BIKE: Dedicated bike lanes -- a mistake?

[Mike Dahmus]

Fred Meredith wrote:

> At 10:53 AM -0600 3/30/05, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>
>> From my experience arguing this very issue (on USENET among other 
>> places):
>>
>> Most of the people who argue that bike lanes are almost always bad 
>> tend to be in one of these groups (or combinations thereof):
>>
>> 1. focused with laser-sharp precision on the needs of current 
>> (experienced) transportational cyclists (i.e. don't think or care 
>> about kids, novices, elderly) - tend to be people who live in areas 
>> where cycling just tends to happen by itself and doesn't need 
>> promotion or encouragement.
>>
>> 2. inexperienced with suburban cycling conditions (i.e. why would you 
>> ever need a bike lane or marked shoulder if roads are laid out in a 
>> grid pattern with design speeds of 30 mph) - tend to be 
>> disproportionately European, some Amercan adherents among Forsterites 
>> mainly in the northeast or midwest United States - areas which 
>> haven't seen much growth since the 1960s or so. IE - these are people 
>> who never have to ride on roads like Jollyville to get where they 
>> want to go.
>>
>> 3. careless about the needs of the city to ensure good traffic flow 
>> for all users of a corridor - i.e. sometimes the bike lane exists to 
>> increase the likelihood that motorists can maintain some reasonable 
>> level of speed, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. IE, these are 
>> people who think the city shouldn't care that automobile traffic 
>> would often and suddenly be restricted to 10 mph or so on any given 
>> street since some motorists don't effectively know how to pass 
>> cyclists without the help of a stripe.
>>
>> They also tend to neglect statistical thinking in their arguments - 
>> focusing, for instance, on the average passing distance they get from 
>> motorists in wide curb lanes vs bike lanes, rather than looking 
>> deeper to the 10th percentile case. See 
>> http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/trans/bl-wcl-pd.html for more details.
>
>
> Mike, I am so glad you have gone to the trouble to do so many 
> scientific studies involving Shoal Creek Blvd and similar roadways in 
> order that your arguments can be so well grounded in "statistical 
> thinking." Otherwise, one might have thought that you were pulling 
> some of this stuff right out of your ... in support of what you have 
> already chosen to believe. 

This type of retort isn't helpful at all, Fred. I'm surprised that the 
person who spends more time here than anyone criticizing others' 
behavior would stoop to such a low.

I wrote my page about passing distance on Shoal Creek to explain a 
hypothetical to some people who just weren't "getting it" when we were 
discussing how EVEN IF the average passing distance is larger with wide 
curb lanes, bike lanes might STILL BE SAFER. In other words, they 
assumed that if the average pass was larger, then effectively all passes 
would be larger (of course this is ludicrous, but it did, in fact, happen).

I used my estimate of passing distance during my own commutes on Shoal 
Creek - this was honest recollection.

This is, in fact, thinking of the problem using statistics. If you can 
think of a better term than "statistical thinking", go right ahead.

For those tempted to take Fred's chiding to heart, please note that 
despite his high-horse, he did not add any content to the discussion. 
None. Zero. Just attacks on me, including the implication that I was 
"pulling some of this stuff right out of your ... in support of what you 
have already chosen to believe."

I would love to have an honest discussion about the place of bike lanes 
versus wide curb lanes versus shared lanes. In fact, one could even have 
been continued from the very posting Fred found so odious, since I 
included a heck of a lot of the typical reasoning on the bike lane side 
in my note. But the person to which I responded was looking for reasons 
why the "no bike lane guys" thought the way they did, and I provided my 
opinion on the matter.

- MD