Occupy the Lane
Streets are our predominant public spaces in our cities and neighborhoods. If you measure all of our streets compared to that of our parks and plazas, the streets cover far more area. Historically the street was the gathering place for commerce and socializing, not merely a place for transportation. But then came the automobile. And since the earliest auto owners — not to mention the manufacturers and gasoline companies — were rich and well-connected, they were the ones who rewrote the traffic laws in the 1910s to favor speed over access. By the late 1920s, after gasoline taxes had been instituted in many states, people came to think of our streets as commodities to be bought with gas taxes for the purpose of moving motor vehicles at high speed. Only two decades earlier our streets were seen as a Commons that was managed for the benefit of everyone and for purposes beyond mere transportation. One could say that our streets today are ruled by a form of tyranny; the Tyranny of Speed. If you aren’t going or can’t go fast, you don’t belong.
As the London group Reclaim the Streets argued, our streets were taken from us and sold back to us for the price of gasoline. This is true for most aspects of The Commons as technologies have advanced: agriculture became agribusiness, stories became published books, songs became recorded and marketed music, forests became tree farms. Our economy is based in large part on the conversion of The Commons into money.
And today we’re even losing the freedom to use our parks as a real Commons. No sitting, no laying down, you must have a permit to have a gathering. Keep moving people; you could be shopping and helping the economy grow.
Not everyone has the time to occupy a park or plaza; some of us are fortunate to have jobs, even good ones; but we can show solidarity with the other Occupiers by spreading the occupation across time and space in our own more modest ways.
The bicycle is an excellent tool of Occupation. But I am not talking about Critical Mass. Critical Mass presumes (depending on who you listen to) that bicyclists can’t travel our streets safely as they are, that we have to travel in large groups in order to protect ourselves, that cyclists need special accommodation, that motorists are evil and cyclists must be protected from them with special laws, and that the rules of the road were written for motorists, not cyclists.
Let me address this last point before moving on. We have to differentiate between rules and laws. Rules grow out of the culture somewhat organically. Even if one person develops them, we follow them by consensus if they work. There’s no police or formal court to uphold them. Laws are the formalized versions of those rules as they’re implemented by our governments.
The first formalized traffic rules were developed by a man named William Phelps Eno in the early 1900s and adopted by many cities as their official traffic laws. In 1905 less than one in a thousand Americans owned an automobile. Eno didn’t develop his rules for them; he saw autos as a passing fad. No, the rules for vehicular traffic were written for drivers of horse-drawn vehicles and bicyclists.
A number of us have learned that adhering to the rules for vehicular traffic is the best way to drive a bicycle on our public streets, and what’s more, controlling a lane — riding near the middle of the lane — is the most effective way of reducing conflicts and crash risks. I won’t go into the details in this piece; it has been covered extensively elsewhere, especially on CommuteOrlando.com.
While the rules for traffic have remained the same, the laws in most states have been changed to favor motorists over bicyclists. They place motorist convenience above bicyclist safety and comfort. Cyclists have had to fight to ensure they could operate in the safest possible manner, which often entails controlling a lane rather than hugging the edge. In most states today bicyclists are required to keep “as close as practicable” to the right edge or curb, but with many exceptions for safety. The times and places which meet those exceptions are actually more common than the times and places which don’t.
While lane control is primarily a practical safety strategy, it can also been seen as a political statement. It is a way of saying that speed is not the primary rule of traffic; that “first come, first served” is; that the basic right to travel in the safest possible manner must take precedence over the desire to travel at higher speeds. That those wielding power cannot be given so much advantage over those who do not wield such power.
We see the Tyranny of Speed expressed in online newspaper comment sections when cycling is discussed: “If you can’t keep up with traffic you have to get out of the way.” Should speed take priority before liberty, before health, before clean transportation, before a civil and communal public realm? Is getting to one’s destination a few seconds sooner more important than cutting the amount of money we send to oil barons and Middle Eastern sheiks and instead keeping it in our communities? Occupying the Lane is one powerful way to answer, “No.”
Bicyclists and motorists are not “natural enemies.” We’re all simply people who desire to get where we want or need to go in a reasonable time period and in reasonable comfort and safety. Only a tiny proportion of motorists act as bullies, and even that would be reduced if cyclists stood up to them. Most motorists, when lane control is explained to them, understand and appreciate it. They’d be very happy to share the roadways with assertive, predictable cyclists who communicate clearly and cooperate with their fellow road users.
Segregating cyclists into reservations or ghettos (bike lanes and sidepaths) only reinforces the belief that we cannot learn to share. Separation is more often the problem rather than the solution. By putting bicyclists “in their own place,” motorists can just forget about us. Which they do. Until it’s too late. Which is usually when they’re turning at an intersection or driveway.
Just as Occupiers have learned to use the tactics of non-violent protest, bicyclists can learn the strategies of sharing roadways — confidence, consideration, communication and cooperation.
As London’s Reclaim the Streets put it:
The street is an extremely important symbol because your whole enculturation experience is geared around keeping you off the street. Inevitably you will find yourself on the curbstone of indifference, wondering “should I play it safe and stay on the sidewalks, or should I go into the street?” And it is the ones who are taking the most risks that will ultimately effect the change in society.
