I’ll soon have the first results of my recent bicycle survey ready. But here’s an interesting preliminary result (as yet an uncrunched stat): A bunch of respondents (almost 40%) indicated that the best thing Springfield could do to make bicycling better is add bicycle lanes. And as I gazed across the columns of answers one thing became clear: A very high percentage of those folks (maybe half…still crunching) were males between the ages of 25 and 55 who described themselves as “skilled” riders.
Waaaaaaaa?
But then I read this essay by Keri Caffrey, of Commute Orlando, and it began to make a bit of sense:
The root cause of the problems for bicycling in the U.S. is the oppressive belief system about who the roads are for. We have car-culture amnesia about our public road system and who is entitled to use it. Enforcers of the culture of speed have used intimidation and fearmongering to subjugate the drivers of human-powered vehicles. The result is that most bicyclists ride in ways that increase their risk, leading to a spiral of increasing fear…
Be sure to read her description of the spiral of fear.
Two things to consider:
- Cars pass bicyclists closer on roads with bicycle lanes.
- Bicycle lanes and tracks play a role in increasing bicycle crashes.
I’d never had much experience with bicycle lanes before moving to Springfield. My first experience with them was fine it seemed. But I became unsettled, which led to this examination of our local system.
Since that time I’ve had the opportunity to ride on lanes and tracks in other places — mostly in Florida — and at least observe lanes in many other places. My view of bicycle lanes has become ever dimmer largely because I’ve become ever more analytical about my riding experience and the behaviors of other road users. Plus I have a healthy respect for my own safety on the road.
I do not feel safe in a bicycle lane because, in fact, I am not as safe as being an integrated part of traffic.
I think our Springfield plan is a much better way to go. The CIP money will be paying for route signs — a numbering system similar to the interstate highways — on the current bicycle route system. And sharrows will be painted on the system, which will clearly indicate to all road users that bicyclists are a normal part of traffic.
Next, the city is starting work on The Link – a connector system of traffic-calmed roads that will connect current and future greenways. Our greenways represent an excellent form of bicycle infrastructure something like what we’ve seen in the compelling videos of David Hembrow (although we still have much to learn from the Dutch example).
I believe these projects represent real progress for bicyclists in Springfield and will serve as an example for other communities in the United States.
Comments 20
You need to get cracking on the education front or you’ll find yourself legislated into those lanes. I’m not convinced that riders in bike lanes get passed with less consideration than if there were none, but I know it’s true for those who operate their bikes safely. It ain’t hard to learn.
Posted 17 Jul 2010 at 10:30 am ¶Steve A wrote:
“You need to get cracking on the education front or you’ll find yourself legislated into those lanes. I’m not convinced that riders in bike lanes get passed with less consideration than if there were none…”
Steve, every study I’ve seen, the three in Britain (true, they were riding and driving on the wrong side of the road, so their studies may not count), and the two in the US (TxDOT and NCDOT funded), all showed cars passed cyclists in bike lanes closer and faster than they did bicyclists where there were no lanes. The pro-bike lane TxDOT study concluded this was good because cars didn’t have to slow down or change lanes to pass. Be convinced.
…and you are. Education is absolutely necessary, but it can’t be the watered down, propaganda filled version that is currently most popular. It’s been almost totally removed from its roots.
Posted 17 Jul 2010 at 12:02 pm ¶I meant to type…
…and you are right. Education is absolutely necessary, but it can’t be the watered down, propaganda filled version that is currently most popular. It’s been almost totally removed from its roots.
Posted 17 Jul 2010 at 12:03 pm ¶When ignorance aligns with orthodoxy—as it often does—it is much harder to crack. Bike lanes are orthodoxy. They are accepted without question. They feed primal fears and social taboos.
Which means, they feed the beast.
Posted 17 Jul 2010 at 12:35 pm ¶I think the only proper education mission is to teach students how to best ride in any situation they are likely to encounter, without consideration of how things OUGHT to be. Those educated students will easily distinguish the BS “orthodox” from the “easy to do” situations.
