I spoke with a local private sector urban planner today. He has a new colleague working in the office who is an "avid cyclist", who moved here from some city in the northeast... let's say Boston (not it). He use to commute to work by bicycle, but can't now that he's in Dallas because "there are no bicycle facilities".
He lives in the M-Streets, and works downtown (let's say, Akard and Commerce... although that's not it).
A few weeks ago we (my gentle readers and myself) showed a young lady who was fairly new to cycling, numerous ways to easily make roughly the same trip (from routes for beginners to routes for the mythical FHWA Class A cyclists) .
This new resident, separated from work by just a few miles of easily navigable streets for a "Class A/B" cyclist, feels that without some bike lanes he can't make the trip (and blames Dallas).
I don't know where to begin. It's like these people think bike lanes were invented before bicycles. Or perhaps they are so use to laws that mandate they ride in bike lanes when they are present, they've forgotten you can ride in a street without them.
Or maybe it's just another excuse.
36 comments:
I would love to give a coherent response to this post. But I am currently laughing so much that typing is little difficult. That picture is absolutely perfect for this commentary. Thank you.
I expect that last one is the biggest factor. I know I always have a long list of excuses.
However, if this person had grown up in a world without bike lanes, he probably never would have started commuting by bicycle in the first place.
It blows my mind that people can't identify a grid of easy streets to ride on. I moved to Orlando in 1986, at least 10 years before anyone heard of a bike lane. I explored this town on a bike by studying a street atlas and looking for connecting quiet streets (it's no easy task here with all the lakes). I discovered that I could get all the way from one end of the urban center to the other without having to ride on any busy roads.
I'd never ridden in a city before. I had no traffic cycling skills. I just worked my way up to more convenient routes by gaining confidence with my bike on quiet streets.
It always leaves me speechless when someone whines that they can't ride here or there because there are no bike lanes. Our whole cycling culture has been retarded by bike facilities.
Soon... perhaps already... bike lanes are not going to be good enough. We're moving on to cycletracks.
The turkey is in the oven and I just finished with the bread machine. Time for a cuppa and some play time on the laptop!
It's especially annoying that some so-called bicycling advocacy groups foster this dependency on bike lanes by insisting that riding a bike in traffic is so dangerous that 'normal' people wouldn't attempt to do it. These groups are largely shills for the bike industry.
Still, cyclists have some needs like smooth pavement on roads and railroad crossings, signals that respond to their presence, and storm grates that won't catch a wheel, many of them of benefit to all road users, not just cyclists. But we don't need second class status that confines us to bike lanes and sidepaths despite assurances this is done "for our own safety." Statistically, limited access roads are much safer for motorists, so we could make a similar argument that all their driving should be confined to freeways, turnpikes, and interstate highways.
That's my snark for the day! Enjoy your holiday!
Stu, I don't totally disagree with you, but I think it's also a matter of the 4-Es. Cities have done almost NOTHING when it comes to Encouragement and Education. My Fair City actually returned a $750,000 Education Program "grant" ($1,000,000 with the required local match) to set up a permanent Cycling Education Center to teach Road 1 to adults and SuperCyclist to kids because no one wanted to maintain it after the funding for salaries ran out (3 years, but it required a 10 year commitment). Not the Police, not the Parks and Recreation Department, not the School District.
Sad and unfortunate. But building facilities is easy compared to maintaining them, or a commitment.
But it is not about safety, it is about "perceived safety" aka comfort. Sure, education and awareness can help a little but working out a safe, reasonably comfortable vehicular bike route is hard work. Your example of the person who works in Uptown actually demonstrates that perfectly. Most "normal" people simply aren't going to go to all that trouble.
If bikes lanes are what people want, why shouldn't they have it? Yes, I understand the theory why bike lanes are dangerous. Some of the photos of in the pro-bike lane reports from Portland really scare me - the way they drastically deviate from normal traffic patterns. But where is the data that supports these theories in real life?
Stu,
Part of the problem is the huge infrastructure disruption. Where would you put one? The only solution for most streets that a bike lane would be "needed" on is the removal of a travel lane. The removal of a travel lane does not increase congestion proportionally. Removal of one lane on a three lane street does not cut that street's capacity by 33%, but by over half. A water main broke on Greenville Avenue yesterday. Traffic, that was flowing smoothly before and after the blocked lane) was backed up over a block, and this was pre rush hour. That queuing of idling cars has a very serious air quality impact, far offsetting any gains made by trip mode shifts.
