The vehicular crowd held cycling in it’s grip and minimal growth has occurred since the 1970′s. I have also lived and ridden in NYC since the 1980′s and it’s been amazing to watch as infrastructure has completely changed the cycling environment in that city. The same friends, who 20 years ago used to call me insane for riding in the city, are now every day cyclists and all of them attribute the West Side Bike path and bike lanes for their change of heart. And the NYC infrastructure is by no means “perfect” but bicycling related deaths and injuries have not skyrocketed with the increase in cyclists.

I agree with those that say that with the loss of every strict vehicular cyclist/infrastructure naysayer MassBike can expect an increase in membership. I, for one, am only too happy to support these new, more open minded efforts to support infrastructure.

—————————-
For some strange, possibly insane, reason we took the Rachel street bike path last night.

This path is insane, and insanely dangerous.

It crosses many side-streets, is next to a sidewalk full of people who step off on to the bike path frequently without looking, is full of aggressive and not-traffic-law-obeying cyclists who pass with no bell-ringing or even space to pass, has roller bladers going side by side blocking the whole path, has dogs, kids, and a line of parked cars making cyclists invisible to the passing (and turning!) cars. There’s probably a few more ways to die on this path that I didn’t notice, but I was only there for ten minutes.

Basically this path is a nightmare.

http://cyclingfunmontreal.blogspot.com/2008/05/rachel-street-and-lachine-canal-unsafe.html

You can FEEL the difference in biker awareness from motorists in cities like Cambridge that have had bike infrastructure in place for awhile vs. those that haven’t such as Somerville. I live in Somerville and am fairly confident in my ability to read tea leaves to figure out what motorists are about to do… but if I were a less experienced biker there is no way I would begin riding amongst that sort of adversity.

Bike infrastructure breeds ridership and ridership and clear boundaries breed biker awareness on the roads. From there GOOD ridership can be emphasized but it matters not if you’re riding as you ought to and every other driver blindsides you because they do not expect your presence.

Up until now, I have seen no progress in urban cycling here in 40 years. I understand “vehicular cycling”. I have read “Effective Cycling”. I have read the studies and the white papers. I have engaged in many arguments on the Internet. I think I’m a well informed cyclist.

I let my MassBike membership lapse many years ago. I saw no reason to support an organization that I felt worked against my interests. I firmly support bicycle facilities. I even more firmly support traffic calming and reduction of automobile facilities in densely settled areas. I won’t bother with a reprise of the arguments, the positions are well established, I won’t add anything new.

Vehicular/Effective cycling is an experiment that has been tried and failed — like Reaganomics. Time to move on. I’m sure that there will be many alternate un-facilitated routes available for the foreseeable future, more than enough to accommodate the faithful. Don’t worry about the rest of us, we’ll be fine.

I had given up on Massbike due to the rabid effective cyclist contingent. Now I’m excited about the possibilities.

In case the effective cyclists missed it, the LAB has now seen the light too:

http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/Images/smart_cycling_and_bike_lanes.pdf

Tom, I’d like to make sure that I understand what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that bike lanes (even of the mandated 5-foot width) should not be striped next to on-street parking?

If I’ve understood — and perhaps I haven’t — then this would suggest that the bike lanes on Washington St. from Roslindale Square to Forest Hills ought not to have been installed.

I’m not sure I see the rationale. If I ride in the left-hand part of the bike lane, I’m pretty much out of the door zone (except perhaps for old coupes with those *really* long doors). Without the bike lane, I would feel the need to “take the lane” most of the way, which would seem impractical given how quickly the traffic moves there (and I am not one of these 20mph+ commuters).

That said, I do agree that bike lanes as often striped may encourage newbies like me to hug the right-hand side of the lane. I would like to see some alternative designs that discourage this, such as making the right-hand line a foot thick or painting diagonal “door lines” where doors would open.

The “safety in numbers idea” is something that the bike facilities zealots have championed in recent years. This has happened after they’ve stopped making specific claims for creating safety with their devices (ignoring those made but not validated by the original blog posting above)

This argument has come since people like me have decided not to be shouted down, and instead, have challenged the FZs to demonstrate how their cherished facilities actually improve safety.

Unable to make a case for them, they’ve resorted to statistically-based claims that crash rates — not necessarily crash numbers — go down as the number of cyclists increases in a given area. This claim ignores confounding factors, notably, but not limited to the fact that they’re working with two different populations. Indeed, they hasten to point out that the “risk averse” come to their facilities once they’re built — thereby implying that those who rode before the nirvana of bikeways arrived must be made of different stuff. Is it unreasonable, then, to point out that they’re comparing pommes de terre to apples, and expecting to get applesauce when we mix them?

But here’s a simple question for you, JJ: are you willing to give your safety over to the now enlightened motorists of Kenmore Square and elsewhere, and declare that you will ride close to car doors because you’re *absolutely certain* that the good persons within these vehicles will grant you your safe passage? Remember, these are the same people who scream at us to get out of “their roads,” who complain that we aren’t licensed (which I am) and don’t pay taxes (which I do), and who need to understand that the “roads weren’t made for bicycles” — even though most of the streets I ride on in this area predate the automobile by anywhere from 50 to 300 years.

I won’t. And I will continue to advise cyclists like you to ride at least four feet from car doors — a distance that will put you and other such cyclists at least partly outside most bike lanes. (But of course, I’ll ride at this distance whether or not there’s a bike lane, and I’ll suggest you do the same.)

If you think my advice to stay away from car doors is appropriate, why would you support creating a bicycle facility that says, clearly, “RIDE HERE, NEWBIES!”?

The logic of the “safety in numbers idea” declares those who do so expendable, in the greater good of increasing the numbers of cyclists — assuming these things really do that, which is also subject to question.

I call that program, “Pickett’s Charge Bicycle Advocacy.” Sure, some innocents may fall — says this program — but think of the greater good, dear friends! Why, if we only try hard enough, the bright, new, healthy, car-free, low polltion world will be ours!

And I’ve heard this chorus I’ve since 1982, the year I dumped the T and started riding my Miyata 310 in Boston.

Ultimately, the “safety in numbers idea” is perhaps the most cynical argument the facilities zealots have ever come up with. It needs to be seen for what it is. And no responsible person should advise bicyclists to ride at anything above walking speed if they’re within four feet of a parked car.

I believe that the biggest improvement to cyclist safety is the safety in numbers idea, which has substantial data to back it up. So even a door zone bike lane is good if it means more people will bike. If more people are biking, even in the door zone, motorists will be more careful opening doors.

A great example is Kenmore square. Honestly, the bike lanes they painted along the edge suck. Theyre 100% door zone, and larger cars dont fully fit in the parking area. But they’ve been there over a year and I haven’t read of a single dooring incident. And as someone who walks through Kenmore square 5 times a week, and have been doing so for 5 years, it’s extremely obvious that the number of people biking in kenmore square has gone up drastically. I think it’s safe to say that the presence of bikes lanes, even door zone bike lanes, have encouraged them to hop on bikes.

I’m all for separated bike lanes, like they’re putting in all over new york city. I’d love to see that in Boston. But a door zone bike lane on one road doesn’t reduce the ability of the city to create a better facility on another road. On the contrary, with more people biking, there’s more demand to make radical changes.