Though we usually avoid the anti-bike lane blog, Cycle*Dallas, setup by Dallas bike coordinator PM Summer, we do find it odd that his last posting was of an accident in Portland, showing a woman hit by a right-hook incident in 2007, with the observation that the bike lane was at fault. His inference being, had the cyclist just “taken the lane”, she would be alive today.
Ironically, in September of 2008, a cyclist riding East bound on Arapaho, in Richardson, was struck and killed from behind by a truck. The driver claimed the sun was in his eyes (an all to common occurrence when driving in relatively flat Dallas, with little landscape to block the sun at sunrise and sunset), and did not see the rider. The cyclist had done exactly what PM preached and “taken the lane”. Sadly, he would be alive today had a bike lane existed.
We’ve noted regularly here at BFOC that PM is militantly opposed to Bike Lane infrastructure, and uses his blog as a platform to antagonize those who wish to seek an environment similar to Portland, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam. Our greater point is that Summer uses any incident he finds in cities with bike lanes, as examples to why lanes are complete failures, while avoiding the realities of the accident rates in his own community. The truth is that the accident rates in cities like Portland are less than Dallas. And in Copenhagen, accidents have dropped off to decimal point levels. An amazing feat given the amount of interaction between car and bicycle, and the shear number of cyclists.
Bike lanes increase ridership. With increased ridership, comes increased awareness. With increased awareness come decreased accident rates. It’s as simple as that…the data doesn’t lie.
Bike Friendly Oak Cliff 
I’m a bicyclist (4+ times a week) and a City of Dallas tax payer. I’m guessing that PM Sumner has held the position for 10 years or more. In that time, I’ve never heard him say anything nice about bikes, bikers, or bike transportation. I honestly believe that bikers and tax payers would be significantly better off if the bike coordinator position were simply eliminated.
Wow. That’s frightening to think that our city still allows this to happen.
Word. I’m so appalled by PM Summer. I’ve written a couple letters requesting his termination – wish there was some way to get him out of there and have someone more productive take his place.
I often don’t like his attitude and I don’t always agree with his opinions but I am glad that we have a Transportation Alternative Coordinator like PM Summer.
I am glad that there has been someone at City Hall designing and implementing the 500 mile Dallas Bike Plan, replacing sewer grates with bike-friendly designs, building the Multi-Use Trails, and pushing for mandatory bike racks.
Do you honestly believe that if it were not for PM Summer, Dallas would be covered in bike lanes? Do you really think that someone else in that position would have convinced the city to spend millions of dollars to build bike lanes like Portland has? Think about it. Which seems more likely, that Dallas doesn’t have bike lanes because the city has an anti-bike lane Coordinator or that Dallas has an anti-bike lane Coordinator because the city doesn’t want bike lanes?
I think that first and foremost PM Summer is a realist. He doesn’t spend his time pushing for things that will probably never happen. Instead, he is quietly accomplishing the small, practical, affordable solutions that make Dallas even just a little bit better for cyclists.
Maybe attitudes are changing in the city and bike lanes could become a reality but ultimately it is not a small-time bureaucrat, like a Bicycle Coordinator, who has the influence to make that happen – it is the voters. And if that does happen, I hope that someone like PM Summer is there to make sure that we get the best bike lanes possible.
I don’t understand why you’d hope PM would be there if we do get bike lanes.
Over the past 8 years, we had someone opposed to science head up the EPA. Their opposition did absolutely nothing towards improving environmental conditions…in fact, quite the opposite.
We already have the will, now that A. Hunt, L. Koop, E. Garcia, and D. Neumann, have all come out in favor of bike lanes. Having a bike coordinator who is also in favor, will only move things along more rapidly. PM is only going to throw up every roadblock he can come up with to delay the inevitable.
I think that bad bike lanes would be worse for Dallas than no bike lanes at all. We need someone at city hall that understands the difference. Whether that person is PM or someone else is not my decision to make.
Despite your second-hand quote, PM is not 100% opposed to bike lanes in all situations. I don’t know if he would be willing to take on the role of designing a comprehensive bike lane network for Dallas should the resources be made available. I just don’t think it should be left up to city council members, park friends groups, and others who have no experience with traffic engineering.
