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).