Why Is A Cyclist More 100 Times More Likely To Be Killed In Florida Than In New Hampshire?

Once again, Florida has more cycling fatalities per million residents than any other US state. The Sunshine State has 23.3 million residents, so its rate of 10.4 translates to 242 fatalities per year.

Florida's rate is 11 percent higher than that of second-deadliest Louisiana. New Mexico, South Carolina and Arizona round out the "top" five states for cycling rate fatalities.  At the other end of the table, the five "safest" states for cyclists-- Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island and New Hampshire--all have about the same rate (0.1 per million), or less than one percent of Florida's.

Do you notice some patterns?

The states with the lowest rates are in New England (Vermont, Rhode Island and New Hampshire) or are far-western (or northern) states (Wyoming and Alaska) where outdoor recreation is popular.  The deadliest states for cyclists are all car-centric and in the "Sunbelt."

To be fair, none of the "safest" states has a city comparable in size to, say, Miami, Phoenix or even New Orleans.  Then again, the New England states have small-to-medium-sized cities with significant populations of college students.  Those cities are also older cities , developed before the automobile.  

 So what, aside from geographical clustering and (to a lesser degree, demographics) do the least dangerous states have share?  And what traits do the most perilous states have in common?

From the website of Christopher G. Burns, Esq. 

According to an article in Legal Reader, the following are among the factors contribute to the relative calm or perilousness of cycling in a particular state:

--Infrastructure Deficiencies.  The authors of the article weren't talking about cycling infrastructure.  Rather, they refer to wide, high-speed roads that are common in the "deadly" states.  Perhaps more important, they also mention planning, in and out of urban areas, that is auto-centric. Thus--as I can attest from my experiences of cycling in Florida and South Carolina--it is all but impossible to go from one place to another without using a "stroad," which often have high-speed lanes connecting them to major highways.  Navigating one of those entry and exit points makes crossing Times Square seem like a stroll on a bridge over a theme-park "stream."

--Rural vs. Urban Risk Factors:  While urban areas account for 83 percent of total bike fatalities, rural areas actually have higher per-capita rates because of the factors I mentioned my previous paragraph.  One reason is that some large cities have at least a skeleton of bike infrastructure and--as I can attest from many years of cycling in New York--lower vehicle speeds make fatalities less likely:  A cyclist struck by a car traveling at 40 MPH (65 K/H) has an 85 percent chance of dying, but only 25 percent if the vehicle is going at 20 MPH (32.5 K/H). 

--Legal Frameworks:   States and other jurisdictions with lower fatality rates also tend to have laws that truly promote cycling safety, such as the Idaho Stop or its variants, and enforce other laws and policies such as those against distracted driving.  Also, some of the "safer" states have Vulnerable Road User laws, which impose stricter penalties for motorists who cause harm to cyclists and pedestrians.

In addition to better urban and suburban planning, bicycle infrastructure and better laws (and enforcement), the authors also call for, among other things, mandatory bicycle awareness education in drivers' licensing programs.  I think it's a good idea because one difference I notice between cycling in the US (even in "bicycle friendly" places) and Europe is that drivers are more conscious of, and courteous to, cyclists.  Some countries have the bicycle awareness training the authors call for, but even in the places that don't, motorists see us differently because many are also cyclists, or were in their recent pasts.

What Would John Think Of James?

He and John Forester would hate each other.

Or would they?

John Forester in the 1970s.

Forester, who died nearly five years ago, was best known as the author of Effective Cycling and for his advocacy of vehicular cycling.  He accused bike lane advocates of promoting what he called the "cyclist inferiority hypothesis" which, he said, was the product of motordom's propaganda campaign to frighten cyclists off the road.  

On the other hand, former "Top Gear" presenter James May  says "People on bicycles are really just pedestrians" and that the bicycle is "an elaborate piece of footwear."  He decries "vehicle levels of traffic controls for bicycles" he sees in his native Britain.

James May near his home.

Another point of contrast:  May, so far, has been praised for his point of view.  Forester was often vilified though, to be fair, many of his critics reacted to his "shrill, nasty" tone rather than to the substance of his arguments.

But, as with so many whose views seem, on the surface, to be polar opposites, they actually share an important commonality:  Forester was, and May is, opposed to much of the "bicycle infrastructure" that's been built. 

And their criticisms might look oppositional, but they share a same root concern:  that too many bike lanes, signals and such constructed, ostensibly, out of concern for cyclists' safety actually puts us in more danger.

Forester's criticisms of bike lanes mirror my own:  that because of their poor design, they make it all but impossible to turn safely and also put cyclists in the line of opening car doors and other hazards.  May takes issue with "extremist" measures like bicycle traffic lights.  One near his home should instead be a "give way" (or, to us Americans, "yield") sign and allow cyclists to make their judgments.  "As long as people cycle in a sympathetic way, and pedestrians are still at the top of the hierarchy--the world belongs to people, not machines--then it ought to work."

James May, after a charity ride.

