A Bike Lane Bounty?

 A couple of weeks ago, I was riding northbound on the Crescent Street bike lane.  Someone steered a sports car of some kind—tuned to make as much noise and be as generally obnoxious as possible—pulled into the bike lane.  I avoided doing a flip on that car’s hood only by hopping into the sidwalk.

Another driver, in a pickup truck that looked like it was actually being used for the kind of work done by people in overalls, rolled down his window and yelled, “You outta get that piece’a shit’s license numba!”

I didn’t.  But it occurred to me, later, that I should take that guy’s advice the next time I see someone blocking a lane.

Doing such a thing would definitely be worthwhile if cycling advocates in Ann Arbor, Michigan have their way.

They are proposing something that is under consideration here in New York:  a bounty.  It would be a percentage of the fines collected from scofflaw drivers.

I am definitely in favor of the idea, at least in principle. But I wonder how aggressive either city would be about going after such drivers:  More than a few I’ve encountered were police officers having a cup of coffee or watching videos that, shall we say, aren’t job-related.

Now, I understand if cops, firefighters or first responders need to use the lanes in actual emergencies. But I object to anyone just hanging out in them, or waiting for fares or passengers.

I also wonder whether either city would be as aggressive in collecting fines or disbursing whatever percentage of them as they are about ticketing cyclists, especially if they’re darker than I am.

What's Worse: Paint Or Police Passing?

 If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that I don't give a blanket endorsement to roadside bicycle lanes.  Too many, at least in the US, are poorly-conceived, constructed and maintained.  The worst sort of lanes are the ones that serve no pratical purpose-- the ones I call lanes from nowhere to nowhere--because they do nothing to encourage cycling as a practical alternative to driving for commuting, errands and other purpose-driven trips.  And the most dangerous ones are the ones that separate motor traffic from cyclists by nothing more than a line on the pavement.  As I've said on more than one occasion, "paint is not infrastructure."

Studies have shown that painted cycle lanes do nothing to reduce injuries and "advisory lanes"--one which motorists are allowed to enter--are worse than no lane at all:  they increase the odds of injury by 30 percent.

The only news, for me, in those studies is the number:  I know, from experience, that a painted is as much a margin of safety for cyclists as a swath of fishnet scotch-taped at the nose bridge offers against COVID-19 or any other contagious virus.  And too often, motorists use "advisory" and even painted "bike-only" lanes to pass or double-park; the latter is often done by drivers of delivery trucks. 

To be fair, drivers, until recently, have been inculcated with the notion that they are the "kings of the road":  that motor vehicles take priority over cyclists and pedestrians.  If they haven't cycled during their adult lives, it's hard for them to un-learn such an attitude.  Also, some lanes, especially the "advisory" ones, aren't marked in ways that motorists can easily see, especially if they are driving large vehicles.

But some of the worst offenders, in my experience, are police officers in their "cruisers."  I can't begin to tell you how many times I've seen them parked in the middle of lanes while munching on donuts and sipping coffee.  And I've had a couple of close encounters with constabulary cars that weren't responding to an emergency call.  At least, I don't think they were:  their lights weren't flashing and their sirens weren't blaring.

Some have debated whether what was captured in that image was indeed a "close call" with a police car. However, Andrew Frogley on the Road.cc blog, who didn't think it was such a "close call," nonetheless agreed that one blogger had a legitimate question:  "What's worse?  The painted cycle lane or the close pass?"

Geoff Hickman had, I believe, the best answer:  "One enables the other."

Looking To Albuquerque

I know that what I'm about to say doesn't take a PhD to understand because, well, I don't have a PhD!

Here goes:

A parking lane is a place for vehicles to park.  It is not a place to drive.

A vehicle lane is a place to operate vehicles. It is not a place to park.

A bicycle is a vehicle. 

Therefore, a bicycle lane is not a place to park.

That, essentially, is the straightforward argument set out in an article D'val Westphal wrote for the Albuquerque Journal.

Members of the Albuquerque City Council understand that argument.  In fact, they have even made an ordinance, which will go into effect on the 19th of this month, based on it.  Better yet, for those of us who don't like to (or can't) read legalese, they've made a graphic of it, with captions in both English and Spanish.

Thank you, Albuquerque City Council and D'val Westphal.

Now we have to get folks in other cities to codify--and enforce--such rules.  If they need guidance, they can listen to this cheesy pop song from my pubescence:

A Move To The Left Too Late?

Most streetside bike lanes I've seen on one-way streets are on the right side of the street and demarcated by painted lines and arrows.

The latter feature makes them only marginally, if at all, safer than the street itself for cyclists.  That is something those of us who cycle on a near-daily basis have long known and some planners are beginning to acknowledge.  On the other hand, the hazards of the other part of the equation--lane placement--haven't been as well-recognized.

The fact that the Spruce Street bike lane runs along the corridor's right side may have cost 24-year-old Emily Fredericks her life.  The pastry chef was pedaling to work in Philadelphia's Center City when a garbage truck moving in the same direction turned right from Spruce to 11th Street.

