a local bike lane advocate wrote on March 15th,
>Bob-
>Thanks for  [... something else...], but no thanks on
>the anti-bike lane business. It is actually VERY disturbing. We are really
>trying to create a positive thing for the city and campus but a few people are
>REALLY holding things up in that respect. Yes, I can understand your qualms
>with bike lanes, but for the city as a whole they are so much better than any
>other options. Signs indicating a bike path really do nothing. Not everyone is
>like you Bob, and I think you forget that sometimes. People who don't get out
>and bike that much are very apprehensive about biking on the roads and if
>there were bike lanes out there, it would just send out a clear message that
>"you are welcome here." Right now that message is anything but clear. People
>are discouraged from riding there bikes in this town, and bike lanes show cars
>that they need to be more aware- they are much easier to see than signs and
>help bikers be more responsible too. The city won't clean the roads for bike
>lanes like they should, but they have to keep the roads cleaner now with the
>federal mandates there, so there really should be no reason to not have them
>in Logan. I'm with you though, bike lanes aren't necessary for me. I ride my
>bike every bit as much as you ride yours and I know that bike lanes don't make
>any difference to people like ourselves. It is the people that don't
>customarily get out on their bikes or who don't know where or how to ride that
>we are trying to reach with these things. Bike lanes also send out a message
>to the public as a whole. Even if the city doesn't really care that much about
>biking, at least they put aside $50,000 to paint some lanes and get a better
>public image with biking. I am seriously very frustrated with your tactics on
>getting the city to not put bike lanes out there. SO MANY of us were so
>excited to hear they had the money and were ready to go with the lanes, but
>YOU decided to single-handedly put a stop to it. The City, whether they'll
>admit it or not, was ready to go ahead with the lanes, but they hear a guy
>like you that bikes every day and has so much "knowledge" and "experience"
>that hates bike lanes so unflinchingly, that their negative feelings toward
>lanes start to come out. I really wonder what your motives are. To me, they
>seem personal. I'm really not in this for myself Bob, and it bothers me when
>other people are because they typically ruin it for the rest. I'd like to
>think your intentions are good, but it is hard to see good intentions in being
>so forthright and antagonistic toward bike lanes. Maybe I just need to be
>enlightened, but I've seen bike lanes do great things to several communities
>and bring a really positive image to those communities to those who visit. I
>wish you'd reconsider or convince every other biker on campus and in this
>community and other community advocates that your way is right and we're
>naive.  It is hard for us to see it. If I didn't know and respect you like I
>do, I'd be a lot more nasty with this email than I am. I represent so many
>people on these views Bob and I've really been frustrated to tears this
>weekend by your smugness in putting a stop to bike lanes. I don't want to turn
>on you Bob, but I'm going to do everything I can to get them to reconsider
>bike lanes in Logan. It's easy to be pessimistic and people are just looking
>for an excuse to not put bike lanes in- let's work together and bring positive
>change to Logan. Yeah stop lights are an issue, but we can work those issues
>out later.

My good friend,

First let me say that I am in agreement with your goals, a
reduction in reliance on the automobile, with all the burdens and
hidden costs born by the owners and the public.  People need to
recognize the value of the alternatives available to them, and we
need to do what we can to redesign our communities to facilitate
those alternatives.  But much of our infrastructure is in place
and would require "wrecking-ball therapy" to correct.  And the
perceived convenience and utility of motor vehicles cannot be
denied, nor can the status value that they impart in our society. 
No simple solution is going to change all of that.  Any simple
solution that is a first step to changing that must be a solution
of clear benefit with very little objectionable harm.

Second, let me express my continued dismay, but no longer
surprise, that so many otherwise thoughtful, intelligent people
expect such miracles from a facility of such ambiguous value as a 
striped bike lane.

Increasingly, it is apparent to me that the most vociferous calls
for bike lanes come not from the alleged benefactors - the folks
who don't ride a bike but want to, but instead come from folks
like you who know that you do not need bikelanes but think that
those stripes will advance your real goals of decreasing
motoring.

No doubt advocates such as yourself can find and solicit the
support of some folks who want bike lane stripes to meet their
own needs for a sense of security.  They are the real victims
here.  Their bike safety training consists of the fear-instilling
advice given by their moms years ago to "Watch out for cars!" 
Add to that the demonization of motorists by anti-car advocates
and you have someone who mistakenly thinks that motorists are
their predatory enemies instead of simply as fellow travelers who
have made a different mode choice for a variety of reasons that
you and I agree are flawed.

Here are some assertions that have been made and subsequently
shown to be false:

1) Bike lanes increase the safety of cycling.  FHWA made this
claim in all of their bike facility documents in the early
1990's but have since quietly left the safety claim out of more
recent publications without explicitly refuting it.  More recent
statistical tabulations have in some instances shown a lower
accident rate on bike laned streets than on regular streets, but
those studies do not refute the simple explanation that the bike
lanes were placed on streets with lower traffic and fewer
conflicts.

2) Motorists give cyclists more room when in a striped bike lane. 
This came from a 1994 FHWA publication and was readily accepted
as true by "progressive" communities that started painting
stripes even though there was no documentation presented in
support of the claim.  Several subsequent studies have shown the
opposite effect, and the reasoning for that demonstrated effect
makes sense.