Ah, there's another point  of commonality: the notion that motor vehicles don't reign supreme. One could say, however, that Forester advocated for equality between cyclists and motorists while saying nothing about pedestrians, while May, as quoted above, believes that pedestrians (who, in his view, include cyclists) are at the top of the food chain, so to speak.

So, how would James May and John Forester see each other?  Of course, we'll never know about Forester and, to my knowledge, May--who is a lifelong cyclist--either doesn't know or doesn't think about him.  But I could see both of them pulling up the bollards from a bike lane.

Backlash Against Bike Lanes

 One hard lesson I learned in my gender affirmation journey is that the euphoria of a victory, whether personal or for a community, is all but inevitably followed by a backlash.  Such a reaction could come from the same individuals or groups who initially supported the positive and necessary changes you and your community made.

In my own life, I think of how relatives, co-workers and (former) friends—and, yes, a lover—turned on me after voicing support when I started living under my current name and gender identity and, later, when I had my surgery.

Since its Civil War, the US has witnessed two major vocal, and often violent reactions against efforts to create a more just society. The first followed Reconstruction, when newly-freed African Americans were doing everything from running their own farms to running for office.  In response, White supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan formed and Jim Crow laws were passed. The second reactionary movement is one we’ve witnessed during the past few decades:  the current far-right movement, which includes, again, White Supremacists, allied with Christian nationalists and other reactionaries. It is the counter-current against the Civil Rights, feminist and LGBTQ+ movements of the past six decades or so.  Far-right members often talk about “taking back” “their” country.  Some were once part of the very movements they’re reacting against.

A similar phenomenon is brewing against bike lanes. San Francisco is removing the Valencia Street bike lane 18 months after the city installed it. (To be fair, the lane was supposed to be a 12-month pilot project.) Meanwhile, Ontario’s provincial government is taking actions to remove bike lanes in Toronto.  Other jurisdictions are making similar moves or stalling or canceling plans to build new bike infrastructure.

(In a related move, the self-coronated Fake Tan Fūhrer has ordered the end of congestion pricing in my hometown of New York. It’s not clear, however, that he has such authority.)

So why all of the hate for bike lanes?  If what I hear in the Big Apple echoes in other ‘burgs, much of the opposition comes from drivers and small businesses owners. The former believe that cyclists are taking “their” lanes and parking spaces, while the latter complain about lost sales.

Shop owners may have a point.  Malls (most of which are moribund) and big-box stores are inherently auto-centric. So are the business and commercial districts of most American municipalities:  They are designed so that customers can drive into, and park, in them.  While that characteristic doesn’t cause Wal-Mart to lose customers—such stores are usually surrounded by large parking lots—the downtown stores and cafes rely, in large part, on curbside access.

As for lost traffic lanes and parking spaces:  As I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, studies show that it isn’t the case.  Bike lanes don’t “cause” traffic jams:  In most cases, the road was already congested.  As more than one planner has observed, streets and highways are “build it and they will come” projects.

The real reasons for the backlash against bike infrastructure, as Ron Johnson writes in Momentum, include the following:  a.) even in large cities, transportation planning is made in an “imaginary world” in which there are only “suburban drivers “ and its corollary, b.) the lack of a true infrastructure that allows cyclists to pedal safely from Point A to Point B.  Too often, the bike lanes are just “tokens,” poorly-conceived, constructed and maintained ribbons that make no one safer.

Two examples are the Grand Concourse lane near my current residence and the Queens Boulevard lane near my former home. Both are center lanes along the divider. One problem is that every few blocks, traffic crosses the lane to enter or leave the service lane.  Another is that because those lanes are not physically separated, drivers use them as passing lanes. (Some seem to take out their aggression by passing as close and as fast as they can to cyclists.) Moreover, trucks park or idle in the lanes when drivers deliver to the businesses that line the Concourse and Boulevard.  Oh, and I’ve seen cops sipping coffee and munching their donuts (OK, accuse me of stereotyping!) in patrol cars parked in the bike lane.

In other words, such lanes benefit no one. Nobody is safer and, perhaps, shop owners are indeed losing business.  A better-planned bike network would take cyclists where they want and need to go and allow traffic to flow more efficiently.

But would it stop the backlash?  Well, maybe not.  As Johnson points out, it’s one of the “culture wars” in which cyclists and their allies are seen as “woke” granola-crunching gender-variant (whoops, I meant non-male- or -female conforming) “enemies.”  In other words, people like me.  So the backlash against bike lanes doesn’t surprise me.

Matthew Cherry

 Today, most people believe tricycles are for toddlers or old people. But as the first “bike boom” took shape during the late 1880s, some saw “trikes” as a viable alternative to high-wheelers, a.k.a., “penny farthings”. 

The bikes most commonly associated with that period had front wheels much larger in diameter than the rear. Cranks were attached to the front axle. The bikes were therefore “direct drive,” which meant that the gearing was determined by the size of the front wheel. A larger wheel meant a higher gear and potentially more speed. (I can only imagine pedaling them uphill!) Racers and riders who simply wanted to go fast (or “prove” their manhood) often rode perched over front wheels taller than their bodies. And, aside from their inherent instability, “penny-farthings” posed another hazard: A cyclist’s foot could be caught in the wheel.