My unspoken bias in the intial comment was that MOST people on bikes go so far right as to be almost off the road. I’m not sure that THEY are worse off if they had bike lanes. I KNOW that I get a lot of clearance, but I also KNOW that I am not a typical rider. If anything, I tend further left than the Mandeville Canyon video.
THAT may partly be what’s being reflected in Andy’s survey. If I accept Andy’s info (and I see no reason to doubt it), even HE rides further right than I do. My rule is “ride in the line of sweetness.” Either motorists need to make a full lane change to pass or they don’t need to do anything. It’s really simple. It’s the cyclist’s choice which one they select. The cyclist bears the consequences of stupid choices.
When I teach, I will teach how to deal with the real world and nothing else. Bike Ed is not about policy, but rather how one ought to deal with a situation. I think Keri and PM would do the same.
Posted 17 Jul 2010 at 2:08 pm ¶Bike lanes can be unsettling places, littered as they so often are with bits of glass and other debris that threaten one with the unwanted task of changing another tube. Despite my use of puncture resistant tires, this accumulation of debris is reason enough in my opinion to steer away from (no pun intended) the introduction of any more bike lanes to the Springfield area.
Posted 17 Jul 2010 at 3:44 pm ¶SteveA- I agree. As a newbie sometimes the idea of what Ought to be messes me up b/c it doesn’t fit with my real world.
I notice when I ride to the right I get passed closely and fast. No lanes. Oftentimes if cars keep passing me too closely and I start to feel panic I move left to make them back off. I just noticed that I’ve been doing that and so far it has helped me a lot. I still prefer to ride to the right. it is where I would like to be as I ride really slowly, but once I start to feel um pushed over or ignored I become more assertive if that makes sense.
lanes vs no lanes- I don’t care. I just want smooth pavement and better intersections to cross.
Posted 18 Jul 2010 at 1:56 pm ¶MamaVee,
Your right to the road is not dependent on whether you are fast or big, but rather by only one criteria: One need only to be traveling from one place to another to qualify.
Posted 18 Jul 2010 at 2:54 pm ¶Wow… lots of discussion
I was out of town Saturday and just now getting home.
Posted 18 Jul 2010 at 3:15 pm ¶MamaVee, Amen for smooth pavement!!
I don’t know if this will help, but FWIW, I made a video of an intersection here that a lot of cyclists find intimidating:
Posted 18 Jul 2010 at 5:52 pm ¶http://www.vimeo.com/13103474
Keri… Thanks for posting the video link. Nice work!
Posted 19 Jul 2010 at 7:01 am ¶Keri has a great sentence in that link: Drive your bike!!! I love it. It says it all succinctly.
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 10:24 am ¶The effective cycling, just need education method was tried for thirty years in this country and we got bikes’ mode share all the way up to 0.5%. Meanwhile, in Portland, they’ve been building bike lanes, trails, sharrows, bike boxes and boulevards and the mode share is up to 6%.
Forrester followers insist that bike lanes are death traps, but most people see them as a nice place to ride a bike. Once built, people ride their bikes in them. Sorry, but they do work.
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 1:59 pm ¶Don’t have time to read all the comments right now, for which I apologize, but my initial thought is that the people who feel bike lanes increase safety are going through the same [ignorant] thought process I am:
At least if there is some sort of visible sign that bicycles are around, people will drive with more awareness and caution, which will make me safer.
We haven’t read the studies, or blogs, or anything else as extensively as you have. We just like to ride our bikes. When someone says “We want bike lanes,” they may not mean that literally. I think there’s a good chance what they mean is, “I want to be safer when riding my bike, whatever that takes.”
If sharrows and signs and whatnot are better, then by all means, do that. I hope for our sake that you’re taking an active role with city government in helping educate them on these matters just like you’re educating us through this blog
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 4:01 pm ¶The unending holy wars of bike lanes … Sorry, the videos from Copenhagen of relaxed bicyclists in causal dress look like they are having a lot more fun than the spandex clad traffic dodgers in videos showing the opposite extreme here in the US of A. I have found accident statistics proving that the completely separate facilities are BOTH more dangerous AND definitely safer than mixing it up in traffic (dammed statistics). I have found stats that say that accident counts for separate facilities are higher than for “mixing it up,” but that there is a strong correlation with the increase of bicyclists because of the more comfortable conditions.