The “risk” in this case is not a physical one. Cycling as a vehicle driver does not add physical risk, it reduces it. No, the risk is social. It’s standing up to a taboo whose time has come and gone.
The great mythologist Joseph Campbell warned that if wish to make meaningful change in the world, we must define ourselves by what we wish to see, not by what we oppose. I hope those in the Occupy movement will take that to heart, whether they are in a park or on a street; posting on Facebook or Twitter, on foot, in a car, or on a bicycle.
To learn more, go to CyclingSavvy.org and CommuteOrlando.com
Posted in Culture, Politics, Traffic Law
27. November 2011 at 8:34 pm :
Excellent! I have shared on my local Occupy group’s Facebook page.
27. November 2011 at 8:45 pm :
I’m also right with you on the commoditization of the Commons. Another example is bottled water.
27. November 2011 at 11:15 pm :
I was thinking something very similar, but you expressed it exquisitely.
28. November 2011 at 7:19 am :
I am not an occupier. I am not being civilly disobedient. I am enforcing the law by occupying the lane. There are those who intend me harm; law breakers who do not recognize my right to exist. They are few, fortunately, but they are always there, and if I am not constantly vigilant, they will do me harm. I challenge the bullies, and I must always be ready for the one who decides to enforce his version of the rules of the road, his way. Most drivers are not enemies, but the enemies exist, hidden among the masses. I am the bouncer at the bar; most are at best friendly or at least neutral, but troublemakers lurk in the shadows, waiting for any sign of weakness or inattentiveness. My strength and confidence cause them to question theirs, and that is my best weapon.
28. November 2011 at 11:49 am :
Good post. There’s a study posted this morning on Bike Biz UK that confirms much of your position, too– at least as it concerns cyclists. Here’s my Twitter post on the topic: File Under D for “Duh?” Slower cars = safer cyclists, UK study says. Also, segregated bike paths suck. via @bikebiz ht.ly/7H4kw
28. November 2011 at 12:18 pm :
Mike Ramsey, I’m right with you. A fellow I know observed to others in that social circle that if I am able to ride my route to work every day, I’m probably not likely to be intimidated. I’ve gotten used to the occasional loudmouth jerk and his/her unintelligible ululations as they leave me in a cloud of exhaust smoke, knowing that they have ceded any argument to me by losing their cool, knowing that they don’t want a dialogue (it might cause them to grow or change what passes for their minds), and the like.
By taking the lane, occupying my rightful place in the public space, and ignoring their taunts, I am being safer–they can see me from greater distance, enabling them to respond to my being there instead of having to react quickly (assuming they are paying attention…and their getting stuck behind me as more attentive traffic passes is their karmic punishment for inattentiveness).
Mighk, great writing as always. Thanks for the post.
28. November 2011 at 2:16 pm :
“In most states today bicyclists are required to keep ‘as close as practicable’ to the right edge or curb, but with many exceptions for safety.”
I agree with those who say the “exceptions” are actually examples of what practicable means.
28. November 2011 at 2:26 pm :
Yes, the exceptions are examples, but they are consistently interpreted against the interests of cyclists. I hear both law enforcement officers and judges ignoring the clear language in those exceptions and applying their own biases to them. For example, the term “substandard width lane” is misconstrued to mean the current minimum standards used by state and local governments for lane widths, while the statute itself _defines_ substandard, saying, “For the purposes of this subsection, a “substandard-width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and another vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.”
So it would be much better for cyclists if the “close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge” language and its associated exceptions were removed.
28. November 2011 at 2:48 pm :
I agree, the whole “practicable/exceptions” rule should be gone.
29. November 2011 at 1:13 pm :
In what sense is the London group “Reclaim the Streets” talking about reclaiming them? I’m not sure it is the same as what you are advocating. In fact, now having explored its Web site, rts.gn.apc.org/ I’m sure it isn’t. “Shared space” advocates like these would eliminate the distinction between street and sidewalk, requiring bicyclists and motorists to travel at pedestrian speeds in order to avoid collisions. I find that these people commonly tend not to think of bicycling, or to think of bicycling only as enhanced walking, with lots of pretty pictures of bicyclists sharing travel space and socializing with pedestrians. See for example: http://john-s-allen.com/sustrans/trust.htm. The tyranny of speed is one thing, but the ability to use a vehicle to cover more distance than is possible on foot is another, and it is central to the concept of of rules of the road, going all the way back to William Phelps Eno and preceding the advent of the motor vehicle.
29. November 2011 at 3:21 pm :
John:
I didn’t mean to say or imply that Reclaim the Streets had the same goals or overall philosophy that I do, but I did find that particular quote and perspective important. And it really resonated with me after I read Charles Eisenstein’s Sacred Economics. That quote is quite old; probably 10 years. The organization has probably changed its focus since then.
29. November 2011 at 3:26 pm :
As for the Tyranny of Speed, the problem is not speed per se, but when speed takes precedence in a context where other values should be primary, or at least on equal footing — and particularly when the government favors speed over other values in our communities — then it becomes a form of tyranny.
