As
some folks know, I am not generally in favor of bike lanes as they have
been painted here in town. I have been getting some push back from some engineers on this,
based on some vague perception that bike lanes are safer and that
studies show this, or that studies show that bike lanes lead to more
bike usage. Or something. There is much belief in magic paint.
I've
been saying that bike lanes are a detriment to safety. Yeah, I get that
folks who don't know any better think they make things safer--they
don't. Just like wider lanes with huge zones of no solid obstacles don't
make for safer traffic (such places encourage speeding, for example, as
opposed to narrower lanes with trees closer to the roadway that tend to slow
motorists and make them pay closer attention to their surroundings),
bike lanes that take cyclists out of motorists' consciousness diminish
safety.
I've
been reminded of the Lusk study recently, as supposed proof that bike
lanes are a good idea. It has some VERY big holes in the methodology
that a first-term statistics student would recognize, with a horribly biased result.
I'm also reminded of all the bike infrastructure in Copenhagen or Amsterdam--two cities in countries that, by law, assume any car-vs-bike crash to be the motorist's fault unless some fairly strong contrary evidence is presented, with the result that motorists have been socialized over a long time to keep their heads out of their rectal canals. I would also offer this video of how things are perceived by a tourist in Holland. It isn't all rosy, there, for certain.
I'm also reminded of all the bike infrastructure in Copenhagen or Amsterdam--two cities in countries that, by law, assume any car-vs-bike crash to be the motorist's fault unless some fairly strong contrary evidence is presented, with the result that motorists have been socialized over a long time to keep their heads out of their rectal canals. I would also offer this video of how things are perceived by a tourist in Holland. It isn't all rosy, there, for certain.
Statistics
can be useful, but correlation does not imply causality: a textbook example of this is the correlation between ice cream
sales and boating emergencies. When ice cream sales are high, more
folks drown. Should we then ban ice cream sales? Ban boating as a way to reduce ice cream sales? The Lusk study has
other, larger, problems than the correlation/causality issue, of course.
It also ignores the problems created by bike lanes, as shown in
analysis of this crash (ironically, this crash was in Montreal, where
the Lusk research--such as it was--was done).
Anyway,
here's a list of studies that supposedly prove that bike lanes are a
good idea, with annotations regarding the poor statistical analyses.
I
know that one big concern in Public Works is pedestrian safety. I
understand that improving our numbers (reducing pedestrian injuries and
deaths)
is hoped to have the additional benefit of reducing car crashes in
general, and car-vs-bike crashes in proportion to reducing
car-vs-pedestrian incidents. I'm in favor of that goal, of course (who
wouldn't be?).
I
would prefer, however, that we put more emphasis on addressing the
cause of the perceived danger--poor operation of those big hunks of
metal--rather than making the rest of us pay by reducing our mobility.
I've too often gotten the "stay in the effing bike lane" motorist
harassment when the bike lane is not usable for any of several reasons,
and paying money for poorly-designed bike lanes that less-confident
cyclists than I will feel compelled to use despite that they put those
same cyclists in greater
danger is a bad thing.
