It's been well established nationally (but seldom discussed) that the more "special" facilities cyclists get, the more they are "expected" to use them. I have never had a motorist tell me (or yell at me) to get back in the bike lane on a Dallas street (because we don't have any, yet), but I have had that experience in other cities, and that was on streets without bikes lanes (because the cities I have ridden in that have bike lanes make it a legal requirement that you must stay in them if they are present).
In Dallas, over the last twenty five-plus years of riding on the streets (I am not a high mileage rider, with my annual mileage varying between one hundred, and eight thousand miles per year... intestinal cancer has a way of cutting some folks saddle time), I have had just a handful of negative/angry experiences with motorists. Only one of those occurred on a road other than West Lawther Drive. Why West Lawther, and what was the event? The event has been always, "Get back on the trail where you belong!", and the reason is because there is a parallel multi-purpose path next to the road.
Any reasonable-thinking person who visits Austin, Texas will quickly see that they have severe traffic problems in that town (either the "Athens of Texas", or "Sodom on the Colorado", depending upon one's perspective). They have a sizable (but not huge) cycling population, and a very vocal one, as do must university towns.
Long ago, rather than integration, Austin decided upon segregation as the preferred solution to "controlling" cycling. Too many Austin cyclists began to feel self-righteous about their cause... not just cycling because it was good for them personally, but wanting to force changes to other roadway users, because it was for the greater good. The desire to destroy Shoal Creek Boulevard in Austin to benefit out-of-neighborhood cyclists was almost identical to the desire to destroy Abrams Road in Dallas for the benefit of out-of-neighborhood (and suburban) motorists.
In Seattle, in Portland, in Manhattan, in Houston, and in Austin, the back-lash is growing. Anti-cyclist backlash is simply the law of cause and effect in play.
2 comments:
"Too many Austin cyclists began to feel self-righteous about their cause... not just cycling because it was good for them personally, but wanting to force changes to other roadway users, because it was for the greater good."
A form of utopianism, no?
Too many bike advocates aren't happy unless they can take something away from motorists.
Coexistence is very easy to accomplish without creating backlash.
You can tell whether someone cares about cyclists' well-being, rights and access or wants to use cycling to further some other agenda by what they advocate.
Post a Comment