On streets that don't "need" bike lanes, but people "want" them, you have to remove on-street parking. NIMFY (Not In My Front Yard) rears its head when you begin to push this. Cycling Inferiority Complex/Toy Vehicle Syndrome Advocates solve the problem with bike lanes in door zones (see Austin, Portland, Cambridge, Chicago). That's unconscionable and unprofessional conduct in my book, regardless of the cause. That's KNOWING implying safety while designing in danger.
stu42j said...
But it is not about safety, it is about "perceived safety" aka comfort.
Sadly, that's almost exactly what Portland's Bike Coordinator Roger Geller said recently on a radio show with John Schubert.
That's not advocacy, that's zealotry.
PM, wondering if you saw this D article back in Sept? It was also linked to on the Dallas Observer's blog this week: http://tinyurl.com/3lnfjo
I find it disappointing that this story, garnering a lot of attention, is focused on bike lanes and how Dallas isn't bike-friendly, rather than using the opportunity to educate with our 'take-the-lane' philosophy (which probably would have prevented Feherty's accidents).
Only one of the comments leans that direction. We need some serious PR, first to get other local cyclists on the band wagon, then to general public.
Perturbed by your post, I went for a ride to clear my mind.
Handicapped people are taught how to get along in the larger society. Most find that the handicap isn't as limiting as they imagined IF they WANT to get along. The purpose of the ADA is to facilitate their integration into society, NOT to turn them into cripples.
Get the so-called "avid" cyclist to read THE LITTLE LAME PRINCE & stop feeling sorry & making excuses for himself. It's on-line at http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/MulLitt.html
Heather asked "PM, wondering if you saw this D article back in Sept? It was also linked to on the Dallas Observer's blog this week: ..."
See PM's earlier post, a radio interview related to the D article: http://tinyurl.com/5l99o3
Here is a question for the hard-nosed vehicular cyclists. One of the biggest problems I've found when trying to follow the VC-way is going through intersections with high-traffic multi-lane streets with no traffic lights.
Is it just me? If I drove a car, I'd probably be one of those people who never make left turns. Do you wait patiently for a clear spot? Stop in the middle? Or maybe you have better acceleration than me and can just power through?
Stu,
Generally, I choose to cross that type of street at at signal, but something like what you are describing would be Throckmorton crossing Lemmon Ave. I usually make this crossing in two steps (wait for gap to me left and go to the middle, wait for gap to my right and proceed across), unless there is a huge gap.
BTW, here is the route I've used a few times.
I've been trying to map out a more direct route (avoiding the lake) but crossing Abrams and Skillman, plus two rail lines, is limiting my options. Here is what I have so far. Haven't actually tried it yet though.
stu42j said...
"Here is a question ... One of the biggest problems ... is ... intersections with high-traffic multi-lane streets with no traffic lights."
I don't consider myself a hard-nosed vehicular cyclist, but if a clear spot wasn't an option, I'd wait patiently in the LH turn lane or (if none), at the left of the LH lane for an opening.after negotiating my way to the left. Any motorists would wait behind me, knowing that I'm waiting for a break in the traffic to turn left & there's nothing to do BUT wait - just as if it was a car in front of them.
Power's nice, but the safe turn doesn't depend on it. My own hardest roads are the narrow two laners since the motorists have less low stress options to pass me. Mostly a mental thing...
stu42j said: I've been trying to map out a more direct route (avoiding the lake) but crossing Abrams and Skillman, plus two rail lines, is limiting my options. Here is what I have so far. Haven't actually tried it yet though.
Stu, that's the exact route I would take [maybe changing that long dangerous leg on the trail ;-) ]. and I have ridden most of that route on repeated occasions.
Steve offers excellent advice. Another way across 4-lane roads is the right/left/left turn(turn right in a gap, pull into a left turn pocket and wait a gap, then turn left and left again (or even a U-turn), but if the road doesn't have a divided median, I always prefer a signalized crossing.
I know you've seen this, but it's always a good primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjCza5e1kw&eurl=http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2008/08/vehicular-cycling-primer.html
@stu42j and PM
I do not understand the confusion. The Katy Trail dead ends (presently) at Airline. Simply head north, turn right on Mockingbird, exit an Lawther and resume the route ca. point "1".
velociped said...
