And once again, the new year highlights that there is a very real differentiator between “bicyclists” and “people who bike.” This differentiator can be fatal, as in the case of Kerry Steven Baker. Mr. Baker was killed pre-dawn on New Year’s morning, [...]]]>

So, here we are. Minneapolis gets recognition and awards for its bike culture. Bicyclists, woo!

And once again, the new year highlights that there is a very real differentiator between “bicyclists” and “people who bike.” This differentiator can be fatal, as in the case of Kerry Steven Baker. Mr. Baker was killed pre-dawn on New Year’s morning, riding northbound in the southbound lanes of the 4700 block of East River Road, near the Anoka County Riverfront Park. He was hit by a plow going southbound in those southbound lanes.

News reports are calling out that he had no lights and no helmet, but not calling out that much like lacking a headlamp in the dark, riding against the flow of traffic is contrary to Minnesota state regulations for bicycle use. Nope, it’s all about the helmet!

Further revelations (via Fridley Patch) indicate that the deceased had a long criminal record featuring many kinds of violations that would preclude driving a car legally, although nothing has outright stated that he lacked a driver’s license.

These sorts of accidents really call out the people who aren’t touched by “bicycle culture!” as is so frequently touted in mags like Bicycling, or on sites like Grist or Streetsblog, which speak to a certain level of audience. These people get lost in things like the annual bicycle counts for the Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program, because they don’t use “commuter” routes, and are often out at irregular times. Often, these people don’t speak great English, use sidewalks, don’t wear helmets, don’t have lights, etc.

There is much to be said that making roads safer for bicyclists also makes it safer for people who bike. But most communities remain stuck on the how of reaching many of the people who bike, because they are so outside of their experience. Some communities don’t even recognize/realize the need.

At the end of the day, the cycling movement really needs to work on empowering people beyond the spandex-clad, the hipsters, the young, and find ways to reach out to people who feel forced to ride, and people who think riding is out of reach, such as many women, people with kids, etc. It’s a hard problem. But the first step is recognizing the need, and not getting too caught up in congratulations, awards, and circle-jerking within the core community of bicyclists — a group who often look down on people who bike, and a group who people who bike often feel no kinship with. We’re all on these roads together.

Edit/Addition: The section of road where this cyclist died is highly bikeable, and there are several off-road routes that overlap, but are unlikely to have been passable immediately post-snow. A lot more of this accident is on wrong-way riding and a lack of lights — both of which can be taught. This accident was by no means a facility issue.

I will be a part of the segment, talking about bike laws and bicycle safety. Given my feelings about media coverage of bicycles, this is a moment in which I’m trying to [...]]]>

Tonight’s Good Question with Jason Derusha on WCCO News at 10 will be on the subject of bicycle safety, specifically the laws for bicycle-car interaction.

I will be a part of the segment, talking about bike laws and bicycle safety. Given my feelings about media coverage of bicycles, this is a moment in which I’m trying to do the right thing and make the coverage better. I gave an extended interview, which will be chopped down to fit the segment. Jason will also be talking to a Minneapolis police officer.

I’ll share a recap after it airs.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio [...]]]>

On this International Women’s Day, I thought I’d address one of the skeletons in the room when we discuss bicycle-friendly infrastructure and the interested-but-hesitant cyclist: A pretty good portion of that 60% is female.

Data suggests that men outnumber women on bicycles in the United States by a ratio of two-to-one. In many European nations, the ratio is far closer to one-to-one.

One reason for a lower incidence of women on bikes: Women generally have a greater share of responsibility for care of children. Women do more of the household shopping. The study in Scientific American suggests that bicycle routes need to be structured around “practical” destinations to support this gender role behavior. It’s hard to see a lot of average suburban moms hitting Costco on a bike. As I’ve said before: I get it. You won’t be bringing home diapers for two kids, a turkey, and several gallons of milk on a bike while also caring for a child regardless of infrastructure. (SA suggests this can be addressed via education. What?)

Another reason for women to bicycle less than men: Safety concerns. Women are typically found by studies to be more risk averse. The Association of Pedestrian & Bicycle Professionals did a survey in 2010 about women on bicycles. The report is very clear that the sample was not representative of population and also self-selecting — which is to say drawing strong conclusions on the data is fraught with issues. However, the data collected supports assertions that women are risk-averse: Women cited such concerns about cycling as motorist behavior, distracted driving, and stranger attacks.

The APBP study also asked respondents what would get them cycling more. The answers? More than 60% said bike lanes, and another 46% responded with completely separated bike paths/tracks. Better direct routes was also cited by more than 40% of respondents.

I’ve written about this before. Many special facilities lead inexperienced cyclists into a false sense of safety, and actually guide them into hazardous scenarios. I’ll quote myself, here:

Under most state laws, roads are bicycle facilities. We need to find ways to empower the 60% of reluctant cyclists to feel safe on these facilities, and we need to educate drivers not to be jerks. Additional segregated facilities need to be developed based on context — because, yeah, there are some routes on which they make lots of sense — and not based on a knee-jerk belief that they are “safer” or “better.” Segregating cyclists as a matter of policy doesn’t productively further a goal of having bicycling be considered a transport mode, and not a cute little way to get around for hipsters, hippies and people who just aren’t cool enough to have cars.

The challenge is how to calm streets so that all potential users — cyclists, pedestrians, women, kids, the elderly, dogs, etc. — can use them safely and confidently. An additional challenge is continued education to these groups. Bike/Walk Twin Cities have done a number of cycling seminars targeted specifically to women, and many other groups have done similarly.

I happen to believe that improving programs like Safe Routes to Schools could help influence women’s participation in cycling. Enabling those who are providing childcare with the means to choose active transport to get to school, athletics/extracurriculars, and even church will help cut down on the number of car trips under two miles.

I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can’t get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. — Susan B. Anthony

Amen.

Following the publication of a (flawed) study about cycletracks, many people are [...]]]>

I’ve previously written about the challenge of getting the 60% of would-be cyclists who are “Interested but Concerned” onto bicycles more frequently and as users of bicycles for transport. I’ve also written about the design issues associated with bicycle facilities and challenges of bike lanes.

Following the publication of a (flawed) study about cycletracks, many people are talking about the building of segregated bicycle facilities again. To recap the study, a limited study in Montreal found that cyclists using the city’s cycletracks experienced fewer accidents than those using nearby streets. The flaw in the study is that it fails to account for the “safety in numbers” effect, via which motorists are trained to look for cyclists by there being a greater number of them, or an expectation of where they will be.

The League of American Bicyclists often rewards communities who build special facilities, as it is nearly impossible to achieve a Bicycle Friendly Community status without such facilities. The facilities are rarely evaluated for their adherence to AASHTO design standards, however. This is actually somewhat in conflict with a published League position paper:

Special bicycle facilities have sometimes been viewed as the only way to provide improved access and mobility for bicycle traffic. These facilities have sometimes been developed in the absence of, or as a substitute for (1) programs for the development or improvement of the road network to accommodate bicycle traffic safely, and (2) efforts to educate the public about vehicular cycling.

In many instances, special bicycle facilities have been poorly designed, inadequately maintained or unnecessary. The problems posed by these facilities have been aggravated in many locations by laws which require the use of these facilities, however unsafe, when they are parallel to an existing road.

Since 1981, the bicycle facilities design standards of the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have been reasonably good, although not by themselves sufficient to guarantee a good facility. Some bicycle facilities built after that date have not met those standards.

It’s pretty hard to dispute that bicycle facilities help encourage the “Interested But Concerned” 60% to bicycle more. Unfortunately, many facilities actively guide those less experienced cyclists into danger. These dangers emerge due to poor intersection design, placement near parking zones, and sidepaths that have them ride counter to dominant traffic flow.

Getting these 60% out via these facilities also has another effect: These riders believe the facilities are where they “belong” as cyclists, and so also take that attitude into their own time in a car. Other motorists — the 32% who will not ride, regardless — also typically believe this. Thus, the facilities feed on themselves.

Some would argue that this is okay, because it gets butts in bikes, and embrace a vision of putting facilities everywhere to deal with the issue that existing facilities don’t go everywhere. On the other hand, it perpetuates poor design and bad practices, and is an expensive alternative to better cyclist and motorist education — the latter of which would reach a higher proportion of road users. Many studies have shown that cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. The perception of many that cyclists should be using lanes and segregated facilities isn’t rooted in science, but in fear. European city models don’t necessarily translate well into the United States for many reasons relating to how urban areas were built (and rebuilt) and underlying cultural issues (as most of Europe has never had the “car culture” of the more sprawling US).

Under most state laws, roads are bicycle facilities. We need to find ways to empower the 60% of reluctant cyclists to feel safe on these facilities, and we need to educate drivers not to be jerks. Additional segregated facilities need to be developed based on context — because, yeah, there are some routes on which they make lots of sense — and not based on a knee-jerk belief that they are “safer” or “better.” Segregating cyclists as a matter of policy doesn’t productively further a goal of having bicycling be considered a transport mode, and not a cute little way to get around for hipsters, hippies and people who just aren’t cool enough to have cars.

Photo by Richard Masoner, via Flickr/Creative Commons

Similar findings have occurred in studies in NYC, Portland (OR), and even Australia.

Meanwhile, in other places in the country, the news isn’t so good. Bike crashes in [...]]]>

It’s been getting tons of coverage in the local media and from national organizations: As the rate of cycling in the Twin Cities has increased, crash rate has declined.

Similar findings have occurred in studies in NYC, Portland (OR), and even Australia.

Meanwhile, in other places in the country, the news isn’t so good. Bike crashes in San Francisco increased 8 percent in the past two years, while ridership growth has been only 3 percent. The data is further complicated by the fact that SF police only write on-scene reports if someone lands in an ambulance.

Per the people who compiled the report, there seems to be perception on both sides of the issue (cars and cyclists) that the other side is crazy, and that many places to ride are unsafe – which is probably a limiter of ridership growth. Meanwhile, because of the accident stats, it’s easy to expect ridership growth to stay low or flat.

Active encouragement of cycling – as has been happening in Minneapolis, NYC and Portland – helps drive adoption of cycling as a transport mode, which increases safety. Bad news about safety ends up being counterproductive in multiple ways, as the San Francisco data suggests.

Photo by Patrick, via Flickr.

Nothing is wrong with safety. Effective bicycle drivers exhibit behaviors that add to their safety.

But let’s be honest: The fixation on safety is born of fear. Fear of the road. Fear of [...]]]>

One of the greatest barricades to the success of bicycle education in this country is that the core value proposition marketed for it is ‘safety.’

Nothing is wrong with safety. Effective bicycle drivers exhibit behaviors that add to their safety.

But let’s be honest: The fixation on safety is born of fear. Fear of the road. Fear of cars. Fears that may or may not have anything to do with actual statistics, and fear that can be mitigated though appropriate bicycle driving behaviors.

Safety and fear also end up as poor marketing messages to another whole segment of the biking population: Those who aren’t scared. Unfortunately, for many of these riders, a few tips on effective riding would really be a good thing. However, they see bike education as something for the novices and the hesitant. Safety is boring.

Studies suggest that the confident and/or fearless cyclists make up about 8% of the population. Another 60%, though, rate as “Interested But Concerned.” Finding ways to get these people on bicycles is essential for the growth of active transport in this country, as it provides significant political and social support for the practice.

As well, data from Portland (OR) and New York City suggest that cycling may improve traffic safety overall – not just for cyclists. More cyclists and greater acceptance of their road rights lead to greater caution shown by motorists and others.

There are a lot of challenges in the fear message. As Elly Blue writes in a great piece entitled Don’t fear riding a bicycle, “The real thing that’s killing us is that we continue to create places that impose barriers to actually being able to move your body.”

Roadway design and Complete Streets policies help, both with removal of barriers, and mitigation of fear. Providing a variety of different on- and off-street options for cyclists is typically more effective than trying to convince people that they’re being irrationally fearful, although it can be expensive.

Education, while less expensive, continues to have a lot of marketing barriers and participation issues. Programs like Bikeability in the UK show one model of removing the fear-safety marketing and achieving widespread participation. Various programs in the US take innovative approaches to increasing participation rates. But many programs continue to be marketed with fear as a motivator, and I think that ends up counter-productive to the movement as a whole. While there there is clear basis for the target audience being receptive to a message of fear, fear also prompts people to keep their kids inside, not ride themselves or only ride on recreational trails and not for transport, and other limiting behaviors.

