If you've spent time with bike activists, you know there's a rift between those who like bike lanes and those who don't. If I understand it correctly, the hating of bike lanes dates to a time when bikes were considered toys rather than vehicles, and putting in bike lanes was like making cyclists sit at the kid's table. Some people still feel this way, and there are arguements that bike lanes create a false sense of security, and what cyclists need is not infrastructure, but education in how to ride safely. My opinion is more inline with Dave, who just posted the following to the arcactive email list.
"I'll take the "false sense of security" bike lanes give me anyday. Without them, drivers come too close for my comfort, despite all the lights, reflective tape, and reflective clothing I use. Maybe I should be wearing an educational message on my back...?"
I'd be happy if there would be more cyclist AND motorist education along with bike lanes. And well designed bike lanes where you can ride outside of the door zone :) Bike lanes are good in general, but the main thing I don't like about roads with bike lanes is often cars will make surprise wide right turns right across them, rather than merge into the lane first before turning. Riding on a non-bike lane road with wider lanes, cars seem more likely to properly merge and not cutoff cyclists when making a turn. Its important that the bike lanes are designed so cyclists still remain a visible and predictable part of traffic, as intersections are the place where most collisions happen anyway.
Riding in NYC was relaxing for three reasons: wide curb lanes, no right turn on red, generalized chaos everywhere so cyclists weren't taking the brunt of road rage. Of the three, I think the no right turn on red was my favourite. No confusion at intersections, and easy for bikes to move up to the front.
I firmly believe that education for cyclists is a red herring. For "educate" insert "teach them to stay in their place" and you are getting closer to the underlying motive.
I was thinking something along the lines of free optional workshops like Can-bike where cyclists can get more comfortable cycling with traffic if they want to. Also there are a number of scary people on bikes out there that need to learn basic concepts like riding on the right side of the road, being visible at night, and not blowing through lights and stop signs without even looking. Cops should focus on educating these types rather than being nuisances about otherwise good cyclists that say don't put their foot down when stopping. Motorists need it reiterated to them to give cyclists ROOM when passing, bike lanes are not parking spots, how to turn with bike lanes etc.
I guess my suggestion would be that "these types" (a category that I belong to myself, since I frequently disregard basic traffic laws while riding my bike) already know the rules of the road, and are making their riding style decisions based on something other than ignorance. If I'm right, no amount of education is going to change the situation.
I dunno, there still seem to be a few groups of people breaking basic traffic laws - those that do so when they realize the traffic law doesn't make sense for their type of vehicle. Such as going straight at a T through a red (after stopping and looking for peds crossing of course) And those that evaluate the safety of a particular situation and break rules safely. Then there are those that think they are immortal and are accidents waiting to happen. I've had more close calls with other cyclists than cars recently, and although a bike-bike crash would have less impact I'd still prefer not to :) I still believe though that even in the first two cases, its hard to get respect from other vehicles on the road as a legitimate user of the road if you aren't following the same rules they are. As for education though, I suspect you are right and the ignorance percentage is relatively low, although not non-existent.
|
If you've spent time with bike activists, you know there's a rift between those who like bike lanes and those who don't. If I understand it correctly, the hating of bike lanes dates to a time when bikes were considered toys rather than vehicles, and putting in bike lanes was like making cyclists sit at the kid's table. Some people still feel this way, and there are arguements that bike lanes create a false sense of security, and what cyclists need is not infrastructure, but education in how to ride safely. My opinion is more inline with Dave, who just posted the following to the arcactive email list.
"I'll take the "false sense of security" bike lanes give me anyday. Without them, drivers come too close for my comfort, despite all the lights, reflective tape, and reflective clothing I use. Maybe I should be wearing an educational message on my back...?"
- sally mckay 1-25-2004 7:33 pm
I'd be happy if there would be more cyclist AND motorist education along with bike lanes. And well designed bike lanes where you can ride outside of the door zone :) Bike lanes are good in general, but the main thing I don't like about roads with bike lanes is often cars will make surprise wide right turns right across them, rather than merge into the lane first before turning. Riding on a non-bike lane road with wider lanes, cars seem more likely to properly merge and not cutoff cyclists when making a turn. Its important that the bike lanes are designed so cyclists still remain a visible and predictable part of traffic, as intersections are the place where most collisions happen anyway.
- Tanya (guest) 1-26-2004 3:40 am
Riding in NYC was relaxing for three reasons: wide curb lanes, no right turn on red, generalized chaos everywhere so cyclists weren't taking the brunt of road rage. Of the three, I think the no right turn on red was my favourite. No confusion at intersections, and easy for bikes to move up to the front.
I firmly believe that education for cyclists is a red herring. For "educate" insert "teach them to stay in their place" and you are getting closer to the underlying motive.
- sally mckay 1-26-2004 4:45 am
I was thinking something along the lines of free optional workshops like Can-bike where cyclists can get more comfortable cycling with traffic if they want to. Also there are a number of scary people on bikes out there that need to learn basic concepts like riding on the right side of the road, being visible at night, and not blowing through lights and stop signs without even looking. Cops should focus on educating these types rather than being nuisances about otherwise good cyclists that say don't put their foot down when stopping. Motorists need it reiterated to them to give cyclists ROOM when passing, bike lanes are not parking spots, how to turn with bike lanes etc.
- Tanya (guest) 1-27-2004 12:15 am
I guess my suggestion would be that "these types" (a category that I belong to myself, since I frequently disregard basic traffic laws while riding my bike) already know the rules of the road, and are making their riding style decisions based on something other than ignorance. If I'm right, no amount of education is going to change the situation.
- sally mckay 1-27-2004 12:33 am
I dunno, there still seem to be a few groups of people breaking basic traffic laws - those that do so when they realize the traffic law doesn't make sense for their type of vehicle. Such as going straight at a T through a red (after stopping and looking for peds crossing of course) And those that evaluate the safety of a particular situation and break rules safely. Then there are those that think they are immortal and are accidents waiting to happen. I've had more close calls with other cyclists than cars recently, and although a bike-bike crash would have less impact I'd still prefer not to :) I still believe though that even in the first two cases, its hard to get respect from other vehicles on the road as a legitimate user of the road if you aren't following the same rules they are. As for education though, I suspect you are right and the ignorance percentage is relatively low, although not non-existent.
- Tanya (guest) 1-27-2004 2:17 am