@stu42j and PM
I do not understand the confusion.
In good conscience, I can't suggest any part of a route through the Park Cities. I'm still traumatized from being pulled over in my 1949 Morris Minor on Beverly Drive, after dropping off my date, for having tags from the "wrong part of town".
I suppose one advantage of riding on a busy road like Mockingbird is you don't have to worry about crossing without a signal! Maybe I'll give it a try - once my psychiatrist says I'm ready. ;)
thx, danc!
Stumbled upon this blog, I can't believe that "PM", the Dallas bicycle coordinator, is against bike lanes.. Glad I moved to Austin, that doesn't seem to have this lack of common sense.. I've ridden and raced bikes for 25 years. I've been hit by cars. So, I have a good feel for what is safe and what isn't. Austin has established semi-ok bike routes interconnecting town, I ride them daily.. guess what, the red-non-bike-laned "routes" have zero bikes, the green and blue routes, most with bike lanes, have what? you guess it.. bikes riding on them. Its a pretty obvious to see how the lanes encourage cycling, how you feel safer when you're in it, how cars cruise pass you a little less close, how cars are aware of the lane, how bikes don't have to "take the lane" on difficult sections and pray the bubba in the dually sees you. 1/2 the time I am forced to "take the lane" on my daily route to work, motorists honk at me, sometimes throw things at me, would be so much nicer if I had a lane in those spots.. Bicycles may have the same rights as vehicles on normal roads, and "are just normal vehicles".. but we all know this isn't the true.. we don't have the speed or the metal shell protecting us. One hit, we could be dead, the car "might" be dented. Bike lanes allow us to go slower, in a safety pocket removed from the thousand pound killing machines driving inches from us and 2-100X faster, who may not see us with the sun in their eyes..
Send this J-A to me. I'll show him how and where to ride his bike from A to B.
PM - e-mail or call me tomorrow. I need you at 1:30pm on the 9th at Cindy's on Central and Royal(just north). We can meet at my place and ride up by bike. Michelle and Gail will be there. Expect a 1.5 hr dog & pony show.
You might want to offer some of your wisdom at http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?p=323444#post323444. The bike lane loonies are taking over the asylum...c0tt
@AustinCyclist
"Bicycles may have the same rights as vehicles on normal roads, and 'are just normal vehicles'.. but we all know this isn't the true.."
Great; another troll has joined the group.
I know this to be quite true and experience it every day.
"we don't have the speed or the metal shell protecting us."
We are not required to have either the speed (a horse-drawn carriage does not have the speed), nor the metal shell (motorcyclists do not have a steel superstructure). These are specious and irrelevant arguments.
"One hit, we could be dead, the car "might" be dented."
...and a piece of space junk might deorbit and land on your head. Darn; that would be such a pity.
"Bike lanes allow us to go slower, in a safety pocket removed from the thousand pound killing machines driving inches from us and 2-100X faster, who may not see us with the sun in their eyes."
Another graduate of the BM School of Hyperbole and Irrational Fear.
Cyclists are allowed to travel at a slower speed, in the normal travel lane, without a segregated facility. (ref. the slower traffic keep right requirement)
The Magic Paint™ of bike lanes does not, in fact, convey any protection to a cyclist. (ref. the several deaths and serious injuries experienced by cloistered Portland cyclists over the past eighteen months or so.)
Hyperbole such as "thousand pound killing machines driving inches from us and 2-100X faster" is not going to win any converts to your position. Motor vehicles are no more a "killing machines" than a knitting needle. It is the user who dictates the end result.
"2-100X faster"? Just how slow are you traveling? The average moderately competent cyclist travels at a velocity of around 25-29kph. At most a companion motor vehicle will be moving at a velocity of two to 2.5 times that speed. Two to three would have been sufficient to make your flawed point. One hundred times? I mean, really!
We, too, are glad you moved to Austin. :-)
AustinCyclist said...
Stumbled upon this blog, I can't believe that "PM", the Dallas bicycle coordinator, is against bike lanes..
You must have done more than "stumble", being as nothing here mentions what I do for a living. Welcome anyway.