1. December 2011 at 9:13 am :
[...] Bicycling is Better » Occupy the Lane. GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]
5. December 2011 at 8:01 pm :
Well written. I like the history bit and the similarities
of the “Occupy” movement. Cyclists have rights too.
We must get out there in the lane to make ourselves
safe and to make this statement to car drivers. Stay
vigilant, and safe riding.
9. December 2011 at 1:16 am :
Everything sounds great in theory Mighk, and we both share the same goals. However, taking the middle of the lane where I live quickly leads to angry, aggressive honking or close passing from motorists who take it personally that I’m riding in the lane because they feel I’m doing it just to smugly f#ck with them.
Well designed segregated infrastructure makes the drive less stressful for the driver, and the ride less stressful for the cyclist. I know we might never see eye-to-eye on this, but I’ve experimented with many different techniques and I can’t say that taking the lane has done anything for me except made drivers angry and aggressive towards me.
I know you mentioned to me a couple years ago that you had rode in Toronto twenty or thirty years ago and had a great experience. But I’ve found that riding in Toronto during rush hour vs. outside rush hour makes a considerable difference. Taking the lane outside of rush hour is not a problem at all – it’s during rush hour that you are guaranteed to encounter angry, aggressive drivers who would love to run you down because you dared get in their way…
9. December 2011 at 10:26 am :
Y’know James, when I look at Toronto in Google Maps with the Bicycling layer turned on I see lots more bikeways than Orlando has. How is it that motorists are so hostile to lane-controlling cyclists in a place with so many bikeways, and yet we get along fine controlling the lane here in Orlando, which is supposedly a terrible place to bike?
9. December 2011 at 10:40 am :
Where or when has segregation ever advanced tolerance?
9. December 2011 at 11:20 am :
These ‘Vehicular Cyclists’, advocating testosterone cycling among traffic, exhibit the worst form of transportational social exclusion. Desperately clinging on to a theory that has never been shown to work anywhere in the world. Fighting to keep their adrenaline kick at the expense of the broader population who will ride bicycles if it is safe. On separated infrastructure that has been around for a century. If there is any hurdle to mainstreaming urban cycling – apart from working towards changing behaviour about car culture – it is ignoring these “cyclists” and moving towards livable cities and safe conditions for bicycle users.
9. December 2011 at 11:49 am :
…and here we are back at the childish name-calling level. So soon? Nothing I do on the road, nor the people I ride with, can rationally be described as “testosterone cycling.” My wife is a very non-confrontational person, and yet she clearly understands the benefits of controlling the space around her.
This is supposedly what bike-friendly looks like:
http://vimeo.com/23743067
And this is how we “adrenaline junkies” ride:
http://vimeo.com/8645451
9. December 2011 at 11:55 am :
Y’now what really gets my adrenaline up? Right hooks. I’ve been right-hooked three times while riding in bike lanes. I’ve been right-hooked twice while riding on sidepaths, though I’ve ridden only a miniscule amount on them. I was right-hooked while in a cycletrack the one and only time I used one. But I’ve only been right-hooked once in the more than 150,000 miles I’ve biked in regular lanes.
9. December 2011 at 12:49 pm :
Well MighkW – the case is simply that the infrastructure being built in many places of the world has the design flaws that the Dutch has done away with ages ago.
Of course such designs will prove to create some degree of conlict however in my opinion I prefer to be vigilant on intersection rather than 100% of the time.
The thing is the general public will more likely cycle when they have dedicated road space for bicycles. In the end – you do get the mythical safety in numbers. However it isn’t achievable in any other way I am afraid.
9. December 2011 at 1:13 pm :
In Autumn 2009, Sustrans – a major cycling charity in the UK – carried out a survey to find out why more women in the UK didn’t cycle. 9000 women responded to the survey which revealed that 79% (virtually 80%) of women in the UK NEVER CYCLE although 67% (that’s most of them) said they would if there were SEPARATE CYCLE LANES which they considered safer.
Building separate cycle paths is a great deal cheaper than building roads so why isn’t it happening on a greater scale?
If British women feel separate cycle lanes are safer, there’s a good chance that manyother women around the world feel the same. Let’s face it, the USA, like the UK, isn’t known for its high number of people using bicycles as a means of transport whereas Denmark and Holland are the role models that lots of ordinary people aspire to.
9. December 2011 at 1:29 pm :
Safety is perfectly achievable for any individual cyclist. I don’t need “numbers” to be safe.
The only place I’ve ever felt the need to be vigilant is on bike lanes and parallel segregated facilities that make me irrelevant and invisible to other drivers.
It’s absurd to use surveys as a measure of anything other than that people who have no first hand experience will repeat what they’ve been told to believe.
9. December 2011 at 1:33 pm :
I am a woman in my fifties. No testosterone here. I used to be a sidewalk rider, but took a class on how to drive my bike in traffic. Now, when I ride in the road in Orlando, and take the lane, I feel safe, and rarely have any sort of negative interaction with folks driving automobiles. They simply pass me when I signal that it is safe to do so, and we both go on about our business. In the few cases where impatient people make comments or honk their horns, I give them the right to have a bad attitude, and try not to let it affect my good attitude. I am getting healthy; I am living green; I am getting along with my fellow commuters. I feel great!
