A researcher cuts off a gazelle's leg. The gazelle can't run. The researcher then summarizes his findings: "Gazelles can't run."
I don't remember where I read or heard that story. Whether or not it's true, it's a pretty good metaphor for the way policy-makers make decisions about bicycle infrastructure.
To such policy-makers, bicycle infrastructure can be defined in two words: bike lanes. And, to them, a bike line is anything so marked in paint on the side of a road.
As often as not, one of the following happens:
I don't remember where I read or heard that story. Whether or not it's true, it's a pretty good metaphor for the way policy-makers make decisions about bicycle infrastructure.
To such policy-makers, bicycle infrastructure can be defined in two words: bike lanes. And, to them, a bike line is anything so marked in paint on the side of a road.
As often as not, one of the following happens:
- A cyclist is hit by a motor vehicle that pulls in or out of the bike lane. The policy-makers conclude, correctly, that the bike lane isn't safe, but makes the faulty inference that all bike lanes are unsafe.
- Altercations between motorists and cyclists ensue. This leads policy-makers to conclude that bike lanes are inherently a bad idea.
- Cyclists don't use the lane because it's inherently unsafe or poorly maintained.
Any of these scenarios can, and often does, lead to the decision to get rid of the bike lane--and, sometimes, for policy-makers to decide that bike lanes are generally a lousy idea.
One problem is, of course, that a couple of lines of paint does not a bike lane make.
Another, more important, problem is that bicycle infrastructure is more than just bike lanes.
That is evident at the Roland Avenue bike lane in Baltimore, which is about to be removed for "causing problems." Of course, the real problems aren't being addressed, one being that the lane is delineated by nothing more than paint stripes.
Another is that there are bus stops in the bike lane. Too often, bus drivers simply don't see cyclists and veer into them. Also, like too many other curbside bike lanes, the one on Roland Avenue ends at the corner and resumes across the intersection. What that means is that cyclists crossing the intersection enter it from a "blind" spot, especially if they are following the traffic signals and regulations. I recall at least a couple of occasions when I could have easily been struck by a right-turning driver while entering an intersection from a bike lane.
City officials say that the bike lanes caused "problems," which they mis-identify. Sadly, other municipalities act in much the same way. So, the Roland Avenue bike lane in Baltimore is not the first, nor will it be the last, such lane to be borne of misguided notions about bicycle safety and infrastructure, and to be scrapped because it "causes problems" or cyclists don't use it.
I may have said this before but... When I first came here nearly half a century ago the head of roads was both a cyclist and a photographer. Nobody could ignore the fact that the roads were getting a thorough close examination and the evidence of anything at fault would be impossible to ignore.
ReplyDeleteA more perfect conclusion could not be drawn other than all heads of road departments must be cyclists!
Sadly only those who are incompetent are ever given jobs like that now. Our roads are now a dangerous mess.
I think Dutch/Danish style physically separated lanes are the only way to go. It's a hard sell in the US because it's more expensive than paint. The lesson I've learned is that if a car can get into the bike lane(without heavy suspension damage) it will.
ReplyDelete