I moved from Austin to Dallas. Maybe we passed like trains in the night. While I was living and cycling in Austin, the first bike lane network was installed. I thought it was GREAT for a while. The first cyclist death caused by the bike lanes made me investigate what was happening, and opened my eyes to the illogical design characteristics of bike lanes.
Universal Traffic Engineering principles must be suspended in lieu of a "feelings" based design criteria in order to accept bike lane designs. As it says at the top of the page, this is a 100% Reality-based blog.
Austin has established semi-ok bike routes interconnecting town, I ride them daily.. guess what, the red-non-bike-laned "routes" have zero bikes, the green and blue routes, most with bike lanes, have what? you guess it.. bikes riding on them.
A couple of points. First, your observations actually prove the point of this post. Bike lanes CHANNEL cyclists, but biased observers think they have been created by them. Cyclists then become afraid to ride on a street without bike lanes, regardless of the conditions, because they have become inculturated into a fear-based system... fearing a statistically insignificant event (cyclist overtaken from the rear urban collision... which happens with the same frequency whether a bike lane is present or not), while accepting a higher-risk facility design (turning movements are the killer of urban cyclists, and bike lanes increase the number and type of conflict points).
Austin's mode-split has not gone up since it expanded its bike lane system in proportion to the system. Other, safer methods of Encouragement and Engineering could have had a similar impact.
I spend a lot of time in Austin. The bike lanes in North Austin, Way-South Austin, and East Austin are empty. Only around the city core do you see cyclists using the bike lanes in any significant numbers... and cyclists have been there a long time. Put bike lanes where there are no cyclists, and you have empty bike lanes (except for parked cars, broken glass and trash cans). Put bike lanes where there ARE cyclists, and you channel cyclists into those lanes... which was the original design intent of bike lanes, and which is how they still work best.
Its a pretty obvious to see how the lanes encourage cycling, how you feel safer when you're in it, how cars cruise pass you a little less close,
The highly flawed UT/TxDOT/CTR study of bike lanes vs. wide curb lanes shows the opposite: cars pass closer and faster to cyclists in bike lanes. BTW: They thought that was a good result, too.
...how cars are aware of the lane, how bikes don't have to "take the lane" on difficult sections and pray the bubba in the dually sees you. 1/2 the time I am forced to "take the lane" on my daily route to work, motorists honk at me, sometimes throw things at me, would be so much nicer if I had a lane in those spots..
Not a very flattering picture of a "bike-friendly" city you paint, but then, Austin does have the worse traffic congestion of any major Texas city (and beating Houston was tough!), so road rage incidents are high all over town.
One of the well documented side effects of bike lanes and cycle tracks (side paths) is increased motorist aggression toward cyclists who aren't using them.
Bicycles may have the same rights as vehicles on normal roads, and "are just normal vehicles".. but we all know this isn't the true.. we don't have the speed or the metal shell protecting us. One hit, we could be dead, the car "might" be dented. Bike lanes allow us to go slower, in a safety pocket removed from the thousand pound killing machines driving inches from us and 2-100X faster, who may not see us with the sun in their eyes..
I believe this already been answered. Time and time again, cyclists who bother to learn how to ride a bicycle responsibly find that their conflicts with motorists DECREASE.
Timid, fear-driven, facility-dependent, curb-hugging cyclists find the streets to be a hostile environment, refusing to accept the part their own poor behavior plays in creating the tensions. It's called The Cycling Inferiority Complex. It's a disease, and it's contagious.
In response to PM
"A couple of points. First, your observations actually prove the point of this post. Bike lanes CHANNEL cyclists, but biased observers think they have been created by them. Cyclists then become afraid to ride on a street without bike lanes, regardless of the conditions, because they have become inculturated into a fear-based system... fearing a statistically insignificant event (cyclist overtaken from the rear urban collision... which happens with the same frequency whether a bike lane is present or not), while accepting a higher-risk facility design (turning movements are the killer of urban cyclists, and bike lanes increase the number and type of conflict points)."
