BIKE: Dedicated bike lanes -- a mistake?

[Fred Meredith]

Ah, Mike, I didn't realize you were LOOKING for any content. You 
sounded as if you had all the content you needed.

I haven't criticized anything on this list since I got after someone 
for name calling which really doesn't further anything.

I was pointing out that your arguments sounded as if they had been 
formulated without any statistical research and were merely grouped 
to fit your perception of the world (real or otherwise). That's why I 
found it interesting that you needed to make up three groups to 
gather all of the people who take the other side of the fence you've 
chosen to stand behind.

I think the PROBLEM of Shoal Creek Blvd was turned into a mess long 
ago and POSSIBLY (no empirical data to support it) because too many 
people wanted too many different things.

IF the neighborhood people had REALLY wanted traffic calming as one 
of their goals (slowing motorists on Shoal Creek) they could have 
gotten behind something like curb-to-curb speed humps which, if 
placed frequently enough, slow most everyone to 20 or 25 mph. That 
would have also discouraged motorists from using Shoal Creek as a 
MoPac bypass during gridlocked hours. It would be a hassle with humps 
at 3 or 4 to the block. The problem is, it would also be a hassle for 
the residents along Shoal Creek. I think they, like many of us in a 
similar situation, wanted something that curbed the behavior of 
others without impinging on their behavior.

That's just one little fragment of the bloated situation of Shoal 
Creek. CONSULTANTS also got involved and you know how that can get. 
No simple solution (not requiring money spent or at least apparent 
change affected) was ever proposed by a consultant.

Also, nobody really worked from the ACTUAL situation in trying to 
create solutions. The ACTUAL conditions along most of SCB during an 
average day indicate very few cars parked at the curb. Maybe even 
fewer cars for a bike-lane-riding cyclist to steer around in the old 
days than there will be curb bulbouts for a novice cyclist to steer 
around with the new plan.

Safety for a cyclist in the motorist overtaking situation is holding 
a predictable straight line. Weaving back and forth, leaving and 
reentering the traffic lane is not a safe proposition, yet that is 
EXACTLY what the novice cyclist will do when confronted with this new 
arrangement of paint and a curb mostly devoid of cars. They will not 
ride out near the traffic lane. They WILL ride at some comfortable 
distance from the curb and move out when they have to. So, what is 
different from what we had before (back when some days the bike lane 
was untenable not from cars parked in it, but from trash cans parked 
it it on trash pick up day.

You aren't going to find a good "made up" solution unless you remove 
some parking from the street or just teach the cyclists how to ride 
when there are painted lines and when there aren't any painted lines. 
It should be on the same part of the roadway and a no brainer once 
the education takes.

Yes, bike lanes work in some places and there a few places that they 
are very important, but all too often the people who say where and 
how they will go, are not bicyclists or not well-educated bicyclists.

The dumbest thing that can be said for bike lanes is that they 
encourage novice and young riders to get out into the street. Yes, in 
spite of whether they have any experience or training, Mike, if you 
lived on one of those little streets off of SCB, maybe one of the 
cross streets that dead end at Mopac, and you had a young child with 
a bicycle, would you rather they learned their street riding on your 
quiet and unmarked street or go over to SCB because it has painted 
bike lanes on it and must be where you are supposed to ride. Which 
are you letting your kid start on?

Still your friend, no matter how upset you get with me,

Fred Meredith


At 3:33 PM -0600 3/30/05, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>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


-- 
When in doubt ... ride your bike (or at least write about it).

Fred Meredith
P.O. Box 100 (12702 Lowden Ln for UPS/FedEx)
Manchaca, TX 78652
512/282-1987 (office/home)
512/282-7413 (fax)
512/636-7480 (wireless)
More than you want to know at: http://2merediths.com