Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Ghost of a Building | Deliciousness of Spring »

Friday, May 16, 2008

Bicycle To Work Day: Sucks, Insulting

posted by on May 16 at 11:35 AM

Today is Starbucks Bike to Work Day:

Most cities in our region do not know how many cyclists use their roads because they do not count them. Cascade Bicycle Club wants to see official bicycle counts become commonplace around Puget Sound. But until then, the number we tally each year on Bike to Work Day has become the default indicator of our community’s growing size and strength….

Throughout Puget Sound, riders can stop by Commute Stations to pick up free schwag, snacks, city and county maps, bicycle commuting information and to have bikes checked for free by our fantastic bike shop station sponsors. This is your day to be counted and recognized by the city!

Wow, swag! Contribution to a meaningless statistic!

I commute every day, rain or shine year round, by bicycle. And I have news for you, I don’t recommend it for most. Why? The incredibly shitty traffic engineering informed by outright anti-bicycle, pro-car, policymaking by SDOT. Most bicycle commuter routes in the city are dangerous, far more dangerous than they need to be.

Waving free cups of coffee, inane contests and yet-to-be-implemented master plans in the faces of potential bicycle commuters is insulting. What are we, children? Until the city—SDOT and the police, in the very least—takes the safety of cyclists seriously, why should anyone even consider it? Keep your free coffee. At this point, I’d settle on the city paying for catastrophic health insurance for committed bicycle commuters—taking responsibility for the inevitable severe injuries that result from encouraging people to use actively hostile infrastructure to commute outside of a car.

So much of what frustrates both cyclists and drivers alike is not crappy cycling or driving—the majority in both groups are at least competent and sane—is the shitty traffic engineering. The horrible design of the city’s streets favors assholes and idiot drivers and cyclists alike.

Examples.

1. Whose bright idea was it to put big, red, flashing stop signs only for cyclists where the Burke meets Brooklyn Ave NE? Are the dim bulbs at SDOT aware that using a crosswalk where cars are not required to stop is more dangerous than jaywalking? Proven so, in Seattle, by researchers from UW. If the cars don’t have to stop, pedestrians (and, by extension cyclists) are nearly four fold more likely to be struck when using a crosswalk, as opposed to jaywalking. Why? Some drivers, spying a crosswalk without a stop sign for them, speed up to avoid having to wait.

The proper design, if you valued the safety of pedestrians and cyclists at all, even when it comes at the expense of slightly inconveniencing drivers, is to make such crossing four way stops, forcing asshole cyclists and drivers alike to be sane. And then the four way stop must be enforced by the police.

For another example, see where the Burke crosses Pend Oreille Rd.

2. Why does the bicycle lane on the Northbound lanes of University bridge simply disappear as the off ramps for Campus Parkway and 40th St NE start, with no marking for drivers seeking to exit the bridge (often at 40-50mph) to yield to cyclists continuing straight? Every basic traffic engineering textbook demands such markings. Where are they? This isn’t some back route for cyclists.

Enough. I could literally go on all day with examples where the convenience, often very minor convenience, of drivers is prioritized over the safety of cyclists.

You want the city streets to be focused on the ease of drivers over all else? Fine. Just don’t blithely encourage people to use these same streets as cyclists. It’s irresponsible.

RSS icon Comments

1

Yeah, the Burke/Pend Oreille crossing is a little nuts. The few times I've crossed it in a vehicle, I've had near collisions with cyclists who come tearing down the trail and completely ignore the flashing sign. They should slow down to check for traffic and cars should have a stop sign. I now completely stop and ignore the fools honking behind me because some crazy fucker on a bike is going to inevitably be whipping through at warp speed no matter what.

Stupidity on both four wheels and two, I'm tellin' ya.

Posted by bemaha | May 16, 2008 11:46 AM
2

Every time I cross the Burke-Gilman way up north, at Sand Point Way, I'm TERRIFIED I'm going to hit a cyclist blazing out of the tunnel of vegetation across the road.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 11:51 AM
3

Don't forget: pedestrians are anti-bicycle too. For some reason. Can't imagine why.

Posted by elenchos | May 16, 2008 11:54 AM
4

Commuting from west seattle daily on the route that Greg Nichols considers "too scary" is disappointing because despite the miles of bike path on the route, I can't recommend it to newbies as it breaks frequently with no sign age and requires you to play in traffic and cross roads with shipping trucks.

Amazing the trucks are usually the most polite drivers I encounter. Attention asshole drivers, its legal for me to be on the street. The next cabbie that honks and swerves at me to get out of his way is going to get physically assaulted.

Otherwise most seattle drivers are pretty decent if your on a high traffic bike commute route.

Posted by meanie | May 16, 2008 11:56 AM
5

Getting corporations involved in alternative commuting methods is not a meaningless gesture. Two friends of mine, one working for Microsoft, and the other for Nintendo, liaised with the cities of Seattle, Bellvue and Redomond and got Metro to initiate several new bus route changes, including more frequent buses, more buses with bike racks and revised worker-friendly routing. Also, due to worker requests more showers and locker facilities were made available for bikers at work. The newly upgraded, secure bike storage at the Montlake Flyer station was built to accomodate Seattle based bikers who work in Redmond. so don't be so down on this. Corporations are listened to by city government. You should get more of them involved and not denigrate their initiatives.

Posted by inkweary | May 16, 2008 11:56 AM
6

North of the bridge is hell! I ride it 4-5 times a week, and each time I move a foot into the right hand lane going onto 11th I'm terrified of the assholes whipping past me on both sides. It's the kind of place that makes me want to keep my U-lock handy the next time someone puts my life at risk to save half a second and prove their masculinity...

On another note--they're putting sharrows on Melrose, finally. Now they need to fix the part of Lakeview around I-5 and to provide a safe route from Lakeview to Eastlake or to 10th...

Posted by tt | May 16, 2008 11:59 AM
7

I agree, most bike routes the city posts are dangerous. But when we move our lab to the UW Tower, I'll be biking on the Burke-Gilman from Fremont, so it's a straight shot with only one traffic intersection for me - a primo bike commute - and that will be fun.

Bonus part - I'm starting the commute the end of June, so I get a couple of sunny months before we return to the usual sub-par biking weather (compared to my prior bike commutes in Vernon BC, Trail BC, Vancouver BC, and Santa Barbara CA).

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 16, 2008 12:05 PM
8

Nice job, Jonathan, on focusing on the real issue. There will always be asshole drivers and asshole cyclists (and people like me who, embarrassingly, fall into both categories at times). But think for a second: if you look at what exactly makes a cyclist or a motorist dangerous, the problem is always one of expectations. As in, I expect the cyclist to do one thing, they do something else, I get confused, have to swerve or brake suddenly, and roll down my window to yell "What the fuck?!"

This is so clearly an engineering problem. If traffic were managed in a way that everyone's behavior was more predictable by the other party, you would see a dramatic decline in the anger and outrage that seems to define bicycle-driver relations in this city. This is SDOT's job, and they aren't doing it.

Posted by quilsone | May 16, 2008 12:24 PM
9

Are you fucking kidding me?
You don't want more people riding their bikes to work until it's safer for people to ride their bikes to work? How do you think it's ever going to get safer? By having less people on bikes?
Wake the fuck up. The more of us that are willing to ride our bikes on a regular basis, the more reason the city has to implement the master bike plan and improve the problems you note above (and the many more that exist.)
Bike to Work Day is a way of increasing the visibility of the problem and trying to get more people to care about it. It's hard to get anyone to listen when no one gives a shit.

You're a dumb shit for saying people shouldn't ride to work until the problems are fixed.

Posted by Charlie | May 16, 2008 12:27 PM
10

Jonathan,

Thanks for posting this. What I can't stand about the crossing on Brooklyn Ave now is that the cops are there now. I haven't seen them lately but last August and September when they started hanging out there, it pissed me off. Don't those two UW bike cops have anything else better to do than harass bikers at that intersection? Aren't there crimes going on in the U District for these two guys to work on? Also, what I can't stand is the crossing on the Ave. Cars are always creeping into the crosswalk as bikes and pedistrians are crossing with the signal. When the bike cops started monitoring the crosswalk on Brooklyn, I complained to them and asked why aren't they ticketing drivers who edge or stop 1/2 way into the crosswalk, and he just shrugged it off and said "not my problem".

