Trouble in the Slow Lane

If you have your doubts about bike lanes, you're not alone. Segregated bike lanes, a marked off area that was formerly known as a gutter; as we're all too familiar with here in the states, or a cycle path, seen more in Europe, are real threats to safety. If bicycles really have all the rights any other vehicle has (yes, a bike is a vehicle, according to U.S. law), then why do they need to be segregated from traffic? There isn't a semi truck lane or a motorcycle lane, so why a bike lane?

Sticking to your guns? Well, then you probably already have your answer: Speed. It's a valid problem, but segregation of vehicles can create many more problems than it solves, primarily at intersections (of course).

Now, the point of this entry is really just to question the design assumptions bike lanes impose, and it's time to provide reasons why vehicles of all race and creed should live and move as one. I'm going to make an effort to make these explanations brief -- they are pretty obvious when you consider them.

Issue 1: Obstructed cycle lanes. Consider this scenario: a delivery truck needs to stop, and there are not any parking spaces available. Where does that truck park? That's right, the segregated bike lane. These drivers have become used to doing this, and it is perfectly legal, if in a properly zoned area -- unless there is a bike lane. Now there are two problems, trucks with nowhere to stop and cyclists with nowhere to escape, because motorists could care less that your path is obstructed.

Issue 2: Maintenance. Have you ever noticed that the dirtiest part of the road is at its edges? We all have, and there is good reason for it. Cars produce a sweeping effect as they travel -- they move a lot of air. This sweeping moves all kinds of debris, including puncture inducing glass and metal shards, right into cycle lanes that are most often located along the outside of roads. This problem is helped if sweeping equipment is regularly dispatched alone these routes -- wait doesn't that create a lane obstruction? Additionally, not all cycle lanes are accessible by street sweepers, either. If there wasn't a bike lane, no one would be traveling in these hazards.

Issue 3: Increased risk of collisions. Cycle paths in urban settings with many interchanges result in more car-bicycle collisions. It's a fact. What's so unintuitive about that? Segregation imposes more cognitive tasks for both riders and drivers. Having all vehicle traffic together is simple -- literally. To drive (or ride) this point home, I will leave you with a few quotes from the article cited above:

In the United States,^[40] UK,^[41] Germany, Sweden,^[42] Denmark^[43]and Finland,^[44] it has been found that cycling on roadside urban cycle tracks/sidepaths results in up to 12-fold increases in the rate of car/bicycle collisions. At a 1990 European conference on cycling, the term Russian roulette was used to describe the use of roadside cycle paths.

That's a 1200 percent increase in car-bicycle collisions!

In Helsinki, research has shown that cyclists are safer cycling on roads with traffic than when using the city's 800 kilometres (500 mi) of cycle paths.^[46] The Berlin police and Senate conducted studies which led to a similar conclusion in the 1980s.^[47] In Berlin 10% of the roads have cycle paths, but these produce 75% of fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists.^[48] In the English town of Milton Keynes it has been shown that cyclists using the off-road Milton Keynes redway system have on a per-journey basis a significantly higher rate of fatal car-bicycle collisions than cyclists on ordinary roads.^[41] Cycle lanes and bike lanes are less dangerous than cycle paths in urban situations but even well-implemented examples have been associated with 10% increases in casualty rates.

Hopefully I need say no more. Bike lanes. Bad idea. Stop it!

Photo credit: Wikipedia.org