I am convinced that they Mayor of Chicago really wants to kill Bicycling,
notwithstanding his claims to want to help it. I had an "encounter" with
two of his bicycle "Ambassadors" over the weekend. They were shilling for
the Mayor's new bike lanes and how they were so much better for riding.
I noted the following:
1. The new "bike lanes" tend to go down streets that have stop signs every
block. (I was told that this was good because it kept traffic slowed
down).
2. That the Bike Lane on Elston made it more dangerous.
One of them said that I had no idea what I was talking about... that he had
been riding for more than 3.5 years and had ridden over 1000 miles since the
beginning of May. (by my count that's about 100 miles per week.... which
doesn't seem to me to be all that impressive.... when I was a good
bicyclist I was commuting during the week 10 miles each way (100 miles) plus
more than another 100 on the weekends (about 2 Centuries a month plus other
rides... and I was just an average rider..) He said that Elston was "safer"
with the Bike Lanes and easier to ride. Since Elston was bike laned more
than 5 years ago, I asked him the "basis" for his claim and whether he had
ridden on it before the Bike Lanes were in place. He said that he had only
ridden on it with Bike Lanes and that it was safer.
Now Elston, to me, is the poster Child for why Bike Lanes do not work.
Elston is a semi-busy street that cuts through the North Side of Chicago.
It is characterized by very long blocks between streets. It is
semi-industrial in nature. It had two lanes in each direction, and now has
one lane in each direction, a "parking lane" and a bike lane stuck between
the two. At rush hour no parking is allowed in the parking lane. The
parking lane is not wide enough to drive in, being barely the width of the
car. During Rush hour the traffic tends to back up a bit. Impatient
drivers pop over into the parking lane and go charging up it at high
speed....coincidentally essentially clearing the bike lanes. Thus the
Bicylcist has to deal with frequent, although not consisitent high speed
passes on the right. Before the Bike Lanes the higher speed traffic stayed
in the center and the bicyclist was able to defend/hold a portion of the
right lane. One only had to watch the left and behind.
I also have a second problem with Bike Lanes. The Ambassador said that they
"increased" visibility for bicylcists. Perhaps in the Bike Lanes they do.
But Cars, in turn, seem less vigalent when the bicycles are riding not in a
bike lane. And in Chicago Bike lanes end a 100 yards or so before major
intersections and do not start until 100 yards after the intersection. And
thus in the intersections the cars act like the Bicyclists do not belong.
And of course, we come to the issue of "stop signs". The materials put
out by the City say "stop at every stop sign" and then they put a stop sign
every block on the bike lanes (thereby rendering any efficient riding either
illegal or impossible). Meanwhile the "Ambassadors" are saying "do not stop
at the stop signs". Well, Richie, which is it? It would seem to me that
on certain of the streets it would be possible to have stop signs for cars
but not Bicycles. (These are four way stops... recently added... on the
streets with the bike lanes).