SEPT 1, 2003:
_________________________________
> By practically forcing people to bike, walk, or use mass transit, these would-be social engineers are denying people the chance to willingly choose bicycling as a means of transportation and -- more importantly -- recreation
_________________________________
Some time after cobbling together this site, The Lone Rider opined in an editorial called "our roads too" that though many cyclists safely travel the roads, there are growing dangers -- dangers that will not be solved by segregating bicyclists to paths that go nowhere but rather by educating' the ignorant about how fast bicycles travel, etc.
Reading an issue of the Virginian-Pilot newspaper, one thing sticks out: An article in the August 30, 2003 edition titled "Sprawling suburbs may fuel weight gain and inactivity", on page AA3. The point of the article is that fewer people walk or bike when distances are farther apart.
Ostensibly the focus of the article is health benefits of exercise, but in trying to explain why people aren't getting exercise the article brings in the risks of biking: "For bicyclists, Americans are twice as likely to be killed as Germans, and over three times as likely as Dutch cyclists."
This belies a crucial difference between the U.S. and Europe, however. First, Americans have a greater -- and growing -- number of automobiles in terms of the ratio of cars to people: by an account in the August 30th issue of the Daily Record NJ newspaper, it is the highest ever. Narrow-streeted, crowded European cities cannot support the vast number of cars, trucks, and SUVs that the U.S. can. There is just no room for them. Thus there is a more even ratio of bikers and pedestrians to cars on the road -- whereas in America there are many, many more cars than bicyclists let alone pedestrians. Another key difference, especially with regard to those long-lives and accident-free Dutch bicyclists, is that they make extensive use of bicycle paths separate from the roads.
The article in the Virginian-Pilot talks of suburbs versus cities. Yet, for a long bike ride, where would you rather ride? A ride through New York City, versus, say, a ride through a rural area? Even with the skills and fearlessness of the most death-defying bike messenger, a cyclist would be apt to spend more time in the NY trip dodging potholes, cabs, careless pedestrians, and walking his bike around double and triple parked trucks than he would actually riding it. If it be exercise you want, a ride in a more suburban environment will take you greater distances between stops. When I ride through the great swamp, I can ride nearly twenty miles -- at least -- before putting a foot down on asphalt to stop. In more crowded areas the stops are more frequent, interrupting one's ride.
Failing an attempt to denounce human progress as destructive to the natural landscape, the social engineers of the next grave new world are now trying to blame a preponderance of fat people on "suburban sprawl". The idea is to argue everyone into cities again, by saying it'll be good for them and they will get more exercise. True, in cities fewer people drive, but not for any sheer love of walking or biking: They don't drive because in cities that are overcrowded with cars crammed onto roads not designed for the volume of traffic they hold, there is no room for additional cars -- and because the roads are not modern and designed to handle the volume of auto traffic, in many cities a bike is actually faster and more practical. Healthiness, or a love of cycling sports, has nothing to do with it for many. Of course, there are a good many actual cyclists in the urban area, as many as outside it. But they are not cyclists because of their environment. And if put in an environment where the auto was a practical alternative, many would still cyclists be. That is what makes them cyclists; they choose to ride bikes, even when they could ride their cars.
Yet, if people are too lazy to ride leisurely from one town to the next on wide, usually well-maintained suburban streets, what makes one think they will dare brave a hair-raising trip across a busy urban center to get to a store, dodging taxis, double parked delivery vans, and drivers who may or may not know enough English to read the road signs?
The fact is that the statistics are not accurate. The article in the Pilot said in Europe people make 33 percent of their trips by bicycle, but Americans make just 9.4 percent of their trips on bikes. Yet this is not a representation of cyclists; it is a representation of overall Americans. If you looked at American cyclists, suburban and urban both, you would see a different picture, people who may use a car or train to get to work but who in their spare time may spend more of their time on two wheels than at home.
Moreover, by trying to force people into "healthier" lifestyles, by putting them in a situation where they have no choice but to walk or ride a bike because the car is impractical, the urban planners of the nation are doing nothing to encourage love of bicycling. Far from it, by practically forcing people to bike, walk, or use mass transit, these would-be social engineers are virtually denying those same people the chance to willingly choose bicycling as a means of transportation and -- more importantly -- recreation. Why is this the case? Because someone who bikes only because he has to will not continue to do so when he no longer has to. But someone who bikes because he chooses to will continue to do so even if he is offered other alternatives.
This is the same whether one is talking about forcing biking on the populace by limiting "suburban sprawl" and confining citizens to the urban world, or whether one is talking of taking the bicyclists and confining them to bike paths in parks and so forth.
Bike paths by themselves are no danger to cyclists, but they are not for everyone, any more than HOV lanes on the highway are. Let's face it, a bicycle path will never get you to the same place as the vast road system in this country. For the bicyclist who doesn't just want to ride around in circles but who actually wants to use his bike to cover distance, a path is useless. In New Jersey, for instance, there is a path from Madison to Morristown. But if one wishes to ride through New Providence, Summit, Chatham, Madison, and on to Morristown, the road is the only way to go. There is simply no chance that any system of paths, no matter how well made, could do for the cyclist what the road does. Moreover, there is the danger that once bike paths become commonplace, that may be the only place cyclists are permitted to ride, and they may find themselves barred from the road. As to safety, there is no risk that can't be addressed via enforcement and education of drivers... bikes ain't the problem.
That guy in the car might have four wheel disc brakes, but the dude on the Bianchi who's clipping along at 40-plus miles per hour cannot stop on a dime just to accommodate the guy in the car, who be too lazy to extend his foot and stop at a stop sign.
Speeding is, next to drunken drivers, one of the most talked about problems on the roads in America. Politicians and police alike complain mightily about speeders -- while hoping silently that they continue to speed, so that the politicians and policemen may continue to collect their money. Unfortunately, fines do not translate into reformed motorists, and many people continue to speed.
While speeding is not particularly safe, and may contribute to or increase the risk of a crash by making it harder to stop on short notice or causing one to loose control if attempting evasive moves, speeding by itself does NOT CAUSE people to crash.
This is true for accidents involving two cars and it is true for accidents involving a car and a bicyclist.
The fact is, that the greater danger to cyclists comes from other violations of motor vehicle laws, such as the routine running of stop signs.
To other automobile drivers, one driver running a stop sign may not be an accident in the making. Many drivers run stop signs, few are pulled over for it, but many of them also realize that oncoming cars are fast-paced and will run the stop sign only if they think it is possible to avoid oncoming cars. That is, if they come up to the stop sign and see that traffic is a "safe" distance away, they will go through it. This is relatively easy for drivers to do; it is a judgment call based on their own knowledge of cars, which they possess because they drive one. This isn’t to suggest such behavior is wise, legal, or safe. But it is liable to be safer – in terms of the likelihood of avoiding crashes – because drivers of cars know more about cars than they do about bikes. Fact is, no one wants to get creamed by an automobile. But few drivers seem to mind hitting bicycles, or risking it.
Far fewer drivers, however, are as knowledgeable and accurate when judging the speed of oncoming bicycles, provided they even take the time to look for them. The driver just assumes the bike can, or will, stop…
----------------------