Sadly, a bicyclist was hit from behind by a truck on Cockrell Hill Road yesterday and killed here in North Oak Cliff. This is not even a mile from my house, which makes it all the more scary to think about. It appears the driver will be charged with negligent homicide.
Though we’ve seen fearless cyclists tout the safety of sharing the road with vehicles, this is sadly the second instance in Dallas County in just six months where a bike lane would have saved a life.
“There are times I ride in Austin, and I’m afraid of cars…Imagine what the beginner cyclist must feel like?” – Lance Armstrong 2008
Bike Friendly Oak Cliff 
The guy was hit in an industrial area. Per the linked URL, page II-4-5, Dallas policy is to “discourage” bicycle use in such areas.
Even if bike lanes were put in all over, Dallas would not put a bike lane in an area where they intended to “discourage” cycling, so I think you can’t credibly count this guy as a victim of the absence of bike lanes. In this case, AT LEAST one party to the collision simply made a dumb mistake.
Have to love the theory of “discoraging” bike use. Dallas does a great job of this by not having bike lanes.
Let’s not forget Bicycle Mag named Dallas the Most Dangerous City in America to cycle in.
How many more white bikes before Dallas gets serious about promoting bike awareness and building an infrastructure for safe commuting.
The fact that one has to read a policy manual before climbing on a bicycle “discourages” bicycling. Remember, this is what is constantly quoted:
Every person riding a bicycle shall be granted all rights and be subject to all duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.
— Sec. 551-101 Texas Transportation Code
Once you begin parsing this down into…but not on that road, this road, that district, or this boulevard, then you’ve complicated something that is typically considered a simplistic, fun, and cheap form of transit, and made it none of those things.
Also, this directly refutes the claims that bike lanes are bad, and that taking the lane is “safe” because rear end collisions are rare. We’ve now had two fatalities in less than a year. Bikedenton.org just reported a veteran cyclist hit from behind with pretty horrible pictures of the bike last month, and we’ve had other cyclists laid up in the hospital for months here in the Cliff due to rear-enders. For having dismal ridership levels, that’s downright scary. When gas prices climbed last year, ridership here increased along with fatalities. Ironically, Portland suffered no fatalities while there gas prices and ridership rised…and they’re covered in bike lanes (174 miles worth).
Now that gas prices are going back up again, we’re just going to see the same thing. If you look at the comment section on the DMN article, it’s rife with drivers infuriated at cyclists slowing them down. Many of them get hostile (especially here in Oak Cliff), which proves how scary it can be out there. Combine that with driver inattentiveness, distractions, teenagers, texters, and speeders/red-light runners, it only adds up to the potential of more accidents. And you don’t have to preach to me about proper riding…I cycle and “take the lane”, follow traffic signals and ride 10 miles a day to work from Oak Cliff thru downtown and to Uptown…I just realize that it’s not as care-free as other like to make it out to be. Yes, I can take back roads, but then I’m constantly stopping and going and every stop-signed intersection and my commute is twice as long. In the Texas heat, having to stop regularly and lengthening your commute is grueling and simply not worth the effort.
Had we had a robust network of bike lanes, people would have easily known about them and used them because they are much more obvious than signed-routes. PSU already completed a study showing that commuters will cycle out of their way to get to a lane-marked street: https://bikefriendlyoc.wordpress.com/2009/01/19/psu-professor-straps-gps-units-on-bike-commuters-to-study-bike-habits/
I realize that most vehicular cyclists are fearless long commuters (ie. 30+ miles a day), hailing from suburban environments, but that is not the rider that we are working to assist. It’s the urban cyclist, of which we’re only seeing more. Remember, Downtown Dallas has gone from a population of 200 to 6,000 in less than 10 years. This trend is not forecast to stop anytime soon. Giving greater infrastructure for bicycles brings more people out on cycles, increases awareness, which in turn increases safety. It’s as simple as that.
mannytmoto wrote “I realize that most vehicular cyclists are fearless long commuters (ie. 30+ miles a day)”
I resemble that remark, except for the “fearless” part. The distance and the riding style have a cause-and-effect connection since I’m NOT fearless. I avoid dangerous facilities and seek out any that get me where I want to go quicker without adding danger. I can’t think of any cycling facilities that I’d be willing to add time to my commute for. It already takes 1.5 hours each way and work starts at 8AM. Commuting ain’t play.
