Stanford police believe bicycle registration is mandated by state law produces several interesting research questions. For instance, do
Stanford police enforce this regulation with fines or other sanctions? If so, have there been any students that have appealed the sanctions? How does the fact that the police state—and perhaps even enforce—a non-law affect student compliance? Due to the peculiar circumstances surrounding bicycle registration at Stanford and because of the faulty survey question, this topic deserves additional analysis in order to reach more conclusive findings.
7. Bicyclists Must Use Front & Back Lights when Riding in the Dark.
Under the section on bicycle operations and equipment, the California Vehicle
Code requires that all bicyclists riding at night use lights for illumination and safety, as well as reflective devices on various parts of the bicycle:
Every bicycle operated upon any highway during darkness shall be equipped (1) with a lamp emitting a white light which, while the bicycle is in motion, illuminates the highway in front of the bicyclist and is visible from a distance of
300 feet in front and from the sides of the bicycle; (2) with a red reflector on the
43 See infra
Table 10 (listing the results of all compliance scores) and note 19 (explaining how
compliance scores were calculated).
21

rear which shall be visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful upper beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle; (3) with a white or yellow reflector on each pedal visible from the front and rear of the bicycle from a distance of 200 feet; and (4) with a white or yellow reflector on each side forward of the center of the bicycle, and with a white or red reflector on each side to the rear of the center of the bicycle . . . .
44
Of the 522 surveyed, 342 students (65.5%) indicated that the use of lights at night was a state law, while another 126 (24.1%) stated that it was a Stanford rule, but not a state law.
Only fifty-four students (10.3%) believed that it was neither a state law nor Stanford requirement. With only 342 students knowing the correct answer, this law was the least known of all evaluated, with three less students knowing this law than the law requiring hand signals when turning. Table 8 provides data on the law of using lights at night.
While this is the least known bicycling law, it ranks second highest in compliance. Of those surveyed, 76.2% (398 respondents) indicated that they at least sometimes use lights while riding at night, with 24.9% (130) always complying and only
10.2% (53) never complying. The total compliance score is 3.44, second only to the law of riding with the flow of traffic (4.22).
45 Once again, this higher compliance score could likely be the result of an additional source of compliance—i.e., personal safety concerns.
This discrepancy in knowledge versus compliance will be further discussed in Part III.B.
44 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE
§ 21201(d) (2002).
45 See infra
Table 10 (listing the results of all compliance scores) and note 19 (explaining how
compliance scores were calculated).
22

8. Bicyclists Must Wear a Helmet.
Contrary to common belief (and common sense), California law does not require bicyclists over the age of eighteen to use helmets. The California Vehicle Code explains:
A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle , a nonmotorized scooter, or a skateboard, nor shall they wear in-line or roller skates, nor ride upon a bicycle, a nonmotorized scooter, or a skateboard as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of either the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or standards subsequently established by those entities. This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle.
46
Similarly, there is no Stanford policy requiring helmet use, but the Stanford University
Parking and Transportation Services encourages bicyclists to “[a]lways wear a helmet.”
47
Nevertheless, only 158 respondents (30.2%) believed that helmet use was mandated by state law, with only another 45 (8.6%) believing it was a Stanford regulation. In total, 319 students (61.1%) correctly indicated that helmet use is neither required by state law nor
Stanford policy. See Table 9 for more details.
46 C AL .
V EH .
C ODE § 21212(a) (2002) (emphasis added).
47 Website of the Stanford University Parking & Transportation Services, at http://transportation.stanford.edu/alt_transportation/BikingAtStanford.shtml#bikesafety (last visited August
20, 2004).
23

