“Street Smarts” according to the Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

We had an interesting but disturbing discussion this Sunday at Festifall. “Bike lanes have not been proven to make the road safer,” we were being told at a booth of the Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. The major argument: statistical research shows that the majority of bicycle accidents do not happen when a car hits from behind. Thus, bike lanes won’t help. So with this “scientific evidence,” those of us who are too scared to get on the road when fast driving cars impatiently try to “squeeeeze by” in the dark, those of us who on their bikes tow their children behind them in a trailer to work, we are all told that not only our risk perceptions do not matter, but that “statistically” bike paths—that which we dream of—are safety nonsense.

We wonder what happened when the Chapel Hill town council ruled out the idea. In the News and Observed of September 26, 2001, Council Member Jim Ward was quoted to have said, referring to bike lanes, "I don't think there is documentation out there that says it is safer.” May we ask: is there then documentation out there that says it is not? Our friendly committee member told us that he did not know of any. Furthermore, he pointed out that seven years of police data reveal that the major bicycle accidents are not from behind, but from the side, when cars leave their lanes to make a turn, pull out of their driveway, or make a right hook when going the same way. So who cares if statistics show that bicycle-car accidents from behind are rare?

Intuitively, the argument to leave out the protective buffer makes no sense. If it concerns safety, the main problem on American roads we believe is that cars simply forget or do not see the small, insignificant, and often slower biker, especially in the dark, and think they can declare the road clear after paying attention to other cars only. So the bike path gains its protective agency when the driver is visually cued to the possible presence of a bicyclist every time they cross a bike path. Consequently, the biker not only feels safer, but is safer.

We believe the real argument backing up the statistical evidence is different, and much more political. Suggesting that we should have separate bike line, we were challenged to “compare it with asking African Americans do sit somewhere else in a bus” and called “segregationists.” Pause to think. This argument seemed to have been beyond our wildest dreams, and it certainly put into context the message posted on the free bumper stickers that say “Same roads, same rights, same rules.” Clearly, the bike rights activists trying to ban the bike lane are ready to challenge the American car culture. With the bike lane, the uncertain fascist future might as well be the total ban of the bike on any road which is does not have a designated bike lane. Just like in Europe, that horrible bike unfriendly place where bikelanes have existed for over 25 years.

A noble goal, and yes, we do claim to be for equal rights too. So how about throwing all the pedestrians in the mix as well? Let’s get rid of the sidewalk. Equal rights! Good luck. This argument, dear reader, is not a safety argument, but a moral argument. An argument that mixes itself into the interpretation of statistical “evidence” and furthermore might have supported a political reality which holds a different context. Because the political reality is this: there is not budget for bike lanes. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is already squeezed to the limit, having just enough to put up signs such as “Share the road.” We don’t want those to disappear either, do we? We just want to make it home without being killed on our environmental friendly and fun sports vehicle (the real SUV). Just like they do in Europe. Is that such a strange thing?
 

Danny de Vries, Doctoral student in Anthropology
Cara Crisler, North Carolina Smart Growth Alliance

The Ethics of Equal rights

North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving) is a "grass-roots organization of people who believe that lawful, vehicular-style bicycle driving is the safest and most effective way to travel by bicycle." They have a nice website, with the fascinating claim that it tells the truth about the "The Science and Politics of Bicycle Driving."

Politics, indeed. The folder I was handed by the Chapel Hill Bycicle Advisory Council--apparently sold on the interests of this group--is called Road Vogue, and comes directly from the hands of this particular grassroots interest. It can be found on http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/roadvogue/index.html and has the following introduction:

"There are lots of titles for a person on a bicycle. Bicyclist, cyclist, bicycle rider, person on bike, pedal pusher, etc. A person using a bicycle is both the engine and operator, so can justifiably be called a bicycle driver. By thinking of yourself as a driver of a bicycle vehicle, and projecting that image to motor vehicle drivers, you are more likely to use your bicycle with other traffic in a safe and confident manner. To do this, you need to know a few things about traffic law, and a few tips about operating a bicycle." (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/roadvogue/index.html)

"Equal Rights. Equal Responsibilities."

"What the Law means.
In North Carolina, bicycles are legal vehicles and people driving bicycles have equal rights as motor vehicle drivers. Equal rights means that people who drive bicycles are legally entitled to use of the full lane, just as are other vehicle operators."

"Many well-meaning groups, who believe they are acting on behalf of cyclists' best interests, wish to add special markings to roads and change the Rules of the Road in order to channelize traffic by vehicle type. The motives for these changes are to increase the political visibility of bicycling and reduce the level of traffic competence currently expected of lawful bicycle drivers. But such markings and law changes have not been scientifically shown to improve conditions for cyclists, and can actually make cycling more dangerous by increasing the complexity of traffic movements and violating the scientific principles of crash prevention that led to the existing Rules of the Road. If anything is to be done to improve conditions for cyclists and the motorists who share the roads with them, such actions should be based on scientifically sound principles known to reduce collisions while preserving cyclists' right to travel efficiently. Treating cyclists as drivers of vehicles is the most successful and feasible approach known, yet much of the treatment of bicycling and bicycle operators in the United States has been based on the assumption that cyclists are inferior users of roadways. It is long past time to debunk this myth in favor of a scientifically and constitutionally sound approach that provides for the safety and convenience of both motorists and cyclists."

