Is He Speaking With A Forked Path?

 You don’t have to read much of this blog to know or even infer my distaste for almost anything having to do with El Cheeto Grande, Ron De-Sanctimonious or George In-Santos.

But, to be fair, I’ll point out that our former (I hope)President and his wanna-but-I-hope-he-never-will-be successor—or the only living being capable of telling more lies than either—are unique among public office-holders in their meanness, maliciousness, mendaciousness or pure-and-simple dishonesty. 

I think now of Ronald Reagan’s assertion: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” Oh, and don’t get me started on “weapons of mass destruction,”  Again, in the interests of fairness, I will point out that it wasn’t the first time a falsehood was the premise for bringing the United States to war.

Deliberately misinforming their constituents—or simply making ridiculous statements—is, unfortunately, becoming even more of a normal operating procedure as politicians have to prove their fidelity to the most extreme party leaders and voters. 

Even seemingly-moderate politicos are dancing in the conga line.  Mitt Romney—who may be the only presidential candidate to castigate an incumbent opponent for doing on a national level what he himself did in his state while he was governor —has fallen in line with his party’s anti-environment, anti-cyclist stance.  Or he is yet more proof that rich doesn’t always equal smart or well-informed.

Now, before I relate his coal-lump of wisdom,’I must clarify what I think of bike lanes.  I am in favor of them—if they are conceived, planned and executed in ways that actually make cycling safer, as well as more practical and enjoyable.  Too many lanes I’ve seen don’t accomplish any of those objectives and even do the exact opposite.  

So, in light of what I’ve just said, I can understand at least one aspect of opposition to bike lane construction.  But Mr. Romney claims that bike lane construction is “the height of stupidity” because “it means more cars backing up, creating more emissions.”

First of all, independent studies conducted by, among other institutions, Carnegie-Mellon and McGill Universities, show the exact opposite.  For one thing, a bike doesn’t emit the poisons that spew from tailpipes.  For another, the studies show that on streets where a traffic  or parking lane was turned into a bike lane, there was frequent or chronic traffic congestion before the bike lane was designated.

So…Mitt Romney is now part of an unfortunate tradition—and a dangerous recent development. Is he misinformed, disingenuous or malicious? Has he steered off his own path onto the one of, for today’s Republicans, least resistance?

Photo by Doug Pensinger, Getty Images

Cyclist Shot For Stopping To Help

It's bad enough that there are four guns for every three people in the United States of America.  Even worse is the potential for suicide and other kinds of self-harm, and for crimes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.  I am thinking, of course, about mass shootings, of which we've had three for every two days here in the US, and mass killings, nearly all of which happen by gunfire and of which we are on track to have nearly twice as many in 2023 as in any previous year.   

But I also have another kind of tragedy in mind:  the kind that unfolded just before noon yesterday in New Haven, Connecticut.  A man was cycling down Chapel Street, between Ferry and Poplar.  He stopped to help a driver who'd fallen asleep at the wheel. Another driver started to argue with the cyclist.  Then he shot him.

The cyclist went to the emergency room and is expected to survive.  But it makes me think about the times I've stopped to help people while I was riding.  What if someone else took issue, whether for a rational reason or not?  And what if that person had a
weapon? 

From Edmunds

For that matter, I have to wonder whether, one day, some motorist who resents my presence on "his" road might decide to make his point with the tip of a bullet? 

Sending Us Across The Bridge

Until recently, almost no transportation planning in the US included bicycles.  In a way, it's understandable:  For decades, few adults rode bikes for any reason, let alone to commute.  But in many parts of the country, people of all ages, from officers in organizations to students and retail workers, are cycling to their workplaces or classrooms.  Some cities and states have tried, often misguidedly, to "accommodate" cyclists.  Some of their efforts have been, arguably, worse than ignoring us altogether.

One such effort has been a proposal to allow cyclists to cross the Potomac River between Maryland and Virginia on the recently-opened Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas "Mac" Middleton Bridge. 

Even at my age-which is still, ahem, midlife because, well, I say it is!-- I probably could cross the bridge faster than I could say its name. But that, I suspect, is not the reason why folks like Jed Weeks are using words like "ludicrous," "unconscionable" and "malpractice" in reference to the proposition. 

Weeks is the interim executive director and policy director of Bikemore.  His organization focuses on the Baltimore area,  about 90 miles north of the bridge.  Washington, DC is about midway between them. and From the nation's capital and Chesapeake Bay, where the Potomac empties--a distance of about 100 miles--there is no other Potomac crossing.

The new bridge with a name even longer than its span replaced an old bridge called (relatively) simply the Governor Harry Nice Memorial Bridge. David Brickley, who owns the Dahlgren Railroad Heritage trail, led an unsuccessful fight to preserve that span for pedestrians and cyclists.  He argued that it would have been "good for tourism" with its views and its potential for linking bike lanes and pedestrian paths on both sides of the river, allowing for longer trips.

Aerial view of the new Governor Harry W. Nice Memorial/Senator Thomas "Mac" Middleton Bridge.  Image from the Maryland Transportation Authority

When construction began on the new bridge, Larry Hogan was Maryland's governor.  He and his transportation planners did not make any provisions for bike or pedestrian lanes.  So how does the Maryland Transportation Authority want to "accommodate" cyclists?

Get ready for this: The agency's newest proposal calls for allowing cyclists to use the rightmost traffic lane in either direction.  Upon entering the bridge, cyclists would push a button that would trigger flashing lights, alerting motorists to the presence of a cyclist.  The lights would continue to blink their warning for 10 to 15 minutes to allow the cyclist to cross--while sharing that 12-foot-wide traffic lane with cars, SUVs, trucks and other vehicles crossing the span.

No, I didn't make that up. (If only I could!)  Oh, but it gets even better or worse, depending on whether you're seeing this as a story or transportation issue. The bridge connects the Maryland and Virginia sections of US Highway 301, which is a spur of US 1. So, said motor vehicles are traveling at 50 MPH.  At least, that's the speed limit.

If someone was plotting a way to kill cyclists, that person could hardly have done better.  That's not my emotions talking.  "I wonder if (Maryland Transportation Secretary Paul) Weidfeld would feel this is a good, safe option for bicyclists to go from Virginia to Maryland and Maryland to Virginia," mused Brickley.  "I wonder whether he would feel safe bicycling over that bridge."

Weeks felt even though the issue is "sort of out of our jurisdiction" it was comment because the plan is "such a dangerous idea." He summed up his verdict thusly:  "Anyone affiliated with a decision like that has no business designing bike or pedestrian infrastructure and should be banned from the practice."

Actually, from what I've seen and experienced, I could apply Weeks' brilliant summation to the vast majority of transportation planners who design bicycle infrastructure in the US.  Sometimes I think they see us as a "problem," much as grandstanding politicians in places like Florida, Montana and Georgia portray transgender people, and their  way to deal with us is to eliminate us or, if you like, send us across the bridge.