More importantly—and even more surprisingly—64.0% of those surveyed (334) never use helmets when riding a bicycle, and only 10.0% (52) always wear helmets. If it were a state law, helmet use would have the lowest compliance score at 1.84, which would be 0.4 points lower than the second lowest of using hand signals.
In order to gauge the level of compliance to particular state bicycling laws, we instituted a compliance scoring standard.
Table 10: Compliance Scores
R a n k
State Law
Compliance
Scores
Knowledge of Law
1
Riding with the Flow of
Traffic
4.22
87% (454)
Compliance scores were
2
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
3.44
66% (342) calculated numerical value to each response
(never=1, by assigning a seldom=2,
3
Not Riding on Street
Sidewalks
4
Making a Complete Stop at
Stop Signs
5
Using Hand Signals When
Turning
3.14
2.95
2.26
46% (238)
91% (477)
66% (345) sometimes=3, often=4, and n/a Having Bicycle Registered 3.27
not state law always=5). Questions asked inversely—i.e., where n/a
Expecting Cars to Yield as if
Bicyclists Were Pedestrians
2.78
not state law n/a Wearing a Helmet compliance would really
1.84
not state law constitute a “never” response
48
—
***Those shaded are not state laws and thus are not included in the compliance score rankings.
were inverted to reflect this change. Therefore, perfect compliance would receive a “5” score, while complete noncompliance would receive a “1” score. Table 10 presents the compliance scores for each of the eight bicycling behaviors measured.
48 Of the questions posed in Question 5 of the survey, three questions had to be inverted for the compliance scoring standard:
D. Do you ride on the street sidewalks?
F. Do you ride against the flow of traffic [on left side of road]? and
H. Do you ride in the dark without lights?
24

As demonstrated in Table 10, riding with the flow of traffic received the highest compliance score (4.22), while using hand signals received the lowest (2.26) of those questions that dealt with California law. Overall, wearing a helmet received the lowest score (1.84), but such safety precaution is not mandated by law for those over eighteen.
Comparing compliance with knowledge of the laws produces several interesting observations. Making a complete stop at stop signs was by far the most well-known law with 91.4%, but yet its compliance score was second to last at 2.95. Not riding on street sidewalks—a law which only 45.6% of respondents knew—had a higher compliance score at 3.14. Perhaps using lights at night and riding with the flow of traffic both received higher compliance scores than stopping at stop signs—even though fewer respondents knew they were laws—because of the danger involved. However, if danger were the overriding factor influencing behavior, then why did helmet use receive the lowest compliance score? While these findings merit further research and discussion in order to ascertain whether knowledge of the law or the danger level influences behavior, one finding is clear: knowledge of the law does not always dictate the consequent level of compliance. Additionally, it appears that personal safety alone is not an efficient deterrent.
Most citizens do not learn the law by reading statutes, cases, or regulatory code.
Many students cover some laws in school, but most citizens learn the law through popular culture, which undoubtedly inundates society with varying depictions of law, some less correct than others. Stewart Macaulay asserts that understanding where people
25

learn the law is an essential task of law and society scholarship.
49 Unfortunately, the literature has found that citizens tend to learn the law more from informal and less precise sources—such as television, movies, and word of mouth—than through formal, textual sources.
50 Consequently, their perception of the law is often distorted, if not incorrect.
The findings of this study correspond with the mainstream law and society literature; most students learn bicycling laws from informal, less precise sources. Table
11 outlines respondents’ comments on where they learned the bicycling laws. Over 60% of the respondents (329 of 522) mentioned that they learned the law via word of mouth, while another 40.8% (213 of 522) learned by observation of other bicyclists. These means—which received the most responses—are also the only informal sources listed on the survey. In the “other” category, notable responses include: common sense/intuition/logic (14 responses), parents/upbringing/school (13), Boy Scouts (5), and drivers’ education courses (3).
49 Steven Macaulay, Images of Law in Everyday Life: The Lessons of School, Entertainment and
Spectator Sports , 21 L AW & S OC
’
Y R EV . 185 (1987).
50 Id.
at 211; Lawrence M. Friedman, Popular Legal Culture: Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture ,
98 Y ALE L.J. 1579, 1588 (1989) (stating that “popular culture, as reflected in the media, is not, and cannot be taken as, an accurate mirror of the actual state of living law”).
26