As for the U Bridge lanes, I hate having to go merge onto 11th Ave NE, especially when buses are exiting the bridge.

Posted by apres_moi | May 16, 2008 12:29 PM
11
When the bike cops started monitoring the crosswalk on Brooklyn, I complained to them and asked why aren't they ticketing drivers who edge or stop 1/2 way into the crosswalk, and he just shrugged it off and said "not my problem".

I forgot to mention, that I was asking the cops about the idiots who are stopping at the redlight and trying to make a right-hand turn while pedistrians and cyclist have the right of way.

Posted by apres_moi | May 16, 2008 12:32 PM
12

This post deserves to be expanded into a cover feature. It's great, but there's so much more to be done, like nailing the mayor's office about why they aren't doing better already.

#3, I can't tell if you're being snarky or not, but when I'm a pedestrian, I don't like asshole bicycists riding over me anymore than I appreciate asshole motorists doing the same on the road. Sidewalks are for walking, I always give right of way to the walkers when I'm forced off the road by shitty conditions.

Posted by NickBob | May 16, 2008 12:39 PM
13

Personally, I can't imagine anything worse than a bike commute along a bike trail like Burke-Gilman. Gimme buildings and city all the way. In real cities you bike on the street and you're happy with it.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 12:40 PM
14

You've hit all my hot buttons, Jonathan: same problems with the same intersection. I'll add Dunn Lumber's cross street where the Burke-Gilman crosses. Drivers (almost exclusively the car drivers) do fast lefts and rights without stopping across that intersection, even when cyclists are barreling across.

I used to bike from Montlake to Fremont by using Boyer-Furhman, over the U Bridge, right turn under to the Burke, but gave up on it. Now I bike over the Montlake bridge, turn onto a path behind the UW medical center that's nearly hidden (just a few feet north of the bridge on the west side) that allows access to quiet service roads and then over to Agua Verde and up past Recycled Cycles. Much better.

I wish the cops would plant some patrols on the U Bridge and on the Fuhrman Boyer stretch. I have been driving several times later on Fuhrman-Boyer hunk (between Romio's and the five-way stop to get up to 23rd) and had drivers on my tail as I did the legal 30 mph. I pulled over and honked at one driver while they passed, and they accelerated to probably 50. Ditto, the U Bridge is a 40-50 mph zone in practical use, and it's very very dangerous to cyclists and drivers at that speed.

Posted by Glenn Fleishman | May 16, 2008 12:41 PM
15

@12

You are no more likely to make bicyclists not be assholes to pedestrians than you are to make drivers not be assholes to bicyclists. Just look at how people everywhere bitch and bitch. Why? Because mixing bikes and cars, or bikes and pedestrians, or cars and pedestrians, does not work. You can't "educate" anybody into making an inherently dysfunctional idea work.

Or can you? Is there anywhere that mixes bikes with no-bikes and doesn't have an appalling accident rate, and where everybody isn't always at each others' throats? Many have tried, but this idea continues to fail and fail.

Posted by elenchos | May 16, 2008 12:46 PM
16

Biking around Seattle is easier than some cities I've been in, but it does have dangerous places. Since we have so many people cycling, we are able to draw attention to these spots and make changes or at least give fair warning. When I drive my car through these areas, I am especially careful to look out for cyclers thanks to these SLOG PSAs.

I commute to work by walking a mile and half from Capitol Hill to downtown. I could ride my bike, but in my head it just seems safer to walk.

Posted by CommonKnowledge | May 16, 2008 12:49 PM
17

"Or can you? Is there anywhere that mixes bikes with no-bikes and doesn't have an appalling accident rate, and where everybody isn't always at each others' throats?"

Portland. Vancouver, BC. Amsterdam and plenty of other cities in Europe. Probably a few on the US east coast, too.