Ms. Fredericks discovered, the hard way, what makes crossing a busy intersection from a bike lane on the right side of the street so hazardous.  Too often, drivers--who, in the US (as in most of the world) are on the left side of their vehicles--have difficulty seeing cyclists or anyone else to the right of their vehicles.  That is especially true if the vehicle is large, like a garbage truck. 

Now Philadelphia city officials, who say they aren't merely reacting to Ms. Fredericks' death, are looking to "flip" bicycle and parking lanes:  the former would move to the left, and cars would be parked on the right.  According to Sarah Clark Stuart, president of the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, such a change would allow drivers to "see the bicyclist better because the blind spot is going to be much narrower."  She also wants to see physical barriers constructed but the city's proposal doesn't call for that.  But, she says, her organization supports it because at least the new lane configuration would provide some safety benefits quickly while allowing additional protections later on.

That does indeed sound like a good idea, at least as far as it goes.  While a cyclist crossing an intersection or making a left turn from a left-hand lane wouldn't be in as much danger as a cyclist making the same moves from a right-hand lane,  painted lines aren't going to protect cyclists (or, for that matter, pedestrians) from a driver that swerves or veers out of the motor lane.  Also, I don't think "flipping" lanes negates the need for cyclists or pedestrians to cross intersections ahead of motorized traffic.  That is really the only way a motorist who is turning in the same direction as the location of the lane will see a cyclist (or pedestrian) who is crossing an intersection.

So, for now, it looks like the City of Brotherly Love is embracing cyclists--with one arm.

A Crash I Just Missed

I had just pedaled up the ramp on the Manhattan side of the Queensborough (a.k.a 59th Street) Bridge.  Two men and a woman, abreast each other,  spread themselves across the pedestrian side and into the side marked for bikes of the bike/pedestrian lane.  One of the men was stretching and craning his neck to snap photos of the city's skyline and the Roosevelt Island finiculaire; the other man and the woman were neither doing nor paying attention to anything in particular.  

As I had pedaled up the ramp from a dead stop at the bottom (courtesy of a man who was texting somebody and crossed into my path), I was riding slowly.  From the opposite direction, three young-looking, lycra-clad young men pedalled and spun at a much faster speed.  Still, I figured I had enough time and space to pedal around the photographer and his friends and that, by the time the three young cyclists were ready to ride around them, I would be well past the midpoint of the bridge.

My highly unscientific calculations proved to be entirely correct.  I was well past the photographer and his friends when the young male cyclists rode around them.  And I probably never would have thought about them, or the photographer and his mates, again.

But then I heard the thumping, clanging and clattering of metal and human flesh colliding as if sucked into a vortex or carbon fiber.  The cyclists were a few wheel lengths past the photographer and his travelling companions, but I don't think they had anything to do with the pileup.  To their credit, the male friend helped the cyclists--who didn't seem to be hurt--up.  I did a U-turn (fortunately, no other cyclists were approaching from either direction) and went to see whether the cyclists needed any help.  Two declined, and thanked me for my offer.  But the other, upon seeing that his bike was wrecked (It was carbon fiber.), punched and kicked the fence on the side of the bridge, picked up his bike and flung it. I got out of his way.

The bridge's lane is just barely wide enough for a couple of pedestrians walking abreast and a cyclist riding alone or in single file.  Plus, parts of the paving have been torn away (It's supposed to be re-paved), leaving half the width of the lane unusable for a significant part of the path's length.  That, at a time when more people are walking and pedaling across the bridge than perhaps at any time in its history.

Losing the Lanes

Last night, about two blocks from the end of my commute home, a van pulled up alongside me.  The passenger side window rolled down.  My heart was starting to pump:  I was only two blocks from my apartment, but I was ready to pedal just about anywhere else.  The light turned green and, just as I was ready to thrust my left pedal down, a man's voice rasped, "Hey, sexy.  Why doesn't a beautiful lady like you use the bike lane?"


Now, that was one of the stranger things I've heard on my bike.  But he's probably not the first to have asked the question, and I'm not the first cyclist to have heard it.  But, if I were to meet that guy again (not that I'd want to!), I'd show him this:

It's one of those photos I wish I'd taken, but not because it would establish me as the next Eugene Atget. Rather, it shows all too clearly one of the reasons I normally don't use bike lanes. 


Now, if it were only a matter of cars being parked, I could ride around them.  But parked cars mean people getting in and out and, in some cases, not watching where they open doors.  I learned a painful lesson in that about this time last year.  At least I lived to laugh about it, once the pain subsided.  Other cyclists, though, haven't been so fortunate.


The photo came from a website I just found:  My Bike Lane, which is devoted entirely to bike lane violatons. In addition to photos, the license plate numbers of the most frequent offenders are posted.  


Thanks to "Greg" for creating and maintaining the site.