The bike lanes are being designed by a third party consulting firm with an engineering background, and experience actually implementing successful lanes. PM could not say the same.
You are welcome to validate PM’s quote by contacting Beth at B&B Bicycle at the following number: 972-293-3100
There’s others too, that I’d be happy to forward you that have heard him say the same. PM hasn’t been shy about stating his objection to bike lanes in Dallas.
Regarding the accident rates in Copenhagen, it might be a mistake to assume a fully causal relationship between bike lanes and accident rates. Type of facility is obviously a factor, but cycling and accident rates are primarily functions of complex *human behavior*. As you note–the number of cyclists and overall awareness and attitudes are likely more important factors. The ubiquity of cycling in Denmark, the extremely different nature of the built environment and transportation infrastructure (mixed use urban environment, higher rates of pedestrianism, generally smaller roads, lower speed limits, awareness and acceptance of cycling as a mode of transport) likely combine to make cycling a safer activity there than in Richardson. I suspect that Copenhagen could eliminate bike lanes completely and see little change in accident rates.
According to Wikipedia, a recent study suggests this:
“The Netherlands and Denmark, which have the highest rates of cycle usage combined with the best records for safety, used to give their segregated cycle path networks primary importance in achieving these goals. However, the largest study undertaken into the safety of Danish cycle facilities has found that safety has decreased as a result.[25] More recently, Shared Space redesigns of urban streets in those and other countries have achieved significant improvements in safety (as well as congestion and quality of life) by replacing segregated facilities with integrated space.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_path
Don’t get me wrong, I would LOVE to see some bike lanes/ paths in some parts of Dallas, but don’t understand the “bike lane as magic bullet” solution that some folks seem to be advocating.
The challenges of getting more people on bikes and doing it safely are issues of human behavior and attitude. For almost 100 years now bike lanes have been used by automobile advocates to marginalize cyclists for the convenience of motorists. My fear for Dallas in particular would be that bike lanes without a larger change in attitudes would fail and indeed serve to marginalize the interests of cyclists overall. No doubt that bike lanes are a powerful symbol and do send a message to potential cyclists all road users. But is it the right message, and is it enough?
THE FUNDAMENTAL TASK AT HAND IS NOT ONE OF ENGINEERING– IT IS TO CHANGE PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES. (The former without the latter is doomed to failure).
I don’t have the answers myself. I am happy though to see some debate on the subject and hope that one day we can have, in at least some parts of Dallas, a situation where cyclist and pedestrian ubiquity and acceptance will make cycling a generally accepted way of getting around town and the type of facility irrelevant.
A couple of things to note from the study you cited…the last line specifically:
“The radical effects on traffic volumes resulting from the construction of cycle tracks will undoubtedly result in gains in health from increased physical activity. These gains are much, much greater than the losses in health resulting from a slight decline in road safety.”
and the top of the conclusion:
“The construction of cycle tracks in Copenhagen has resulted in an increase in cycle traffic of 18-20% and a decline in car traffic of 9-10%. The cycle tracks constructed have resulted in increases in accidents and injuries of 9-10% on the reconstructed roads.”
It goes on to note in the study that accidents include those by: bicyclists, pedestrians, and moped…not just bicycles.
So wouldn’t this be a natural increase based on an increased traffic flow? For sake of example, if you took a 2 lane road in the states, and added a third lane, you’d receive an increase in volume. An increase in volume would assumedly lead to an increase in accident rates, no?
I’ll try and post a video from a recent documentary which interviews Jan Gehl, the planner for Copenhagen, and the current bike coordinator. In it, Gehl specifically cites that what you see now in massive ridership, was extremely low only 30 years ago. He goes on to state that bicycle lanes, and accomodations for those bikes were the precise reason modal share increased.
The bike coordinator, is quoted stating fatalities went from 30 a year, to 2 or 3. Given the tens of thousands of riders, that’s remarkable.
I’ll upload this shortly, and add it as a seperate post.
