To arms, cyclists! The war is on!

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.” 
― William Shakespeare, Henry V

Bike Joust by Karl Addison

In this morning's Post, Transportation writer Ashley Halsey III writes a response to a rash of recent columns about cyclists that have appeared over the past few days, in particular this tirade from Courtland Milloy which followed this one by John Kelly. And this piece by Rachel Sadon. And this one by Sarah Kaplan. And this one by Petula Dvorak. Looks like a busy time around the water cooler for the editorial staff at the Post. I can assure you, the Comments engine at the paper must be at near capacity.

These commentaries follow a firestorm created by an ill-considered tweet from NPR's Scott Simon, which prompted this extremely well articulated response from Carl Alviani on Medium which referenced a retort tweet from BikeSnobNYC. Suddenly cycling editorials are coming out of nowhere!

A casual observer might be forgiven for concluding from the histrionic rhetoric that there is a war in this country between motorists and cyclists. In some senses there is a war; if only for funding, for space, for equal protection under law. It's an engagement reminiscent of the great American Civil War, only now pedestrians are fighting for exclusive rights to the sidewalks, cyclists are fighting for equal rights to the road, and motorists are fighting to preserve their right to continue to slaughter over 30,000 people per year in what they term "accidents". Thankfully, the fight is so far limited to the Op Ed pages of newspapers and blogs with the occasional intrusion into transportation funding meetings. Oh, and of course on YouTube, the world's new public square. 

It would be easy to be discouraged by the insane vitriol spewed by people on both sides of this debate, but I have to say I find it somewhat promising. First, it's good to know that the most significant event the Op Ed columnists of the world can think to write about on a given morning is that goddamn bicyclist that jumped a stop sign on the way to work. Or that had the audacity to ride on the sidewalk in the extremely small area downtown where that behavior is illegal. I'd much rather read about that than about actual tragedies that happen when cars ride on the sidewalks and people actually die rather than just being annoyed and possibly inconvenienced. 

And that there are so many of these rant-a-torials must be an indication that cycling has reached a certain critical mass making it worthy of comment. Cyclists are now having such an impact on the comings and goings of our fellow citizens that we warrant being hated, which is a clear sign of significance. At least we are now sufficiently annoying that we must be reckoned with. And now that drivers are pissed off, maybe they'll want to do something about it, like vote to increase transportation funding so the bicycle commuters don't have to share the roads with their laughable Humscalades they bought to chauffeur their kids to school. 

Maybe now that all these nasty cyclists are forcing drivers to repeatedly press the brake and gas pedals and maybe turn the steering wheel more often, they'll have no alternative but to recognize that there are other human beings in the world, people with different priorities and lifestyles; fellow citizens whose admittedly conflicting rights need to be taken into consideration. Nah... what am I thinking? They'll just keep bitching and spending their ever-shrinking transportation dollars on their ever-expanding superhighways so we can all spend our entire, pointless lives sitting in gigantic vehicles going zero miles per hour on Interstate 95 between Springfield and Fredericksburg. Goddamn bicycles! 

Revolution Schmevolution

In a previous post I cited a series of articles written by Jan Heine of Bicycle Quarterly (sheesh, why do I even subscribe to that magazine when Jan puts everything but the ads on his blog..?) about the relative merits of bicycle-specific infrastructure such as separated bike lanes, cycle tracks, etc. The gist was that there is a battle between those who advocate for bikes to have separate-but-equal facilities and those who want bicycles to be treated as vehicles - granted rights on the road equal to cars. I suggested, in my intuitive, non-scientific way, that there was likely some middle ground where bike lanes and cycle tracks would continue to proliferated in densely packed urban cores, bikes would continue to be treated like malformed stepchildren in the suburbs and in the country we would still have to clench our Lycra clad sphincters every time one of those gigantic pickup trucks blows by, but otherwise would still be happiest on such roads with their light traffic.

In his follow-up post on the topic, Jan has done what Jan usually does, which is analyze the options from a rational, statistical perspective aimed at maximizing the safety of cyclists and has recommended almost exactly the opposite of what we seem to actually be doing. He argues that on city streets where automobile traffic is moving slowly, riding in the street is the safest approach. Where the speed picks up a bit (up to 30 MPH), painted bike lanes allow sufficient separation to assure bikes and cars can coexist peaceably. And when cars are flying, he acknowledges that completely separate bike lanes are warranted. He cites the example of Munich, Germany which has engaged in a decade long effort to modernize its infrastructure and has apparently achieved a 70% increase in bicycle mode share in just nine years; 17.4% of all trips in Munich are now made by bicycle.

