To the Editor,                                                                                                                       
October 20, 1999 

Last Sunday (HJ Oct. 17), Russell Goodwin again shared his world
view about bike routes.  We aren't in agreement on what bike
routes are for.   And it is no wonder, planning and design
guidelines tell what a bike route is (a signed route on a
roadway) but they don't suggest why we might want bike routes.  

I suggested that bike route designation helps to insure that road
improvement projects will be designed with bicycling in mind. 
Russell suggests that a bike route should deal with today's
situation and be a refuge for the commonplace practice of
unpredictable bike riding ("ride all over the place, seldom
signal, ride against traffic ...")

The prospect of a greater amount of unpredictable bike riding on
some of our streets and roads is not one that I think we ought to
facilitate.  Rather, we should correct that riding style with a
little information and a little education.

Russell cites the common complaint at bike plan hearings of
conflicts between cyclists and motorists as evidence that these
people need the safety and security of wisely drawn lines on a
bike route map.  I suggest that many of the complaining bike
riders have scared themselves in traffic situations that they
have created by their novel, unpredictable, fearful and unsafe
riding practices.  

In exaggerated fear of some risks, they take actions that result
in other risky situations, close calls, near misses and
hostilities.  They then reason that bicycling is so dangerous, in
spite of their special efforts, that there is no way they would
consider riding down the road the way those semi-professional,
utopian experts do.

Here are some of those special efforts that I have seen backfire:

* Wrong side riding.  The exaggerated fear of the overtaking car
is replaced by the real hazard of intersection collisions with
motorists (or pedestrians or other cyclists) who do not expect
conflicts on the wrong side of the road.

* Sidewalk riding.  The same exaggerated fear of sharing the road
is replaced by the real hazard of collisions at driveways and
crosswalks where motorists are only watching out for
pedestrian-speed conflicts.

* Gutter hugging, and weaving around parked cars.  The weavers
rarely check for a merging conflict as they move left around a
parked car.  Combine this with wrong side riding for a real
surprise!

* Left turns from the right curb.  In an attempt to decrease the
exposure time to motorists, the cyclist crosses traffic abruptly
from an unexpected direction.

* Riding on the "empty" side of the road.  On narrower roads with
little traffic, the bike rider switches to the opposite side when
a car approaches from either direction.  This results in a real
scramble effect when several kids are riding together and each
one makes his own separate decision to cross over.  When a car
approaches each way, the kids end up riding on the pavement edge
on the wrong side.  After watching the scramble, motorists
reasonably wonder what will happen next.

So, shall we designate "bike routes" where we want to see these
sorts of problems increase?  Or shall we teach bike riders the
truth about the risks and the safest strategies for pedaling down
the road?  Russell thinks the teaching alternative is "utopian",
but I think it's the only reasonable way to make cycling a viable
choice for anyone's transportation needs.

Bob Bayn 
North Logan 
752-8386(h) 
797-2396(w)