There are three main categories of cycling philosophy that I’ve encountered so far. The one that I tend to agree with is that used in Can-Bike courses and taught by John Forester. This philosophy is based on being predictable and following the rules of the road. It also suggests that bike lanes are not a panacea. They can be useful in certain specialized locations when designed properly; for example, a wide lane on a high speed road that acts logically at intersections would be useful and keep cyclists safe. In slower speed situations, this philosophy suggests that wide curb lanes may be preferable. It suggests that bike lanes make cyclists feel safer, without actually offering much in the way of improved safety. (See security theatre.)

The second common philosophy is that bike lanes will solve all our problems. We should install them on every possible roadway, and then no one will ever get hurt again. This philosophy suggests that more cyclists will be safe if there are more bike lanes. To some extent, this may be true, since bike lanes do make people feel safer, so it may encourage cycling. There is evidence that having more cyclists on the road, no matter how safely they’re cycling, means motorists get used to looking for cyclists, and accidents per capita go down.

The third philosophy is mostly not a philosophy at all. I’m on a bike, I’m going somewhere, and I’m going to get there the way I want - safety be damned. This philosophy leads to wrong way cycling, cycling on the sidewalk, cycling the wrong way down Johnson in the middle of the night with no lights, reflectors, etc…

After having read all that, it might be fair to ask what the point of this post is. Well, Lela Gary is one of the frequent posters on the Cycle Ontario discussion list who is firmly in camp 2. Mostly the people in camp 2 are reasonable, and at least advocate for lanes that put cyclists where they are most safe (say, to the left of right turn lanes). Lela seems to feel that cyclists should be given the right of way in all cases, and that they should be helped as much as possible, even to the detriment of other road users. Now, far be it for me to claim that I don’t share any of this sentiment. Especially today, on the second smog day of the year already, I would love for the use of ICE vehicles to be restricted. However, it’s important to carefully consider the safety ramifications of any law changes that would ostensibly “help” cyclists.

You can find Lela’s latest proposed law change here: http://www.ecopolitics.ca/transport/cyc/safety_cycling_transport.php. The gist of the suggestion is that cyclists should be allowed wait, sorry, actually FORCED to overtake vehicles that are turning right on the right. Here are some hopefully helpful diagrams that illustrate what that would mean:

Perhaps it would be helpful to consider what this would look like if we allowed cars to do it:

My mind is boggling that someone thought that this would actually be a good idea. I guess the idea is that now the car has to wait until there are no cyclists before turning, but this is pretty much exactly the same thing as what they should do to get over into the rightmost lane before turning… Not allowing the vehicle to enter the rightmost lane will just make it more likely that the car will cut off cyclists. This is especially unsafe in the case of large trucks. They have a large blind spot that cyclists would be much more likely to inhabit in this scenario. Yay for more cyclist deaths coming because Lela is not willing to either wait until the vehicle has turned, or safely merge with the rest of the traffic. Note that on the proposal website this safe and legal activity (merging with traffic to pass) is labeled as “unsafe and unfair”. Methinks someone needs to take a Can Bike class so that they feel more confident in traffic.

Posted in Cycling |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Trackback from your own site.