Bike Lanes - Safety, Politics, and History

Interestingly, the article to which I am responding is written by the same author who brought us the insightful peace entitled: Global Warming, Doom and Gloom, published on Oct 27, 2006. In this piece the author, Youranter, equated Dr. David Suzuki, a scientist who is one of the forerunners in commenting on the effects of Global warming, with Chicken Little. He also goes on to sling some mud at Al Gore for his role in producing an environmentally-themed documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. "The global warming issue is based on junk science," opines Youranter.

It should not be surprising that someone who does not view global warming as a threat may also not agree with a policy which adds bike lanes to roadways. However, let me also state that this issue is FAR from clear cut. There are, in fact, many bicycle advocates who would agree that bicycle lanes are not an appropriate solution, and in fact can make commuting by bicycle less safe! In John Forester's seminal work, Effective Cycling (The MIT Press), he discusses how the presence of bike lanes and bike paths can in fact be a way of segregating cyclists and preventing them from having access to the roadway. The bike lanes are a likely place for dangerous debris to collect after being pushed over by car-traffic, which can cause accidents or catastrophic flats; and are more subject to: doors of parked cars opening into riders from the rider's right side; inattentive drivers ahead of a rider not recognizing the cyclist's lane and right-of-way and making a right turn in front of them, causing a collision; oncoming traffic not seeing the marginalized cyclists and making left turns in front of them; etc.

None of this is to say, however, that cyclists do not have an entirely legitimate right to be ON THE ROAD. Cyclists are, by definition, a vehicle. They are a legitimate solution for a world combating pollution, obesity, depression, ever growing traffic congestion, reliance on oil, and YES, GLOBAL WARMING. If more people relied on bicycles for a greater percentage of their commuting, we would make serious dents into all of these issues. Perhaps the best point that Yarounter makes concerns the on-road behavior of cyclists. It is of paramount importance that a cyclist conducts him/herself in a manner consistent with the rules of the road, and follows the same rules required of every vehicle. Same road, same rights, same rules. It is the responsibility of every rider to understand and abide by these rules, and be subject to the same penalties for violating them. This is the only system that can possibly lead to a peaceful coexistence between the variety of vehicles on our roadways. According to a study done by Alan Wachtel and Diana Lewiston entitled Risk Factors for Bicycle-Motor Vehicle Collisions at Intersections, based upon data complied by U.S. and California Transportation Departments, a rider's risk factor for an accident DOUBLES when that rider is on a sidewalk, and TRIPLES when that rider is traveling against the direction of traffic. Clearly it is in everybody's best interest to have law-abiding and predictable cyclists who are visible, stake their claim on the road, use hand signals to convey their intentions, and act responsibly.

Any argument involving the debate over cyclist's rights on the road, and the ensuing "inconvenience" that it may cause to motorists is bound to go a little bit deeper and look at the underlying causes and politics. At least if I'm involved in the argument, it will. We have paved roads in the United States largely due to the funding of the League of American Wheelmen, founded in 1880 (now known as the League of Amercian Bicyclists). That's right; the origins of many of the first paved roads in the U.S. can trace their roots to the efforts of cyclists. Bicycles are the most efficient form of transportation, in terms of energy consumed to move from place to place, man has ever invented. Additionally, not only does it therefore make sense for roadways to accommodate cyclists in a safe manner, in most states it's the law! Part of the reason why the solution is not simple is that the causes of the problems are complex. Bicycling (and I would argue a happy human existence) is not terribly well-suited to the world we are creating, with: solutions increasingly found in pill format; huge sprawling cities; Hummers which can barely fit on the road; a morbidly obese population that can barely fit into their Hummers; and people who deny the science behind phenomenon such as global warming.