Posted by tt | May 16, 2008 1:06 PM
18

elenchos, I'd agree to the idea that assholes are everywhere. Education would help out a lot, even if the results less than perfect. I'd also agree that much of that behavior is the result of the terrible traffic design that everyone, drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike have to deal with. There's another part of an expanded feature- compare and contrast with a city where cyclists are well integrated with cars. Is there one in the US? Europe? How is China dealing with the new surge in auto traffic on streets still busy with bikes? Seattle's Only Newspaper could do a world of good by showing City Hall the way to get it right.

Posted by NickBob | May 16, 2008 1:08 PM
19

@17

Really? I really want to believe you. What is your source of this information? And not some dude saying "Amsterdam is so cool!" Where is the data?

Posted by elenchos | May 16, 2008 1:08 PM
20

The solution to commuter biking is obvious. Remove bicyclists from the street and sidewalk. How? Build a system of high-speed commuter bike trails. These trails would be designed and function much the same way that freeways work for cars: No signals, no intersections, exclusively for bikes, with separate lanes for inbound and outbound traffic. Elevated when necessary, with on and off ramps. Feeder trails would move bike traffic from neighborhoods to a major arterial (parallel to I-5?) , which would end at a "Bike Station" in downtown Seattle (where you could store your bike, take a shower, buy your lunch, etc). The high-speed commuter bike system would be financed by a registration fee on bikes and a tax on bike sales. We could start with a bikes only bridge over the Montlake cut and an elevated bike trail in place of the viaduct.

Posted by crazycatguy | May 16, 2008 1:09 PM
21

Bike advocacy is cool. But it's not an excuse for not riding a bike.

Posted by Trevor | May 16, 2008 1:12 PM
22

Elenchos, it's only extremely dangerous because of the abrupt transition from total segregation. If the bikes were in the street, the intersection wouldn't be anymore dangerous than any other in the city. Bikes and cars get along just fine if they're treated as equals. Segregated trails are for children under 10.

Note that the B-G has a speed limit of 15 MPH, which is violated by probably half of the cyclists on it.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 1:14 PM
23

I've yet to see any evidence that SDOT isn't staffed by complete incompetents.

And as a pedestrian too terrified to bike in this city, I also loathe those crosswalks. The overwhelming majority of the time drivers do not stop for them.

Posted by keshmeshi | May 16, 2008 1:14 PM
24

To elenchos and tt,

I actually posted on this very topic today, regarding bicycling in Vancouver. The take-home point: mixing bicyclists and pedestrians is an awful idea. Cyclists using such mixed routes are three times more likely to be injured than if they ride in the road. There's a CBC link for that stat at my blog.

Posted by Gabriel | May 16, 2008 1:16 PM
25

Fuck all of you. It's man against man and god against all on the mean streets (and bicycle paths) of seattle.

Posted by umvue | May 16, 2008 1:16 PM
26

Fnarf: "Bikes and cars get along just fine if they're treated as equals."

Where is this place where 1) Bikes and cars are treated as equals and 2) they get along fine? Did anyone collect data there? I want to learn about how they did it.

I agree segregated bike paths are fine. It's the mixed-mode way that I have never been able to find proof that it is safe.

Posted by elenchos | May 16, 2008 1:25 PM
27

I bike on B-G and then Eastlake on my way to and from work everyday. I would be all for more commuting via biking if Seattle was actually set up to do it as well. IT IS NOT!!! Seriously, have you biked downtown at 4pm???? FUCK!!! And Eastlake: Shit, I ride on the sidewalks half of the distance so I don't get fucking KILLED!!!

Bikes are great I just wish Seattle had functional bike routes for commuting as opposed to just having fun which is what Burke Gillman is really designed for.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | May 16, 2008 1:29 PM
28

Elenchos, segregated bike paths have to come out sometime, and when they do, unprepared motorists cream the emergers. You want a city where bikes and cars get along? All of them that don't treat their streets as if they were expressways. Boston, New York, London, Paris, Copenhagen. Especially the last-named; it's a bike paradise, many times more bikes than cars in the center.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 1:31 PM
29

@28, bikes in Boston "getting along" -- ha ha ha, oh man that's hilarious. Bostonians who "don't treat roads as expressways" -- ha ha ha ha, stop you're killing me!!!