It’s as simple as that.
Hi Mannytmoto. Some interesting comments here–not sure I fully understand or agree with your perspective on all of them.
I certainly agree that Dallas will be a nicer place when we can raise awareness and get more butts on bikes. I am all for this, and think that most cyclists agree, whether “VC” or “PC”. (I am stuck somewhere in the middle).
I already think that Dallas is a safe place to ride, and it will only get better as drivers become more and more accustomed to sharing the road with people on bikes.
I moved here from NYC, which as you know has always been a very pedestrian oriented city and is making great progress making the streets even more “complete” — working to increase quality of life, largely by human-centric as opposed to car-centric urban design and planning.
Based on my experience, I would say without hesitation that riding in the street (in a VC manner or not) in Dallas is safer than riding in a bike lane in Manhattan.
Now I am not by any means opposed to bike lanes, and other dedicated facilities, but I also think that it is important to recognize them for what they are and what they really afford in terms of safety. To not do so is foolhardy. A quick look at Transportation Alternatives interactive map of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and fatalities (http://www.crashstat.org/) will quickly dispel the notion that bike lanes will prevent a car from hitting you and possibly killing you. They may or may not make things more safe, but they certainly won’t stop a moving vehicle. The maps show well over 1,000 bike crashes in my old neighborhood, and one of those dots is mine. I can attest that getting hit by car is not fun.
Also note on these maps that the majority of the crashes occur at intersections not, mid-block. That’s not to say that there are not dangers mid-block. On average I would say that when riding in the bike lanes there, I would be forced out of the bike lane and into “traffic” at least once a block. On some blocks it was impossible to even ride in the bike lanes. Now obviously NYC and Dallas are completely different environments and a comparison isn’t necessarily fair. My point is simply that the concept of life in the bike lane may be different than the reality.
What will you say when Dallas has it’s first rear-ender fatality in a bike lane?
If we have bike lanes it will happen. I suspect that’s when agitation for fully separate facilities will begin. Bike paths with barriers. You can see this in NYC and other cities around the world which have had dedicated bicycle facilities for some time. They have recognized the inherent limitations of bike lanes and being committed to dedicated facilities, have moved toward bike PATHS and other forms of separate or barrier protected infrastructure. If we are going to learn from them and follow their good example, why not start there? Why repeat their mistakes?
The catch of course is that it is highly unlikely that there will ever be enough federal and local funding allocated to create and maintain enough of a dedicated bicycle infrastructure to make it practical for folks in Dallas (even in “urban” Dallas as you define it) to get around using bike lanes/paths. I wish that this were not true, but I fear that it is. Presumably we’ll be using a mix of bike paths, streets with bike lanes, and streets without bike lanes.
I fear that we’ll see a lot more “infuriated” drivers once we do have bike lanes. I suspect that we’ll be hearing a lot more, “Get out of the #$%$$# street!” from motorists who will erroneously view bike lanes as the ONLY acceptable place for cyclists, even if there is no bike lane present on that particular street, or if the bike lane is unusable or blocked (which will be common).
And of course once we start spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to create bike lanes, I suspect we’ll see the pro-car/anti-bike folks really organizing and agitating to have those funds spent on things like pot-hole repair and highway expansion, and some of them will not drive “friendly.”
You note that you are interested only in serving what you call “urban” riders, and you seem willing to do so at the expense of other Dallas residents. It would appear to me that the “fearless long commuters” as you call them are actually quite fearful that what you are seeking–a very limited network of bicycle infrastructure in YOUR neighborhood–might make it more difficult or even illegal for them to go about their daily lives.
It would be a shame if this proved true, particularly if that limited infrastructure did little to actually improve safety. If as you state in the last two sentences of your comment above that it is as simple as increasing awareness and safety, can’t that be done more effectively through means other than infrastructure?
It seems to me that we could accomplish the goals of increasing awareness and safety through EDUCATION and ADVOCACY more effectively than through infrastructure (and at a much lower cost). After all, the goal is to change human attitudes and behavior–to sell cycling as a safe, normal and appropriate option. (In my opinion, infrastructure without education is asking for more trouble).
As I have said in comments on Cycle*Dallas, if we as a city are going to make infrastructure changes, I think we should start by enhancing our existing bike route system with painted sharrows (bike graphic) on the roads. Not to indicate cyclist lane position, but to make clear to all road users that a given street is a designated bike route. This would clearly communicate to motorists that bike are legitimate road users, without pigeonholing them into the gutter. It would be education and advocacy–in the form of paint on the asphalt.
I guess you hit a nerve as I’ve typed much more than I expected to, so I will close with some kudos to you. BFOC has done some fantastic things. I am psyched to see you guys salvaging bike racks, mobilizing local folks and businesses, and organizing rides. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Hi Waco,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don’t disagree with you in the sense that I would prefer dedicated bike lanes, over painted only. I think where we disagree is on the models used. I think New York’s is an example of a poor and band-aided model that was rushed through with little expense put into it’s planning. It was more of a measure to quickly adapt existing streets. This goes for many other cities as well.
The reason I cite Portland so often is because they too admitted to making mistakes early on, but have since had the chance with time to improve their system and add enhancements that have not only greatly reduced accidents, but increased ridership and awareness. We completely benefit from their mature models just due to the fact that they’ve learned what to do and not to do over 20 years of having a system in place.
For me, seeing VC’s put down bike lanes as total failures by citing examples from cities that have poor models is no different than me making the statement “cars are nothing but gas guzzling, inefficient forms of transit” and only referencing Hummers to prove my point. It’s disingenuous and outrageous.
In reality, your point that VC’s are afraid that drivers will expect them to only ride in bike lanes is the single point that I do feel is valid…but it’s also the only point they should make. The problem is, they inject falsehoods about bike lanes to dance around this. But even though I may feel the real reason they’re opposed to bike infrastructure is valid, the problem here, as noted in the comment section on the DMN article, is that drivers ALREADY don’t feel bicycles should be on the road. You have to admit that reading the amount of hostility was scary. The thing is, we all know this to be the case, which is why so few even dare to hop on their bicycle and head to work. Honestly, even if we created a multi-million dollar education/awareness campaign trying to convince people we belong, it will do little to nothing in changing the bulk of drivers attitudes in this country into being okay with having their 40 mph commute impeded by a self-propelled vehicle that averages 10-15 mph (and much less up a hill). I take the lane when crossing the Jefferson Bridge into downtown, and have felt the roar of giant DART buses quickly scream past while barely getting out of my lane with mirrors that felt like they were going to scrape my face. It’s mortifying.
The other issue here is that VC’s will mask the reality of why they dislike bike lanes by saying, “they’re dangerous” and “they don’t increase ridership”. While that may be the case in places that put little thought or expense into their cycle infrastructure, that just isn’t the case in places where it was planned well. There’s a reason why Copenhagen has decimal point level incidents on bicycles. I hardly ever show examples from NYC, Austin, or Chicago. What you will see is examples from Portland, Boulder, Davis because they have created well planned models that are continuing to improve.
What ends up happening on our end is having to argue the trivial points that VC’s will make. I agree that it’s dull, but hearing things like “they have greater density”, and having to point out the obvious like…while Portland’s density may be slightly greater than ours, it’s no where near that of San Francisco…and we are MUCH closer to the formers size. And it gets even more trivial than that when PM declares we have 0 Universities here. First of all, even if you exclude DBU, the UNT South Dallas campus, and SMU (on the lamest of technicalities)…the fact that one would argue that bike lanes are death traps in one sentence, and in another say the reason they work in Tempe because it’s more dense and has a college, makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn’t this only increase deaths? Tempe’s claiming to have 1 every other year with over 100 miles of bike lanes.
