Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Some People Still Think Bike Lanes Are Safer

Ben Fried has written a piece at Streetsblog and he makes some preposterous claims! He said:

CB6 District Manager Craig Hammerman proposes converting the existing bike lane to a Class 3 route. That means cyclists would get sharrows instead -- road markings that don't carry the same visual weight or staying power as dedicated lanes. "It would seem to me," Hammerman wrote, that converting the bike lane to sharrows "would eliminate the existing conflict between the bicycles and the merchant delivery trucks."

Or it would simply expose thousands of people to more danger and risk. The proposed scenario wouldn't do anything to help delivery drivers find curbside spots, but it would force cyclists to kiss their dedicated space goodbye. In DOT's latest survey of Fifth Avenue bike traffic, conducted on a weekday in October, 865 cyclists were counted between 8th Street and 9th Street in one twelve-hour period. There's no indication that the agency will roll back this widely used safety measure.

So door zone bike lanes are there to promote safety? (See photo in linked article.) Most of the paint and plaque folks avoid this blunder!

This is yet another territorial dispute that is so silly. Mr. Fried is picking a fight over a shiny penny because he doesn't value the tarnished silver dollar next to it. Would that he could seize his right to the public street, rather than squabble over the crumbs that are left to him in the semi-private ghetto.


  1. Somebody needs to dope-slap that guy.

  2. Cyclists ghettoized in the door zone! There's a headline for ya.

  3. He ain't done yet. Now he is advocating a "Two way protected bike lane" and saying it is a positive safety issue!


    A description of the proposed one way street configuration; "The design would be a two-way bike path, then a buffer, then parking, then moving traffic, then more parking."

  4. Some more data on the street plan that Mr. Fried proclaims will increase safety:


  5. There's a letter in the LAB magazine this month from an NYC bicyclist who hates the "protected" bike lanes.

    I'd like to see some good dual chase video done there comparing road riding with those facilities. Of course, you can't do it on the same road because side-path and bike lane use is mandatory in NYC.

    Don't you love how cycling nannies (or ninnies) get to inflict their crappy facilities on competent cyclists? There's no reward for learning how to ride confidently and safely when your right to the road can be taken away to accommodate those who are too lazy or scared to do the same.

  6. If it wasn't for the broad-brush effects on the innocent, I'd say these folks get just what they deserve.

  7. The lazy and the scared are people too. The best solution would accommodate a variety of user groups. Do away with mandatory bike route and side path laws, but develop a variety of facilities to take advantage of ALL of the bicycle's advantages. Otherwise the lazy and the scared join the pool of bitter motorists already too large for everyone's own good.