BIKE: Mostly Well-Done AusChron Article on SCB (Bury the Hatchet)

[Mike Dahmus]

Thorne wrote:

>I've thought it through many times, Dahmus.  And have again.  SCB was the
>wrong place to be having the wrong argument, since cycling SCB with parking on
>the sides is just fine, and I was no 'expert rider' my first several dozen
>times riding it.  All of us might ask ourselves why SCB is so attractive to
>cyclists if it's also so bad as some claim.  It's not the bike lane, its the
>nice safe riding.
>
>I agree that the SCB battle was bad for the future of cycling interests in
>Austin--wholeheartedly.  Losing the SCB battle was bad for cyclists because it
>showed cyclists fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reasons and seriously
>reduced the credibility of 'bicycle advocates' in Austin.  And that was the
>very concern I had from the moment I was approached in 2000 to sign the
>petition in support.  By all appearances, it was a battle over turf, not
>safety, which is why the 'debacle' started with the idea to paint the bike
>lanes in the first place (long before the battle over parking began).  To
>date, I've never heard a coherent argument for why SCB parking was the
>priority of the day as far as Austin cycling safety was concerned.  Dangerous
>places needed that attention, and still do.
>  
>
That statement would be fine, if the issue being debated was whether or 
not to place bike lanes on Shoal Creek. The problem for your theory is 
that the debate was actually whether or not to allow parking in the bike 
lanes that were already there.

We're a laughingstock nationally for allowing cars to park in bike 
lanes, folks. Many of you may not realize this, but in the rest of the 
world, a "bike lane" is equivalent to a "car lane" in the sense that you 
don't allow parked cars in a lane designed for through travel. Again, 
this presents problems in the fact that car drivers get mad when you 
leave the bike lane to get around the parked car -- they don't know how 
early you must merge in order to do this safely. This creates friction 
which hurts us politically - I've spent half a dozen mornings here at 
work defending cyclists to suburbanites on issues just like this one.

And don't dare lump me in with people who think you should put bike 
lanes everywhere either - I was on record here years ago as saying that 
Bull Creek was a marginal case, for instance, and didn't deserve the 
attention until the suburban routes like Jollyville were addressed.

If your argument is that we should remove the stripes entirely - I'd 
agree. Bike lanes with cars parked in them are worse than no bike lanes 
at all. I'd, in fact, be thrilled to hear the neighbors wail and moan at 
the inevitably higher-speed automobile traffic that would then result.

>But, since I'd really hoped that the repetitive SCB posts would end (and
>noting that I have received several off-list replies thanking me for
>interjecting into the SCB history debate my concern that there wasn't good
>cause to enter the battle), 
>
Well, if that's the game that we're playing, I can truthfully relate to 
you that I've also received many off-list replies thanking me for 
continuing to post on the subject, and thus getting the history CORRECT 
rather than allowing the neighborhood to rewrite it. And the precedent 
set did indeed affect debate on the UTC about the church wanting to park 
in bike lanes on Bull Creek, and I, in case you forget, was and am in a 
position to know.

In short: Many roads are marginal cases for bike lanes. But if the bike 
lane is there at all, it must be a no-parking bike lane, or it hurts 
both the political position of cyclists (causing unnecessary irritation 
to motorists) AND runs a safety risk with novice cyclists. If you want 
parking on a street, get rid of the damn bike lane.

- MD