You recently received a letter from Paul Rogers concerning municipal support for bicycle transportation as a contribution to cleaner air and healthier lifestyles. Paul wrote:
For much too long now Logan city officials have been touting the opinions of one individual, Bob Bayn, while putting off any designated commuting bike paths. While Mr. Bayn is entitled to his opinion on painted bicycle paths and their potential safety issues...I regard my position to be much more than simple "opinion", but backed up by facts, research, experience and principles. However, if the facts of my position have been used to support a "do nothing" stance, then I heartily object and urge officials that there is much else that can and should be done in support of alternative modes of transportation in our community.
Paul continued:
... there is a large body of recent material published by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) that is promoting safe bicycle transportation for a range of bicycling abilities. Regular bike commuters may consider themselves expert riders, and some even embrace mingling with traffic without the alleged restriction of bike lanes, but AASHTO's surveys show that only 5% of all bicyclists are in this expert class (Group A).Actually, the "95% unskilled B/C rider" notion came from a Wilkinson, et al. document prepared for FWHA in January 1994. It's probably true that 95% of all bike owners are unskilled, but it is certainly not true that they would remain unskilled for long if they would get on their bikes. The skills of Group A are really not that noteworthy, but bike facility advocates (especially consultants like Wilkinson who make their living selling this stuff) would have us think otherwise. Building permanent bicycle facilities based on a 95% unskilled model implies that the bicyclist population will stay 95% unskilled. That's like believing that 95% of motorists will remain at 16 year old competency.
Wilkinson's model is also based on some demonstrably false notions about how motorists operate their vehicles with and without an intervening bike lane stripe. He claims that motorists slow down more and move left more when overtaking a cyclist in an adjacent bike lane than when sharing a wide curb lane. Just the opposite has been repeatedly demonstrated by studies, observations and anecdotes: motorists tend to overtake cyclists faster and closer when the cyclist is on the other side of a stripe than on the same width of roadway without a separating stripe. The stripe may set a limit on the area of concern to the motorist.
Clearly the motorist's perception of "sharing a lane" may result in more caution, not less. In a shared lane, motorists will tend to crowd the only point of reference - the left side stripe, giving the cyclist as much room as possible. Fourteenth North used to provide a good demonstration of this effect between Main Street and 800 East, when it had a shoulder stripe on alternating two- block segments. Motorists would overtake cyclists closer when the line was present. Of course there have never been any instances of overtaking motorists colliding with cyclists there, in either situation.
The whole notion of bike lanes addresses a single hazard to cyclists - the overtaking vehicle behind. While that hazard is real, the risk is small, just a few percent of all car-bike collisions. Most of those overtaking collisions are due to a couple of factors: drug-impaired driving or cycling at night without lights. A stripe has no effect on either of those factors. If the stripe offered nothing but a decrease in a tiny risk it wouldn't be so bad, but the stripe creates problems as well.
Traffic flow design is subject to two principles: channelization by speed between intersections and channelization by destination approaching intersections. Bike lane stripes provide channelization by vehicle type, approximating the speed criterion since bikes are generally (but not always) slower than cars. But bike lane stripes provide the novice cyclist with no guidance for channelization by destination when approaching intersections. Traffic engineers and police know that most collisions occur at the crossing conflicts of intersections. Bike lane stripes offer no protection against these common hazards and no guidance for successfully maneuvering through intersections.
As a result, the novice cyclist, lured into the streets by the notion that the bike lane stripe makes him safe, will encounter unexpected hazards that are exacerbated by his inappropriate channelization. The bike rider will attempt to make left turns at the last moment from the perceived safety of the bike lane; he will attempt to go straight through an intersection on the right side of a right turning motorist; he will ride too close to parked cars and risk being "doored" or risk surprising motorist pulling out from a driveway.
The novice's conclusion will be that, even with the safety of a bike lane stripe, riding a bike is pretty hazardous; bicycling on the "open" roadway must be foolhardy.
If you want to learn how to ride a bike safely across town, don't ask the people whose role in life is to get more cars across town (FHWA, AASHTO, UDOT), or the people whose role in life is to carve a career from token funding and the "fear from the rear" (bike facility consultants). Look for guidance from the principles and skills of the people who are already riding a bike safely across town. Remember what the Utah Code says: cyclists have all the rights and duties of the operator of a vehicle. Remember what the Boy Scout Cycling merit badge book says on page 53: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as operators of vehicles." The law tells you what rules to follow and the safety program tells you that following those rules is the safest strategy.
