RSS
Home
Regarding the Spokesmen
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
I enjoy listening to the Spokesmen because there are diverse viewpoints represented, and there's always something interesting. David Bernstein of the Fredcast is the host. This episode included Donna Tocci from Ingersoll Rand and Kryptonite, Richard Kelly from Interbike, D.L Byron from Bikehugger.com, and the incomparable Bob Roll from Versus and BobRoll.com. The topic covered the Giro, Lance Armstrong's relationship with Italian media, the possibility of a rider's union, and much more.
At thirty nine minutes into the podcast, a discussion begins about motorists harassing cyclists. David Bernstein said he's been shot with a pellet gun twice by passing motorists. Then D.L Byron observed, "...my own scientific study on this is that if I'm in a bike lane, I get way less harassed than if I'm out on the road." His thought was that more bike lanes would solve the problem of harassment. (UPDATE - DL Byron wrote that he said "my un-scientific study" not "my own scientific study." In several careful listenings, I was unable to confirm this, though I will admit that it makes sense in light of his subsequent statements.)
Well, my own 'scientific' study of this problem is that when bike lanes or multi-use paths are available - and by available I mean there's one in the same county - motorists harass cyclists and insist they use those facilities. This has nothing whatever to do with destinations. The vast majority of motorists and depressingly, the vast majority of cyclists, see segregated facilities as a benefit. They put their bikes on the SUV, drive to the trail head and ride a path around a pretty lake, and then return to the trail head. Some motorists cannot understand why we use 'their' roads when there's that pretty trail over on the other side of town. And why can't we stay in those nice bike lanes with all the sand, gravel, tree branches, broken glass, and assorted rusty automotive parts?
My experience is diametrically opposed to Byron's. My 'scientific' study indicates that the presence of so-called facilities aggravates conditions for cyclists. Harassment increases. Brian and I were riding outside the bike lane that goes through the TU campus. We were preparing to make a left turn when a security guard yelled, "Ride in the bike lane!" We refused. Now, how many motorists, cyclists, or law enforcement professionals (I know, it's a stretch to call a security guard a law enforcement professional) actually know that cyclists are not legally obligated to use bike lanes or sidepaths in the city of Tulsa? And if they do, does it matter?
Motorists have said that I shouldn't be riding on the street until bike lanes are installed. Fat chance. I won't hold my breath waiting, nor will I refrain from riding on the road. They've yelled from passing cars, "Get on the trail!" when the trail is half a mile in the opposite direction.
Tulsa just achieved the bronze level on the League's Bicycling Friendly City program. I think this came about largely from Tulsa Townie bike sharing scheme. Those of us involved in local bicycling education had a small role in this, but the League doesn't often recognize BikeEd as a powerful factor. Instead, their focus is on facilities. They want to build better bike lanes while we want to build better bicyclists. While it's irksome, I can deal with it because I truly want to equip cyclists with the tools they need to navigate our streets safely and comfortably.
Today, I read this by John Schubert on P.M Summer's Cycle*Dallas blog:
(Updated Link to Schubert's text)
(Excerpts follow)
My view is that the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) Bicycle Friendly Cities (BFC) award program is so sadly corrupt that it should be shunned.
I simply don’t see how a community can pursue that award without the effort having a negative effect on both (1) physical facilities for cycling and (2) the ever-uphill struggle to conduct government operations efficiently.
I say this with some expertise in both these areas.
...My objection to the promiscuous promotion of bike lanes is old news. Even today, 18 years after the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) tried to ensure that only good bicycle facilities would be constructed, through the publication of its first edition of its Guide to Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO Guidelines), abysmal stuff gets built, and the nation has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on absolute crap.
...But the public is so conditioned to think that this is “doing something” for bicyclists that too few people stop to view the benefits of building nothing, using the money to keep the pavement in good condition, and educating the cyclists how to use the road.
Bicycle Friendly Cities doesn’t reward this far superior alternative.
I won’t discuss every type of bikelane-caused accident in this essay, but one that really should make the conscience scream is the “coffin corner” bike lane. In a “coffin corner” bike lane, the bike lane is striped solid to the intersection, so that the bicyclist who plans to ride straight through the intersection is positioned to the right of right-turning motor traffic.
The Bicycle Friendly Cities program favors “coffin corner” bike lanes and gives them awards and verbal praise.
...I don’t think most people realize just how radical and irresponsible the coffin corner is. It is put there specifically to lure unskilled and unaware cyclists to use their bikes, and puts them where they are in the most danger. It disappoints me bitterly that LAB is willing to compromise safety so much to put “butts on bikes.” Why not instead teach these unskilled and unaware people what they need to know?
...I don’t measure success by counting dollars spent or by counting the number of bureaucrats assigned to discuss a problem. I don’t think anyone else should either.
...I am well aware that some cyclists have a lot of civic pride, and want to see their communities recognized for cycling. There is some chance of an alternative national award, administered by a coalition of state organizations. Let us work towards that, rather than ask the organization that praises facilities that kill cyclists, to bless our communities.
The original text is longer but well worth reading. My worry is that Tulsa's BFC status is only the thin end of the wedge. LAB will expect more next year. I'd truly like to prove that a city can be friendly toward bicyclists without enduring the failed experiment of bike lanes, but 'everyone knows' that all us cyclists really do love them. We really prefer our own segregated bit of pavement, a sort of cycling ghetto where we only associate with our own kind. 'Everyone knows' we want bike lanes just like everyone once knew that the Earth was flat.
Related Articles:
Comments