Posted by Oh man, laugh of the day | May 16, 2008 1:50 PM
30

re: Brooklyn/BGT.

didn't SDOT also put up more signage for vehicles to warn them out passing cyclists, etc? I'm pretty sure I've noticed new bright yellow signs there.

Posted by stinkbug | May 16, 2008 1:53 PM
31

Oh jeez, Jonathan, you are SO right. We should also cancel all gay pride events until there is equality under the law. And environmental groups should cease activity until corporate America sees the light and stops polluting.

Seriously, this kind of post may make your cynical heart feel better, but it is a chickenshit way to do issue advocacy. Bike to Work Day is about a show of power. So what if it is positive and feel good.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | May 16, 2008 1:54 PM
32

@9, Amen.

What a stupid, whiny post this is. Telling people not to bike? Complaining (again) that a cyclist's safety is someone else's responsibility? STF, already. I'm all for good city bike policy. But when you strap on that helmet and climb in the saddle, it's all on YOU. Don't ever make the mistake of assuming someone else is going to mind your safety. You need to look out for #1, period. Adopt this attitude, and - presto - every bike route in the city becomes a safe passage. Act like you're owed something, onthe other hand, and the next thing you know you'll get pancaked by a Fedex van.

Stop whining and get back to telling people how much money they can save on gas by ditching the car and using the bike.

Posted by wrong again | May 16, 2008 1:55 PM
33

Try coming to the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board meetings.
http://www.seattle.gov/sbab/
There's dedicated time for public comment at the start of the meeting.

Regarding my commute, my pet complaint is the 2nd ave bike lane being on the wrong side of the street. But there's nothing like a little cycling education from "The Art of [Urban] Cycling" and "Effective Cycling" to empower me to just take the lane on the right. No near misses since!

Posted by Westlake, son! | May 16, 2008 1:57 PM
34

@13 - we don't live in a real city like Vancouver (Greater Vancouver, actually), we live in Seattle.

I stand by my Burke-Gilman pro-bike comments.

Face it, we suck. Just go to Portland, Santa Barbara, Vancouver, practically anywhere. They make us look like bottom of the run posers.

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 16, 2008 2:00 PM
35

@14 - sshh you're giving away the secret route ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 16, 2008 2:04 PM
36

elenchos asked for stats on cycling safety in other cities. Sightline did some literature review on bike safety not too long ago:
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/10/08/safe-streets-bicycle-neglect-7

There are quotes like "in Copenhagen, for example, major intersections painted with “blue lanes” to mark bicycle routes have seen a 40 percent drop in deaths and injuries to cyclists", and links to other articles in the series with more info.

Posted by anonymous statistics coward | May 16, 2008 2:08 PM
37

@28, I biked to work in Boston year-round, rain, snow or shine, for five years and never had a problem.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 2:15 PM
38

@36

Ohh, good data. Thanks. It does show evidence that the Netherlands and Germany are significantly safer than the US.

However!

From 1978 to 1996, the Dutch more than doubled the extent of their already massive network of bike paths and lanes (from 9,282 km to 18,948 km). From 1976 to 1995, the Germans almost tripled the extent of their bikeway network (from 12,911 km to 31,236 km).10 In addition, there are an increasing number of so-called “bicycle streets,” where cars are permitted but cyclists have strict right of way over the entire breadth of the roadway. Unlike the sparse and fragmented cycling facilities in the USA, the bike paths, lanes, and streets in The Netherlands and Germany form a truly coordinated network covering both rural and urban areas.
It does look like much of the gains are from segregation, not mixed mode. Although giving bikes the right of way over cars is interesting too. To me it underscores that you can't make it work with our usual approach of squeezing bike into traffic or onto sidewalks.
Posted by elenchos | May 16, 2008 2:23 PM
39

Aside from thinking that perhaps Jonathan had a little too much of the free coffee today, it is worth noting that the two stop signs in question were installed by and are under the control of the University of Washington, NOT SDOT. What part of STOP do we not understand? And why do we understand it less when the sign blinks?