The safety and fear factors should be kept in mind by cycling advocates when working for bikeway development. The interested/fearful population do not think that cycling advocates are ‘like them,’ and really – bike advocates tend to be confident and passionate, and thus somewhat separated from the fear. The confidence can even be off-putting to those who are generally fearful. This is not to say “become less confident,” but consider how to make projects relatable to that group without relying too heavily on perpetuating fear. Together, advocates can come up with positive approaches and achieve greater buy in with less fear.

Subd. 4. Riding on roadway or shoulder. (a) Every person operating a [...]]]>

Per Minnesota Statute 169.222, “every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.” Several exception cases are codified in the statute. As a unit, here is the entirety of Subd. 4:

Subd. 4. Riding on roadway or shoulder. (a) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations:
(1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;
(2) when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;
(3) when reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, vehicles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or narrow width lanes, that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge.

Part 3 alludes to the core of the fallacy. The key to the entire statute is the concept of practicable, and part 3 makes it clear that narrow-width lanes are among the reasons not to hug the curb.

Yet many cyclists persist in applying this statute not as practicable, but as possible. As a result, they cling to the curb, sometimes to a ridiculous extent, and actually make their journey less safe as a result.

There are a number of reasons why clinging to the curb is a really bad idea:

1. Visibility: The first rule of safe cycling is to be seen. When hugging the curb, your visibility to drivers actually goes down due to line-of-sight issues relative to vehicle placement in the lane. When a driver cannot see you, you are automatically less safe. The visibility rule applies equally in urban and rural environments.

2. Pavement issues: The join between most curbs or shoulders and the main roadway is not always smooth. As a result, there can be cracks, bumps, and other hazards that may result in a cyclist going down, and bouncing into the traffic lane.
3. Maneuverability: When you cling to the curb, beyond the basic pavement issues you have other maneuvering issues. In particular, you have limited mobility to dodge hazards in the lane, such as gravel, holes, glass, dead varmint, etc. Without a minimum 3-foot space between you and the curb, you must dodge hazards by dodging to the left – into the lane, and possibly right into traffic. Once again: Not safe, and arguably not a practicable approach. By holding to a best-practice three-foot gap to the curb, you have more room to react to roadway issues in a safe manner.
4. Lane choice issues: When you hug the curb, you may not be in the correct lane. Cyclists should ride to the right in the lane that most accurately points to their destination. A cyclist going straight shouldn’t be in the right-most lane if said lane is a right-turn-only (RTO). A cyclist going left shouldn’t do it from the curb lane. And a cyclist going straight puts him/herself in danger by hugging the curb in an option lane that offers a choice of going straight or right-turning.
5. Narrow lane issues: Some cyclists would argue that riding to the far right in a narrow lane is especially important. Actually, in such lanes, it’s probably more important – and safer! – NOT to do so. Under Minnesota law, motorists must at all times maintain a three-foot clearance when passing a bicycle. In a narrow lane, this will end up requiring a vehicle to move into the next lane over to pass a bicycle, even if the cyclist is hugging the curb. Depending on the road, this may either be into a lane further left, or crossing the center line for the pass. If a cyclist hugs the curb too closely, it encourages the motorist to pass too closely in order to stay within the lane.
6. Parked cars: When the curb lane is used for on-street parking, cyclists should maintain a three-foot clearance when passing parked cars to help avoid getting doored.

Sure, in many cases if a cyclist moves three feet out from the curb in a narrow lane it will slow motorized traffic. Often, a good path to choose in a narrow lane is the impression area typically created by the right-side tires of cars that have used the roads. The drivers who are most likely to be irritated by a cyclist riding in this lane position will be irritated by the presence of a cyclist in the road regardless of how close to the curb a cyclist rides.

A good cyclist cannot make their lane decisions based on the perceptions of people who will hate the cyclist no matter what. A good cyclist needs to ride according to best practices for safety, visibility and maneuverability. Riding to the right is about ‘practicability,’ which means that cyclists should make educated decisions about conditions and lane width in selecting their lane position.

Photo by Asbjørn Floden, via Flickr