His key recommendation suggests the creation of Fahrradstraßen, bike boulevards where cyclists have the dominant right-of-way. Personally I have difficulty imagining many American cities will ever consider bicyclists worthy of the top spot on the totem pole. It just seems too European. But the concept is definitely intriguing. Just take a few strategically placed, lightly used side streets and designate them "bike boulevards". Cars can still use them, but bikes have the right-of-way. This would get a lot of bikes off the main arteries and make cyclists feel safer, which would get more people on bikes which would reduce traffic on the main arteries. I just have such a hard time seeing Americans giving priority to bikes over cars.

Maybe if we make it a nationalistic thing. Make it about beating the Germans. You know, Let's get those Krauts before they cover the world in Fahrradbahns! It might work. After all it worked once. I mean we entered WWII to save the English, who we don't much care for (and who, I might add we had to forcibly expel from these beloved shores a mere 158 years prior), and the Jews, who many Americans would probably have liked to exterminate themselves. We could get some awesome propaganda posters made and whip up the anti-Teutonic fervor that's always lurking just below the otherwise quiet exterior of the average American. Nah, it would never work. Or, I guess we'll just keep things just the way they are, which is what I suspect we'll do.

The problem is that the communities with the greatest desire for improved infrastructure, i.e., cities, don't really need much in the way of improvement. And those most in need of improvement, i.e., suburbs, don't want it (meaning don't want to spend money on it). So we'll end up with all kinds of separated lanes in the cities where we don't need it and the suburbs will continue to be soulless, car focused hellscapes populated by Humscalade driving distracto-moms shuttling their obese offspring from one diabetes clinic to the next while shouting at their cell phones over the television in the back seat playing a continuous loop of drool inducing mental pablum. Sorry Jan. We're not in the Old Country anymore...        

Integration Segregation

Jan Heine, editor of the much esteemed Bicycle Quarterly has recently engaged in one of his typically analytic discussions on the relative merits of the various types of bicycle-specific infrastructure popping up around US cities. In particular, he seems a bit incensed over a newly unveiled cycle path in his home city of Seattle. In the age old argument between those who advocate for equal rights of bicycles on the street (let's call them Vehicularists) and those who advocate for bicycles to be segregated from car traffic as much as possible (George Wallace took all the fun out of the term best used for these folks), Jan seems to be tending toward the vehicular side. But if you know how Jan's mind works (which you would if you read Bicycle Quarterly or his blog, Off the Beaten Path), you would know that he's really more of a data weenie than an ideological zealot. And more importantly, he is a lover of elegant design; and anyone who loves good, sensible, utilitarian design has got, inevitably, to hate most of what passes for bicycle-specific infrastructure.

My own city, that is the nearest big city, the one around whose edges I have spent the vast majority of my life, has been engaged in the rapid expansion of cycling infrastructure over the last decade or so, and is struggling as are many of our cities to figure out exactly how bicycles fit into the overall flow of traffic. We are in the early days of what sometimes seems like a genuine transformation of our city. And as is always the case with all of nature's transformations, we are experiencing growing pains. And it's not difficult to understand why.

"...evolving designs reflect a learning process, as bikes are squeezed back into a streetscape long dominated by cars."

The division between the two camps is completely understandable. White guys in Lycra want to be allowed treated like equal citizens, afforded the same rights as people in cars. They don't want to dodge baby strollers and speed walkers and all the other obstacles strewn about the average "mixed use" trail. And they want to make left turns without having to wait through two stop lights. The Dutch apparently don't mind waiting, but that's be presumably because they don't have real jobs to get to.

Pass the Dutchy on the left-hand side.

On the other hand, most people, thank Kröd, don't want to dress up in skin tight synthetic clothing, put a Styrofoam ice cooler on their heads and max out their lactic thresholds just to get to work or the store. It's the usual tribal warfare between caffeinated Baristas trying to get to work quickly and moms getting their kids safely to school; between racers and riders, carbon and steel, people who live in Copenhagen and people who live in an exurb with streets named after the features bulldozed to build the development.

I love this particular ideological war because it starts with the premise that it's good to have more people riding bikes. The argument is about how best to accomplish that goal. A worthy conversation. I am personally of the opinion that neither side is absolutely correct. We're not going to dig up all our cities and remake them around the bike. And the suburbs are not going to become friendly places for human powered vehicles until the gas runs out.

Ultimately we will find a range of options, more or less appropriate for each situation. I think cities will do a lot of retrofitting of their existing infrastructure, putting in bike lanes, bike shares and bike parking. Suburbs will continue to worship cars and parking lots but over the past decade more rail trails, sidewalks and mini-villages have popped up, so maybe there is hope yet. And country roads will still be lovely places for a delightful cyclo-tour despite the occasional yahoo in one of those silly big pick-em-up trucks hollering, "get off the road!"