Myths in Conflict – Bike Lanes

Part 2 of a Continuing Series

Designated Bike Lane on North Tarrant Parkway in North Richland Hills, Texas. This Bike Lane (a relabeled shoulder) is Now Gone.
In Texas, a Cyclist is REQUIRED to Use a Lane Such as this, and no Excuses About Those Tire Tracks as Evidence of "Auxiliary Passing"

Bike lanes are one of the most contentious subjects in cycling mythology. They seem to be on a par with helmets in the passion they arouse. Bike lanes are a collection of many conflicting myths, but the Safety in Numbers argument in the Minneapolis Star Tribune Story touches on the mythology of bike lanes. So here goes – at the risk of being tarred and feathered. At one end of the spectrum of this body of myth are those that believe that ANY bike lane is good for cyclists, and that bike lanes enable cyclists to ride places which they would be unable do without them. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard “I’d ride my bike to work but there are no bike lanes.” We’ve all read news stories about new bike lanes making it possible for cyclists to go places. I’ve actually seen bike lanes painted that run around residential cul de sacs in Florida. At the other end of the spectrum are those that believe bike lanes are evil. Ironically, at this end of the spectrum, cycling advocates and militant motorists take the same position (no bike lanes), but with entirely opposite motivations and expectations of the alternate results. FULL DISCLOSURE HERE.

The problem with this religious fervor is that it obscures the real situation. And the real situation is, shall we say, real situational. Bike lanes, even the best bike lanes in favorable circumstances, are not painted on streets for me. I will pick a safe line and travel it. On the other hand, if a bike lane is dangerous, I will ride outside it and accept a citation or motorist harassment if that is the price of not needlessly endangering my life. I'm now in a finacial and life situation where such things are a minor consideration. Bike lanes are often put on streets for reasons beyond purely cycling purposes. They are partly to illustrate a community’s commitment to a culture that values transportation as more than simply private motor vehicles. That is certainly part of the Livable Community emphasis in Oak Cliff. Bike lanes are regarded as an after-the fact way to support non-motorized living, and that is part of their popularity. While we might all prefer something better integrated into the community than bike lanes, adding long, safe, separated paths that actually go to useful destinations is usually problematic in an established urban area. What’s more, if the Minneapolis article is even remotely close to truth, reducing sidewalk riding by 87% is almost certain to result in less cycling accidents, EVEN IF the bike lane itself is not well designed and executed. Sidewalk cycling is one of the more dangerous things a person on a bike can do. What’s more, reducing BAD biking behavior even benefits me because it reduces the chance I’ll have to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid one of these wrong-way sidewalk riders. Despite a very low cycling share in Northeast Tarrant County, I get more violations of my right-of-way from people on bikes than from motorists.

The central myth here is not the particulars of bike lanes, nor of the myriad mistakes that designers of bike lanes make, but the notion that poorly designed ones are acceptable, or even that better ones are good enough. I’ll cite a current example. In Charleston, as this is written, a new bike lane has been installed along Chapel Street. It is a narrow bike lane that falls entirely within a door zone. That choice was made to give people taxpayer subsidized, private property storage (free on-street parking). Dave Moulton (yes, THAT Dave Moulton ) pointed out the danger in the facility. It is hard to believe a safer solution can’t be found than the one being implemented. And that is an important point. As in roads, there are few bike lanes that can’t be improved. And that might not be a single step improvement. Simply banning parking might well increase motorist speed, or create new intersection conflicts, which leads to other changes. Go Dave!

I hope we can all agree that peoples’ safety is a greater need than convenient, taxpayer-subsidized car storage, and that an improved bike lane is probably better than the initial one. The installation of a bike lane, ANY bike lane, should mark the start of a harder task; getting it made better. We should not forget that many of these facilities are not designed by people that ride bikes, that fewer yet are designed by people that understand the fundamentals of safe cycling, or who will actually be riding the routes, and that politicians occasionally need reminding of who they work for. Come to think of it, sometimes bike advocates need the same reminder. But THAT would be another myth entirely and y'all have already had your myth for tonight…