These findings are important because they illustrate how the law is learned and disseminated. Most Stanford students did not gain knowledge about bicycling laws through official channels, such as government agencies, law enforcement, or informational pamphlets. Instead, the majority learned through observation, common sense, and word of mouth. This finding could have broad implications to other aspects of the role of law in society. For instance, if a court or legislature wants a new policy to be promulgated, official channels will not likely be the most effective; such actors should also look to informal means to convey the policy change.
51
There exists an enormous body of literature on the Deterrence Theory, 52 and many empirical studies have been conducted to understand the role of sanctions and incentives in deterring crime.
53 This article does not aim to provide a comprehensive commentary on the role of sanctions in compliance with bicycling laws. Nevertheless, Question 8 was aimed specifically at gauging the effect of increased sanctions, so the results will be briefly presented, accompanied by references to several deterrence theories.
51 See, e.g.
, Daniel J. Givelber, William J. Bowers & Carolyn L. Blitch, Tarasoff, Myth and Reality:
An Empirical Study of Private Law in Action , 1984 W IS .
L.
R EV . 443 (exploring how the California
Supreme Court ruling in Tarasoft v. Regents of University of California , 551 P.2d 334 (1976), was disseminated to the mental health care community).
52 See, e.g.
, D ETERRENCE R ECONSIDERED : M ETHODOLOGICAL I NNOVATIONS (John Hagan ed., 1982)
(containing various theoretical and empirical articles on deterrence); J ACK G IBBS , C RIME , P UNISHMENT ,
AND D ETERRENCE (1975) (providing a comprehensive, general account on deterrence theory developments); F RANKLIN E.
Z IMRING & G ORDON J.
H AWKINS , D ETERRENCE : T HE L EGAL T HREAT IN
C RIME C ONTROL (1973).
53 See, e.g.
, Dane Archer, Rosemary Gartner & Marc Beittel, Homicide and the Death Penalty: A
Cross-National Test of a Deterrence Hypothesis , 74 J.
C RIM .
L.
& C RIMINOLOGY 991 (1983) (finding no significant added deterrence value of the death penalty); H. Laurence Ross, Interrupted Time Series Studies of Deterrence of Drinking and Driving , in D ETERRENCE R ECONSIDERED : M ETHODOLOGICAL I NNOVATIONS
(John Hagan ed., 1982) (finding the deterrent effect of increased sanctions on drunk driving were only temporary); Jan Palmer, Economic Analysis of the Deterrent Effect of Punishment: A Review , 14 J.
R ES .
C RIME & D ELINQUENCY 4 (1977) (conducting empirical studies on criminals’ benefit-cost analyses).
27

In order to measure the deterrent effect of each sanction option, we instituted a deterrent index score. Index scores were calculated by assigning a numerical value to each response (n/a=1, no impact=2, some impact=3, significant impact=4, and complete compliance=5).
54 Therefore, a perfect deterrence effect would receive a “5” score, while no deterrence effect would receive a “2” score or less. Table 12 presents the deterrent index score for each of the five bicycling sanctions measured, in addition to the number of responses for each level of deterrence.
As the Deterrence Theory would predict, more severe sanctions increase compliance with the most expensive fine and imprisonment producing the greatest deterrence value with 69.9% (365) and 81.6% (426), respectively, of students responding that this would motivate “complete compliance.” However, the “notice” sanction, which we believed would receive a higher deterrent index score than the “warning” sanction
54 Question 8 of the survey evaluated the deterrence value of various sanction options with five levels of compliance, which were explicitly defined as follows:

N/A : I follow the rules at all times anyway.

NO IMPACT : This would not encourage me to follow the rules.

SOME IMPACT : This might encourage me to follow rules when convenient.

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT : This would encourage me to follow rules at least when police present.

COMPLETE COMPLIANCE : This action would encourage me to always follow rules.
28

(3.48), received a much lower score (0.69 lower) at 2.79. In other words, traditional public embarrassment appears not the have a substantial deterrent effect on Stanford students. This finding is inconsistent with Grasmick and Bursick’s assertion that “shame and embarrassment are one source . . . [that significantly] influence conformity and nonconformity with the law.”
55 However, this might be explained by the fact that it might not be considered embarrassing or shameful to have one’s name placed in the school newspaper for not using hand signals when bicycling or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign; further research and discussion is needed to evaluate the role of shame or embarrassment in these findings.
Lastly, we should consider Friedman’s Deterrence Curve Theory.
56 In a critique of the death penalty nearly thirty years ago, Friedman expounded a rather lucid argument that the deterrent effect of high sanctions eventually flattens off:
[T]here is no simple, linear relationship between sanctions and sanctioned behavior. Suppose we plotted on a graph the rate of overtime parking at given levels of fine. As fines rose, we would expect the violation rate to fall, but we do not expect a perfect straight line on the graph. Doubling a $5 fine, in other words, will . . . increase compliance, but compliance will not necessarily double. A threat of twenty years in jail will probably not be twice as effective as a threat of ten years.
57
Friedman postulates that no matter how severe the sanction, there will be some people who will always comply and some who will never comply. Accordingly, there reaches a certain level of punishment at which increased sanctions will not increase the deterrent effect. Some empirical studies have confirmed this phenomenon.
58
55 Grasmick & Bursick, supra
note 3, at 842.
56 L AWRENCE M.
F RIEDMAN , T HE L EGAL S YSTEM : A S OCIAL S CIENCE P ERSPECTIVE 75-77 (1975).
57 Id.
at 75-76.
58 See, e.g.
, G RESHAM S YKES , T HE S OCIETY OF C APTIVES : A S TUDY OF A M AXIMUM S ECURITY
P RISON (1958) (finding that prisoners in New Jersey who misbehaved exceedingly were not deterred by
(continued...)
29