I have been willing to ride the length of Glenstone and Kearney, as well as the shoulders of I-44, Highways 13, 160, US 60 & US 65. That doesn’t make them pleasant experiences.
When I have a choice here in Springfield, I much prefer Ozark Greenways trails. As long as they are going where I’m going. If I’m in a big hurry it’s definitely faster to mix with heavy traffic, I’ll do it. That doesn’t make it pleasant.
But are trails aren’t perfect, either. There are a number of intersections and street crossing that are awkward to navigate. My latest peeve is places where we are forced to ride through water crossings which are slick as hell and a danger to everyone. Also, if our greenways are really going to serve transportation, they need to be open 24/7 and they need to be patrolled. Daylight to Dark just doesn’t cut it.
I have e-mails arguing this issue from today (from other sources) all the way back to the earliest records I have. Even if every facility isn’t perfect, it shows a community’s willingness to make concessions and to try! If everything is not perfect, we need to hang in there and keep trying to tweak it!
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 4:20 pm ¶The argument that effective cycling didn’t produce mode share is specious.
No one has ever tried to create mode share in this country with effective cycling or education. Accusing people of failing at something they never tried to do is the cheap and dishonest tactic of a propagandist.
Accessible, desirable education has never been tried. The need for cycling education has never been promoted.
I don’t wear spandex. I’m not a traffic dodger. I’m completely relaxed riding my bike in any conditions. I prefer the trails and quiet streets when I can get them. But if I have to ride on a bigger road, I want the whole lane. I don’t want to be shoved into a bike lane (less than half that space) with the rest of the road trash. I have more self-respect than that.
I care more about a safe, quality experience for myself and other bicyclists than I do about numbers. I feel no compulsion to get other people to ride by pandering to their misconceptions that it is dangerous when it is really safe and easy. Because what would that accomplish? A culture of dependent, fearful cyclists who need more and more unnecessary infrastructure.
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 10:46 pm ¶My big concern when it comes to cars is distracted drivers. It doesn’t really matter where you’re at in the lane or if there’s a bike lane if the driver isn’t looking where they are going. It’s hard to be a distracted driver on side streets with lots of stop signs, or in an urban area with lots of traffic, easy to be one on roads like the one in the video. I avoid roads like the one in the video whenever possible.
When it comes to riding in bike lanes I tend to ride just barely in the bike lane. It keeps a good chunk of room to my right if I need to get off the road and keeps me far enough left to be away from car doors and in the sight lines of cars behind me. I always move far enough into the traffic lane that I can’t be passed in my lane when there’s an intersection or a driveway.
Posted 20 Jul 2010 at 11:44 pm ¶Michael, do the following thought experiment;
If you placed a barrel in the center of the travel lane on the particular road you fear distracted drivers, how long would it be before it was struck by a motorist?
Don’t you think a cyclist has an equally distinctive shape that is unlikely to be mistaken for a fast moving vehicle at a glance?
Posted 22 Jul 2010 at 5:36 am ¶Chipseal,
Judging by some of the drivers I’ve seen, that barrel would get tagged pretty quickly.
Posted 22 Jul 2010 at 12:04 pm ¶Chip… Not to be argumentative, but just for fun, I find the barrel example interesting because I think it is apt, but perhaps not in the way you suggest
So here’s my experiment: I would assume the barrel would be hit much sooner than a bicyclist because the barrel is inanimate. So the average driver will see it, but will then likely take greater chances hitting it as they pass than they would passing a bicyclist because the barrel not moving (i.e. doesn’t appear to be alive). People kill themselves all the time swerving to avoid small animals. But the condition of so many construction barrels suggests that they are less kind to these objects.
But your point holds, I think. Drivers will pick it up in their sightline. It’s what they do after they see and ID it that I find fascinating.
Posted 22 Jul 2010 at 1:18 pm ¶