***I agree with the Channeling, but not the fear-system as a result of the channeling. Once bike lanes started appearing, I have gone miles out of my way to use those facilities. I can understand why others follow suit. I ride other roads without bike lanes, that doesn't stop me, but I do have more safety related issues. I don't trust motorists to pay attention, when i was struck by a car in Denton Texas, that's exactly what happened. when it is two lanes of traffic in a single direction, and a second car is riding abreast of the one about to pass you, the motorist will usually come closer to the cyclist than the car to his left, a bike lane prevents this situation. I do not think having more bike lanes changes a cyclist's mental state to have additional fear of roads without bike lanes, I don't feel that's a valid argument***
"Austin's mode-split has not gone up since it expanded its bike lane system in proportion to the system. Other, safer methods of Encouragement and Engineering could have had a similar impact."
*** Where is the study that has those results? ***
"One of the well documented side effects of bike lanes and cycle tracks (side paths) is increased motorist aggression toward cyclists who aren't using them. "
*** I don't disagree ***
"Timid, fear-driven, facility-dependent, curb-hugging cyclists find the streets to be a hostile environment, refusing to accept the part their own poor behavior plays in creating the tensions. It's called The Cycling Inferiority Complex. It's a disease, and it's contagious."
*** Again with the fearful cyclist created by the bike lane. It doesn't stop me from riding normal roads, but I will travel additional miles when a bike laned road becomes available. I think infrastructure encourages cycling and safety. Between 1991 and 2007, Portland expanded its bikeway network by 240%, since then, on the four main bridges, usage has increased 410%. % of workers commuting to work by bike rose from 1.8% to 4.4% in 2006. Their 2005 study found that 2 key success factors were Quantity and Quality of facilities and connectivity. British Columnbia, 1993, 50k infrastructure added, travel behavior study found that bike travel increased from 4% in 1999 to 11% in 2004.***
Yes, I know that for dedicated facilities advocates facts, however interesting, are irrelevant, but that's never stopped me.
http://nbda.com/page.cfm?pageid=34
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/bipedfund.htm
A central argument from the PnP side is that spending money on facilities entices more people onto bicycles. It's an especially endearing myth that they spout again and again without any real support. But if we consider those 2 pages, we can see that while federal spending on facilities has skyrocketed, bicycle sales are essentially flat. There is no demonstrable connection between facilities and numbers of cyclists on a national scale.
So our challenge, then, is to find something that actually works, something that will encourage motorists to leave the car in the garage and ride their bikes instead. Obviously, spending ever increasing amounts on facilities is a failure in that regard, but what can we substitute for that failed policy?
AustinCyclist,
Your last two comments regarding "facts" about the UT/TxDOT studies have already been exposed as error-ridden propaganda, or as one respected P.E. referred to them, "junk science", have already been discussed ad nauseum here (you do the research).
If you work your way backwards through both those "studies", you'll begin to see that the goal is to increase the ease of motorists, not cyclists.
Normally, I would have posted the links, but that would have just been a rehash of the already hashed, and because you made your appearance here under what appear to be false pretenses.
Anonymous posters regurgitating from scripts are only tolerated briefly. Come clean, and we can talk.
AustinCyclist said: when it is two lanes of traffic in a single direction, and a second car is riding abreast of the one about to pass you, the motorist will usually come closer to the cyclist than the car to his left, a bike lane prevents this situation.
The crash you describe is totally preventable by the cyclist.
If you hug the edge of the road when riding on a narrow 2-lane road, you will get squeezed by all but the most cautious of motorists. If you take the lane, the same-direction motorists will wait until the opposing lane is clear, then they will move over the centerline and give plenty of space. If you are getting buzzed (or hit) in this situation you are riding too far right. Period.
Unlike you, I sometimes go out of my way to avoid roads with bike lanes. I prefer to control my environment and a riding in a bike does not allow me to do that.
I've been hit by a car once. I was in a bike lane. And the crash was entirely attributable to the common problems created by the bike lane, and the fact that I did not fully understand the danger. It is the combination of increased conflict points and false sense of security that makes bike lanes so deadly... and so unethical as a tool to promote cycling.
If you're an actual thinking person, and not a shill, I urge you to take a moment to think through the issues. Do some research. Many of us began with the belief that bike lanes were a good thing. But those of us who gave it some honest, objective study discovered that the problems they create are real. The arguments against bike lanes are based on evaluation of crash data, the rules of the road and the logic of how vehicular traffic works. The arguments for bike lanes are based on emotion, superstition, mythology and propaganda peddled by ideologues who wouldn't blink at rolling cyclists under the bus as collateral damage in their culture war.