9. December 2011 at 1:43 pm :
I am also a woman in my fifties and have got around by bicycle for many years (at least 10 miles daily) and have brought both my teenagers up to cycle for transport too. My 19 year old son now gets around London by bike and my 15 yr old daughter goes everywhere by bike locally here in Cambridge (we live just outside) and has led the trend for doing so in her peer group.
However, in response to Keri Caffrey, I would suggest it is absurd to ignore the reason why so many women are NOT cycling. The point is, you and I may feel confident about the cycling we already do but how are you going to persuade the majority to change their ways?
The majority of car journeys made in the UK are less than 3 miles and they are being made by car. How are you going to change that?
The current generation of young British (and I think it will be true for other rich countries like the USA) are experiencing record levels of obesity in their children and young people – in the UK, it is predicted that this generation may not live to the same age as their parents. This is not only tragic, it’s hugely costly in terms of health care provision – how are we going to change that?
Look at how the Dutch do it (& their children are the happiest in the world – I bet creating separate cycle paths which allow their children to cycle to school in their thousands – up to 15km each way – daily – has a great deal to do with it. The UK and USA can hardly claim the same, can it?
9. December 2011 at 1:45 pm :
Apologies for typos in my post – very tired!
9. December 2011 at 1:52 pm :
Building a cycle track on an existing road here in Central Florida would cost about $1 million per mile. It requires extensive re-working of the drainage systems. Florida streets must accommodate routine torrential summer storms. To retrofit all of our arterials and collectors to dutch standards would cost about a billion dollars.
Cost aside, in order for a cycle track to work the motorists must respect cyclists, otherwise, they will cut us off with right-hooks and left-crosses. The routine excuse of “Well, if you had Proper Dutch Cycling Infrastructure (blah, blah, blah)…” ignores the fact that you also need Dutch traffic laws (which put more responsibility on the motorist) and Dutch land use laws (which are far more stringent than American land use codes and have very strong driveway access controls), and most importantly, a culture which respects cycling and cyclists (which also mean law-abiding cyclists; a rare species in these parts).
The Dutch system works because it is a Complete System controlled from the top down: culture, education, laws, land use control, street network layout, and yes, relatively well-designed facilities. To believe that the facilities alone would improve safety is naive. What’s more, to have ideally designed facilities you need traffic engineers who put the interests of bicyclists before the interests of motorists. Good luck with that in a culture in which fewer than 1% commute by bike.
9. December 2011 at 2:00 pm :
So you’re happy with the way things are? You don’t think it would be a good thing if many more people in the world (not only Florida) were getting around by bicycle?
If you’re not, how are you going to persuade signifcant numbers to change their lifestyles? In London, the numbers of people killed while getting around by bicycle has increased this year. Something needs to change wouldn’t you say?
9. December 2011 at 2:05 pm :
Here’s the kind of street you need to use to get anywhere in Central Florida.
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=28.553195,-81.347857&spn=107.160462,158.027344&hnear=Orlando,+Florida+32801&t=w&z=3&vpsrc=6&layer=c&panoid=CcoT7A4izKFcujwT6Kfpjw&cbll=28.553195,-81.347857&cbp=13,-270.0000083907779,,0,0
Look at all the driveways. Every one becomes a serious conflict point with a cycle track or sidepath. “Close some of the driveways” you say? Expect more lawsuits than your city can ever hope to fight. Property rights are sacred in the U.S.
9. December 2011 at 2:17 pm :
You certainly have my sympathy and I salute you for being determined to cycle in a car culture.
I send you support and solidarity from the UK’s Number One City of Cycling (allegedly!):- Cambridge.
9. December 2011 at 2:23 pm :
Majority of roads in North America are multile lanes or quite wide. Here in UK (and Europe) are narrow in comparison. So effect on motor traffic different.
9. December 2011 at 2:58 pm :
Mighk, when I think of comparing the Occupy Wall Street folks to cyclists I think of Critical Mass, the leaderless bike rides that take over the streets in many cities in solidarity and to push for change.
Instead, I think you’re presenting an idea of the lone cyclist doing battle with the “Tyranny of Speed” by “occupying the lane”. And that appears to be your end in itself. To have each individual cyclist occupy the lane. And a strong-man cyclist at that, not intimidated at all by jerk motorists. There is no room in this vision for children, women or elderly people on bikes.
The Occupy Wall Street folks didn’t occupy the park because they saw that as their end goal. And Critical Mass rides don’t take over the street just to have a bike ride. Instead they wanted to be a catalyst for much broader societal change, both in how our streets and societies operate. You seem to be either mostly content with how American cities have become dominated by automobiles or you have little hope for things changing for the better, to have cities that respect the safety of people of all ages.
I’m sorry but I find your comparison shallow and mostly empty of value.
9. December 2011 at 3:44 pm :
Mighk, you are making a couple arguments against cycling infrastructure which I find specious.
One, you seem to indicate that the current system that encourages cycling in Netherlands just fell out of the sky fully formed. Rather, I’m sure you can deduce that even in the Netherlands there was an ongoing struggle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o Things came in fits and starts and not everything existed together to encourage such high cycling rates.