Variations of the “safety” bicycle—one with wheels of equal diameter and a chain connecting a sprocket on the rear wheel with a chainring on the crank—had been in the works well before that first “bike boom” began and mostly displaced “penny-farthings” by the middle of it. It’s what most of us have been riding ever since.

But around the same time British inventor and industrialist John Starley introduced the first commercially-successful “safety “ bicycle, another inventor on the other side of the Atlantic patented a new kind of human-powered wheeled transportation: the tricycle. It would look more or less familiar to us today: two rear wheels and a somewhat larger front attached to a metal frame. The first version was propelled (and stopped) by the rider’s feet on the ground; a later version had cranks and pedals attached to the front wheel: the drive system of “penny farthings.”

Among Matthew Cherry’s later inventions were a fender (what we might call a bumper) for streetcars.  Believe it or not, until he developed it, those transport conveyances lacked anything that could absorb shock from a front or rear impact and were thus frequently damaged.

Anyway, in spite of his accomplishments, little is known about Cherry’s life aside from having been born 5 February 1834 in Washington, DC. (Nobody is sure of when or where he died.) The nation’s capital has long been a racially segregated city: It didn’t outlaw slave auctions in its confines until 16 years after his birth.

That last sentence is a clue to what I’m about to say: Matthew Cherry was Black. It’s hard not to wonder whether that was an impediment to his further developing the tricycle. Had he been able to secure more investment and other support, might he have developed a way to create something like the adult tricycle we see today: one with the drivetrain system nearly all of us ride today, with its capacity for variable gears.

I haven’t ridden a tricycle since I was a toddler. I don’t recall seeing an adult trike here in New York, though some cargo bikes resemble them. Still, I wonder:  What if tricycles, and not “safety” bicycles, had displaced high-wheelers?

Certainly bike—or more precisely, trike—design would be different. Transportation and urban planning might also be different. I suspect that one reason why adult tricycles are so rarely seen in New York and other cities is that three-wheelers are more difficult to maneuver in traffic and even in bike lanes. (In fact, some “bike lanes” aren’t wide enough for them.) Would streets and other infrastructure have been designed differently—possibly in less auto-centric ways? And might our cities—and society—be less segregated?

If nothing else, tricycles might not be just for kids and folks in retirement communities.

Wondering About Their Winter Wonderland

 According to reports, here in New York City we’ve had more snow during the past week than we’ve had during the past two winters. I can believe it.  That said, the white stuff didn’t come all at once:  Snowfalls were punctuated by spells of rain and above-freezing temperatures.  Therefore, most un-plowed or -shoveled surfaces have only a shallow coating.

Still, I and other New York cyclists have encountered a problem Cathleen Cronin reported in ecoRI news:  bike lanes covered with snow or, worse, ice.

The latter aborted (Can I use that word in the current political climate?) my commute the other day.  I was about to cross the Macombs Dam Bridge from Yankee Stadium to Harlem when my front wheel slid from under me.  The glacial stream covered the entire width—and, as far as I could see, length—of the bridge’s bike/pedestrian path. In years past, I rode in the traffic lane. But I didn’t want to take the risk of encountering an ice patch on it. Also, traffic seems to be heavier—and the vehicles bigger (with more aggressive drivers) than when I crossed thirty, or even ten years ago.

So, I did an about-face. I could’ve picked up one of the other routes I take, but that would’ve required some back-tracking. Fortunately, I didn’t have to go very far to the Yankee Stadium subway station. 

I haven’t cycled in East Providence, Rhode Island. But I reckon that it doesn’t have anything like New York’s transit system. I wonder how commuters (and other cyclists) deal with impassable lanes or streets and few, or no, alternative routes.

What Are These?

 

Arizona Bike Law includes a page titled with what seems like a rhetorical question: “Is This A Bike Lane?”

The question becomes not-so-rhetorical because they answer:  No, according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the transportation engineers’ “Bible.” But the city of Phoenix, where the pictured “bike lanes” are located, insist that shoulder strips just wide enough for a bicycle tire “separated” from lanes where buses, trucks and SUVs roam by a line of paint is safer than riding in the roadway.

Driver And Lane Blamed For Crash

 I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more frequently.

I’m not talking about the crash that resulted when someone drove a Tesla SUV across a Seattle bike lane to access a parking lot. Unfortunately, I’m also not referring to the life-altering brain injury Aviv Litov suffered when his bike hit the car. 

What I am about to mention is the lawsuit that’s followed. Not surprisingly, the Tesla driver is a defendant, as the suit cites her negligence. But the other defendant is one not often named in such cases:  the city itself.  

The lawsuit, filed by the Strittmatter firm in Seattle, alleges that the lane’s faulty design was a factor in the crash that landed Litov in a hospital for two months and has led to a long, arduous road to heal. 

The lane on Green Lake Drive appears to be like many here in New York (including the one along Astoria’s Crescent Street, where I lived until last March) and other American cities:  It’s separated from the traffic lane by a line of parked cars.

Those cars certainly are an effective barrier.  But in some spots—particularly driveways and intersections that cross those lanes—those parked vehicles also obstruct visibility for both cyclists and drivers. Too often, frustrated motorists make risky maneuvers to turn—or cyclists simply can’t see them until it’s too late.

I hope Litov has a full—or as full as possible—recovery. And it will be interesting, to say the least, to see whether more municipalities or their contractors are held to account for poor bike lane conception, design, construction or maintenance—of which I’ve seen plenty or, should I say, too much.

The Driver Who Thought A Paceline Was A Slamom

 A driver weaves through a group of cyclists, narrowly missing them.  At one point, he is actually driving in the wrong direction for the traffic lane.

On a video of the incident, someone can be heard yelling for the cyclists to watch out.

Shortly afterwards, a group of people smash the car in a parking garage about a mile from where the driver used the cyclists as a slalom course.

That incident was also captured on video.

Guess what the police have done.

They “believe” the incidents are “related.” But they didn’t arrest the driver. They are, however, pursuing vandalism charges against the people who smashed his car.

Call me a cynic, but I wonder whether the response to one incident and lack thereof to the other has something to do with the fact that the car in question is a late-model white Mercedes.

Whatever the constables’ motives and reasoning, it’s an example of what made Mimi Holt, whom I mentioned in yesterday’s post, give up cycling for nearly two decades when she moved to Los Angeles. She resumed riding after her doctor diagnosed her as a pre-diabetic, but says she’d feel a lot safer if there was a comprehensive network of bike lanes.

If she’s heard about the incident I mentioned today (it happened on Saturday), I am sure it reminded her of why she gave up cycling—and what police need to do in order to ensure that she and others can ride in (relative) safety.

Will The Olympics Turn L..A. Into Copenhagen On The Pacific? I

In 2028, what will Los Angeles have in common with London and Paris?

Three years from now, all three cities will have hosted the summer Olympics three times. London became the charter member of that “club” in 2012, having been the site of the 1908 and 1948 games.  The French capital joined last year on the centennial of its second games (1924) and after being the venue for the games’ second edition in 1900.

L.A. (No American calls it by its full name!) witnessed the 1932 and 1984 games.  Beyond this distinction, however, the second-most populous city in the United States would seem to have little in common with The Great Wen or The City of Light.  For one thing, both European capitals are older than their countries; indeed, each was founded during the Roman Empire. The City of Angels, by contrast, wasn’t founded until 1781, five years after the United States. It wouldn’t become part of the US for nearly seven more decades and today isn’t even the capital of California, let alone the United States. And it really didn’t gain any real significance until the 1920s, when the nascent aerospace and motion picture industries developed there. Until then, San Francisco was, by far, the largest American city west of St. Louis—which hosted the third summer games in 1904.

Oh, and there’s the climate: Since the Dodgers’ baseball team moved to Los Angeles in 1958, only 17 games have been rained out, all of them in April. (They play 81 home games during a regular season.)  Football (what we Americans call “soccer “) matches are rarely, if ever, postponed because of weather, even though the English Premier League and Ligue 1 seasons run through the fall, winter and early spring. Conditions can include fog, cold and just about any kind of precipitation. In other words, the weather typically has more in common with Amsterdam or Copenhagen than with L.A.

That last factor is particularly interesting when you consider that the Dutch and Danish capitals are practically synonymous with cycling, Paris is regaining that status and London seems to be making progress towards that. But southern California, which would seem to have an excellent year-round climate for cycling, is only beginning to develop a cycling infrastructure. Indeed, one can argue that L.A., with its freeways, is the world’s first auto-centric metropolis and has never been described as a “walkable “ city.

That situation is starting to change, spurred—as in Paris and London—by upcoming Olympic Games. While there are bike lanes in L.A., Mimi Holt describes them as “islands.” 

Ms. Holt had been a daily cyclist in Seattle but quit after moving to L.A. “In L.A. people drive so fast, it’s so utterly terrifying.”  Recently, however, a diagnosis of pre-diabetes motivated her to resume riding after nearly 20 years. She says that if the paths were connected, she would be on them “all the time “ and would get rid of her car if cycling safety everywhere in Los Angeles were an option.

If the plans of Mayor Karen Bass come into fruition, Holt’s wish could come true. Mayor Bass is working with the city’s Olympic Committee to create a “transit first” games. It must be said, however, that goal is a compromise: She sparked controversy when she originally called for a “car free” (in L.A.!) Olympics.  And proponents fear that the bike lanes and mass transit improvements won’t be completed in time.

But if enough lanes are built, and enough enhancements are made to bus and train lines, Los Angeles might have something more in common with Paris and London than hosting three Olympic Games: The 2028 games might be as accessible without cars as the 2012 and 2024 Games were. Now, as for the climate and culture…

She Doesn’t Think We’re “The Enemy”

We believe love is love, science is real…but keep your government paws off my vehicular patterns.

