Bike lanes - a conversation between a Skeptic and an Advocate.

Mar 9, 2004

What's the difference between a bike lane and a bike path? A bike lane is a part of the paved roadway, delimited by a stripe. A bike path is a separate, paved or unpaved way or route. The term bike path is often carelessly applied to "multi-user paths", walkways or even sidewalks. Good; those are clear definitions. Now let's focus on bike lanes.

What are bike lanes good for? They encourage bicycling. How do they encourage bicycling? They provide a safe space for bicycling in the street. What dangers do they protect cyclists from? Overtaking traffic.

But overtaking traffic is not a very big danger. Overtaking collisions are an uncommon type of car-bike collisions. Various studies assign a relative frequency of 3% to 6% to car-overtaking-bike type of collision. Many of those collisions are attributed to drug-impaired driving, which is not affected by a bike lane stripe, or to unlighted cycling at night.

Bike lanes may position cyclists out of the search area that is being scanned by a motorist turning or entering the roadway. Bike lanes may direct cyclists to ride too close to parked cars, resulting in hazards from opening car doors or cars entering the roadway from driveways. Bicyclists relying on bike lanes for safety may leave the perceived safety of the lane at the last possible moment to make an abrupt left turn. Bicyclists may ride the wrong-way in a bike lane rather than cross the traffic lanes to ride on the right. Bike lanes may entice novice bicyclists to ride without learning the safe, predictable ways to maneuver in traffic.

OK, maybe bike lanes aren't really safer, but they provide a more comfortable place to ride.

By keeping motorists out of the bicyclists' space, we are denied the sweeping benefit of their traffic. As a result, bike lanes accumulate grit and debris which increase the cyclist's risk of loss of control or of a punctured tire. To make this unswept space comfortable requires frequent passes by the street sweeper, an expensive service which motorists would otherwise perform for us at no charge.

In addition, several small studies and anecdotes indicate that overtaking cars pass cyclists closer when there is a stripe between the car and the cyclist than when they are sharing a wide lane. When motorists only have a line on their left, they tend to hug that line when passing a cyclist. When a bike lane stripe (or shoulder stripe) separates them, the motorist tends to drive in varying positions in the lane without regard for the cyclist.

OK, but maybe a few motorists won't notice when they are gaining on a cyclist. The cyclist needs the protection of a dedicated lane.

What motorists don't notice a 100-200 lb object moving visibly, predictably and legally on the roadway but will notice a stripe on the pavement? No, awareness of bicyclists comes from seeing bicyclists, not from seeing bike lane stripes.

When a neophyte is attracted by the safety promise of bike lanes, what might happen? The new cyclist will encounter the hazards described above (debris, parked cars, intersection conflicts, closer overtaking) and mistakenly conclude that bicycling is so hazardous in bike lanes that bicycling without them would be foolhardy. In fact, bicycling visibly, predictably and legally on unsegregated streets and roads is a safe and effective way to get around.

OK, but we need facilities like bike lanes to server a range of bicycling abilities.

What range of bicycling abilities? Are we talking about fast versus slow, or steady versus wobbly, or confident versus timid, or law abiding versus scofflaw? What part of what range of abilities is better served by a facility that isn't really safer and isn't really more comfortable and isn't really better?

OK, then, we need bike lanes as a visible statement of public support for bicycling, to remind motorists, even when cyclists are not present, that there are alternatives to private motor vehicle transportation that would be better for the environment, public health and their own health.

Those are all great goals and reasons, but will bike lanes really do that? And even if they do, is it the best way to reach those goals, given that bike lanes do not increase safety and do not help to add to the numbers of cyclists riding visibly, preditcably and legally? There must be some better visible statement of public support for alternatives to motor vehicle transportation.

Here is what bike lanes are really good for. See if these are really what you seek:

• •Bike lanes attempt to protect bicyclists from a rare hazard (overtaking error) while ignoring or contributing to common hazards (intersection conflicts).
• •Bike lanes are an engineering answer to an education problem; they channel traffic by vehicle type instead of by speed and destination.
• •Bike lanes provide work for bike facility consultants.
• •Bike lanes require stripe maintenance resources that could be used instead for street sweeping.
• •Bike lanes collect debris hazards and require additional street sweeping.
• •Bike lanes attract cyclists with a false promise of safety but increase traffic complexity instead.

So what's the answer?

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 travel by bicycle. We need some facilities (smooth, clean roadway) and some education about our existing rights and responsibilities.

We already have an abundance of wide streets with room for motorists to overtake cyclists. 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.

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 the wrong position block right-turning traffic.

Everyone over 16 has already been educated in the rules of the road, but most of them don't realize those rules apply to cyclists.. "Cyclists have all the rights and duties of the operator of a vehicle" says the law. All bicycle safety training programs (Boy Scout cycling merit badge, League of American Bicyclists safety program, Canadian "Can-Bike", etc) teach that following that rule of law is the safest way. "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as operators of vehicles." (Cycling Merit Badge Manual, p. 54)

In addition to learning how to balance and steer a bike, the new cyclist needs to learn these things:

• •Shoulder check without swerving - often hard to learn alone but easy to learn with help.
• •How to look and yield before turning, entering traffic or changing lanes.
• •How to clearly "take the lane" when the lane isn't big enough to share - hugging the edge of an narrow lane invites the unwanted squeeze-by.
• •How to communicate with nearby traffic, with signals, eye-contact and body language.
• •How to stop quickly, turn quickly and dodge an obstacle, all without losing control.

Motorists need to know these things:

• •Bicyclists have a legal right to use the roadway according to the same rules (most motorists already act like they know this).
• •Bicyclists may have to respond to hazards on the roadway that are inconsequential to motorists.
• •Bicyclists should be overtaken only when there is space to do so safely.

So, what can we do to make a statement for support of alternatives to private motor vehicle transportation, that will not have detrimental effects on those alternatives?