Why They Don’t Ride To Work

 

In earlier posts, I have written “lines of paint does not a bike lane make,” or words to that effect.  Ron Johnson’s article in Momentum magazine concurs with that—with caveats.

Johnson reports that, according to a study published in The Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research, some 61 percent of paint-only bike lanes—that is, those that are not delineated by a physical barrier, or separated altogether, from the roadway—are on “high stress” roads which, Johnson explains, are “fast multi-lane corridors where traffic speed and volume make riding uncomfortable for most people.” That, in itself, is problematic, but what makes the situation particularly vexing is that about 77 percent of all US bike lanes.According to my trusty iPad calculator (You don’t want to rely on my math skills!), 46.97 percent—nearly half—of all American bike lanes are paint-only and on “high stress” roads.”

With all due to respect to John Forrester and his crusading for “vehicular cycling,” people who haven’t ridden since they were kids, or recreational riders who want to commute or otherwise use their bicycles as vehicles, aren’t going to cycle in or near traffic if they don’t feel safe. And those are the very people—in addition to brand- new cyclists—we need if cycling and other forms of “micromobility” are to be seen as viable alternatives to automobiles.

Of course, some of the offending “lanes,” particularly those in large cities with extensive networks of streets, are the result of planners who aren’t cyclists. In such environments, there may be alternatives, such as quieter side-streets, to a poorly-conceived of -constructed bike lanes, But in many rural areas, particularly in the South and non-coastal West, the “high-stress” road is the only one connecting one village or county to another. There is also little or no mass transportation, which all but forces people to rely on that “high-stress” road, whether they’re on two, three, four—or no (i.e., pedestrians) wheels.

People in such environments will eschew cycling or other non-motorized transportation as long as there’s nothing but a line of white paint between them and SUVs and semis doing 70 MPH, whatever Mr. Forrester might’ve said.

Which City Is The Worst For Cyclists?

  I feel more or less the same way about bicycling in New York City as I did more than four decades ago:  It could be better, it could be worse.

Perhaps that is normal, given that the Big Apple has been my hometown for all of that time (and perhaps even when I lived away from it.) I have encountered better-designed and -executed bike lanes—and, more important drivers and other non-cyclists who don’t treat us as “the enemy”—in other places, mainly in Europe and Japan.  On the other hand, I have seen even worse bike infrastructure, or none at all, along with chaps who believe that their Jimmy Dean breakfast links will become chorizos if they intimidate, harass or even endanger cyclists—mainly in other parts of the US.

So, I suppose it’s no surprise that New York sometimes comes up in lists of the best US cities for cycling but not the worst, at least in recent years.  Possibly the worst place for cycling in the New York City Metro area is Jersey City, and it’s not even as bad as some places that made the National Highway Traffic Safety “worst” list for pedestrians and cyclists.

Interestingly, one city often cited as the worst, according to Momentum magazine, didn’t make the list:  Houston.  I was there for a few days, decades ago and, to this day, I can hardly imagine a more hostile or dangerous place.  Momentum readers reported streets that were all but impossible to cross—one visitor to H-town reported wanting to go to a restaurant across the street from their hotel but couldn’t find a legal, safe crossing after half an hour of searching. Finally, that vexed visitor gave up and drove!

That story, and others, remind us of a point the Momentum article made:  While most of the cities on the NHTS list are indeed inhospitable to cyclists and pedestrians, there is a flaw in the way it ranks those cities: mainly according to the number of fatalities per capita. While those cities indeed had unenviable (unless you believe someone isn’t fully human if they don’t drive) statistics, in cities like Houston, the numbers are spread out among a larger population (Houston is #4 in the US) and geographic area.  So while a city like Houston appears to have a lower death rate, its lack of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure (and relatively poor mass transit system) along with hostile drivers on seemingly endless highways and “stroads” makes it a non-favorite.