3) Bike lanes result in narrower "traffic lanes" which have a
traffic calming effect.  This is a long held bit of bike facility
dogma that has only recently been discounted by studies in
Oregon, Wisconsin, and Texas.  The recent studies conclude that
the only roadway narrowing strategies that have real traffic
calming effects are those that clutter up the peripheral field of
view resulting in faster angular speed of roadside objects.  A
stripe on the road does not have this effect.  Interestingly, on
urban 4 lane roads, narrowing the inside lanes does have a
calming effect because of the proximity of the typically slower
traffic in the right lane.

4) Bike lanes increase cycling.  Documented increases have been
tiny relative to the total pollution and congestion producing
traffic in the community and are confounded by other efforts of
awareness and education launched at the same time.  Indeed many
reputed "bike friendly" communities have other attributes that
enable cycling that preceeded the striping. Here I think of three
college towns in our part of the country:  Ft. Collins, Missoula
and Eugene. In the first place all three are more liberal,
progressive, leftist communities with a strong contingent of
environmentalism.  Additionally, they all have their campuses on
about the same elevation as much of their nearby housing areas
(unlike the 250 ft climb from downtown to campus here).  Missoula
was home to Adventure Cycling and had big bike rack areas on 
campus long before they began painting bike lane stripes where
they happened to fit on city streets.  And there are numerous
examples of bike lane design mistakes there, in situations that 
remind me that there are no poorly designed wide curb lanes.

Bike lanes are "credited" with other attributes that are pleasing
to the anti-car activist but are also detrimental to cycling.  My
favorite one is that they give crossing pedestrians a staging 
area to claim their use of the roadway before getting into the
path of the evil automobile.  It is probably an admission that a
bike lane is most always empty that makes this "benefit" real
because stepping in front of a cyclist can be pretty unpleasant,
too.

So, $50K worth of bike lane stripes is a lousy public statement
of support of our community for cycling.  It is rather like the
"Clear Skies" bill, proclaiming to be just the opposite of what
it really is.  For $50K we would be better off giving good
training and myth-busting to the few people who really would
start riding a bike (at least temporarily) if we had bike lanes. 
Luring them onto the road before that training would be a
mistake.  The tiny increase of transportation cycling that could
be credited to bike lanes will not affect our congestion, air
quality or public safety.

Motorists do not want to collide with bicyclists for a variety of
reasons that range from altruistic to selfish.  Replacing the
"Watch out for cars!" myth with the assurance that riding
"visibly, predictably and legally" is the safest way on a bike
will save us $50K for other uses that are helpful to those who
chose to travel by bicycle.  And, in my own fantasy, it would be
great if anti-car activists could demonize the motor vehicle
without demonizing the motorist.  For all the problems created in
our community (and others) by the ubiquitous use of motor
vehicles, motorists are not my enemy when I am going someplace on
my bicycle.

In my 32 years of commuting and other transportation cycling in
Cache Valley, I estimate  that I have been overtaken at least a
quarter million times by motorists.  Even the 6 or 8 times that
I can recall an overtaking motorist being rude or aggressive or
clueless, there was no unavoidable hazard.  Now, if others have
a real "conflict rate" that is much different than mine, I
suggest that there are a few tricks and techniques that they
could put into practice that would bring their experience into
line with mine.

Some of those techniques I would never describe in a public forum
consisting mostly of motorists, but I will mention my favorite
one to you:  Most traffic-averse cyclists ride too close to the
edge of the road.  State law and the uniform vehicle code say
that cyclists must share the lane when there is enough room to
share (see: UCA 41-6-87).  When there isn't enough room, we
should help overtaking motorists to recognize that fact by 
clearly not sharing rather than hugging the edge and then taking
offense when they try to use the available space. 

Now, we have busy streets and quiet streets and a cyclist can
choose the quiet streets for as much of the route as possible if
that is preferred.  But, quiet streets tend to have lots of stop
signs, more pavement hazards, and, at night, poor lighting, in
exchange for less traffic.  Motorists don't want to hit me, but
potholes don't care if they make me crash.

Am I being selfish?  I don't think so.  I want people to be safe
and I want them to know the facts that help them to make good
choices.  It is clear that bike lanes do not make an unsafe
situation safe and a person who takes up cycling with that belief
is going to be surprised by the real hazards that exist with or
without bike lanes, primarily at intersections where most
conflicts and collisions occur.  The person who is traffic-averse
is not likely to recognize that the close passing motorists
wouldn't have passed so close if the stripe had not been there. 
They just think that "even with bikelanes" it's pretty scary out
there. In fact, just the opposite is the case, motorists will
pass with more room without the stripe and the hazards of
intersections can be managed by riding "visibly, predictably and 
legally" following the same rules they learned in drivers ed.

I do have lots of knowledge from study and training about bike
safety, including certification by the League of American
Bicyclists as a Bike Ed instructor, as well as experience from 
riding in Cache Valley for the past 32 years.  I'm glad that city
officials recognize and respect that knowledge and experience,
and rationally consider the facts, data, research and
professional references that I bring to their attention as a
result.  I do not bring them myth, wishful thinking and
uncritical support for flimsy approaches to accomplish worthy
goals, because those approaches seem unlikely to have the desired
result and they may have undesireable side effects.

Thanks for thinking about this, friend.  (I thought about my reply
to you.  This is not the message that you would have gotten
from me right after first reading yours.)

--
Bob