Two, you argue that cycle tracks are prohibitively expensive and impracticable in the Florida context. This argument works from the premise that because cycle tracks won’t seem to work in Florida (or similar locations) that nothing should be done to improve the streets. Instead perhaps you could be creative and see how “made in America” solutions can work for the Florida context. Much like NACTO is creating national standards for bicycle infrastructure: http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/ You just may find something there that might work in Florida. For instance, the “buffered bike lane” may address the issues you pointed out of cost and of accommodating regular floods while at the same time creating a cycle track to accommodate cyclists. It’s fairly cheap: paint, plastic bollards and some special light signals at some intersections. At least you’ve got plenty of space to incorporate them without taking away road space from cars.
9. December 2011 at 3:52 pm :
I’m really not interested in these tired old facilities arguments. Been there. Done that. Got the migraine.
But if you’re interested in discussing how acting like a first-class citizen as a bicyclist on our public roadways might (or might not) complement the Occupy Movement, then I’m interested.
9. December 2011 at 3:58 pm :
Ignorance should be temporary. Facility advocates seem invested in ensuring it remains permanent.
I occupy the lane every day with my small, middle-aged, female self. I do not have problems with motorists, in fact the vast majority treat me with respect. I can go anywhere I need to and it’s a high-quality experience as long as I avoid the roads with bike lanes.
I have rarely seen urban infrastructure (bike lanes, sidepaths or cycletracks) in the U.S. that made cycling easier than the unadulterated street. I’ve ridden on a number of high-profile installations and was thoroughly unimpressed. I certainly would not recommend a person with poor reflexes or situational awareness (like a child) use it. In most cases such infrastructure makes cycling worse — conflict-ridden, cumbersome, movement-limiting and inefficient.
The existence of segregated infrastructure makes cycling on the adjacent street socially miserable or legally impossible. It forces cyclists of all skill levels, speeds and trip distances into a box designed for a single, one-dimensional user-type — the iconic slow, timid, child-like rider who is precisely a product of the car culture’s dysfunctional belief system, and would be a completely temporary state of being if we focused on educating instead of pandering.
The bicycle drivers you all love to disparage, mischaracterize and assign false motives to are working to change the dysfunctional beliefs of the car culture, while segregationists keep feeding the beast. Without funding and against a juggernaut of misguided advocacy, we’re empowering people—freeing them from fear and limiting beliefs. It’s puzzling how that can draw so much hostility from people who claim to care about cyclists.
9. December 2011 at 5:24 pm :
I think I shall refrain from visiting this blog any longer. I find it extraordinary that people cannot disagree without being hostile and defensive.
I don’t see how anything positive can come out of such negative reactions. Good luck to you Florida – thank goodness, in the UK we are able to disagree in a more agreeable fashion.
9. December 2011 at 7:46 pm :
[...] Why didn’t I think of this? Occupy the Lane. [...]
10. December 2011 at 11:16 pm :
I agreed until the last bit, when infrastructure was dismissed. For suburban streets, sure, take a lane. And on arterial roads, take a lane too, if there isn’t a bike path. Copenhagen style lanes, when they’re a rarity in a city, can be deadly at intersections, because drivers don’t look. Everyone knows that. Maybe you don’t, but you seem to imply that all off-road bike infrastructure is some kind of herding device, even that which does not hide bikes from drivers’ view at intersections. That seems bloody minded to me.
11. December 2011 at 7:12 pm :
Very interesting essay- I’m still mulling over your thoughts.
I live in a state that does NOT have as far to the right as is practicable law or a mandatory bike lane law, our law is as near to the right side of the rightmost straight through lane as is safe. Which does allow riding in the centre of the lane when at traffic speed or in the opinion of the cyclist, when that is the safest place to be.
Reading though the posts of the people who want the segregated bike lanes, I would wonder why you’d want those. I don’t have any problems riding as a vehicle operator, our law says that’s what a bicyclist is
.Looking at the cost of those , and they do make it much more difficult to integrate them into the existing roads, it’s just so much easier to just ride the bike on the road as the law requires. Plus, it makes every road a ‘Bike Lane’. Gears to you….leo
11. December 2011 at 8:53 pm :
One wonders why the segregationists an ocean away are so threatened by Mighk in the US? Could it be that they are insecure, and maybe afraid that those in Europe, who support the criminalization of driver behavior, will be protrayed in a bad light when those in the US, offer a more cooperative method of traffic operation than mandatory segregation?
12. December 2011 at 10:35 am :
Steven:
I don’t rule out the usefulness of trails in independent rights-of-way (I rather like them; I also like bicycle boulevards and connector paths which allow cyclists to better use the local street network), or even well-designed and well-maintained sidepaths in some very limited circumstances (high-speed arterials with very limited cross-street access and no driveways), but the vast majority of American transportation cycling is done (and must be done) on streets with many unsignalized cross streets and driveways. Bike lanes and cycle tracks along such streets present cyclists with more real conflicts than straightforward, integrated bicycle driving does.
