From: rlewis@muskwa.ucs.ualberta.ca (Robert Lewis)
Subject: Re: riding against traffic; bikepaths
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:25:08 GMT

akkana@netcom.com (Akkana Peck) writes:

>That's the problem I have with the "bike paths are dangerous" argument.
>If the accident occurred because the bicyclist "got into the habit of not
>expecting cars" and shot out across the road in front of a car, I just
>don't see the logic in blaming it on the bike path and proclaiming that
>all bike paths are dangerous.

>Maybe bike paths cause bad habits.  That doesn't make them dangerous --
>it just means that cyclists should remember to stay alert when on paths
>just as they would on the road.

But that is the whole philosophy behind bike paths, at least in North
America (and from my limited experience there, England), i.e., bike
paths are needed because it is useless to train the vast majority of 
cyclists in how to ride in traffic (only an 'elite' few will ever be
able to ride on the roads safely).  Now it is possible to train cyclists
to ride on properly designed bikepaths (i.e., following AASHTO
principals, note that many, perhaps most, bikepaths contravene at least
one aspect of those prinicpals) but that training would be at least no
less difficult than teaching recognized vehicular cycling principals
(which would, in any case, still need to be taught as it is would still
be the case that cyclists must do at least some of their cycling on the
roads).
	I far as I know, no principals for safe riding on bike paths 
has been established, but if such were they would necessarily include 
the following (which are the rules often implemented on an ad hoc basis 
for existing bike paths):
	1) On shared use paths maximum speed of 20 km (12 miles)
	per hour.
	2) On non-shared use paths without different lanes for
	bicylces going at different speeds, maximum of 30 km (20
	miles) per hour.
	3) Yield to other vehicles at driveways, this means both
	crossing traffic (i,e., on the driveway) and traffic
	operating on the parrallel road (which may be turning 
	into the driveway), this would mean that one would need
	to slow and to check for traffic aprroaching from all 
	four directions.  As a result of this cyclists must know
	how to do a proper shoulder check (i.e., without swerving
	into the path of other cyclists).  If it is proven that it
	is impossible for any but a few 'elite' cyclists to do 
	proper shoulder checks, then cyclists must be required to
	stop at all driveways (this would probably be the rule 
	implemented as the underlying logic of bike paths is 
	exactly such).
	4) Stop (perhaps dismount*, this is required at many
	intersections on bike lanes and paths in this city)
	and yield to other vehicles at crossing streets, this 
	again means both crossing traffic (i,e., on the 
	intersecting road) and traffic operating on the 
	parrallel road (which may be turning into the 
	intersecting road), again this would mean that one 
	would need to check for traffic aprroaching from all 
	four directions.
	5) On the bike paths (i.e., in relation to others on 
	the bike path and on intersecting bike paths) operate 
	in the same way as one would operate in terms of other 
	vehicles on the roads (e.g., signal turns, do not pass
	on the right, do not operated against traffic, use lights
	at night, etc.), i.e., operate on vehicular principals.

As can be imagined such a system would be considerably slower than using
the roads and would demand at least as much training a required for
riding safely on the road.  It is highly questionable that it would
actually decrease the rate of bicycle-motor vehicle accidents compared
to a system run on the basis of vehicular cycling principals.  
	If cycle paths/lanes were actually designed to increase
cycling safety they would necessitate a major program of cyclist
training, major expenses on such facilities, as well as some major
changes in the traffic act (most importantly outlawing right turn on red
lights where such is legal and some change right of way at
intersections.  Who would have right of way when one must do a right turn
across a cycle lane?  How would one do a left turn from a cycle lane?
How will pedestrians handle cycle lanes?).  However as safety is usually
just an excuse for cycle lanes (and as cycling education is seen as
unnecessary and the enforcement of traffic laws as being unfriendly to
cyclists, as the local eco-cycling group complains) we can be sure that 
the law would state that cyclists must stop and yield to all motor 
vehicles at intersections and, after there are accidents at such 
intersections, that cyclists must dismount and walk bikes across 
intersections (which of course would decrease the number of accidents 
there by decreasing the number of cyclists).

The reality is that if even part of the money spent on a comprehensive
system of cycle lanes were spent on cyclist and motor vehicle operator
education (and licensing), traffic law enforcement, and real
improvements to the road way (better pavements maintainance, more
one-way streets, wider curb lanes, etc.) we really could improve the
situation for cyclists.


Robert M. Lewis
Department of Sociology
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

* As an aside, when I have seen pictures of cycle lanes in the
Netherlands I have noted that many/most cyclists do dismount at
intersections (at least very busy ones) and walk their bikes across, 
is this required, advised, or common?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc