On Facebook, John Brooking wrote:
We simply want to ride our bikes wherever we need to, right now, without
asking for special structures to be built or painted for us. We are
traffic, and we ride as lawful drivers. We are your co-workers, friends,
and family. We are you. Please join us!
We don't need bike lanes.
A very lively discussion resulted in what might be surprising to some people. Not all cyclists want bike lanes and bicycle infrastructure. Not all cyclists care one way or the other. Not all cyclists have thought the issue all the way through. Not all cyclists are rational...on either side of the issue. Not all cyclists are polite.
I don't agree with John, but I'm grateful for his post since it challenges us to not make assumptions based on what we think is probably a good idea or what fits in with our comfort level of biking. Don't assume all cyclists want the same thing and don't assume that all cyclists have actually studied, or are interested in studying all points of the compass on bike safety.
It also points to the fact that there can be no one answer to the bike lane or not bike lane question. It will always be a regional matter that depends on the road conditions in that area; what the local government is able or willing to do about it, and what the residents want and if they are willing to spend the time and energy to follow through on working in an useful way to implement what is best for their area.
Delaware, from Governor Markell all the way down to most residents are interested in having a state that provides safe access and use of our roads for all "traffic" (pedestrian, cyclist, motorist).
I'm glad I live in Delaware.
I've given up my slot in the John Brooking discussion since it's pointless to debate the issue with those who just keep stating over and over again that "you just need a little practice biking on the road" to know you don't need bike lanes.
Here are some links to studies done about road modifications for cyclists. It is a good starting place if you wish to begin further study on what's been published.
Bike Lanes: Pros & Cons from Michael Bluejay's BicycleUniverse.info
International Bicycle Fund: Infrastructure Policy, Planning and Design Digest
Study done in Cambridge, Massachusetts
University of Texas Study
BicycleInfo.Org Case Study Report
U.S. Department of Transportation - Accomodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach
Whether or not one likes bike lanes, they are a severe problem if they are forced on all cyclists. Bike lanes are preferential use lanes, just like HOV lanes or Bus lanes, and should be an options, just like all the other preferential use lanes. Can you imagine the public outcry if carpoolers were forced to use HOV lanes? Why should bicyclists be any more restricted? When one group forces it preference on all groups it creates division within the cycling community. I respectfully suggest that those who prefer bike lanes, please respect the rights of those who don't, to have the choice of using travel lanes. This means supporting the repeal of mandatory use bike lanes and restrictive far to right laws that put cyclists at operational and liability disadvantage compared to motorists in traffic.
ReplyDeletePlease note that this is the Policy of the League of American Bicyclists, right out of the Equity Statement:
http://www.bikeleague.org/images/equity_statement_1-05-09.pdf
"Equality – The equal legal status and equal treatment of cyclists in traffic law. All US states must adopt fair, equitable and uniform traffic laws, that are “vehicle-neutral” to the greatest extent possible. Cyclists’ ability to access to all destinations must be protected. State and local laws that discriminate against cyclists, or restrict their right to travel, or reduce their relative safety, must be repealed."
This means that in addition for pursuing special facilities, cycling advocates ALSO have an obligation to protect the rights of their fellow cyclists. I don't begrudge you your right to advocate for bike lanes, so how about not taking out of my hide by fixing the laws.
Having fair and equitable laws will also help bike lane riders when they are involved in crashes, since the liability deck will not be so stacked against them as the laws are at present.
Thanks Lorax, for your comment.
ReplyDeleteI'm so grateful that you are supplying information that will be useful to helping people understand all the ramifications of this issue.
I'm not advocating for bike lanes as the solution for everything. I'm advocating for safe roads for all traffic. That may or may not include bike lanes in specific areas.
As the U.S. readjusts itself in how to think and act on these issues, there will be a few bumps in the road along the way. If cyclists present cool-headed facts and opinions, ultimately we will have a better system without the laws abusing anyone.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
bike lanes definitely provide a nice cushion on busy roads with parked cars, a security blanket of sorts for newer riders and a sense of legitimacy for cyclists in that motorists see a bike lane and 'might' say "bikes are supposed to be here"...that said, much more needs to be done to convince the majority of the motoring public that bikes belong on all roads, bike lanes or not.
ReplyDeletei have seen/heard the argument many times "we spend all this money on bike lanes and paths, but the cyclists ride in the road anywaya!!>?!?!" and there has got to be something taught in congruence with bike lanes/bike paths that can counteract this thinking.
I think the excitement about parallel infrastructure in general (not just "bike lanes") comes from observing the experience of European countries (like the Netherlands and Denmark) and American communities like Portland, Boulder and Davis. In the U.S. generally bike mode share is less than 1/2 of 1%. In other words, it's basically just a rounding error. Meanwhile, the Netherlands has a bicycle mode share north of 40%, Portland ~ 6%, Boulder ~ 10% and Davis ~ 20%. If you go to any of these places, what do you see? Pervasive and specialized parallel infrastructure for bicyclists.
ReplyDeleteThis is, however, both encouraging and discouraging. It's encouraging because we know basically how to get from where we are now, with bicyclists in fact (if not legally) as 2nd class users of our transportation infrastructure to a reality where bicyclists are truly equal with motorists. But it's discouraging because it takes a long time to build transportation infrastructure. So knowing what we need to do doesn't help today's cyclists who just want to get back and forth safely from their jobs. For these people (who, again, represent a tiny minority of our population), we need things like "3' Passing Laws" to help protect them while we work on the long term challenge of building parallel infrastructure.
This argument could go on for eternity, it seems like it already has (Next topic: Helmet Use! :-))
ReplyDeleteThe Dutch, the Danes and the Portlander's have settled the argument for me - If you want everyone to bicycle: women, children, elderly then you have to make them feel safe. Bicyclists in all those places tend to obey the law because it is easy to do so.
Regarding education - the public's perception of the need to invest in bicycle education comes with the presence of more bicyclists. We have seen this in Philadelphia when education and civility on the road became a hot topic.
The Bicycle Coalition is receiving almost a million dollars (over 3 years) to fund the Bicycle Ambassadors and Safe Routes Philly which has a goal of providing bike education to every 5th grader.
As long as bicycling is viewed as a marginal activity done by few there will be very little incentive to funnel dollars toward BikeEd leaving us to fend for ourselves to try advocacy.
"It will always be a regional matter that depends on the road conditions in that area"
ReplyDeleteBingo.
As a former North Jersey resident, I never saw a right turn/right hook-only lane with a pork chop, and right turning traffic having the yield until moving here. Not to condemn the design (it does have safety issues), but having to resort to using this lane as a straight lane for us - against all vehicular laws - is in itself a chief argument for bike lanes. Taking back a piece of the road at intersections, especially these is a huge increase in safety. The vast majority of Bike Delaware survey respondants stated their preference for these facilities, and said they would be far more likely to observe traffic laws - especially stopping at stops and reds - if these facilities were present.
I have met those with bike lane issues, and come to find out they live in an urban environment where they were put in door zones, or disappeared into curbs, or other lack of standards and so they generalize it must be this way everywhere. Farthest thing from the truth. I say get involved with your local advocacy group and change it.
Nothing I would enjoy more than to challenge Forresterites on this, bring them here and tell them they must move into the middle lanes at the start of a long right turn only lane into 50+ mph traffic, and feel safe about it. Because that's what the extreme "vehicularist" believes - bicycles are cars and should ride in the lane of travel. That thinking is deeply flawed in some cases; as much as kayaks are not, and cannot be bound to the same laws as speedboats or cabin cruisers.
-Frank