|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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*** |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Gridlock and Cycling (LONG)
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Gridlock and Cycling (LONG)
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Gridlock and Cycling (LONG)
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Gridlock and Cycling (LONG)
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 - |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Dr. Gridlock and Cycling (LONG)
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycling and the Northeast blackout | Roly Poly Man | General | 7 | August 15th 03 07:24 AM |