 | World Oil Forecasts Including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE - Update Oct 2007 | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: October 17, 2007 |  |
21 comments on Separated Bike Lanes in NYC: Dividends of Advocacy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
21 comments on Separated Bike Lanes in NYC: Dividends of Advocacy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I dislike seperated bike lanes as the only priority because they delegitimitize cyclist's legal use of regular streets. Much more valid and much cheaper would be a simple ordinance change giving legally operated bicycles priority over powered vehicles, as in "the operator of motor vehicle must yield to legally operated bicycle in every circumstance" going on to define "legally operated bicycle" as one that is following existing traffic law, with the exception of speeed minimums.
Pursued in conjuction with street improvement such as bike "priority" lanes, bolstered by an public education/awareness campaign, and enforced by an enlightened traffic control force, this would immediately give cyclists considerable protection without reconfiguring every street.
I like the idea, but wouldn't that take a huge amount of re-education for drivers? Don't get me wrong, i think it's a great idea, but I think it might take a nationwide public awareness campaign to get that kind of thing ingrained in drivers' mentalities. I mean, technically pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks too, but you certainly don't see that rule being obeyed across the board...
Separate bike lanes are very important for at least 2 reasons:
1. it legitimizes bicycling as a form of TRANSPORTATION and not just something you put on your SUV and take to the park
2. SAFETY!. We need families bicycling as a form of TRANSPORTATION. For families, the main issue is safety. The key advantage of separate bike lanes is that they're safe.
I believe seperate bike lanes are needed but not everywhere. They're best for high density areas like downtown. I also would like to see them as a way of connecting homes to schools/stores. As far as commuting to work on a bike. I see a lot of these commutes requiring roads with speed limits over 40mph. I don't think these roads need separate bike lanes-- but I wouldn't be opposed to the idea.
As far as commuting to work on a bicycle goes, people should electrify their bikes. I have an electric bike. It is a motor kit that I installed on a regular bike. Getting to work is very fast (almost as fast as a car) and sweat free. This bike is my second car.
This additional safety is questionable. I know a lot of experienced bicycle riders here in Germany who argue that by taking bicycles off of the road, drivers lose their attention. The critical point is at crossroads, and it seems that cyclists are safer there if they are sharing a lane with cars, because they will be seen more easily.
BY the way, are all those guys in the film driving on the wrong side of the road?
Also, in the city the most dangerous place is intersections. Are the segregated bike lanes helping at the intersections? How? Do they make it harder for the cyclist to turn into a crossing street, across traffic? As someone said up-post, the devil is in the details.