While this survey did not provide sufficient scope to fully evaluate Friedman’s theory, the results do partially illustrate the phenomenon. First, there are those who will comply with even the lowest degree of sanctions. At least five percent of those surveyed responded that they comply with the bicycling laws regardless of sanctions, while at least another nine percent indicated that any sanctions would produce “complete compliance.”
Following the responses for the increasing severity of sanctions, a curve is created, with it starting to flatten out with “fine II” and “imprisonment.” More importantly, the difference between fine II—which entails a $250 to $500 fine—and imprisonment for six to nine months is only 0.1 on the deterrence index. This difference is relatively miniscule in comparison to the differing levels between fine II (4.43) and community service (4.02) or fine I (4.0). In other words, the trend seems to indicate that after fine II, the deterrence value of increased sanctions would continue to diminish—perhaps to insignificance at levels higher than six to nine months in prison.
As part of the survey instrument, we included variables to measure the differences in gender, age, and educational program and evaluate whether such variables influenced one’s knowledge of and compliance with California bicycling laws. With respect to these indicators, an empirical study on bicycling laws avoids potential omitted variable bias that is at play in studies of other laws, due to the influence of legal sanctions, peer
________________________
(...continued) increased punishment). Friedman cited Sykes’ study in his original work on the Deterrence Curve.
F RIEDMAN , supra
note 56, at 76 (“In this prison, Sykes felt, the [deterrence] curve had flattened out.”).
See also Archer, Gartner & Beittel, supra
note 53 (finding that the death penalty has no increased deterrent
effect over life in prison).
30

pressure or embarrassment, and moral conscience.
59 Bicycling laws arguably are not as influenced by these explanatory variables, since the laws are seldom enforced, society does not view violations as repugnant or disgraceful, and moral conscience probably does not encourage as much compliance as with laws against more morally reprehensible behavior. Consequently, measurements of the effect of gender, age, and education will likely be more accurate, less tainted by these omitted variables. The results of the means hypothesis tests for compliance are examined in the following three Parts.
60
1. Gender Matters: Females Significantly Comply More with the Law than Males
One does not have to look farther than the composition of the prison population to infer that men are more likely to break the law than women, 61 or at least to get caught and imprisoned.
62 The gender law literature clearly documents gender differences in compliance on the commonly cited bases of the emotional or psychological differences between the sexes 63 and of differences in perception of risk under rational choice theory.
64
59 See supra
notes 3-6 and accompanying text (discussing the major explanatory variables that affect
compliance with the law).
60 Regression analysis was also conducted on this sample, but the results of the most developed regression functions were practically equivalent to the means hypothesis testing. The results discussed are not designed to proffer definitive conclusions as to the degree of influence gender, age, and educational studies have on compliance. Instead, the results merely aim to encourage further research and discussion.
61 George S. Bridges & Gina Berretta, Gender, Race, and Social Control: Toward an Understanding of Sex Disparities in Imprisonment , in I NEQUALITY , C RIME , AND S OCIAL C ONTROL (George S. Bridges &
M. Myers eds., 1994).
62 An extensive body of literature demonstrates that women have a lower risk of imprisonment than men. See, e.g.
, K ATHLEEN D ALY , G ENDER , C RIME AND P UNISHMENT (1994); Darrell J. Steffensmeier, John
Kramer & Cathy Streifel, Gender and Imprisonment Decisions , 31 C RIMINOLOGY 411-46 (1993).
63 C AROL G ILLIGAN , I N A D IFFERENT V OICE : P SYCHOLOGICAL T HEORY AND W OMEN
’
S
D EVELOPMENT (1982); J EAN B AKER M ILLER , T OWARD A N EW P SYCHOLOGY OF W OMEN (1976); Walter R.
Gore, The Effect of Age and Gender on Deviant Behavior: A Biopsychosocial Perspective , in G ENDER AND
THE L IFE C OURSE (A.S. Rossi ed., 1985).
31

