RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
Some "bicycle advocates" claim that bike lanes act as "training wheels," helping beginners learn to ride. This comparison may be more apt than they realize. Let's examine it further.
Both training wheels and bike lanes encourage novices to ride bikes without learning proper methods -- in one case, without learning balance; in the other, without learning how to interact with motor traffic. Both introduce hazards to their users and both retard learning of better methods.
Hazards
Both training wheels and bike lanes increase hazards to cyclists using them by introducing specific hazards and because they discourage learning of proper methods.
Training wheels allow children to transition from the tricycle too early, possibly before they are ready to use the brakes. This is particulairly dangerous because a bicycle allows greater speed (especially downhill) than the small wheels and fixed cranks of a tricycle. In addition, making a turn on training wheels, except at very low speed, creates the risk of a "high side" crash.
Bike lanes also encourage novices to get in "over their heads". It is better to learn on quiet streets than depend on paint on the road.
Bike lanes add both explicit and implicit hazards. Explicit hazards include door zone bike lanes, bike lanes that direct cyclists to the wrong side of turning traffic and bike lanes confining cyclists to a narrow slot on downhill grades.
Implicit hazards include encouraging faster cyclists to pass slow traffic on the right and encouraging riding in the gutter rather than a more conspicuous position near the middle of the traffic lane.
There is one big difference between training wheels and bike lanes. Everyone knows training wheels are a temporary crutch that will soon be abandoned. Not so the paint on the street type, which often permanently prevents learning of better methods.
Our society does a very poor job teaching cycling. That's why few people operate bicycles properly...
Better alternatives for encouraging cycling
The main motivation for bicycle advocates pushing for bike lanes and other segregated facilities is that they believe it encourages non-cyclists to take up cycling rather than driving cars. In other words, it is anti-car, not pro-cycling advocacy.
Education is the best form of advocacy. A knowledgeable cyclist will ride more effectively, with greater safety and will enjoy cycling more. Someone who really likes to cycle will do it often. Education must be persistent, wide ranging and take many forms. What we must teach is counterintuitive and contrary to traditional "bike safety" misinformation, which is usually based on fear.
Rather than trying to show people where to ride by putting paint on the road it is better to teach cyclists how to follow the rules of the road -- the same rules that other drivers follow. Indeed, painted bike lanes are often in exactly the wrong place, such as the door zone of parked cars, or on the wrong side of turning traffic at intersections. In addition, the segregated space is usually quite narrow.
A safer type of painted road marking for bicycles is the "shared lane" marking. These should not be intended to show people "where to ride"; however, they may be interpreted that way, thus they should be placed with care, away from hazardous places, such as the door zone of parked cars. A good spot is usually right in the middle of the lane, between the tire tracks.
Using signs or markings on the roadway to encourage cycling or to produce certain behavior very often leads to less-safe behavior. We really need to teach cyclists to cycle lawfully according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Even optimally placed paint does not replace instruction.
There is one completely beneficial type of roadway markings to welcome cyclists -- bike symbols that mark the "sweet spot" of vehicle detectors. These are specified in Section 9C.05 of the Manual on Uniform Vehicle Control Devices. Marking vehicle detectors is not only a visual signal that avoids safety problems; it enhances safety by encouraging compliance with traffic law.
Better alternatives for training cyclists
Most people in our society do not know how to operate a bicycle in traffic, but they think they know. Instead, most people believe the Three Great Fallacies of bicycle operation:
1. There is great danger in riding on the road because of traffic passing from behind (the "fear from the rear").
2. Roads are for cars / Cyclists do not really belong on the road / They are children playing in the road / Their greatest duty is staying out of the way of the more important people who drive cars. (Four versions of the same problem.)
3. The normal rules of the road do not apply. Cyclists do not need to (or cannot learn) follow the rules of the road while cycling.
If we are to get more people to use bicycles for transportation, we must overcome these fallacies. Bike lanes and other segregated facilities reinforce them. We need a persistent and multidimensional cycling education program that reaches everyone from young children, to active bicycle users and even "Joe Sixpack Motorist." The message must directly challenge each of the fallacies.
Written by Fred Oswald, League Cycling Instructor #947
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.