familygreen2.gif (5638 bytes)

wpe6.jpg (9625 bytes)

  A Web-site for Everyday Bicyclists.

Page One Site Map Feed Back Questions???
  Bicycling Life

Page One

About Our Site

News And Views

Issues & Editorials

Bicycling "How-To"s

Solutions for Little Problems,
Adjustments, and Repairs.

Practical Cycling

Using Bikes in Everyday Life
Commuting & Errands

Touring & Recreation

Cycling for Fun & Health

Safety Skills

Street Smarts for Bicyclists
Safety Issues

Effective Advocacy

Advancing Cycling Issues
Getting Involved

Library

Position Papers
Research and
Source Documents

Links

 

 

Advocating Wide Lanes

 

Given that I have not been involved in "cyclist advocacy" for very long, it still continues to surprise me how much of the discussion of bicycle-related-engineering in my area (the Triangle area of NC) is based on the idea of converting car users to bicycling.

The facilities proponents claim that special facilities are needed to reduce traffic congestion and pollution by converting motorists to bicycling, and the fiscal conservatives threaten that people had better use those expensive new facilities for commuting or there won't be any more money allocated for bicycle transportation in the future. The conservatives demand per-commuter cost comparisons of road improvements for increased car-carrying capacity versus bike paths for bicycle commuting.

Thus the unproven promise of greatly increased utilitarian cycling from new paths and bike lane stripes threatens the availablilty of funds for those things most needed and desired by existing road cyclists.

I do not believe very many motorists will switch to utilitarian bicycling from motoring unless they already enjoy cycling a great deal. The factors that I see strongly correlated with utilitarian bicycling are:

  1. Lack of ownership of or ability to drive a car.
  2. Great fondness for cycling for exercise or enjoyment.
  3. High cost or time penalty for operating or parking a car.
  4. Roads and culture that promote cyclist-motorist cooperation.
  5. Any combination of the above.

Most non-cyclists I know do not meet conditions 1 and 2, and oppose changes that will bring about 3. Number 4 can promote #2 over time, but is not as strong a factor as 1 and 3.

The best argument I have found to win the support of fiscal conservatives is that road improvements that reduce car-bike friction are essentially capacity/level of service improvements.

The bicycle facility is, according to law, already there, but desired motor vehicle speeds and volumes may not be compatible with full-lane occupation by bicyclists. Attempts to discourage cycling to increase convenience for motorists will be successfully challenged by cycling organizations on constitutional grounds, and will be unpopular with a significant portion of the electorate who support bicycling even if they don't do it themselves.

Wide lanes improve capacity and convenience for motorists.

Simply making the bicycle a design vehicle by default is the most straightforward way to protect the constitutional travel rights of bicyclists and convenience for motorists when building and improving roads.

 

 

 

By

Steve Goodridge

 

 

Human Transport Website

 

Steve Goodridge is the web master of Humantransport. The primary mission of Humantransport is advocacy on behalf of the forgotten human beings who travel under their own power by choice or necessity. 

Note:

A "Design Vehicle" is a type of vehicle which
MUST be accommodated

in the design of a road. Making a bicycles a design vehicle forces road engineers to consider and safely accommodate cyclists.

Home About This Site Email the Editor Submissions Sponsors
08/16/11
Copyright 2000 Bicycling Life Website.