Empirical studies consistently find women more compliant with the law, 65 but few, if any, studies have looked at whether this is due to knowledge differences. This study evaluates whether gender differences exist both in the knowledge of and compliance with the law.
Gender appears to play no role in whether bicyclists know of the law, but female students significantly comply with the law more than their male counterparts. With only a
0.012 difference in knowledge scores, no significant gender difference exists at even a
0.10 significance level. Conversely, with a 0.1 difference in compliance scores, women conform with the law more than men at the 0.05 significance level.
66 Consequently, the null hypothesis that gender does not make a difference in compliance is rejected, but the null hypothesis that gender is not correlated with knowledge cannot be rejected. Table 13 outlines the gender differences in compliance and knowledge results for each of the
California bicycling laws tested.
The compliance results suggest that female students are more likely to comply with bicycling laws than their male counterparts. This parallels mainstream gender law
________________________
(...continued)
64 M ICHAEL G OTTFREDSON & T RAVIS H IRSCHI , A G ENERAL T HEORY OF C RIME (1990) (linking gender differences in delinquency to perceived risk); John Hagan, John Simpson & A.R. Gillis, Class in the
Household: A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency , 92 A M .
J.
S OC . 788 (1987) (providing evidence of gender differences in perceived risk of criminal actions for males and females raised in patriarchal families).
65 See, e.g.
, Kathleen Daly, Neither Conflict nor Labeling nor Paternalism Will Suffice: Intersections of Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Family in Criminal Court Decisions , 35 C RIME & D ELINQ . 136 (1989)
(finding women to be less likely to appear in criminal court and be convicted); Douglas A. Smith &
Raymond Paternoster, The Gender Gap in Theories of Deviance: Issues and Evidence , 24 J.
R ES .
C RIME &
D ELINQ .
140 (1987) (providing results from various studies that indicate women conform with the law more than men); Christopher Uggen & Candace Kruttschnitt, Crime in the Breaking: Gender Differences in
Desistance , 32 L AW & S OC
’
Y R EV . 339, 362 (1998) (“The factors that influence official desistance are not gender neutral. Women are more likely to make the transition out of crime and remain crime free for longer periods of time than similarly situated men.”).
66 With respect to gender, the two-sample comparison of means hypothesis test for compliance had a z-score of -2.207, while the knowledge score had a z-score of 0.846. Consequently, the compliance difference is significant at the 0.05 significance level, but the knowledge difference is not significant at even the 0.10 level.
32

literature and research. More importantly, since there were no significant gender differences in knowledge of law, it seems likely that knowledge gaps are not the cause of compliance differences between men and women. Gender conformity differences must be caused by other factors. Whether this finding can be generalized merits further attention in order to build on the significant behavioral results found here.
Reported Compliance with Law
Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs
Not Riding on Street Sidewalks
Riding with the Flow of Traffic
Using Hand Signals When Turning
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
Total Compliance Score:
Knowledge of Law
Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs
Not Riding on Street Sidewalks
Riding with the Flow of Traffic
Using Hand Signals When Turning
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
Total Knowledge Score:
Male (247)
2.81
3.16
4.31
2.22
3.24
3.15
Male (247)
91.5%
46.6%
88.3%
68.0%
64.4%
71.7%
Gender
Female (275)
3.08
3.12
4.13
2.30
3.62
3.25
Female (275)
91.3%
44.7%
85.8%
64.4%
66.5%
70.5%
Total
2.95
3.14
4.22
2.26
3.44
3.20
Total
91.4%
45.6%
87.0%
66.1%
65.5%
71.1%
2. Age Matters: Older Students Comply with the Law Significantly
More than Younger Students
Criminology literature and research have discovered an age-crime curve, or an apparent “aging out of crime” phenomenon.
67 These studies attribute this “criminology life cycle” to numerous variables, including psychological changes, increased social integration, and biopsychosocial factors that reduce deviant motivations. One of most
67 S HELDON G LUECK & E LEANOR T.
G LUECK , L ATER C RIMINAL C AREERS , (1937); see also , Gove, supra
note 63. For general discussion on the life-cycle of criminal behavior and on how compliance
increases with age, see Rosemary Gartner & Irving Piliavin, The Aging Offender and the Aged Offender , in
L IFE -S PAN D EVELOPMENT AND B EHAVIOR (P.B. Baltes, D.L. Featherman & R.M. Lerner eds., 1988);
Travis Hirschi & Michael Gottfredson, Age and the Explanation of Crime , 89 A M .
J.
S OC . 552 (1983);
Robert J. Sampson & John H. Laub, Crime and Deviance in the Life Course , 18 A NN .
R EV .
S OC . 63 (1992).
33