You’ve seen the two phrases preceding the ellipsis on signs outside houses in “blue” neighborhoods and on bumper stickers affixed to Priuses. (Is the plural of Prius “Prii?”) But the seemingly-contradictory exhortation that follows is, according to Maggie Cassidy, an expression of how otherwise sane people think, and what they sometimes voice, when a bike lane is propsed.

Ms. Cassidy admits that she loves driving and is “too weak and clumsy” to ride a bicycle. But she adds that she has felt safer during one of her daily drives since bicycle lanes have been installed and given cyclists “a prudent amount of space” along a busy stretch of road.

While I have spoken and written against bike lanes, I am not against lanes in principle. Rather, I criticize particular green ribbons of asphalt or concrete because they’re poorly-conceived, designed, constructed or maintained. Though not a cyclist, Ms. Cassidy seems to understand as much.

The most perceptive comments in her Valley News (Vermont) editorial, however, refute the objections of drivers. She mentions one who complains that he’ll have to drive with his “head on a swivel.” As Ms. Cassidy points out, that’s what drivers have to do anyway:  Drivers, and people in general, need to be aware of their surroundings, not only what’s immediately in front of them.

She doesn’t only blame drivers’ misconceptions, which she attributes to “anecdotal” evidence and flat-out misconceptions. She gets at something that causes motorists to see not only cyclists, but planners who conceive and engineers who plan and design bike lanes and other infrastructure. As she says, they are, too often, poor communicators: They too often lapse into professional and technical jargon or show other misunderstandings of their audiences.

I must say that Maggie Cassidy’s editorial is notable because she writes from a perspective I rarely, if ever, see: A motorist who isn’t a cyclist but doesn’t see us as “the enemy.”

Jason Lohr R.I.P.

 When a crash results in the death of a cyclist, the tragedy doesn’t end there. 

Such is the case of Jason Lohr. The 49-year-old bartender was riding northbound on Frankford Avenue, one of Philadelphia’s major thoroughfares, around 11:30 pm on 20 November. A driver traveling southbound made a left turn on East Hagert Street and collided with Jason, who died from his injuries last weekend.

The driver remained at the scene and is cooperating with the investigation

Jason was, apparently, extremely popular not only with patrons where he worked, but also in the local music and arts scenes.  Certainly, many people will miss him, but perhaps none more than his brother Dan. He is pleading with the city for more bike lanes—there is none on Frankford—and for cyclists to be “proactive.”

The Bicycle Coalition of Philadelphia is urging anyone who knows, or has lost, someone who was involved in a crash to reach out to Families For Safe Streets Greater Philadelphia by emailing nicole@bicyclecoalition.org.

And Standard Tap has a GoFundMe page for Jason Lohr and his family.

The Real Battle

 Last week I wrote about the passage of Bill 212 in Ontario, Canada.  Among other things, it authorizes that province’s government the authority to order Toronto—its largest city and capital—to remove bike lanes and to block the metropolis from installing a new bike lane if it results in the loss of a traffic or parking lane.

Interestingly, Philadelphia has gone in an almost-opposite direction.  Yesterday Mayor Cherelle Parker signed a bill that prohibits drivers from stopping, standing or parking in bike lanes—and increases fines for those who break the law.

Reactions to both events has been predictable and echoes the ways in which cyclists (and pedestrians) have been pitted against drivers. The debate, fueled at least in part by misconceptions, can also be seen on the editorial pages of the Washington Post.  The first salvo of the latest fight came from Mark Fisher’s article, “The truth about bike lanes:  They’re not about the bikes.” Yesterday the newspaper published reactions from anti-bike lane (and, in some cases, anti-cyclist) motorists. It has announced its intention to devote a page to pro-bike lane arguments.

Among the misconceptions expressed in the editorials, perhaps the most egregious is this:  We are getting our lanes for free.

Some years ago, I found myself arguing about that with a driver whom I cursed out after he cut me off.  I became his emotional punching bag because, at that moment, I was the embodiment of all cyclists, just as any given Black person can become a proxy for an entire race.

I didn’t raise my voice or lose my temper. Instead, when he shouted the “free ride” canard, I pointed out that I paid for that street and its parking spaces just as he had:  Here in New York, as in most places, street and road construction and maintenance is paid from the general pool of taxes. He was not, as he believed, paying for something I wasn’t. In fact, I said, the only tax he pays that I don’t is on gasoline.

He actually calmed down. I probably could’ve mentioned other ways his and other ways his and other motorists’ driving is subsidized—including our foreign policy—but I left him while we were at least civil toward each other.

Some would call it a “win.” In today’s political climate, it would be a step forward. On the other hand, to amend Mr. Fisher’s thesis, the debate about bike lanes isn’t really about the lanes.  I believe it is, rather, a proxy for the culture wars, which in turn are about economics: Will they serve the interests of those who have brought the planet (whether through their financial, political, cultural or ostensibly-religious activities) to its current crisis—and their often-unwitting pawns? Or will we leave those coming after us a world in which they can live, let alone thrive?

Is It The Most Unsafe Bike Lane?

