Dr. Gridlock and Cycling (LONG)

the following ran in the Washington Post on 28 Aug, in the "Dr.
Gridlock" column:


***begin verbatim****
Dear Dr. Gridlock:

In a region where it seems many motorists lack the patience to yield
to pedestrians, emergency vehicles or funeral processions, what makes
some people think anyone is impressed by the argument that if cyclists
slavishly obey the law, motorists will suddenly start treating them
with respect?

Why don't they simply admit that, like other impatient and
self-important motorists who blame others for their aggressive
driving, what they really want are traffic conditions free of any
obstacles they feel prevent them from shaving a few seconds off their
daily commute?

If they cycled they'd realize that the primary reason I and other
cyclists don't always follow the rules of the road is that, on a
playing field heavily skewed in favor of motorists (many of whom are
all too eager to exploit the size, weight and power of their vehicles
to intimidate cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists), we need to
take advantage of as many head starts and shortcuts as we can find.

Marcel Prather

Washington

Head starts and shortcuts are one thing. (And I sympathize with your
David-Goliath existence.) But kamikaze riding on downtown D.C.
sidewalks or running red lights, which we see too often, is something
else.

I would like to see a network of bike lanes that would separate bikes
from traffic and encourage bicycle commuting.

****end verbatim***

I wrote back to Dr. Gridlock at (if you do
the same, be sure to include your full name, city, county, and
telephone numbers). The full text of my response below:

***begin verbatim***

Dear Dr. Gridlock,

In your most recent column (Aug 28), you printed a letter from
cyclist Marcel Prather, who defended his right to "take
advantage of as many head starts and shortcuts as [he] can find."

I sympathise with Mr. Prather. The streetscape, as it is, can be
very hostile to cyclists, particularly at red lights.
The main problem a cyclist has at the red light is being able to see
the intersection--so very often you will find that a
cyclist will roll up three or four yards past the white line, and
stop. In London, there is an elegant solution-- There
are two lines at each stoplight: a wide white line, at which cars are
expected to stop (and do), and then a green zone
extending a few yards beyond, where cyclists can (and do) stop.

In your response you said you would like to see "...a network of
bike lanes that would separate bikes from traffic and
encourage bicycle commuting."

Here's what such a system might look like:

-It would extend from your doorstep to wherever you should like to
go-- offices, shops, schools, libraries,
courthouses, movie houses, theatres....

-It would have a nice, smooth surface; well-maintainted everywhere
and at public expense.

-It would have adequate signage and signaling.

-It would be free of pedestrians, dog-walkers, rollerbladers and
joggers- -particularly the walkman-wearing species of
each.

In fact, it may amaze you and many of your readers that such a
comprehensive infrastructure for cyclists exists, and
is maintained by local and state governments at considerable cost:
the public roadways. Yes, they're full of road-
raging, fuel-guzzling, cell-phone-using, motorists. But there are
precious few dedicated bikeways that get you *exactly*
where you need to go, door to door. Anything else is of very limited
utility indeed.

Street space is precious enough as it is. Segregating bike lanes
on streets would mean motorists would have to
sacrifice a half-lane of traffic in each direction. Say goodbye to
right-turn lanes and passing lanes. Not to mention
the added complexity of intersections: you'd have to put up signals
that would enable the cyclists to turn left and
right, just like normal traffic would. Several European
countries--notably the Netherlands-- have adopted systems along
these lines in their major cities. Yes, they do increase total
bicycle use; but I doubt that area governments and
taxpayers would readily vote for the enormous appropriation necessary
to make it work well, nor would commuters (both
human-powered and otherwise) appreciate the long delays that the total
reconstruction of an urban streetscape would
entail. This isn't to say all bike paths or segregated bicycle
facilities are bad. I'd like to see some out in the
suburbs, but as bicycle equivalents of the Interstate highways: long,
straight, fast, and with limited access. The W&OD
and Custis trails in Virginia are a great example of this, and an
invaluable resource to cyclists commuting into the
District; their path parallels that of I-66, and makes for a quick
and safe way through the I-66/Rt. 50/ Rt. 29 corridor.