notable and interesting studies—conducted by Robert Sampson and John Laub— concluded that childhood continuity in crime is substantially modified over the life cycle, as adults develop “social capital” and other social bonds.
68 Regardless of the rationale for increased compliance with the law, the literature clearly documents this “aging out of crime” phenomenon in various criminology fields. No study has yet considered the effect of differences in knowledge on this trend. We address that question here.
Interestingly, the data indicate that age plays no significant role in knowledge of the law. However, the results confirm this “aging out of crime” phenomenon, as they indicate a general, significant trend that the older the respondent, the more likely she will comply with bicycling laws. For instance, there is a 0.7 difference in overall compliance scores between those under twenty-one (2.85) and those over thirty (3.55). Not only does this disparity exist between the two extreme age groups, but it also exists between with the 26-30 age group. Table 14 demonstrates these findings in more detail.
The differences between the Under-21, 26-30, and Over 30 age groups are all significant at the 0.05 significance level, and consequently, the null hypothesis that age does not influence compliance with the law can be rejected.
69 Only the 21-25 age group is not significantly different from the rest of the population. So it appears that age plays a significant role in compliance with the law. In our sample, the older the student, the greater the likelihood she will obey bicycling laws. Since there were no significant age
68 R OBERT J.
S AMPSON & J OHN H.
L AUB , C RIME IN THE M AKING : P ATHWAYS AND T URNING P OINTS
T HROUGH L IFE 139 (1993).
69 To determine significant differences among age groups, we tested each age group against the rest of the sample. We found no significant difference in knowledge for any of the age groups at the 0.05 significance level. However, for compliance, we found significant differences in all groups but 21-25 at the
0.05 significance level. Under 21 significantly complied less with the law than others with a z-score of -
8.961. Both the 26-30 and Over 30 age groups significantly comply with the law more than the rest of the sample with z-scores of 5.843 and 3.687 respectively.
34

differences in knowledge of law, it seems unlikely that knowledge gaps are the cause of compliance differences. In other words, it is not the case that older students know the law better and thus conform more to the law than younger students. Whether this finding can be generalized to other laws is a topic for further research and discussion.
Table 14: Influence of Age on Knowing & Complying with the Law
Reported Compliance with Law
Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs
Not Riding on Street Sidewalks
Riding with the Flow of Traffic
Using Hand Signals When Turning
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
Total Compliance Score:
Significant at 0.05 Level*:
Knowledge of Law
Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs
Not Riding on Street Sidewalks
Riding with the Flow of Traffic
Using Hand Signals When Turning
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
Total Knowledge Score:
Significant at 0.05 Level*:
Under 21
2.69
2.78
3.86
21-25
3.04
3.19
4.27
Age
26-30
3.12
3.43
4.47
Over 30
3.05
3.44
4.63
2.76
Total
2.95
3.14
4.22
1.85
3.06
2.85
Yes
Under 21
2.28
3.48
3.25
No
21-25
2.61
3.75
3.48
Yes
26-30
3.88
3.55
Yes
2.26
3.44
3.20
---
Total Over 30
87.0%
40.2%
80.5%
54.4%
66.3%
65.7%
No
93.3%
49.4%
89.3%
70.2%
68.0%
74.0%
No
93.3%
45.5%
91.0%
73.1%
59.7%
72.5%
No
95.1%
51.2%
90.2%
73.2%
70.7%
76.1%
No
91.4%
45.6%
87.0%
66.1%
65.5%
71.1%
---
*Significance based on comparing age group to rest of sample.
3. Academic Program Matters: Law Students Report Both the Most
Knowledge of the Law and the Highest Degree of Compliance.
While the roles of gender and age in compliance are extensively studied in the law and society literature—as well as in other fields—the impact of academic background on conformity with the law is a relatively unexplored subject. Yet, clearly some academic backgrounds (i.e., the study of law) should prepare students to comply with the law more than other disciplines. After all, Aristotle postulated that “the virtues we get by first exercising them, as also happens in the case of the arts as well. For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them . . . .” 70 It seems intuitive that
70 A RISTOTLE , N ICOMACHEAN E THICS , book 2, ch. 1.
35