Bike lanes ultimately do nothing to change a hostile culture. If anything, they reinforce it. They get us out of the way at the expense of OUR safety, efficiency and right to the road. They put US on the worst part of the road, where debris collects and sight lines are inadequate. And cyclists allow this because they lack perspective and understanding of where the dangers are ... and where they are not. They lack the simple realization of how easy it is to control their environment. They mindlessly operate on irrational fear and superstition and they are happily imprisoned and marginalized for it.
If you want to make your world better for cycling, solve the problems, don't cater to them. Don't cower from them.
"Other, safer methods of Encouragement and Engineering could have had a similar impact."
*** Where is the study that has those results? ***
San Francisco's Shared Lane Marking Study is one good example.
"The arguments against bike lanes are based on evaluation of crash data"
Keri, perhaps you could share some of this data? I've not seen it.
Stu,
The one I'm most familiar with is Orlando's. You can download the PDF from this page under "Ride on the road."
The argument against bike lanes doesn't come from data that prove existing BLs contribute to crashes (though we do sadly see the evidence of that in news stories). The crash analysis shows that the overwhelming majority of crash-causes can't be prevented by bike lanes, but they can be prevented by educated cyclists. Also, we know these same crash-causes are exacerbated by bike lanes, because they involve crossing and turning movements and the farther a cyclist is to the right of the primary travel lane, the more likely he is to be in conflict with a crossing or turning driver who doesn't see him.
The only crashes mitigated by bike lanes are overtaking crashes. All but one of Orlando's daytime overtaking crashes were sideswipes. Therefore, they could have been prevented by the cyclist riding assertively (preventing the squeeze-thru and/or giving himself more space to the right as an escape). The one crash that was a direct hit from behind was... in a bike lane. Bike lanes don't prevent gross negligence. (I think there was one other that was an unknown cause)
Looking at all the fatalities in the Orlando study: All but one involved, drunk, unlit-at-night and/or wrong-way cyclists. The one that was 100% the fault of the motorist was... riding on the sidewalk. Sidewalks don't protect us from gross negligence either.
Our biggest problem is wrong-way riding and right-of-way/traffic-control violations.
Essentially, only 8% of lawfully-riding, roadway cyclists were involved in crashes with cars. And that 8% *includes* cyclists who were curb-hugging and thus increasing their risk.
So that leaves me with a simple truth. Safety isn't a problem that can be solved with bike lanes.
Poor decision-making by cyclists isn't solved by bike lanes. It's actually reinforced by bad bike lanes like DZBLs and suicide slots.
As we know, friendliness toward cyclists isn't solved by bike lanes.
Ultimately, the damned things are a distraction from real solutions — educating and empowering cyclists to protect themselves and control their environment and creating an environment of cooperation and mutual respect.
I commute daily, I'm a serious cyclist who has done this for many years. I see on a daily basic what is good and bad about the roads I commute on. I have been in a car to bike accident (me being the bike). I know hundreds of people who ride and all the non-cyclists at work who are taking my lead and cycling to work, all of the peole I know strongly believe infrastructure is key.
I don't know if you just don't bicycle commute daily (or are lucky enough to have wide or quiet roads), have some agenda or incentive from Oil companies, city tax/budget agendas, etc. that makes you blind to the fact that infrastructure is needed. The way y'all discount some very simple concepts is similar to the way GM killed the first electric car. The responses are based on fear, attacks, discount TXDOT and other studies in a similar fashion to the Church arguing the earth is flat when Galileo showed very simply that it is round.
Austin has a bicycle petition, which has had "thousands" of cyclists sign it in a very short period of time. This plan asks for infrastructure changes and additions.. The cycling majority clearly agrees with these concepts. I don't see anyone with a petition to leave the roads how they are, where cyclists just "man-up" and take the risk. If the goal is to encourage cycling as a transportation alternative, I would conduct an independent and non-biased survey in Dallas, ask the people what they want.
The cities in the US with the highest number and highest percentage of bicycle commuters are the ones with the best bicycle infrastructure (yes, bike lanes). Try as hard as you may, that's a fact you can't discount. And I'm sure you will try.
This discussion is interesting, but I say "keep the bicycle lanes in Austin where they belong."
I can't think of ANY way a bicycle lane could make my Tarrant County commute one iota safer, nor how it'd encourage a single extra cyclist to make it.