Can we please start with common ground rather than being combative? As I understand it P.M. Summer and Jason agree bike lanes would improve safety on bridges; let’s begin by putting some there. If we could safely cycle across I-30, I-35, and Woodall Rodgers, some bicycle commuting over the Trinity River would be safer than none, and a greatly improved cycling connection between Oak Cliff and downtown Dallas would make both a more attractive place to live, work, and ride. It would be a relatively inexpensive way to justify the cost of paying for more studies and lanes.
I wonder if you could reuse the old rail bridge that parallels the DART line near Corinth St.
I think PM Summer probably represents the Bush years nicely. Anti-science, anti-the people he’s supposed to be an advocate for. Nasty little attitude about the “neo-hipsters” in OC. I think the anti-science, anti-rational thought days that are symbolic of the Bush era are dimming as far as the national politic goes. Let’s hope people will become more rational at a local level and PM’s influence will dim accordingly.
Question – who appointed him and does he have a term or? When will his 15 minutes be over?
-Chris
Hi Jason, I think I have already seen the video (on Streetsblog?).
Don’t misunderstand me–I am NOT opposed to bike lanes. I just don’t see them as a panacea and as the best solution in EVERY situation and every environment. For example taking or adding a bike lane on Preston Road is a very different proposition that a bike lane in the central district of Copenhagen and one might reasonably expect different outcomes both from a trip share and a safety standpoint. That’s not to say that Preston Road shouldn’t have bike lanes, it is simply to suggest that the relatively simplistic argument that “Copenhagen has bike lanes, Copenhagen is safe, therefore Bike lanes = safety” is necessarily true. Presumably the nature of the facilities (shared or segregated) should be matched to the environment.
I also wanted to highlight the fears that some have that a bike lane initiative might actually result in a reduction of rights to cyclists and have a negative net impact on cycling. (e.g. Requiring cyclists to ride in the bike lanes even when those lanes are not safe. A limited network of bike lanes reinforcing the erroneous notion that bikes only belong in bike lanes and on roadways with bike-specific facilities).
The issue of facilities aside, the larger point I was trying to make was that I think that it is important to not get hung up on the facilities argument and to see this as a larger issue of changing minds and attitudes. If it was Gel in the video I am thinking of, this was the key takeaway. It was a fundamental shift and a broader acceptance of cycling in Copenhagen that was the key transformational element. I see the facilities whether shared roadway, roadway+designated bike lane, or separate bike path as tertiary, each with its own place and appropriate context.
I agree with Catherine, but don’t understand why people aren’t saying, “how can we get more people on bikes” (a unifying idea) instead of “how can we get bike lanes” (a divisive issue, and one that will presumably see more resources and attention if we achieve the former?).
Anyway, I think the ride you organized was great and just the sort of thing that we need to see happening. Having lived in NYC pre-bike lane, I can say that critical mass (despite the social protest/alt culture aspects of it) was instrumental in raising the general awareness of cycling as an option in the city. Sure it was a rallying point and a catalyst for the development of a bike culture, but more importantly it made cycling apparent to others in the community, allowing them to also consider it as an option.
oops, typo– i meant to say:
“Copenhagen has bike lanes, Copenhagen is safe, therefore Bike lanes = safety” is NOT necessarily true.
Jason, Wco is right on the money.
In your response, you pointed out that….”It goes on to note in the study that accidents include those by: bicyclists, pedestrians, and moped…not just bicycles.”
While that is true, what they are actually saying is that the mere presence of the bike lane increases the danger posed to ALL road users while at the same time promoting a false image of enhanced safety to those same road users. {a very dangerous combination}
Many studies in Europe over the years have repeatedly shown the same thing, and these are the people who supposedly provided the model for places like Portland, that is supposedly a model for us.
Instead, why not listen to the lessons learned from the ones Portland looked to when they built theirs?
Köln, Germany, 1980 – “Based on study of 4,000 accidents in Köln 1976 – 1978. Cycle paths as traditionally built do not guarantee a reduction in casualties. The risk cyclists face depends on how often their unimpeded ride is interrupted.”
Lund, Sweden, 1984 – “7,500 cyclists studied.
At junctions cycle tracks 3.4 times more dangerous than using road,”
Germany, 1987 – “Cyclists 4 times more likely to have accident on roads with cycle paths. Likelihood of serious or fatal injury similarly increased.”