students with more academic training should be more compliant, and furthermore, students who are studying the law—better understanding and internalizing legal precepts and the importance of rule of law—should probably both know the law best and obey it the most. This study explores these suppositions.
With respect to academic program enrollment, it appears that undergraduate students are significantly less compliant with bicycling laws than graduate students by more than 0.5 in the compliance score index, which is significant at the 0.05 level. It should be noted that this finding could be substantially correlated with the findings on age, and this theme clearly requires additional research. Table 15 presents the overall breakdown between academic programs for compliance with and knowledge of the law.
Table 15: Role of Academic Program on Knowing & Complying with the Law
Reported Compliance with Law
Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs
Not Riding on Street Sidewalks
Riding with the Flow of Traffic
Using Hand Signals When Turning
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
Total Compliance Score:
Significant at 0.05 Level*:
Knowledge of Law
Making a Complete Stop at Stop Signs
Not Riding on Street Sidewalks
Riding with the Flow of Traffic
Using Hand Signals When Turning
Using Lights When Riding in the Dark
Total Knowledge Score:
Significant at 0.05 Level*:
Academic Program
Undergrad Business
2.72
3.07
2.83
3.95
1.93
3.07
2.90
Yes
3.52
4.63
2.31
3.77
3.46
No
Law
3.36
3.37
4.30
2.66
3.77
3.49
Yes
Other Grad
2.98
3.30
4.45
2.82
3.82
3.47
No
Undergrad Business
89.5% 88.8%
43.1%
83.1%
60.1%
70.6%
69.3%
No
50.5%
86.9%
65.4%
59.8%
70.3%
No
Law
96.3%
50.5%
94.4%
76.6%
59.8%
75.5%
Yes
Other Grad
95.0%
38.3%
90.0%
73.3%
65.0%
72.3%
No
Total
2.95
3.14
4.22
2.26
3.44
3.20
---
Total
91.4%
45.6%
87.0%
66.1%
65.5%
71.1%
---
*Significance based on comparing academic program group to rest of sample.
More importantly, law school students know the law significantly better than students in other programs with the highest total knowledge score of 75.5%. They also
36

have the highest compliance score of 3.49, which is also significant at the 0.05 level.
71 As reported in Part III.A., knowledge of the law is not well correlated with compliance. One might expect, though, that law students who have recently spent at least a semester reading tort cases about gruesome road accidents might be more cognizant of road laws and obey them more closely. The results confirm this intuition that law students significantly know the law and comply with the law better than other students. However, it should be noted that correlation here does not necessarily entail causation. Studying the law might not increase knowledge and compliance, but instead, this could be an issue of simultaneous or reverse causality. In other words, those who know and obey are most likely to pursue a graduate law degree; so their knowledge and compliance levels could cause them to enroll in law school. This intriguing trend could yield other significant results in further research.
An observation project was conducted after the survey results were compiled in order to evaluate the accuracy of Stanford bicyclists’ reported behavior versus their actual behavior. While this observation project should not be used as conclusive evidence of this accuracy, it does provide an illustrative commentary for the purposes of this exploratory research. As explained in Part II.B., we evaluated 350 Stanford bicyclists at two different locations on campus, and the results of our findings are presented in Table 16.
71 To determine significant differences among students in different academic programs, we tested each group against the rest of the sample. We found no significant difference in knowledge for any of the academic groups at the 0.05 significance level, except for the law students with a z-score of 2.125.
However, for compliance, we found significant differences for undergraduates and law students with respective z-scores of -10.460 and 5.071. No significant differences were found for business school students or other graduate students.
37