Anyways, I digress. Fort Worth released results from a public survey asking what would get people to ride their bikes more. The number one thing cited was bike lanes. Why? Because people are afraid of cars. Are bike lanes safer than riding in an existing lane? That depends…are you referring to New York City’s, or Copenhagen’s? We’re advocating for the latter.
This story is indeep tragic, and I’m a big supporter of bike lanes, but there is another option that is worth mentioning. DART has recently intalled bike racks on almost its entire fleet of buses. That means that commuters can combine their bike and bus trip, and avoid riding through some of the more risky areas (at least until bike lanes are added). All the info on bike racks can be found here: http://www.dart.org/riding/bike.asp
My main reason for not being enthusiastically pro-bike lane are: the door zone, getting buzzed too closely by cars, increased right-hook incidents at intersections and driveways, as well as debris that inevitably finds its way into that space. Is there a bike lane design that adequately accounts for those issues? I’d be interested in seeing it. I mean that sincerely!
I’m a VC commuter in Dallas, my commute is only 3.5-4 miles. I am not a skinny, spandex-covered pro. Far from it, actually. And I have had no vicious incidents with drivers at all. That includes yelling, honking, etc. I have, however, had a minor accident avoiding being doored on the Katy trail by a maintenance vehicle.
Personally, I wouldn’t necessarily take DMN web comments to be a scientific poll of driver’s feelings toward vehicular cyclists, because in general (much like youtube) the comment streams are often an excuse to rant and I’ve found they don’t foster much intelligent discussion. My experience has found Dallas drivers to be, in large part, courteous and even patient!
I also agree that a very big reason VCs are negative toward bike lanes is the idea that we will be forced to use them if they exist. If I was forced to take a bike lane, as I’ve seen them designed so far, I think I would choose to avoid that road rather than risk being buzzed, doored, or right-hooked. But that’s just me. 🙂 Show me a bike lane that doesn’t have those issues and I might rethink that position!
We’re in complete agreement in regards to the type of bike lanes. I also don’t advocate for building flush against the door zone. Though I think New York has a long way to go, they have begun learning this lesson and added buffer zones between the lanes:
Also, to reduce right-hook incidents, last year Portland took their most dangerous intersections and adopted bike-boxes:
http://bikeportland.org/2008/03/17/portlands-first-bike-box-is-now-complete/
Since that time, there have been no accidents reported at any of these stops.
My point being, all of the problems presented can be resolved through better engineering and planning. Early bike lane adopters applied band-aided solutions (which are regularly mocked by Cycle Dallas). I’m not advocating for a half-way approach, but for a completely progressive 21st century model for bicycle infrastructure. The data that has come across from cities that have had these in place for over 30 years is undeniable. If they were bad, or death traps, they’d be removed. The reality is, they bring people out on bicycles…exactly the thing we need.
Also, reducing the number of car lanes does many things for us as a community. It slows car speeds, allows businesses to widen patios/sidewalks since bike lanes only require 4 feet, and acts as a catalyst for street life. The increased ridership is a bonus. All of this improves local businesses opportunities, health of the community, sustainability, and economic development.
I’m following you with interest, except for that NYC photo… the lane is on the left, which goes against traditional road rules – slower traffic on the right, faster on the left. Also the buffer is not really for the door-zone of parked cars, but rather a minimum (3ft?) from moving traffic. I typically get more than that when I’m taking the lane on a 4 lane road (or 2 lane one-way). I’m also wondering how that NY bike lane works at intersections, when a bike wants to go straight and a car is turning left… or vice versa. Bike boxes? And my other point above is still valid with this lane, that it is essentially the shoulder of the road, where all the debris winds up. Perhaps NY has more frequent street cleaning than Dallas?
