John's Blog: Thoughts on adding bike lanes
Everyone and his dog has a 'blog these days, right? So why not me? If you are interested in anything I'm saying, great! Let's talk about it! (Leave comments.) If not, try one of my other links. Better yet, why are you wasting your time staring at your computer screen, go do something real!
Let me know if you'd like to be to be updated whenever I post a new article. It won't happen every day!
Thoughts on adding bike lanes
Monday, November 27, 2006
Bikes are schizophrenic - they are both recreational vehicles driven on paths and neighborhood streets by riders of all ages and experience levels, as well as a means of transportation, sometimes the sole means, by experienced riders with traffic skills at least on par with the average car drivers. American society in general, and transportation policy in particular, therefore continues vacillate between these two views. (Unfortunately for the skilled traffic riders, the recreational view has always seemed to have the edge, and probably still does.) (Click title to read more...)A sophisticated view of the situation should allow for both kinds of uses, recreational and transportational. It would be both stupid and impractical to force all users of bikes to have licenses and take classes in traffic safety, if they only intend to ride slowly in the park or on a multi-use path. However, it is also impractical and short-sighted to disallow strong and skilled cyclists from the public roadways. It may even be unconstitutional in that it amounts to restricting a certain class of users from a public space.
It is not surprising that the most controversial area of this bipolar approach is at the transition point between the two kinds of cyclists. Inexperienced cyclists who are only out to have a relaxing recreational ride will naturally stay away from high-traffic areas. On the other hand, transportation cyclists going from point A to point B will tend to take the most direct public roadway, regardless of any bike-specific facilities.
The intersection here is the potentially large group of cyclists who would like to ride for transportation, but who lack the confidence to try riding on the road with cars. Therefore, city governments who want to be seen as doing something for cyclists, as well as a great many cyclists themselves, advocate for bike lanes, as a facility to improve the confidence of cyclists and to assist in keeping them separated from the cars. However, some experienced cyclists see bike lanes as confusing to motorists and promoting a false view that the facility makes up for the lack of additional training on traffic riding among inexperienced cyclists. In addition, some bike lane designs are better than others, and all bike lanes create additional maintenance tasks for the city. These advocates therefore favor a more education-based approach and tend to oppose bike lanes in general as unneccesary and creating a segregated mindset which really does nothing for bike safety. They feel that existing non-bike specific traffic laws and facilities are sufficient for *experienced* bike riders as well as cars, and to the extent that bike lanes diminish the expectation that bike riders have all the same rights and responsibilities as motorists, they are to be avoided in favor of additional driving training for cyclists.
Having all these thoughts in my mind, I admit that I am totally on the fence! Please discuss.
Labels: bicycling
0 comments
0 Comments:
Blog Index
