Car-Free
Bike Lanes:
M. Bluejay's
Presentation to City Council
March
2006
This is text of the
presentation I made to the Austin City Council on March
2, 2006, trying unsuccessfully to get them to approve
car-free bike
lanes on Shoal Creek
Blvd. As soon as I can
figure out how to do so, I'll make a Flash movie to show
all 41 slides.
Hello, Councilmembers. I'm Michael Bluejay, I run
BicycleAustin.info, [slide] which received a
Best of Austin award from the Austin Chronicle, and my site
BicycleSafe.com [slide] has been translated
into several languages and used by groups all over the
world. I've also biked on Shoal Creek Blvd. for twenty years
now, and I'm assuming most of you haven't bicycled on Shoal
Creek, at least not during rush hour, [slide]
because if you had then I don't think you'd be poised to
approve this dangerous striping plan.
Plans compared
Here's what we have now which is what you're set
to approve. [slide] Unlimited parking on
both sides of the street, in the bike lanes. The problems
with this are that it's dangerous, [slide]
it violates national safety standards,
[slide] it goes against the
recommendations of your own staff, [slide]
and it opens the City up to liability.
[slide] And of course it makes the bike
lanes pointless if cars can park in them.
But there's an easy alternative: Have parking on just
one side of the street, which leaves plenty of room for a
car-free bike lane on each side of the road.
[slide] This provides more than adequate
parking, and of course safe travel for cyclists. This is
what your own staff recommends and is also the conclusion
of the state agency the Texas Transportation Institute.
And by the way in your packet is a petition signed by
about 100 Austinites who also support it, including
former State Representative Glen Maxey.
Why dangerous
So let's look at why your agenda item is so
dangerous. Cyclists trying to get around parked cars have
two options: They can stay close to the parked car, in
which case they risk getting The Door Prize when a
motorist unexpectedly opens their door in the biker's
path [slide] , or if they veer into the
traffic lane then they risk getting run over from
behind.[slide] Here's a child on Shoal
Creek trying to manuever around a parked car and faced
with those same two deadly choices. [slide]
The Door Prize
Okay, so let's take a look at some cyclists who were
killed by The Door Prize.[slide]
- Samuel Hernandez of Santa Ana, California. He was
killed when he biked into an open car door, knocking
him into traffic where he was hit by a car coming from
behind. He was 19 years old.
- Chantal Malard of Montreal, same deal: Hit the
open door, fell into traffic, got run over by another
vehicle.
- Eugene Chang of San Francisco. Didn't get run over
by another car but didn't need to, he died when his
neck slammed into the top of the car door.
- Clyde Moss of Manhattan, same deal as the first,
doored off his bike and into the path of an oncoming
truck. He was 52.
- Rosemare Brodie, age 33, also of Manhattan, also
dead, doored off her bike and into the path of a
van.
Other cyclists killed by the same hazard you're set to
approve are:
- Brian Wong of Toronto, age 29
- [slide] Keith Provost, the actor,
age 40,
- [slide] Dana Laird of Cambridge,
Massachussetts, age 36,
- Laura Cox of New Orleans, age 33,
- [slide] Elizabeth Padilla, of
Manhattan, age 28,
- and others I don't have time to list.
So this isn't just theoretical, people DIE from
this.
Veering into traffic
Okay, well, of course, as a cyclist you don't
have to ride in the door zone, you can risk your life in
another way by venturing into the traffic lane. And
here's what it looks like when you do. [slide]
Notice the motorist illegally crossing the double
yellow line on Shoal Creek in order to get around the
cyclist. [slide] And this motorist is
driving completely in the oncoming traffic lane.
[slide]
And cyclists DO get hurt on Shoal Creek. The Austin
police department tells me there have been injury
accidents on Shoal Creek among bikers every single year
for the last several years.