On the other hand, it MIGHT encourage motorists to harass me so it's pretty clear how I'd advocate when segregated facility issues arose.
I DO ride on a MUP for three blocks of my 14 mile commute. It saves me a block of travel. It also is the only place I've ever had a fall while commuting.
Here's the thing about DOT studies... they are conducted to justify a pre-determined end result. Basically what they do is cook up some half-baked methodology to produce "data," then they survey cyclists to seal the deal. Cyclists are notorious for having incorrect perceptions and the DOT studies I've read prove it unequivocally.
It works like this: DOT creates a crappy substandard gutter lane where cyclists are passed faster and closer than they were in the WCL, or narrow traffic lane. The cyclists perceive that they get more space — 180° opposite reality. DOT declares success! They got the pesky cyclists out of the way and the cyclists thought they were doing them a favor.
Without so much as a kiss.
You can read some excellent critiques of the TXDOT studies at Bicycling Matters
The truth is, a cyclist is absolutely safe and most in control of his/her environment in a narrow traffic lane. Many cyclists are more comfortable if their presence does not interfere with passing traffic at all—due to fear from the rear and the mythology of delay. For them, a wide curb lane is a better solution than a bike lane because they get greater passing clearance and their space is unlikely to be full of debris. There are still risks involved in traveling next to the primary traffic flow (right-hooks and other right-of-way incursions). As cyclists gain more confidence, they tend to prefer narrow lanes for this reason. But a wide curb lane is superior to a bike lane because serves cyclists of all speeds and levels of confidence. A bike lane creates an illusion of separation and false sense of security for novices and it reduces the level of service for competent cyclists.
There is more about that (with video) here: The case for leaving wide lanes alone
I think it's important to realize that the realities of r.o.w. and safety (for those who are concerned with ETHICS!) dictate that a complete network of segregated facilities cannot be created. Cyclists begging for, and accepting, any piece-of-crap facility really make things worse for us. We'd be so much better off to focus our energy on educating cyclists to control their environment and ride lawfully, as well as on promoting civility and cooperation on the road.
"Give a Man a Fish, Feed Him For a Day. Teach a Man to Fish, Feed Him For a Lifetime" —Lao Tzu
I'll say again, bike lanes are a distraction from doing things that could really make things better for cyclists.
Keri, PM, et. all. We still disagree, but I'll close my discussion here.
Your comment: "But a wide curb lane is superior to a bike lane because serves cyclists of all speeds and levels of confidence"
So, I don't disagree entirely, Example: a 16 foot 40mph width motorist lane is absolutely superior to a 10 foot 40mph motor/3 foot bike lane combination of 13feet. Part of the bicycle infrastructure I speak to is increase width (via parking removal, center lane removal, or physical widening), road-width "is" more important than lines. That is also dependent on where they put the dotted middle line on 4 lane roads (which dictates the effective right hand lane width).
Further, there are numerous roads in Austin (360/Parmer/2244/2222), (fewer in Dallas) that have a very wide shoulder (no curb) at side of road, no bike lane needed in this scenario..
There are various roads that are 4 lane with a center turn lane (5 total across). For roads that can't be widened and center can't be eliminated, if they choose to narrow the center lane, and move the dotted center line between two lanes heading in the same direction away from the shoulder, this also creates a "space" for the cyclist, even without a painted line for the cyclist. Unfortunately, I've never seen this done. Putting the bike lane there and having standards bike4+' + 12+' motorist, will ensure that the total width is 16+.
I still will argue that the bike lane paint is absolutely needed, but the paint that matter most is to the left of the motorist traveling in the lane furthest right, ensuring total adequate width.
My background: I commute 20 miles across the Mid Cities to my job in Irving for a few years with nary an incident. This was the early 90s, and I don't recall anything in the way of bike facilities. I think the perimeter road around DFW has a shoulder, but this was nearly 20 years ago so my memory may be off.
Fast forward to the early 21st century, and I make a three day business trip to Austin, renting a bike to get around. I don't know the "bike network" so I take the surface streets like I'm accustomed to using. The result: People yelling from their automobiles "Are you insane?", "What's you're **** problem?", other profanities, and even an instance of a beverage cup tossed my direction. I've been around, and Austin outside of downtown is easily the most hostile-to-cyclists city I've cycled in if you dare to venture away from the bike facilities.
Post a Comment