Due to the overuse of personal attacks, swearing, and veiled threats in recent comment threads from Vehicular Cyclists, we at BFOC will no longer post their comments.
In other words, if you are adamantly opposed to bike infrastructure, this ain’t the site for you.
Bike Friendly Oak Cliff 
IF I lived in Oak Cliff, rather than Tarrant County, I’d want my cycling infrastructure dollars spent on better ways to get cross the RR tracks, Freeways, and Trinity River. Matter of fact, that’s a shortcoming around here as well…
I enjoy reading the rants of those with differing opinions. Don’t censor your Web site—their nutty comments only strengthen your core arguments. What is America without dissent?
I hope your not talking about me.
The only infrastructure I’m against is infrastructure that doesn’t address the biggest causes of car/cyclist accidents.
Namely the car from the side. The vast majority of car/cyclist accidents involve turning vehicles.
The problem with bike lanes is that they do not address turning vehicles, but rather ALLOW them to turn across our lane when we have the ROW to go straight.
Why do you ignore this fact?
Why are you willing to allow inexperienced riders to unknowingly place themselves in harms way of turning motorists?
There are numerous studies that have all shown a higher incidence of car/cyclist collisions at intersections with bike lanes.
I will agree that bike lanes do lower the rate of rear end collisions, but those types of collisions are statisticly, the least likely to happen.
8 of 10 car/cyclist collisions are from the side.
Lets design a system that address the area that has the highest incidence of collision first.
Because that’s where the most good will come from.
Blindly demanding paint stripes without regard to whether they truly make us safer is akin to only telling cyclists to wear a helmet while neglecting to advise how to safely ride to begin with.
i.e. a safe rider is in much less danger of crashing to begin with, same as a cyclist that rides in accordance with 551.103 is the safer rider because he understands how to be a safe rider in traffic.
I doubt this will be posted, but I wanted to make sure that even if no one else sees this, at least the BFOC leaders might read the truth of the matter.
Our point, simply, is that bike lane turn incidents are statistically infinitesimal. Any increase you’re noting from studies have all said your risk is increased at decimal point levels, and the increase in ridership and the awareness that follows, far outweighs any risk.
Remember, Portland has 8% ridership (compared to our 0.2%)….they have 170+ miles of striped lanes, which as you state, only brings out inexperienced riders. These inexperienced riders are crossing hundreds of intersections, and their accident ratios are lowering exponentially. Last year alone, Portland had 0 fatalities. Dallas has 0 onstreet bike lanes, and we can’t even claim the same statistic.
Lastly, the “rear end collisions are rare in comparison” statistic is conjecture. 2 of the 6 bicycle fatalities occurring in Dallas last year were from rear-enders. The advent of text-driving alone has skyrocketed, as multiple recent news articles have shown:
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/driver-indicted-allegedly-texting-and-driving-under-influence-death-teen-bicycle-accident
http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2007/12/29/3436761.html
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35440/113/
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/woods-oates-danny-2061863-family-hearing
http://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/cell-phone-texting-and-driving-kills-16year-old-girl.cfm
Bicycle Lanes increase ridership. Ridership increases awareness. Awareness increases safety. THAT is the only thing that is truly well documented. If these things were catastrophic failures, the hundreds of US cities who have recently added them, would be quickly ripping them out. That’s not happening.
They’re adding more.
What about a broad cultural change that would require teenagers to ride bikes for a couple of years BEFORE they get their drivers license? I think that would 1. make people more accustomed being around people on bikes, 2. decrease teen obesity (and perhaps adult obesity), 3. enhance biking infrastructure 4. force backward thinking government officials to rethink tired arguments about transportation. Just an idea that I’ve thought about for a while. Sure it’s idealistic, but it seems as though this conversation is at a stalemate between BFOC and Dallas. Frankly, I can see both points of view.