Hogging the lane
Also notice that the current design isn't just
bad for cyclists, it's also bad for motorists, because
they've got all these damn bikers in their way, making
them nervous and slowing them down. [slide]
But give the cyclists a true bike lane like your
staff is recommending and then traffic moves much more
freely for everyone. [slide]
No Compromise
Now, the popular myth is that the current plan
was a compromise between various stakeholders. Here's why
that's absolutely untrue:
- [slide] What we had before: Parking
in bike lanes
- [slide] What we have now: Parking
in bike lanes
- [slide] What's on your agenda for
approval for the future: Parking in bike lanes
I want to quote Mike Dahmus on this subject, a former
member of the Urban Transportation Commission. He says:
[slide]
"People continue to misrepresent this process
as a compromise.... In fact, any rational observer can
compare conditions before this change to conditions
now and make the following judgement: Parking won.
Period. Cyclists got less than they had before, and
far less than they should have had. The neighborhood
got curb extensions..... Cyclists got the middle
finger." -- Transportation expert Mike Dahmus
Okay, I know that you already decided to remove the
curb islands, and that's fine, but Mr. Dahmus' point was
that the striping we got can't be called a compromise
because cyclists didn't actually GET anything.
Here's another way to look at it, if you approve
current striping then here's how the priorities look to
me:
- [slide] The traffic lanes are for
cars.
- [slide] And people's driveways are
for cars. And...
- [slide] The BIKE LANES are for
cars.
- [slide] Hello?
Where is the balance?
Lawsuits
The City also needs to consider the liability if
it goes the unsafe route.
- [slide] In 2000 bicyclist Donald
Hallsten was paralyzed following a crash and won a
four-and-a-half million dollar judgement against the
City of Chicago for unsafe roadways.
- The Bicycle Transportation Alliance sued the City
of Portland for failing to include car-free bike lanes
on a new road, and the Oregon Supreme Court decided
the case in the bicyclists' favor.
- [slide] BicycleInjuryLaw.com
reports that a cyclist crashed in an poorly maintained
bike lane and successfully sued a California city for
$1,000,000.
- [slide] And, best for last, Hannah
Evans successfully sued the City of Toronto two years
ago after getting doored, alleging that the City had
been negligent in making sure the roadway was safely
designed for all users.
There are more cases of cyclists suing cities on
BicycleSafe.com.
Now, the first thing the lawyers ask is, "Did
you follow the standards?" I don't think you want to be
in the position of saying, "No, we ignored the national
AASHTO safety guidelines and the advice of our own staff
because some of the neighbors thought that unlimited
parking on one side of the street wasn't good enough for
them."
Convenience vs. Safety
Many neighbors would like parking right in front
of their house. Me, I'd like to not get KILLED while
bicycling on Shoal Creek. And that's what this comes down
to: The neighbors and the cyclists have different wants,
but they're not equal wants. Which is more important:
CONVENIENCE, or SAFETY? [slide] I'd like
to repeat it again: What's more important: CONVENIENCE,
or SAFETY?
So to summarize:
- The current design is dangerous (cyclists risk
getting doored or veering out into traffic)
- It violates national safety standards
- Your own staff is telling you not to do it
- Approving it opens the City up to liability
- And there is a simple alternative that solves all
these problems and provides for a safe roadway
If you do decide to approve this item then I hope you can
answer the following questions for us:
- [slide] Why is it that you think
parking on one side of the street does not provide
more than adequate parking?
- [slide] Why is it a good idea for
cars to park in bike lanes?
- [slide] Why are you ignoring the
recommendation of your own Staff?
- [slide] Why do you think it is
important to violate AASHTO safety guidelines?
- [slide] What purpose is being
served that is so crucial that it justifies opening
the city up to liability?
[Note: I presented each Councilmember with a
printed list of these questions. They all ignored them,
except Leffingwell, who made a half-hearted argument that
the car-free bike lanes might somehow be just as
dangerous as the car-filled bike lanes. Go
figure.]
Thank you for your time. [slide]
|