As illustrated in Table 16, reported compliance and actual compliance are virtually identical for riding with the flow of traffic (0.007 difference) and not riding on street sidewalks (0.018). However, there is a stark difference between reported and actual compliance for making a complete stop at stop signs (0.273), using hand signals when turning (0.443), and wearing a helmet (0.261).
Bicycling Activity
Observed / Reported
Survey
Compliance
Scores
Reported
Compliance
Riding with the Flow of
Traffic
Not Riding on Street
Sidewalks
Making a Complete
Stop at Stop Signs
Using Hand Signals
When Turning
Wearing a Helmet
Overall Compliance:
4.22
3.14
2.95
2.26
1.84
2.88
84.4%
62.8%
59.0%
45.2%
36.8%
57.6%
Actual
Compliance
83.7%
64.6%
31.7%
0.9%
10.7%
38.3%
Difference
0.7%
1.8%
27.3%
44.3%
26.1%
19.3%
With respect to making a complete stop at stop signs, perhaps the drastically higher reported compliance is due to the fact that respondents’ knowledge of this law
(91.4%) was the greatest of all laws evaluated on the survey. In other words, because over nine out of ten bicyclists knew they should stop at stop signs influenced many to respond that they do stop when in fact they do not. This is perhaps a result of the
Consistency Principle 72 at play, in that survey participants want to appear as consistent and rational in the way they make decisions. If they know something is a law, psychologically they are compelled to report behavior consistent with these beliefs.
72 See supra
note 16 and accompanying text (discussing the Consistency Principle and how it affects
survey participants’ reported behavior).
38

The discrepancy in using hand signals could also be due to the Consistency
Principle, but it is nevertheless alarming that respondents reported compliance almost half the time, while in reality they signal less than one percent of the time. While wearing a helmet is not required by California law for those over eighteen years, the fact that bicyclists know—and common sense dictates—that they should be wearing helmets for safety may explain the disparity between what respondents reported and what was observed. Thus, respondents may have indicated that they wear helmets over one-third of the time out of social pressure—or perhaps again due to the Consistency Principle—when only one out of ten bicyclists was actually observed wearing helmets. Further research is be needed to better understand what influences individuals to report higher compliance than they actually perform.
IV. C ONCLUSION
While these studies were designed as exploratory research into the relationship between the bicycling laws and Stanford student bicyclist behavior, several preliminary conclusions can be drawn. First, Stanford bicyclists do not know the law in its entirety, perhaps because they learn the law primarily through informal means such as word of mouth, observation of others, and popular culture. Second, compliance with the law does not necessarily have a direct correlation with knowledge of the law or even with the danger level of the activity. Third, our results support Friedman’s deterrence curve theory: the impact of increased sanctions on illegal bicycling behavior seems to level off with more severe sanctions. However, contrary to expectations that embarrassment should be a deterrent factor, publication of offenders in the school newspaper does not seem to have a significant effect on behavior.
39

Fourth, gender appears not to affect knowledge of the law, but in this study, women reported significantly greater compliance with the law than men. This finding is consistent with gender law literature. Age also seems to play a significant role in compliance (but not knowledge), paralleling mainstream literature on the “aging out of crime” phenomenon. Most interestingly, law students significantly both know and comply with the law more than other students, which suggests that study of the law increases law-abiding behavior. Perhaps as Aristotle suggests, Stanford law students have acquired virtue—the virtue of law-abiding behavior—through learning and practice. Or perhaps this is an instance of simultaneous or reverse causality, in that those who know and obey the law self-select to pursue a graduate law degree. Further studies should be conducted to better understand how and why gender, age, and academic studies affect compliance with the law.
Additionally, the observation project revealed that respondents quite accurately reported their behavior with respect to riding with the flow of traffic and not riding on street sidewalks. However, their responses drastically differed from actual behavior with respect to making a complete stop at stop signs, using hand signals when turning, and wearing a helmet. These findings illustrate that self-reported behavior may not always be reliable, and also raises question for further inquiry into what motivates people to report some behaviors more accurately than others.
Lastly, the results of this exploration of bicycling laws at Stanford illustrate the importance of conducting empirical research on the relationship between law and society.
In particular, compliance with bicycling laws is an ideal dependent variable to understand this relationship because it avoids several key explanatory variables—i.e., legal sanctions,
40

peer pressure, and moral conscience—that are often omitted from empirical analysis due to inability or imprecision in tracking the data. In addition to providing numerous avenues for further research and discussion, this study offers a glimpse into the realworld, relatively unadulterated effect of a law on the books.
41