We already have a complete network of commuter bike routes to get from any home to any place of work - the existing network of streets and roads. Cyclists can safely share this network with other commuters who travel by car, truck or LTD.
There are probably some opportunities for "shortcuts" that bicyclists could use in places where there is not enough right-of-way width for a dual track motor vehicle. We should exploit those opportunities carefully because they must safely rejoin the road network at the endpoints of the shortcut. Remember, intersections are where the greatest hazards are.
Having bashed the "highway engineering establishment" with these assessments, I will acknowledge some voices of reason within their bureaucratic wilderness. Here is one: Paul Schimek of the USDOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and MIT. See especially his 1996 report "the Dilemmas of Bicycle Planning".
Lets encourage all potential cyclists that FHWA Class-A status is an easily achievable status for them to aspire to, if they will just remember the rules of the road that they learned in drivers ed. For youngsters, learning these rules from bicycling parents will make their eventual drivers ed experience a breeze (except for the parallel parking skill).
Class-A doesn't mean "Lance Armstrong", it doesn't even mean fast. It means recognizing that motorists are their friends, neighbors, acquaintances and fellow citizens (who may have made some culturally endorsed but uncritically accepted mode choice), not some predatory, homicidal enemy.
Here is what bike lane stripes are really good for. See if these are really what you seek:
So, what should the Logan Council, P&Z commission and Street Department do instead, if they don't need to make bike lanes?
My anti-bikelane argument is not an excuse to fail to promote and facilitate bicycling in our community; rather a plea to spend our resources in other ways that will be of real value to those who would travel by bicycle. We need some facilities (smooth, clean roadway) and some education about the existing rights and responsibilities of all users of the public right-of-way.
We already have an abundance of wide streets with room for motorists to overtake cyclists safely. On our few narrow streets, added width of pavement would decrease the delays that cyclists might cause to motorists. But stripes don't make more width; and narrow doesn't reduce cyclists' rights or motorists' duty of care.
Our streets should be kept free of pavement defects and hazards. Those defects are often only a nuisance or discomfort to motorists but can cause a crash to cyclists. Potholes, patches, cracks, seams, grates, and utility covers are all tire-deflecting crash hazards to cyclists. A smooth roadway is a necessity for cyclists and a pleasure for motorists. Railroad crossings need proper treatment to reduce the hazard to cyclists. The diagonal crossings on 600 West are a particular problem.
Gravel and debris on the road is a problem for cyclists. The sweeping action of passing motorists clears much of it from wide shared lanes but not from bike lanes, where the debris accumulates until the street sweeper comes along.
There has been some discussion during a Car-Free Friday meeting of enforcing a requirement to clean up collision debris more thoroughly. While the liable motorists have a legal duty, it may be effective to have responding officers or tow-truck operators do a more thorough job of debris cleanup and include the added cost of the cleanup in the traffic citation and/or towing bill.
Our demand-actuated stop lights should detect bicyclists in the proper lane position to go straight across the road or turn left. Frequent cyclists quickly learn which stop lights will give them a chance and which they must simply run to get where they are going. Cyclists waiting in a curb-hugging position cannot trigger a light change and they block right-turning traffic as well.
Bicyclists need to know how to apply the rules they learned in drivers ed. Motorists need to be reminded that roads are not "for cars" but for the movement of people and goods by a variety of means. A car is not the price of admission to use the public right of way.
Bicycling visibly, predictably and legally is far better than bicycling behind the imagined protection of a bike lane stripe. All the money we don't spend on paint, we can spend on street sweeping, education and encouragement. And we'll need all the encouragement we can muster to get people to consider riding their bikes up the hill to campus.
My thanks to the mayor, the city council, and others for considering Paul Rogers' appeal for municipal support for bicycle transportation as a contribution to cleaner air and healthier lifestyles. Our community badly needs supportive consideration of the available options.
Bob Bayn
Cache Valley Veloists Touring Club Safety Officer
League of American Bicyclists "Bike-Ed" instructor #685-C
North Logan, Utah
Useful Resources:
http://www.bicycledriving.com/
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/
http://www.jfparker.demon.co.uk/lane_links.html
http://tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/BikeLanes/BikeLaneRebuttal.htm
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/blvswol.htm
http://perc.ca/PEN/1998-05-06/s-code.html
http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/