"One of the studies under the FHWA's Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program investigated the long-standing issue of whether bicycle lanes or wide curb lanes are preferable. Overall,  the study indicated that both bicycle lanes and wide curb lanes can and should be used to improve riding conditions for bicyclists." (Bicycle Lanes Versus Wide Curb Lanes: Operational and Safety Findings and Countermeasure Recommendations http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/99035/intro.htm)

"This study compares Bicycle Lanes and Wide Outside Lanes. It has very poor research methodology because the different facilities are not matched, yet makes statistical comparison claims. I dismiss this as garbage." (personal correspondence)

The myth to be dispelled is not that cyclists are equal to cars. The myth to be dispelled is that arguing that bicycles can ever be seen as equal to cars. How about some common sense: the car drives much faster, has much more mass, needs much more space, and will simply drive OVER the biker. I sincerley doubt such facts promote the idea that cars and bikes are equal participants.
 

"The bicycle driver cycles down a side street taking care to stay four feet away from parked cars in order to avoid being doored.  On a street with
lanes that are too narrow to safely share side-by side with a motorist, she drives in the middle of the lane to provide herself room to maneuver and to avoid being squeezed off the road." (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page6.html)

"Bicycling in travel lanes as the driver of a vehicle is standard operating procedure for many experienced cyclists in the United States.  It complies with traffic law and the scientific principles of collision prevention.  Most bicycling education programs run by cycling organizations, such as the League of American Bicyclists, teach this type of vehicular-style bicycle operation.  In Britain, the vast majority of cyclists drive bicycles this way.  Yet many - if not most - American teenagers and adults operate bicycles very differently.  Many ride on sidewalks, or in the gutter, and often against traffic. They make left turns from the right edge of the road. They run red lights, ride straight from right turn lanes, and ride at night without a headlight, all while the police look the other way." (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/sciencepolitics1/page6.html)

Is this better than having a bike lane?
 

Bicycling in travel lanes as the driver of a vehicle is standard operating procedure for many experienced cyclists in the United States.  It complies with traffic law and
the scientific principles of collision prevention.  Most bicycling education programs run by cycling organizations, such as the League of American Bicyclists, teach this
type of vehicular-style bicycle operation.  In Britain, the vast majority of cyclists drive bicycles this way.  Yet many - if not most - American teenagers and adults
operate bicycles very differently.  Many ride on sidewalks, or in the gutter, and often against traffic. They make left turns from the right edge of the road. They run
red lights, ride straight from right turn lanes, and ride at night without a headlight, all while the police look the other way.
 
 

http://www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us/ABC/bicycleandpedestrian.htm
Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board
Creates and revises a phased Walks and Bikeways Master Plan, identifying gaps in facilities and advising Town action.  Reviews project designs related to proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
 
 
 

 http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/research/99078/99-078.htm
Development of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Injury Databases

Data were collected on over 2500 injured pedestrians and bicyclists treated at eight hospital emergency rooms. The emergency
rooms represented a mix of urban and suburban/rural sites in three states -- California, New York, and North Carolina. Results
show that, overall, 70 percent of the reported bicycle injury events and 64 percent of the reported pedestrian injury events did not
involve a motor vehicle. In addition, 31 percent of the bicyclists and 53 percent of the pedestrians were injured in non-roadway
locations. For pedestrian only events, 24% occurred in roadways, 51% on sidewalks, and 14% in parking lots. Parking lots were
especially hazardous to pedestrians in icy weather conditions. For bicyclist-only events, 54% occurred in roadways, 21% on
sidewalks, 9% on trails or other off-road paths, and only 2% in parking lots. In contrast, 88% of pedestrian-motor vehicle and 92%
of bicycle-motor vehicle events occurred in the roadway. A comparison of the emergency-room reported cases with police-reported
cases revealed that only 56 percent of the pedestrian-motor vehicle and 48 percent of the bicycle-motor vehicle emergency room
cases were reported on state motor vehicle crash files. Programs to improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists need to take
into account the large numbers of pedestrians being injured in non-roadway and non-motor vehicle events, and need to examine
data sources in addition to police crash data. The final report (Injuries to Pedestrians and Bicyclists: An Analysis Based
on Hospital Emergency Department Data - FHWA-RD-99-078) provides more details of the study.
 

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/ctanbike.htm
This one contains crash information.

The Pedestrian & Bicycle Research Safety Website (http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pedbike.htm)