I’m in total agreement with you when it comes to making some of our streets more pedestrian friendly, with slowing traffic and reducing lanes. But at the same time, I can see the opposing point of view, that paint doesn’t truly make you safer, and drivers may feel that a cyclist shouldn’t be on the road if there’s not a sharrow. One thing I do love about Dallas is that I’m able to ride wherever I please, and drivers are generally polite.
I went to Youtube to look for a video of Portland’s bike boxes in use by cyclists. What I found, instead, is that the lane prior to the bike boxes were exactly in the door zone of parked cars.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrZXJD0ZELU) In my opinion, that’s a bad design even with the bike box. All it takes is getting doored one time to get run over and killed, right?
Good eye. Here’s the pic I meant to forward with the lane on the right:
As far as debris goes, Portland and other cities build this into maintenance costs. No different than what you see with the pot hole and street cleaning teams. Plus, we could (and would) hgo over and beyond and create a “Friends of” group, no different than the “Friends of Katy Trail”. They are responsible for a large portion of the landscaping, cleaning, buildout and more for that system. They are funded through a mix of private and public (ie. Uptown Improvement District PID) sources. Since bike lanes would be most prevalent at the CBD and maybe a 3 mile radius beyond, half of the cleaning task is already covered…Dallas street sweeps the CBD 5 nights a week: http://dallascityhall.com/streets/street_sweeping.html
Not surprisingly, most new alt-transit infrastructure endeavors are carried out by private/public partnerships. Streetcars, Rails-to-Trails, etc., because they add value to surrounding land. Realtors, Property Owners, etc. see the value and contribute to these. It’s a cost, but it’s also an amenity that drives economic development, and the expense if far outweighed. I can give you multiple examples of property owners in Oak Cliff taxing themselves over and beyond in order to raise funds for streetcar studies now. They’re not dummies…streetcars and bike lanes can raise area values up to 2000%.
I’m writing an article now, which we’ll post shortly that talks about this in greater depth, but a large qualm I have is the simple fact that early planning focused on Cars over People. What we’re seeing now is a reverse of that. The VC model only maintains the Car model, and actually embraces it. As long as that occurs, you’re not going to have a walkable neighborhood. Bike lanes contribute in that sense.
Here’s a video on bike boxes: http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/01/10/streetfilm-how-to-use-a-bike-box/
Again, I’d prefer dedicated lanes with island buffers like in Copenhagen…or even use parked cars as the buffers like in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rstEWMD89L8
There are easy ways to engineer out dooring. I think the reality is that all of the problems posed have smart engineering solutions, and if we choose to disavow contemporary planning based on a philosophical dispute, then we are only going to lose in the long run, and people will leave for places that offer better forms.
The newer generations are choosing the Portland/Austin model over the Detroit/Houston one by far. I’m advocating the former.
Agreed on the friends groups for maintenance, however the scale comparison is pretty vast — i.e., the Katy is just 3.5 miles long currently, and city-wide bike lanes could be many times that much area. How have other cities handled this? Are there 25 friends groups? Have any cities run out of funding for upkeep/paving and abandoned them?
I think the thing we definitely agree on is what you call ‘people-first’ planning and what I would call traffic calming. I think that methodology is awesome and welcome it into my neighborhood. I disagree that VCs only support the cars-first model because I imagine riding VC in a traffic calmed neighborhood is probably a joy! However, is it not true that traffic calming devices greatly reduce the quantity of vehicles entering a given area? That’s the purpose, right? And I would imagine it’s not that there are less drivers on the road, but that drivers choose another route to where they’re going. And since traffic calming measures can’t be taken *everywhere* (people still need roads to drive on) doesn’t that leave some precarious transitions in and out of “people-first” areas? An example: I live in lower Greenville and work in Uptown. I have to cross over 75 at some point. I have usually done this by riding down Miller, turning right onto Henderson, crossing over 75 in a VC manner and continuing onto Knox until the Katy.