Enforcement is a huge part of the issue - respect is a two-way street, and yes, it must be earned, both through behavior and advocacy.

Copenhagen? It wasn't blue bike lanes that reduced deaths and injuries - perhaps congestion pricing and car bans did a little bit more....

Posted by Phil | May 16, 2008 2:29 PM
40

@33: What do you mean that the 2nd ave bike lane is "on the wrong side of the street"?

Per the RCW, a bicyclist can legally ride on the far left side of a one-way street that is two or more lanes (as long as it's not a limited-access highway).

Posted by stinkbug | May 16, 2008 2:36 PM
41

@ 9

i completely agree 100%

Posted by tiffany | May 16, 2008 2:37 PM
42

How bikes and cars co-exist
The Ottawa Citizen
http://tinyurl.com/3kxsrq

To make North American cities more bicycle friendly, planners should look to Stockholm, Sweden and Freiburg, Germany -- two European cities were bikes and cars happily co-exist on the street.

Posted by Allie | May 16, 2008 3:10 PM
43

To pick on Fnarf:

@2: Where does the BGT cross Sand Point Way? The only crossing I know of is the BGT bridge over Sand Point near Matthews Beach, but I doubt you're fearful of bicyclists jumping off the bridge onto the street.

@22: Please provide me with a cite that shows the speed limit on the BGT (in the city of Seattle) is 15mph. I've heard this asserted before, but the only 'proof' I've ever seen is based on King County ordinance, which I believe only applies to the King County-maintained portions of the trail (that is, the part north of the Seattle city limits).

Posted by Greg Barnes | May 16, 2008 3:13 PM
44

I want them to put street signage on the Burke Gilman ... I mean seriously, if you are new to this town biking along the Burke, you totally don't know where you are. How about some signage parity? cripes.

As for how shitty the cycling is in this town, well, I biked in Lansing, Michigan for over 10 years and it was a fucking war zone.

Cycle lanes? HA! "Sharrows"? HA! Driver Awareness? HAHA! Driver POLITENESS? HAHAHAHA! Even the bad spots you mention, --which are bad-- are not as bad as 80% of bicycle commuting there.

Seattle is like heaven (ok, heaven with hills) compared to cycling in Michigan.

Count yer blessings, I say.

Posted by treacle | May 16, 2008 3:19 PM
45

Oh Jonathan, your sense of outrage underwhelms me. Whose idea was it to put up those stop signs with the flashing lights at the Burke-Brooklyn intersection? You mean, the SECOND sets before you reach the crosswalk? Well, umm, maybe because the vast majority of cyclists IGNORE the first signs? And make no effort to stop, or even slow down appreciably? C'mon, I use the Burke periodically to and from work and only maybe 1 out of 20 bikers make any effort to obey the law at this crosswalk-- UNLESS those bike cops are sitting there. (And they're not even giving out tickets to bikers, just warnings! They're trying to save you from getting killed or maimed.)

If I did the same thing in a car I'd get a gnarly $100+ ticket. Bikers are supposed to obey all applicable traffic laws as well. What, they can't get the idea they have to stop even with two sets of signs and flashing lights? What more do you want, ballons and a stripper?

Posted by just another lurker | May 16, 2008 3:21 PM
46

I just started bicycling to work and I agree. My bike route is 80% on the Burke, but I have to go through Eastlake and it scares the living beejeebies out of me.

Furthermore my girlfriend sometimes rides through Bell Town where she is nothing more than a target for drunk yuppies.

Posted by C | May 16, 2008 3:28 PM
47

@43:

"Yep. In Seattle, it's 15 mph. King County hasn't yet determined such a limit, but occasionally you'll see a 15 mph sign randomly posted along the trail."
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2007-08-08/news/cyclists-getting-dinged-for-ignoring-speed-limits-and-stop-signs-on-burke-gilman.php?page=full

"The speed limit on the trail is 15 mph, 10 mph in some spots, but we routinely found people going 20, 26 - even 30 mph - double the speed deemed safe for the trail."
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_052007WABburkegilmanSW.8ae07d95.html


Posted by stinkbug | May 16, 2008 3:29 PM
48

@42

What use is a link to an editorial written by a Green Party activist who doesn't even bother to cite any research? Check out @36 above.