Denmark, 1988 – “Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81, totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Car drivers, moped riders and pedestrians also suffered more accidents, with overall rise in casualties of 27%.”
Finland 1989 – “For children cycling, risk of colliding with motor vehicle 2.7 times higher at intersections with a cycle track (which the child used) than at road-only intersections. Risk highest when cycle crossings 8 to 15m from intersections and when traffic signals were present.”
Belgium 1991 – “Cycle tracks no longer favoured in urban areas due to problems and danger.”
Germany 1991 – 36% of accidents in German study towns take place when the cyclist is using a facility. More serious accidents a result of cross-manoeuvres; cycle facility may contribute to accidents by making cyclist over-confident. Facilities cause many problems; bad cycle facilities are worse than none.”
Netherlands 1992 – “cycle tracks 32% more dangerous at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities.”
Austria 1992 – “Trying to keep cyclists apart from motor traffic in urban areas has proved too much for road users to cope with and led to unnecessary accidents. Urban cycle paths are unsuitable and should not be used.
Providing cycle paths rarely solves safety problems and often introduces new ones. Austrian and Swedish research shows cyclists at 3 times greater risk on cycleways than on road.”
Germany 1993 – “Proportion of junction accidents significantly higher with cycle tracks.”
Netherlands 1994 – “Cycle tracks cause major safety problems at signalised junctions.”
Finland 1995 – “Study of 234 bicycle crashes in four Finnish cities. 63% of collisions between a cyclist and a motor vehicle took place at cycle track crossings. Such facilities are not well understood by motorists and may induce careless behaviour on the part of the cyclist. Children and elderly cyclists most at risk.”
U.K. 1995 – “Cycle facilities not improving use or safety. What we are doing now is either insufficient or just plainly wrong. {aside: my vote would be for “plainly wrong” 😉 }
OECD 1998 – “Limitations of cycle tracks and lanes recognised. Most severe and fatal crashes take place at road junctions and cycle track crossings. Accidents more severe when cyclist is hit by a turning vehicle. Cyclists find it difficult to scan adequately using a cycle crossing.
High crash risk when motorist turning right and cyclist comes from right. Compared with the normal situation at a junction, that road users have found a strategy to handle, the abnormal situation in the presence of a cycle track leads to a dangerous outcome.”
Sweden 1998 – “Conventional cycle tracks increase cyclists’ risk at junctions. Speed of cyclists must be kept low for success. If cyclists go faster (i.e. they ride at typical road speeds), crashes increase.”
Toronto 1998 – “Cycle paths significantly more hazardous than roads and footways much more so. Injury likelihood 10:20:70 roads:paths:footways.”
U.K. 1999 – “Analysis of the UK’s largest purpose-built cycle path network and the consequences for cycle use and safety over two decades. Network has suppressed rather than encouraged cycling and has proved to be consistently less safe than the town’s unrestricted main roads.
Injury accidents per million km cycled: main roads 31, local roads 149, cycle paths 166. All crashes: main roads 47, local roads 149, cycle paths 319.”
Finland 1999 – “In Helsinki, using a road-side cycle path is nearly 2.5 times likely to result in injury than cycling on the carriageway with traffic. At junctions the relative risk rises to more than 3 times. In Helsinki and Lund (Sweden), cycling leads to more pedestrian injuries per kilometre reported to the police than motor traffic.”
Why should we build a system that only slightly decreases the type of accident the bike lane advocates fear most, while greatly increasing the danger at intersections?
The way I see it, Portland has so much invested in a euro-style bike lane system that they are now trapped at a point of having to experiment their way out of the well known, chronic problems bike lanes create at intersections.
I would be all for bike lanes in Dallas if they were only installed on the major streets like Preston, Beltline, NWHwy etc etc. and were NOT carried thru the intersections, but rather used sharrows at intersections to permit cars to be able to make right turns.
A system like that would enhance our Right to travel, reduce the risk posed by a car approaching from the rear, and virtually eliminate right hooks, as it’s virtually impossible for a car that is behind you that is turning right to be able to hit you.
However, if all we are going to get from this is a stripe of paint along the gutter on secondary streets that already have WOL’s, I’d say the money will be pretty much wasted in an attempt to cater to misplaced fears of a typically non-riding public.