the following ran in the Washington Post on 28 Aug, in the "Dr. Gridlock" column:
***begin verbatim**** Dear Dr. Gridlock:
In a region where it seems many motorists lack the patience to yield to pedestrians, emergency
vehicles or funeral processions, what makes some people think anyone is impressed by the argument
that if cyclists slavishly obey the law, motorists will suddenly start treating them with respect?
Why don't they simply admit that, like other impatient and self-important motorists who blame others
for their aggressive driving, what they really want are traffic conditions free of any obstacles
they feel prevent them from shaving a few seconds off their daily commute?
If they cycled they'd realize that the primary reason I and other cyclists don't always follow the
rules of the road is that, on a playing field heavily skewed in favor of motorists (many of whom are
all too eager to exploit the size, weight and power of their vehicles to intimidate cyclists,
pedestrians and other motorists), we need to take advantage of as many head starts and shortcuts as
we can find.
Marcel Prather
Washington
Head starts and shortcuts are one thing. (And I sympathize with your David-Goliath existence.) But
kamikaze riding on downtown D.C. sidewalks or running red lights, which we see too often, is
something else.
I would like to see a network of bike lanes that would separate bikes from traffic and encourage
bicycle commuting.
****end verbatim***
I wrote back to Dr. Gridlock at <[email hidden]> (if you do the same, be sure to include
your full name, city, county, and telephone numbers). The full text of my response below:
***begin verbatim***
Dear Dr. Gridlock,
In your most recent column (Aug 28), you printed a letter from cyclist Marcel Prather, who
defended his right to "take advantage of as many head starts and shortcuts as [he] can find."
I sympathise with Mr. Prather. The streetscape, as it is, can be very hostile to cyclists,
particularly at red lights. The main problem a cyclist has at the red light is being able to see
the intersection--so very often you will find that a cyclist will roll up three or four yards past
the white line, and stop. In London, there is an elegant solution-- There are two lines at each
stoplight: a wide white line, at which cars are expected to stop (and do), and then a green zone
extending a few yards beyond, where cyclists can (and do) stop.
In your response you said you would like to see "...a network of bike lanes that would separate
bikes from traffic and encourage bicycle commuting."
Here's what such a system might look like:
-It would extend from your doorstep to wherever you should like to go-- offices, shops, schools,
libraries, courthouses, movie houses, theatres....
-It would have a nice, smooth surface; well-maintainted everywhere and at public expense.
-It would have adequate signage and signaling.
-It would be free of pedestrians, dog-walkers, rollerbladers and joggers- -particularly the
walkman-wearing species of each.
In fact, it may amaze you and many of your readers that such a comprehensive infrastructure for
cyclists exists, and is maintained by local and state governments at considerable cost: the
public roadways. Yes, they're full of road- raging, fuel-guzzling, cell-phone-using, motorists.
But there are precious few dedicated bikeways that get you *exactly* where you need to go, door
to door. Anything else is of very limited utility indeed.
Street space is precious enough as it is. Segregating bike lanes on streets would mean motorists
would have to sacrifice a half-lane of traffic in each direction. Say goodbye to right-turn lanes
and passing lanes. Not to mention the added complexity of intersections: you'd have to put up
signals that would enable the cyclists to turn left and right, just like normal traffic would.
Several European countries--notably the Netherlands-- have adopted systems along these lines in
their major cities. Yes, they do increase total bicycle use; but I doubt that area governments
and taxpayers would readily vote for the enormous appropriation necessary to make it work well,
nor would commuters (both human-powered and otherwise) appreciate the long delays that the total
reconstruction of an urban streetscape would entail. This isn't to say all bike paths or
segregated bicycle facilities are bad. I'd like to see some out in the suburbs, but as bicycle
equivalents of the Interstate highways: long, straight, fast, and with limited access. The W&OD
and Custis trails in Virginia are a great example of this, and an invaluable resource to cyclists
commuting into the District; their path parallels that of I-66, and makes for a quick and safe
way through the I-66/Rt. 50/ Rt. 29 corridor.
Better enforcement of existing traffic laws--across the board, for cyclists, pedestrians, and
motorists alike--leads to safer streets for everyone. Coupled with better enforcement, there
needs to be better education, starting at the primary-school level, about responsible
transportational cycling. The benefit can only trickle up: Kids who know the rules of the road
and have direct experience of following them in traffic will grow up to be better, safer, and
more responsible motorists. Sincerely,
Luigi de Guzman Fairfax, VA
***end verbatim***