Those who support segregating cyclists and motorists are in effect (whether they realize it or not) striving to reduce perceived conflicts (from overtaking motorists) while increasing the much more common REAL conflicts from turning and crossing vehicles.
12. December 2011 at 11:21 am :
The real challenges of the car centric culture are bad land use, long trip distances and high-speed arterial roads with no alternative. That’s where we could create more comfortable access with trails, preferential use lanes and well-designed and maintained side paths (as Mighk described). Most importantly, we need integrated alternative transportation to extend the range of the bicycle.
Most advocates for segregated facilities are focusing on the urban environment. But urban streets are where traffic speeds and motorist expectations are conducive to integrated cycling. And where integrated cycling is the best method of avoiding the frequent risk areas (from turning conflicts to dooring). Cycling is already easy downtown. Segregating bicyclists creates a whole host of movement conflicts which need to be mitigated by increasing delay for everyone. That makes the trip times longer. Or it increases scofflaw behavior. This then changes motorist expectations creating hostility, resentment and backlash. At the same time, it reinforces the unfounded fear of integrated cycling, limiting the usefulness of the bicycle for those it purports to serve.
We should be fixing what doesn’t work in the interest of helping existing bicyclists instead of breaking what does work in the interest of creating a symbolic lure for would-be bicyclists.
17. December 2011 at 4:57 am :
[...] We Occupy the Lane. [...]
17. December 2011 at 11:16 am :
Great article! It’s unfortunate that so many of the respondents do not seem to understand how dangerous their preferred method of cycling is, nor how much safer they would be if they embraced a more integrated, visible and assertive mode of cycling. Fortunately, cycling is a very safe activity no matter how one does it, but I wish there was some way to illustrate that integrated cycling is safer than the segregated alternative.
I often try linking to the various studies that show the reality of the situation, but I fear the attitude adjustment that’s needed is more emotional than rational. Fear overwhelms facts – if a cyclist believes there are lots of scary monsters on the road that are out to kill cyclists, no amount of proof that there aren’t is going to prevail. To a person scared of traffic, every driver is a potential killer, and every report of cyclists killed on the road (no matter how rare) is evidence to support the fear.
The fact that most cyclists who are killed are killed in an intersection while cycling on a sidewalk or segregated infrastructure (or while cycling illegally – i.e. on the road against traffic) is either not reported or ignored.
26. January 2012 at 7:30 pm :
Ian Brett Cooper: If most American or British cyclists that are killed are being hit by cars at intersections, how come that cycling is so much safer in Holland, Denmark or Germany?
What you write simply doesn’t make sense. Cycling IS loads safer in places with segregated bike infrastructure where it’s needed: in heavy and/or fast traffic. It’s safer for a reason: it keeps cyclists away from the dangers of said traffic.
Now, all this talk about “taking the lane”: more rubbish. It only makes sense in very limited cases. Mostly, it’s just putting oneself in a difficult and risky position. Particularly where cycling isn’t seen as “normal”, because drivers will see the cyclist as arrogant, blocking or slowing down traffic etc. – which to too many drivers equals the legitimation to harass, make close passes etc.
Better “hug the curb”. On most roads, riding on the line will give you at least 30 cm of asphalt on your one side, and as drivers will tend to keep a safe distance to the line (most of them not really knowing how wide their car is and therefore erring on the safe side), dangerous passes will be very few. In the streets? Pray for segregated bike lanes, clearly marked bike lanes along the car lanes and 20 mph speed limits.
Nothing else will make biking “normal” and bring out the mass of potential cyclists.
26. January 2012 at 7:50 pm :
“If most American or British cyclists that are killed are being hit by cars at intersections, how come that cycling is so much safer in Holland, Denmark or Germany?”
I haven’t seen any statistics from Germany, but it’s pretty clear what keeps people in Holland and Denmark safe – far lower road speeds. I think the recent Reid review confirms this. Also, correlation is not causation. The fact that countries with infrastructure tend to be safer does not mean that infrastructure = safety. These countries are very different in their road and road use characteristics than are places like the UK and the USA. To simply copy Dutch and Danish infrastructure and expect it to work in the US and Britain is folly.
The fact that you think what I say doesn’t make sense simply because segregated infrastructure keeps cyclists away from traffic shows that you do not understand what causes collisions at intersections. Clearly you are unaware of the studies done over the last 30 years, the vast majority of which show clearly that removing cyclists from the travel lane causes more danger at intersections than it saves in safety between them. I suggest you read the 1997 Moritz study, the Aultman-Hall studies of 1998 and 1999, the Franklin review of the Milton Keynes Redway, the 2001 Wachtel study, the 2007 Jensen study, the 2008 Agerholm study, and the latest literature review done by Reid in 2011.
As for ‘bringing out the mass of potential cyclists’, I’m all for that, as long as it doesn’t kill more of them than it needs to. I’m tired of seeing reports of mostly young cyclists getting killed by riding too close to the curb and being crushed by turning semi-trucks at intersections. Anyone who has seen the death toll on London’s ‘Cycling Superhighway’ should be thinking hard about their support for bike lanes and other facilities that ‘remove cyclists from danger’ by FLATTENING THEM!
6. February 2012 at 2:01 pm :
The London ‘Cycling Superhighway’ is a joke, if one is to judge it from the videos and photos I’ve seen. However, segregated lanes as in New York seem to have worked just fine. They were made using all the experience from Holland and Denmark. For some reason, the London traffic planners thought they knew better.
As for speeds, you’re right whan it comes to Holland, but not about Denmark. We still have (too) high speed limits in many parts of many cities, as well as on the roads. But I find it quite telling that the relative death toll is way higher on the roads than where we have segregated lanes.
6. February 2012 at 3:39 pm :
I think you’d all do well to read Jeffrey Hiles analysis of the pro and anti bike lane camps: http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html I don’t necessarily agree with everything Hiles says, but at least he’s being reasonable.
Ian: in your selective review you seem to favour the studies that support your point of view and ignore the ones that don’t. You left out all the studies that are favourable to separated bike lanes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Supporting_evidence
You seem to also put the Jensen study as proof when in fact, it’s more complicated: cycling traffic increased faster than the rate of injuries when the cycle tracks were installed: “likelihood an individual bicyclist will experience an accident goes down as the number of bicycle riders go up”. I wouldn’t assume Jensen provides firm proof for your point of view.
Franklin’s “review” wasn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal so it could hardly be relied on for a definitive answer.
Are you thinking of the 1994 Watchtel and Lewiston study? I didn’t see anything for 2001 as you claim. It is a peer-reviewed study so it is useful for the scientific discussion at least. Their analysis can be contested as it is partly by Lusk et al. (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2011/02/02/ip.2010.028696.full.pdf) who claim that Wachtel and Lewiston only considered intersection crashes, “omitting non-intersection crashes that include being hit from behind, sideswiped, or struck by a car door.” If the non-intersection crash data is included it appears that sidewalk bikeways carry half the risk of the street, for bicyclists riding in the same direction as traffic.
As a sometime cycling safety instructor in Canada (CAN-Bike in Toronto) I find that there’s a whole lot of ideology going into this debate and not a whole lot of evidence. At least the City of Toronto (http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/network/separated/) understands what most people want are separated bike lanes and that it has not been definitely shown that they are “dangerous” but that instead they may actually be safer.
6. February 2012 at 6:44 pm :
“You left out all the studies that are favourable to separated bike lanes”
‘All’ the studies? I suppose you mean Lusk. Here are the problems with Lusk – why it cannot be relied upon as a serious study and why I did not include it:
Flaws in the 2010 Lusk Montreal Study – streets with statistically significant results.
1. Rue de Brebeuf Cycle Path vs. Rue St. Denis between Rachel and Laurier.
These streets are not comparable.
Brebeuf (which has a cycle track) is a narrow slow-moving one-way residential street.
Rue St. Denis (which has no cycle track) is a six-lane two-way highway in a commercial area with lots of stores and distractions.
It seems to me that more accidents will naturally occur on the six-lane highway, but this has nothing to do with the safety of the cycle track and everything to do with the very different nature of the roads compared.
2. Rue Berri Cycle Path vs. Rue St. Denis between Cherrier and Viger.
These streets are not comparable.
Rue Berri (which has a cycle track) has a dual carriageway along 1/3rd of its length with the cycle track removed from busy intersections by an underpass, so cyclists are naturally removed from the possibility of intersection accidents.
Rue St. Denis (which has no cycle track) is a much busier road in terms of people doing their business somewhere along that stretch, with a relatively narrow street and lots of intersections and distractions in the form of little shops and cafes along the whole route.
Again, more accidents are bound to occur where there are lots of intersections and drivers are distracted. Again, it seems reasonable that the crash results derive from the very different nature of the roads compared and not from the presence or absence of a cycle track.
3. Boulevard de Maisonneuve from Claremont to Wood.
The street is not comparable with the bike lane. The bike lane goes through a park for 1/5th of its length, thus removing any possibility of intersection conflicts in that area. The presence of the park effectively reduces the chance of bike track accidents by 20% and increases the effective ridership on the bike track by a similar number, further reducing apparent bike track conflicts.
———————–
Here we have what seems to me to be a clear case of selection bias.
Note: Even though the three other street comparisons show similar bias, the remaining street comparisons showed statistically insignificant results.
6. February 2012 at 6:49 pm :
As for Jensen, you are wrong in your assertion that bicycle traffic went up at a higher rate than the injury rate. I urge you to re-read the study.
6. February 2012 at 7:01 pm :
From the Jensen study:
“Corrections for changes in traffic volumes and road safety trends have been made.”
6. February 2012 at 7:13 pm :
“I find it quite telling that the relative death toll is way higher on the roads than where we have segregated lanes.”
Since, even in Denmark, most cycling is done on roads, more people will die there. Unless you’ve taken into account the size of both populations, a straight comparison between deaths on roads and deaths on segregated lanes is useless.
6. February 2012 at 10:10 pm :
@Ian. Yes, *all* the studies. You purposefully chose to list only studies that helped your argument.
I’m trying to debunk all the studies you list because some were done in a proper, scientific way and should be part of the conversation. But it is quite misleading to pretend that you’ve got the full weight of science behind you when it’s clear that it has not been all decided. It’s telling that more recent studies don’t nicely fit with your worldview.
Aside from Lusk and Jensen there is also an upcoming article being published by Anne Harris et al. (http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/) that found that cycle tracks reduced injury risk compared to arterial roads with parking. I attended a presentation on the results but you’ll have to wait for the study to be published.
Regarding Jensen, I urge you to get a professional opinion. This blogger did: http://bikefriendlyoc.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/ask-the-experts-s%C3%B8ren-underlien-jensen-and-dr-lon-d-roberts-phd/ and a professor told him that Jensen’s study shows: “likelihood an individual bicyclist will experience an accident goes down as the number of bicycle riders go up”.
My own unprofessional opinion is that “traffic volumes” for Jensen means *all* traffic and the way that the amount of car/bike traffic influences the results. He would have to take the traffic volume into account so he could compare different time periods and injury events.
Unless you’re an expert on Montreal streets and on how the authors made their comparisons, I don’t see much reason to take your analysis as meaning all that much. I wonder why you subject this study to a “Google Streetsview” analysis and not the studies that you’ve got to back up your worldview. It’s only fair. Perhaps you could also send an email to Lusk et al. to see how they respond to your critique. That would be more valuable than this.
6. February 2012 at 10:11 pm :
That should be “I’m *not* trying to debunk all the studies you list…”
7. February 2012 at 5:29 am :
Ian, you’re wrong about most cycling in Denmark being done on the roads. Cycling is mostly a matter of commuting and errands, and that’s mostly done in the cities, and on bike paths. However, cycling on the roads counts for 1/3 of all fatalities. That’s a huge over-representation.
7. February 2012 at 11:23 am :
“You purposefully chose to list only studies that helped your argument.”
I chose to list studies that had no glaring flaws that make them cynically – almost criminally – biased. You choose to rely on a single study that is cynically – almost criminally – biased, and you choose to ignore ten other studies that say what you don’t like.
I’m not the one who’s cherry-picking here.
7. February 2012 at 2:22 pm :
Oh brother. What’s the point of the hyperbole Ian? Is that going to win you the argument? We can’t just have a normal discussion? In order for someone to believe your hyperbole they’d already have to hold your worldview that bike lanes are bad and then interpret the studies through that lens.
I mentioned *three* peer-reviewed articles (one upcoming) that using cycle tracks likely results in *less* risk of injury – those were Jensen, Lusk, and Harris.
Like I said, I’m not out to just ignore studies that don’t coincide with my point of view. In your list the peer-reviewed studies that purport to increased risk of injury from cycle tracks include: Moritz, Aultman-Hall, Wachtel (1994 by the way), and Agerholm.
But they all deserve a reasoned discussion. I don’t expect things can get “decided” in a blog thread, especially since neither of us seems to be statisticians or epidemiologists (correct me if I’m wrong). But perhaps we could have a discussion with a minimum of hyperbole and link to expert opinion where possible.
There are a couple expert comments about the Wachtel study that are of note. One, Hiles (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch7.html) points out that Wachtel study showed that “Wachtel’s and Lewiston’s most dramatic finding was not the difference between road and sidewalk, it was the difference between riding with traffic and against it. In fact, they found very little difference in risk between road and sidewalk for cyclists riding with traffic. But when riding against the flow, road riders had twice the risk and sidewalk riders had four times the risk of those riding the same direction as the motor traffic on their side of the street”.
Two, Lusk notes that Wachtel and Lewiston only included crashes that took place at intersections. They omitted “non-intersection crashes that include being hit from behind, sideswiped, or struck by a car door.” Lusk recalculated Wachtel and Lewiston’s data to include non-intersection crashes and found that their study showed that sidewalk bikeways carry half the risk of the street, for bicyclists riding in the same direction as traffic (and about the same risk of the street for all cyclists on the sidewalk).
It’s interesting to note that Agerholm (like Jensen) both showed increased injuries with the cycle tracks. But unlike Jensen, Agerholm did not calculate the bike traffic volumes before and after. So it seems to me that we don’t really know whether an individual cyclist saw an increase in injury risk or not from their study.
Things are not so cut and dried Ian.
21. July 2012 at 6:53 pm :
Can one still be cited for a traffic violation by impeding the flow of traffic by going too slow?
21. July 2012 at 8:29 pm :
Liar, in the state of Florida, the statute specific to impeding traffic is directed to motor vehicle operators. It states that the operator of a motor vehicle is guilty of impeding traffic, blah blah blah, so a cyclist is excluded by the terminology.
From a technical standpoint, traffic can be delayed by a cyclist, but it’s not in the statutes as impeding. I’ve had a law enforcement officer tell me I was impeding traffic. It was on a six lane roadway, where five motor vehicles had passed me in the previous mile. His justification was that I was going 15 mph (his numbers, my numbers were 20 mph) and that the speed limit was 45 mph. When he read to me from his big book of statutes, I pointed out the wording “motor vehicle” and he got huffy and told me to be careful, then drove off.
You can be cited for many things, especially if the officer is angry and creative, but it doesn’t mean it will stick in court. There have been cyclists convicted of reckless or careless driving, which implies a poor defense.