Better enforcement of existing traffic laws--across the board, for
cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike--leads
to safer streets for everyone. Coupled with better enforcement, there
needs to be better education, starting at the
primary-school level, about responsible transportational cycling. The
benefit can only trickle up: Kids who know the
rules of the road and have direct experience of following them in
traffic will grow up to be better, safer, and more
responsible motorists.
Sincerely,

Luigi de Guzman
Fairfax, VA

***end verbatim***

Luigi De Guzman writes:

the following ran in the Washington Post on 28 Aug, in the "Dr.
Gridlock" column:

***begin verbatim****

[snip]

I would like to see a network of bike lanes that would separate bikes
from traffic

***end verbatim****


Dear Luigi,

Inspired by your example, I have sent a somewhat shorter message, copied
below, to the good Doctor.

N. Lenderby (Mrs)


***begin verbatim***

Dear Dr. Gridlock,

Bikes *are* traffic, dumbass.

O. Lenderby (Mrs)

***end verbatim***



--
--------------------------
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

Excellent letter, Luigi! [And good point, Mrs. Lenderby.]

I think Marcel misses the point about traffic laws: you shouldn't
obey them to gain respect from motorists (unlikely to happen until
more motorists become bikers), you should obey them because it is the
safest thing to do. Though I agree, I get tired of people assuming
that all bikers break the law and therefore don't belong on the road.
(Most drivers break at least one law - the speed limit - and no one
says motorists don't belong on the road.)

Also, I think Dr. G falls into the same trap as many local cycling
advocates: the wish for a separate [but equal?] network of trails
just for cyclists. Not only is this impossible, but Dr. G. will grow
old and die before it happens. People say, "When they build a bike
trail for me, that's the day I'll start cycling." Well, that day
isn't going to arrive any time soon, and it may never arrive. Even
trails that are in the planning stages now are years away from being
built. Meanwhile, those people who avoid cycling "because there's no
safe place to ride" will continue getting fatter and more out of shape
and they'll never become competent bikers, because they think safety
is created by external conditions, not by their own actions.

You know that old saying about giving a man a fish? Well, give a man
a bike trail, and he'll be able to ride as far as the trail goes, but
teach a man how to ride on the road, and he'll be able to go anywhere.

--Nancy Taylor
Bethesda, MD

(Nancy Taylor) wrote:
[...]
You know that old saying about giving a man a fish? Well, give a man
a bike trail, and he'll be able to ride as far as the trail goes, but
teach a man how to ride on the road, and he'll be able to go anywhere.

Well said.

--
z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/

In article , zeldabee
wrote:

(Nancy Taylor) wrote:
[...]
You know that old saying about giving a man a fish? Well, give a man
a bike trail, and he'll be able to ride as far as the trail goes, but
teach a man how to ride on the road, and he'll be able to go anywhere.

Well said.


Nine solid years on Usenet and I don't think I've ever done a "me too"
post but I simply have to say that the above is elegance itself and now
takes place next to my previous favorite bicycle homily:

Curing excessive traffic by building more roads is like curing obesity
by buying a larger belt.

wrote in
:

In article , zeldabee
wrote:

(Nancy Taylor) wrote:
[...]
You know that old saying about giving a man a fish? Well, give a
man a bike trail, and he'll be able to ride as far as the trail
goes, but teach a man how to ride on the road, and he'll be able to
go anywhere.

Well said.


Nine solid years on Usenet and I don't think I've ever done a "me too"
post but I simply have to say that the above is elegance itself and
now takes place next to my previous favorite bicycle homily:

Curing excessive traffic by building more roads is like curing obesity
by buying a larger belt.


me too!

fragg -

You know that old saying about giving a man a fish? Well, give a man
a bike trail, and he'll be able to ride as far as the trail goes, but
teach a man how to ride on the road, and he'll be able to go anywhere.


Im gonna be quoting you all week
--Nancy Taylor
Bethesda, MD