For people like me who want to commute to work, there will still be some sticky areas that will not be “people-first.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m 100% for bigger porches and less traffic, and I am not a traffic engineer or even knowledgeable on all the different kinds of bike lanes. I’m just asking some obvious questions that occur to me, the user.
When VCs talk about the fear of being relegated to the bike lane, there’s usually two scenarios: being legally bound to a bike lane, and being socially bound to one. Take Katy Kirkpatrick’s recent experience in Long Beach (http://bit.ly/me1Lw) – while I hope her story is an extremely rare occurrence, this is the kind of behavior I fear from our SUV culture in Dallas.
One last thing, in regards to “newer generations”: it’s not necessarily true that VCs are all male and old. I’m female and 28. And I was born in Detroit, so I’m pretty sure there is no bike model there, GM probably killed it when they killed street cars.
I’ll have to read up on the models in Houston, Portland and Austin since I don’t know much about them nor have I been there. I will say that the video you linked to about Copenhagen was pretty cool. It would be pretty awesome if Knox/Henderson was all a big pedestrian walkway. But I know how Dallas is so ingrained into the car culture and sprawl… turning that ship seems like a huge undertaking. Not that it can’t be done, but … good food for thought 🙂
Actually, I wouldn’t foresee a city-wide bike lane project. We’re advocating for inner city lanes, which is why we chose our region (and the smaller historic portion to be exact) as our focus. Once you go beyond about a 5 miles radius from your downtown, the form of your streets become wider disconnected suburban pathways, with larger businesses and homes on larger lots. If you’re unfamiliar with New Urbanism terminology, the scale of a city is broken up into “Transects”, or “T-Zones”. What works for one area of a city, does not necessarily work well for another. To give a better example, you can see how businesses form based on the structure of the streets they surround. If you build a small “traffic calmed” street with a denser set of residences…one which only has two lanes…you’ll begin to attract smaller store fronts which are more affordable for mom and pop businesses. A big box outlet would not set up in this environment due to the scale.
When you begin building larger 6 to 8 lane roads, a developer will naturally look at the area and say, this is ideal for a larger box outlet store. That’s simply based on the traffic flow and footprint needed to sustain the sales of something like a Wal-Mart or Target.
The ultimate goal is to reintroduce a sustainable center (work, live, play area combined). That’s where you’ll find your density, and an area for large-scale redevelopment of local business. Bike lanes beyond Loop 12 would be largely recreational and would serve too few due to the distances needed to get from home to business. So when VC’s say bike lanes won’t work in Dallas because of heat, and density, we’re in agreement when they’re referring to someplace like Forest and Preston.
For me, I’m a 20 minute ride from Downtown using backstreets (or signed routes). My time is extended due to the number of stop signs through neighborhoods, and
backtracking needed to get to “safer” streets. In August, I want the quickest commute possible.
Conversely, If I leave after rush hour and take major streets like Fort Worth Avenue and Hampton, then it’s only a 12 minute commute. It takes an air conditioner in my car 10 minutes to cool off the cabin (and steering wheel for that matter)…in that time, had we had bike lanes on major thoroughfares, I would already be at my office.
As far as bicyclists go, Vehicular Cyclists are an extremely small percentage (typically 1%) of overall bicyclists in a city…and yes, of those the majority are male which makes you the minority of a minority. I’m not saying that’s a bad place to be, but it is nevertheless so.
In regards to the story you posted, I have multiple stories of the same occurring in Oak Cliff without bike lanes. What Katy is noting is road rage. It’s a byproduct of sprawl and building streets for speed. This driver would have buzzed her and been just as angry if she were in “his lane”, and made him move.
Last week, my wife and I rode to the grocery store and at one short point we had to enter Jefferson Blvd and cross to a turn lane to enter the parking lot. I was ahead of her, and a white truck came up behind her quickly, then slowed and laid on the horn…there were two open lanes beside us (it was 11AM on a Tuesday). Last month, when traveling South on Beckley to get over to the Commerce Bridge (the safest route into downtown), a Mercedes with very dark windows pulled up behind me, laid on the horn, then proceeded to follow me close and slow for the entire mile stretch between Colorado Blvd and Fort Worth Avenue. It was 9:30AM, there were few other cars around and it was terrifying. I’ve heard VC’s brag about how safe they are because they’re armed, but you learn to drop the Rambo mentality where we live. Our house is at the end of the block from the restaurant where the gunfight between two men with AK-47’s and a Hummer with glocks open fired on each other last month, so I’m dead serious when I worry about driver’s here.
In our interview with Eric Iwersen, planner for Tempe, I left out a portion that he mentioned which actually speaks to this in greater depth. He noted that drivers were actually more sympathetic to cyclists since ridership had increased (which he attributed to bike infrastructure). It makes perfect sense though, since Portland has shown precipitous drops in accident rates while ridership has more than quadrupled.
One other point I’d like to hit on…I’m actually not against car-culture…I’m against car infrastructure at the expense of people. In suburban and rural environments, it makes sense to build for cars… but in a downtown and inner city area, it’s supposed to be hard to drive, and park…because it’s filled with people. Removing congestion from a downtown is always at the expense of people.
Anyways, sorry for the long-winded reply, and thanks for the response. I’m glad to talk about this at greater length. I’m very passionate about community building as a whole. Bike lanes are a piece of a much greater puzzle that gets to the core of how you allow for a city’s sustainability, safety, livability, economic development, and it’s resident’s ability to interact…which allows for something greater: understanding and tolerance.
I bicycle all over the DFW area, and am a pretty experienced cyclist in an urban setting. I am not an expert on bicycle transportation, but a fairly well versed observer and one who has studied bicycle transportation.
Bicycle transportation depends on facilities being available, and on motorist acceptance, tolerance, and education. Off street cycling ways (trails, paths, etc.) are great, but the cost is high with land acquisition and construction. We have some in the area, and I hope there are a lot more! BUT they will not get you everywhere you need to go!
Bike lanes that are part of a well planned and thought out system can work, and serve to provide some protection, and send the message that bikes belong on the streets. When they are poorly planned, or shoehorned into existing streets that are already stressed, they can create some new problems while solving others (see Heather’s “right hook” comments above). They also have to be kept clean. Some are notoriously full of debris. The other downside is that when bike lanes exist, some motorists think that bicycles don’t belong anywhere else. BUT if part of a good system, they have a distinct place. Still, they will not get you everywhere you need to go.
On street bike routes, fully signed, with pavement markings, help guide cyclists and just as much, again, say “bicycles riders belong here”. They, however, cannot get you everywhere you need to go.
Bicycles should be legally able to ride ANY public street in the area except freeways. Bike bans should not exist anywhere for any reason. This, plus the above 3 WILL get you where you need to go!
In my humble opinion, it takes consideration of all
of the above approaches to have effective and safe bicycle transportation. There is no magic bullet.
In addition to cycling facilities, education and acceptance is paramount, and probably the hardest thing at which to succeed. The Safe Passing Act (Vulnerable Road Users) was vetoed by our Governor. Frankly, this would have had little law enforcement impact unless a cyclist was hit by a car, when this impact is sorely needed. It’s other main impact was that of education of the public. This would have been positive for us as cyclists.
I hope things go well for BFOC as things move along for you! I look forward to continuing to ride down your way, and watching with interest! Good Luck !
Bike Safety is important.
My family is very active with the multiple sclerosis Society. The MS 150 is a bike ride from Houston, Texas to Austin, Texas. Each year in the MS 150 bike ride, bicyclists get hit by motorists.
Texting by drivers is a real problem for cycling. The distracted driver is much more likely not to see a cyclist and cause great harm.
It is my hope, that communities will be more willing to design future roadways with bicyclists in mind.
For those injured in auto accidents, or bike accidents, http://www.texastriallawyers.com