writing dry spell is over for the moment

For a couple of days, now, I've been wondering what to discuss in my next blog post. I wanted something worthy of getting back on the keyboard for a missive more involved than a pithy comment on Facebook.

Thanks to Mighk Wilson, I now have such a topic--his new essay posted on the I am Traffic site.

It's not a short essay. There are several complex thoughts presented--enough so that I cannot give an adequate synopsis on a first reading.

There are some gem-level tidbits in Mighk's writing, but quoting them here limits their effectiveness. To really make sense, they need to be read in the context of the entire essay. A couple of his statements have become axiomatic to me, although not as well put into words:

Adding more rules will not solve the problem, because adding more rules adds points of failure. Instead of more rules, cyclists need more options to avoid the errors of others. Our most important options are sufficient operating space and adequate line of sight.

 The essential fairness of the rules of the road is based on the idea that all people are equal, no matter their mode.

Or a point that I keep reminding folks of when talking about the Lusk, et al study and the Teschke study that figure so prominently in the arguments put forth by fans of painted-on bike lanes:

But I was being charitable to those bikeway studies a few paragraphs back. Their claims of crash rate reductions are highly suspect due to poor methodologies. None of the studies address cyclist or motorist behaviors. They simply look at all the crashes before and after the installation, or compare crashes on streets with and without bikeways. In order for such comparisons to be valid you have to screen out crashes that wouldn’t have been affected by the bikeway presence, such as someone running a red light or a stop sign, or a cyclist entering the roadway from a driveway, or one out at night without lights.

In other news, Grinstead Drive is getting a road diet! There had been talk of this for a while, and I had a very small degree of input at some point (mostly agreeing with a couple of points made by 8Dave during the design phase). I haven't seen the final design plan, but I'm cautiously optimistic, at least for the westbound side of Grinstead alongside Cave Hill Cemetery. A bike lane there actually does make sense, as there are very few (one--the side entrance to Cave Hill) chances for right hook conflicts and that section of Grinstead goes up a hill such that a cyclist climbing lane would be appreciated by many.

In the same C-J article, we learn of a public information meeting on the topic of expanding the successful Brownsboro Road diet section from Ewing Avenue to Hillcrest Avenue. The C-J cites the Mayor's office claim that the crash frequency has dropped by 40% while transit times have remained roughly the same (no doubt aided by the reduced need to slow to avoid others' crashes).

Again, I'm cautiously optimistic on the Grinstead Drive road diet. I'm eager to see the results of the Brownsboro Road diet.

And I need to spend some more time thinking about Mighk's essay. I'd enjoy reading your comments on it as well!