 In this blog, I have written about poorly-conceived, designed, constructed and maintained cycle lanes.  There are “bike lanes to nowhere” (which can be sung to a certain Led Zeppelin tune), those that begin seemingly out of nowhere and ones that put cyclists —and pedestrians and wheelchair users—in more danger than they would face among motorized traffic. Oh, and there was one that ran smack into a supporting column for elevated train tracks.

But there is another hazard that, according to some planners and even path users, can’t be designed away:  Lanes that are safe, useful and even scenic by day become alleys of potential terror, especially for those of us who don’t present as male.

Such is the case for a popular 24km (15 mile) ribbon that connects Bristol and Bath in the UK. Because it passes through other fairly-major cities along the way, it’s popular with commuters as well as recreational cyclists—by day.

When darkness falls, however, so does the path’s safety. “It’s like walking down a dark alley on a night out,” said Bristol-based cyclist Rosalie Hoskins.  She and other cyclists have described their experiences, or recounted those of others, who have been jumped or ambushed and had their bikes or e-bikes stolen by masked moped riders. There are also other reports of anti-social behavior, such as drunkenness and drug use, along the lane.

While the B2B, as it’s commonly called, has been declared the “most unsafe” bike lane in Britain, the problems described are hardly unique. Indeed, on various bike lanes here in New York, I have nearly hit, or been hit by, people hanging out in the path, not to mention drivers—especially those of for-hire car services—pulling in and out or double-parking.

And while I haven’t heard as much about crime against cyclists, runners or pedestrians in Central Park as I did during the ‘70’s, ‘80’s and early ‘90’s, I was aware of the possibility when, on Monday, I rode the length of it uptown about an hour after it got dark. As I descended the curves to the exit at 7th Avenue (Adam Clayton Powell Boulevard) in Harlem, I thought about the possibility of someone—or some group—hiding in the bushes, ready to spring on an unsuspecting rider or runner:  a common occurrence in the bad old days. One reason why such attacks may be less common is that many more people pedal, run, jog, walk or simply hang out in the park than in times past.  And while more lighting may or may not improve safety, I think some would oppose it because they believe it would detract from the park’s ambience—which may be a reason why some other path aren’t better-lit or more surveilled.

I concur, however, with Bristol cyclist and PhD student George Rowland when he  says more emphasis should be placed on making roads safer for cyclists.  They already have lighting and open space, and making them more cyclist-friendly and -usable will do more to encourage people to pedal to work, school, shop or have fun than segregating us.

“Rip ‘Em Out”=“Drill, Baby, Drill”?

 Here in New York City, we don’t need anyone to tell us that life isn’t always fair. One reason is that here, in one of the world’s major cities—with a population of around 8.3 million—some decisions that affect our everyday lives are made in Albany, about 250 kilometers (160 miles) up the Hudson River. Though its population of 101,000 is less than a quarter of Staten Island, New York City’s least populous borough, “Smallbany” is the capital of New York State.

Now, one might expect that Toronto, Canada’s largest city, has more self-rule since it also happens to be the capital of Ontario. But the province’s government has just passed Bill 212. This controversial new piece of legislation gives the province sweeping control over Toronto’s bike lanes.  

That means, for one thing, that Toronto and other cities would have to ask the province for permission before installing a bike lane if doing so would involve removing á traffic lane.  Moreover, it gives the province authority to order a city to rip out a bike lane if a traffic lane was removed in the process.  So, for example, Ontario’s government could order Toronto to take our the bike lanes on three major thoroughfares—Bloor and Yonge Streets and University Avenue—though it’s not clear as to whether the province will exercise that power.

Oh, and Bill 212 allows the construction of Highway 413 to begin before consulting indigenous groups or conducting environmental assessment.

Bill 212 sounds like part of a “backlash” against the progressive policies for which Toronto has come to be known.  Somehow I can hear echoes of “Drill, baby, drill!”

Could This Become The Father Of Better Bike Infrastructure?

 Here in New York City, it seems that every other non-cyclist hates the bike lanes. Drivers complain that “their” lanes and parking spaces are being taken from them. 

To be fair, many city streets—even some major ones—are narrow and were crowded even before the bike lanes came in. But, as I’ve mentioned in other posts, studies have found a “build it and they will come” phenomenon in road and other auto-related infrastructure: Creating more space for motorized traffic leads to more motorized traffic. In other words, car-clogged streets that have bike lanes would continue to experience traffic jams even if the bike lanes were given over to cars, trucks, buses and anything else that isn’t human-powered.

Apparently, some folks on Padre Island, off the Texas coast, have heard that message. If they haven’t, perhaps their latest plea to the Island’s Strategic Action Committee (which advises the Corpus Christi City Council) is motivated by two crashes involving cyclists and motorists within a month.

Those good folks (OK, I’m editorializing) are telling the Committee to build safe bicycle lanes and sidewalks. To me, it’s interesting that they’re asking to build something that many New Yorkers want to get rid of. More important, it’s heartening to know that if those lanes and sidewalks are built, they would be part of a larger mobility plan for the island, connecting different communities with buses, golf carts and other non-automotive transportation in addition to bike lanes and sidewalks. If nothing else, I hope that it prevents or defuses at least some of the animosity some drivers direct at cyclists. Oh, I also hope that such a plan might prevent some bad bike lanes—like a few I’ve ridden here in New York—from being built.

