Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Yeah, Bike Lanes Actually Do Reduce Cycling Accidents

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

An interesting view about bicycle safety has long prevailed among traffic engineers: Cyclists are better off in the long run learning to ride in traffic with automobiles than having their own dedicated bike lanes. This counter-intuitive idea can be traced back to a certain John Forester, popularizer of “vehicular cycling,” who argued that bikers should learn to behave like drivers, writes Emily Badger in the Atlantic Cities blog.

Now comes research by Kay Teschke, a professor at the University of British Columbia, who identified injured cyclists admitted to emergency rooms in Vancouver and Toronto and tracked down where they had their accidents. It turns out that cycle tracks (bike lanes buffered from traffic) had one ninth the accident incidence of driving in major street traffic. Local streets had lower risks, while higher risks were associated with streetcar tracks, downhill grades and construction projects. (See the study abstract.)

The fact that Teschke was able to identify 2,335 injured cyclists at just five hospitals over a mere 18-month period suggests that cycling is a pretty hazardous activity. That said, it’s also clear that creating dedicated infrastructure for bicycles will make biking safer and more popular, especially among those who don’t fall into the daredevil, 18- to 25-year-old male demographic.

Bacon’s bottom line: Creating dedicated bicycle infrastructure need not be prohibitively expensive. Room for bicycles often can be carved out of existing streets. I have often heard it said that Virginia Department of Transportation regulations massively over-engineer Virginia streets and roads. That could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Those excess widths may make it possible to carve out space for dedicated bike routes without harming vehicular traffic.

That sounds like something the Commonwealth Transportation Board should take a look at. I’m not holding my breath. While bicycles constitute one percent or more of Virginia commutes, even with our impoverished biking infrastructure, they get just about zero consideration in CTB deliberations. Maybe we need to organize a bike-in. It would be cool if a couple dozens cyclists showed up — with bicycles, helmets and spandex — at the next CTB meeting.

— JAB

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. thebyurokrat Avatar
    thebyurokrat

    As a full-time, year-round bike commuter, I agree. This might be the policy area in which you and I agree wholeheartedly.

    Between my home in the North Side of Richmond and downtown, I have precisely zero feet of exclusive bicycle lanes. Over time I’ve become more comfortable riding with traffic, but I realize that a) bike commuting is still more dangerous than it needs to be, and b) many people that would commute by bike don’t, because of the lack of infrastructure. My route contains much wasted or underutilized pavement that could be put to better use as bike lanes (Brook Rd. and Hermitage/Lakeside, anyone?)

    I’d also like to add that the sharrows painted by the City in the past year have done exactly nothing to improve safety for cyclists.

  2. Yeah, Bike Lanes Actually Do Cut Down on Cycling Accidents … | Bicycle News Gator

    […] more from the original source: Yeah, Bike Lanes Actually Do Cut Down on Cycling Accidents … This entry was posted in Blog Search and tagged bicycles, bike, biking, commutes, consideration, […]

  3. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    bike infrastructure needs a dedicated source of funding. I note that VDOT receives about 500 million a year from a .5% sales tax.

    how about .1% sales tax for bike infrastructure?

    50 million is not huge but it’s no chump change either and it will add infrastructure on a regular basis.

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Why should people who don’t bike pay for the bike lanes? And please don’t say it’s because people who don’t drive pay the 0.5% sales tax that is used for roads. That’s stupid too.

    1. James A. Bacon Avatar
      James A. Bacon

      Legitimate question. I’m trying to figure out a practical user fee to impose on bicycles. I haven’t figured out how to do it yet. Perhaps a $10 surcharge upon purchase of a bicycle.

      Then there’s the pragmatic justification. Taking people out of cars and onto bicycles reduces traffic congestion, which benefits those who use cars. But that has philosophical problems, too.

  5. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    for the same reason people pay for sidewalks and transit they don’t use.

    Are we going to get rid of taxpayers subsidies for METRO and make it run on fares only?

  6. AndyH Avatar
    AndyH

    I agree with Larry. This is one of those deals that we as a society decide that we’re going to do or not. Otherwise you’re always left with this same question with a different service in the subject: why should I pay for VRE, Metro, empty circulator busses, Airports or sidewalks?

    All of these need to be looked at in conjunction in order to solve our transportation needs. With the “Transact 2040” plan there has been an effort to do this but that plan calls for spending billions and billions only to maintain the same level of traffic congestion we currently have in 2040. I’d submit that’s no plan at all and it’s time to go back to the drawing board.

  7. shaunalex Avatar
    shaunalex

    Why should my tax $ go to repave Road A, when I only drive on Road B?

  8. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    If Va did what 46 other states did – then if you lived in a subdivision – your $$ would go for your road!

    😉

  9. Daniel Pritchett Avatar
    Daniel Pritchett

    I pay to send my son to a private school, but still pay taxes for public schools that my son doesn’t utilize. Everyone pays taxes for public services of which they may not personally take advantage. Improvements to the infrastructure of a City that pertain to Public Safety should absolutely be paid for by taxes. Just because one chooses to drive, rather than bike or walk, doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t pay their share as a part of the Community….whether we’re talking about schools, bike lanes, or sidewalks.

  10. larryg Avatar
    larryg

    well you also have folks who don’t have or no longer have kids and those folks essentially subsidize the schools. There is an easy way to calculate this. A kid in most school systems costs about 10K a year. The property taxes – which fund 1/2 or more of the schools don’t come anywhere close to the 10K for most people.

    then if they have 2 or 3 kids.. the number get even worse. 3 kids will cost most jurisdictions about 30K – a year. Now..these same folks if they earn 42K or less will get all of their income taxes back.

    I am NOT arguing against this – I strongly believe in public schools and I do not think private schools can deliver an equivalent education for much less –

    ….

    HOWEVER – we ought to recognize that K-12 education is a significant cost to taxpayers…and can “crowd out” other spending – like for bike lanes.

    Most European and Asisa schools (not all) spend less per student that we do and get better results AND they tend to have infrastructure that is more tolerant of bikes.

    We tend to be an all-eggs-in-one-basket culture with all our eggs in the education basket and not much in the bike infrastructure basket.

    If a trade was proposed where the folks who currently fund schools on the order of 10k per year per student. If those folks were given a choice of using their tax dollars for bike infrastructure instead – what would result?

    good. bad. or ugly?

Leave a Reply

Read More