50 Kilometers--For Dumplings?

Bagel runs.  Pizza runs.  Taco runs.  Crepe runs.  Beer runs. 

I have made all of those "errands"--usually, at night--on my bicycle.  Some of those trips spanned only a few blocks; others were considerably longer, like the rides I took from Rutgers in New Brunswick, New Jersey to Brooklyn for bagels.  It's not that decent bagels couldn't be had in NB or, more precisely, neighboring Highland Park.  I simply believed that the bagels in Brooklyn--at one place in particular--were the best.

And, of course, those 50 or so kilometers (depending on which route I took) left a bagel (or two) sized hole in my stomach.  

I've probably taken rides of similar length within the bounds of New York City to taste a food that, while available in whichever neighborhood I resided, was better in some ethnic enclave or another:  knishes from Mrs. Stahl's in Brighton Beach, dim sum in Flushing, jerk chicken in Flatbush and, of course, soul food in pre-gentrified Harlem.  Oh, and few things can cap off a winter trek like pho in Sunset Park.

So I fully empathize with four students who made a 50 kilometer late-night run from Zhengzhou to Kaifeng--for soup dumplings. Of course, those young people claimed that they weren't riding only for a midnight snack:  They say they also took in some cultural attractions in Kaifeng, a city that has served as China's capital eight times during a history that stretches as far back as the Athenian Empire.  I believe them simply because I would do the same--while sampling the local cuisine, of course!

That all would have been fine with the local authorities if the ride was limited to those four students, maybe a few more.  But news of the trip went viral on social media. As a result, the quartet would be joined by 100,000 other cyclists, mostly young.

To put that into perspective, the Five Boro Bike Tour, one of the world's largest organized rides, attracted 32,000 riders this year.  Some people complain because they lose "their" lanes and parking spaces when streets are blocked off, but otherwise there is little public or private criticism because the ride is planned well in advance.  Thus, people are prepared for the street closures and police have an easy time patrolling and protecting. (Plus, one assumes, they don't mind the overtime pay.) 

The Dumpling Run, on the other hand, was a spontaneous event. Thus, no one else was prepared for the ensuing traffic jams and other interruptions it caused and local officials were, needless to say, not happy. Nor were bike share administrators:  They had to shut down their networks because most of the riders used share bikes and the networks simply couldn't keep up with the demand.  Also, the ride led to a glut of share bikes in Kaifeng and not enough in Zhengzhou.

Then again, some local papers, like People's Daily, have praised the event.  They cite the "energy" and "spirit" of the ride, not to mention the boost to restaurants and other hospitality businesses.  I can understand:  I've pedaled 50 kilometers, and more, for art, history, culture--and food!

We're Giving You A Reason That Conflicts With The One We Gave You

When I lived in Manhattan, I often cycled across the George Washington Bridge:  I could set out for Bear Mountain around sunrise on a late spring or summer morning and be back before noon.  Even at such an early hour, I'd see other cyclists crossing the bridge in both directions.  Some were riding into the city for work or pleasure, but a few were returning from midnight rides:  something I did at least a few times.  Such trips were possible because, in those days (ca. 1983-1991), the Bridge's walkway/cycle paths didn't close.

Some in the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey management will deny the lanes were ever available 24 hours.  Pardon my cynicism, but I don't find it surprising that the bi-state agency that owns the Bridge (and JFK International Airport, among other facilities) would try to gaslight those of us who have been using the Bridge for decades.  

Photo by Charles Pedola

I don't know exactly when the PANYNJ began overnight closure of the bike lanes.  Nor does the agency itself--or, if it does, it's employing "selective memory."  Like Ed Ravin of the Five Borough Bike Club, I remember the nocturnal lane closure starting some time after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. That is when the Authority installed gates.   "I remember seeing that gate and saying, 'They want to be able to close this path,'"  he recalls.  "I didn't like that at all."

Whatever the case, the path had been closed from midnight through 6 am until earlier this month.  Then, the lanes'  availability was extended by one hour:  It now opens at 5 am.  While that is a partial victory, the PANYNJ's reasoning is murky at best and specious at worst.  A spokesman claimed that the closures began in 2016 for cleaning, maintenance and restoration.  That contrasts with  another statement attributing the closure to a "standard practice" that began in 1995. Both of those claims contradict a 2004 press release stating the lanes would be closed overnight due to "enhanced security measures" for that year's Republican National Convention.

Now, to most people, that difference of one hour doesn't sound like much.  But there are people who ride to and from jobs at that hour--or overnight--who can't afford to, or simply don't, drive or take buses.  Even those of us who pedal across the bridge to train or simply for pleasure feel something in common with those workers:  that the Port Authority doesn't care about us.  About 4 million vehicles drive across the bridge every month; the tolls they pay make the Bridge the Port Authority's second most-profitable asset (after JFK Airport).  On the other hand, in a warm-weather month, about 90,000 of us pedal across the bridge--and we don't pay tolls.

The Latent Demand For Bike Lanes

I took one economics course as an undergraduate. What did I learn? Well, there is a subject at which I am worse than I am at math, which is saying something. Oh, and I learned a few terms that come up every now and again, including “induced demand” and “latent demand.”

The former term refers to, among other things, what happens when new roads are built. Contrary to what people expect—and, too often, planners and politicians promise—building new roads or adding traffic lanes doesn’t ease congestion. Instead, it induces people to drive for short trips and on occasions when they otherwise might not have, and to move further away from their workplaces, schools and other places they need and want to go to—and public transportation.

On the other hand—again, counter to common perception and the claims of grandstanding politicians—bike lanes bring out latent demand. That is to say, they encourage people who wanted to cycle to their jobs, schools or favorite stores and restaurants but were reluctant because they didn’t feel safe. I imagine there are more such people than there are folks who want to drive two hours each way to work, or to put up with the hassles of driving and parking to buy some cereal and milk.

Cyclist on path in front of Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Photo by John Rieti for CBC.

Recent research bears out what I have just said. Moreover, it shows that in many places—including my hometown of New York—bike lanes actually help to reduce the amount of time it takes to drive because bike lanes, which are often installed with left turn lanes, allow cyclists to proceed more quickly through intersections and keep cars from blocking other cars.

Research also refutes another misconception: that bike lanes are “bad for business.” They might be in the short term, which is how most small businesses owners operate because a bad month or two can ruin them (as the pandemic showed us). But loyal customers tend to return, whatever the circumstances, and stores and restaurants can gain new customers in cyclists (and pedestrians) who happen to pass by.

In other words, they benefit from latent demand. Hmm…If my economics course had included more examples like that…math would have remained my worst subject.

We Won’t Stop. But We Need More

 When I crashed and was “doored” three months apart, people asked me whether I considered giving up cycling. 

That was four years ago. I’d been riding practically all of my life and a dedicated cyclist for nearly half a century. My response then is the same as the one I’d give now: “No!”

I therefore understand Jakob Morales’ assertion that he will continue to cycle as his primary means of transportation, even after being slammed by a hit-and-run driver in his hometown of Indianapolis. “I was on the bike the next day, so you can’t stop me,” he declared.

It’s as if he’d been answering the question I was asked. For all I know, someone may have asked him. But his testimony underscores something he said in response to hearing about his city’s plans to extend protected bike lanes on a major thoroughfare. It’s good, he said, but not enough. A careless or aggressive driver can literally get away with murder unless the incident is caught on camera. In Morales’ case, it was his own camera that recorded the impact, which shattered the driver’s windshield.

Fortunately for him, he came away with only a couple of scratches. But the fact that he just happened to have that device on his helmet may be what prevented the driver’s liability from being turned into blame against Morales.

And that, to him, is one of the issues his city needs to address. “It shouldn’t take a $500 camera to capture their information and hunt them down,” he says of drivers like the one who struck him.

And we shouldn’t have to live in fear—or have to answer the question of whether we’ll continue to ride.

Are Cyclists Against Religious Freedom?

I most recently visited Montréal around this time of year in 2015. My visit spanned a holiday weekend in the US: Columbus/Indigenous People’s’ Day, which just happened to coincide with Canadian Thanksgiving. That weekend, foliage colors were at or near their peak, highlighting the city’s beauty.

Of course, one of the things that made my visit memorable was the cycling.  La ville aux deux cent clochers had a network of protected bike lanes that was not only more extensive, but also seemed to be more practical for transportation cycling, than anything I’d seen in the US up to that time. Best of all, there seemed to be a respect between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists that I rarely, if ever, see in my home country.

Now, however, the sort of fight I thought could happen only in the ‘States might be brewing. It could pit cyclists and the city against…churchgoers.

A few months ago, bike lanes were installed on both sides of rue Terrebonne in the Nôtre Dame de Grace borough, and the previously two-way street became a one-way thoroughfare. That has upset business owners who say that the lanes have taken parking spaces and thus led to a loss of revenue.

But one of the most vigorous complaints has come from Paul Wong, the warden of St. Monica’s church. He claims that church attendance—and donations—have decreased by nearly a third because, as he tells it, parishioners can’t find parking.

Had such a scenario unfolded in the United States, Wong or someone like him might’ve turned it into a “religious freedom” issue. It will be interesting to see whether he can or does that. Canada’s constitution does guarantee freedom of religious expression. I am no scholar of either the U.S. or Canadian Constitution, but I have to wonder whether Canada’s laws could be interpreted in similar ways to US policies. There have been cases in which employees—mainly Muslim—of municipal, provincial and national governments alleged discrimination against them for wearing symbols or sartorial accoutrements of their faith while on the job.

One thing I would never mention to a congregant of any house of worship is that I am an atheist. Can you imagine what visions of a “conspiracy” that might invoke? Oh yeah, that transgender atheist cyclist is trying to keep us from worshipping in the way God wants us to.