Posted by elenchos | May 16, 2008 3:44 PM
49

#36 - that link as great, thanks. I love the comparison chart where "living (all causes of death)" actually ranks riskier than bicycling in deaths per million hours of activity. Puts things into perspective a little.

Posted by Dougsf | May 16, 2008 3:44 PM
50

Nobody going 40-50 mph coming off of a bridge is going to yield to a cyclist, are you nuts?

Posted by The CHZA | May 16, 2008 3:48 PM
51

I'd also like to add, I have no idea how it compares to Seattle since I haven't bike around it since I was in middleschool, but I'd be curious how people from other towns see SF ranking, bike, and bike-safety wise.

Posted by Dougsf | May 16, 2008 3:50 PM
52

@43 -- I didn't say it CROSSED Sand Point Way; I said it was AT Sand Point Way. They are parallel, and for a while they are very close to each other. I'm coming down the hill TOWARDS Sand Point Way, and I come upon a blind crossing of the trail.

I don't know where the speed limit comes from, but it's the same as any mixed-use path. Around Green Lake is the same thing -- 15 MPH. Burke-Gilman is NOT a bike path; it's for walkers, skaters, scooterers, stroller-pushers, etc. as well. That's what makes it so dangerous. Fast cyclists belong in the street.

It's DEFINITELY not a commuter route. It's for recreation. The City encourages commuters and other faster cyclists to ride in the street where they belong.

All of the places along the trail where it commingles with sidewalks are especially dangerous to pedestrians.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2008 3:56 PM
53

So on happy happy bike to work day, just south of the Fremont Bridge before the Westlake/Nickerson/Dexter light stands a dude in a gorilla outfit and two women handing out Fight MS cards to MOVING BICYCLISTS, one of whom, right in front of me, came to a polite stop to get the damn card, causing me to brake too fast and go down. This was at about 5 mph, since we were coming up to the light. So screw MS. All my money goes to Jerry's Kids.

Posted by Algernon | May 16, 2008 4:02 PM
54

Thank you #36. Nice link. I wish the author reviewed studies of both morbidity and mortality. Fatality isn't the only negative consequence of poor infrastructure.

I think my original point stands: If the city wants to encourage bicycle commuting, the city should make bicyclist safety a priority when making traffic engineering decisions. Even if such decisions may inconvenience drivers. Without such a change, all these pro-bicycle contests and parties are irresponsible, even if they draw in corporate sponsors, or make cyclists feel prideful, or whatever.

Posted by Jonathan Golob | May 16, 2008 4:07 PM
55

Suppose two or three hundred people try biking one day and don't like it. When they get back in their cars, will they drive the same way they did before they tried biking? A couple hundred more courteous drivers, even temporarily, while it's still fresh in their minds, may be worth it. My driving has changed since I've been cycling more frequently in the last couple months.

Posted by pox | May 16, 2008 4:17 PM
56

@53 - why were you following so close in ignorance of traffic regulations which also apply to bicyclists?

Posted by Will in Seattle | May 16, 2008 5:46 PM
57

If you're looking for data, check out the figures at the end of "Making Cycling Irresistible"

In short, the US has a cyclist injury rate more than 20 times higher than the Netherlands or Denmark. And German grandmothers bike far more than American 20 somethings do...

Nonetheless I love my Wallingford to Bellevue bike commute. I'm lucky that there are good roads to ride the whole way.

But I know there are lots of places in Seattle without *any* good routes. And putting pressure on city hall is the only way that'll change. Read bikeportland.org some time if you want to see what effective bike advocacy looks like. And then go join Cascade or BAW.

Posted by bakfiets | May 16, 2008 9:16 PM
58

Here goes with two of my personal SDOT pet peeves:

1. My #1 terror isn't getting hit by a car, it's hitting a pedestrian lollygagging on a bike trail. Why the HELL can't systematically stripe the centerline of 100% of Seattle's bike trails and put up signs urging ALL trail users--cyclists and pedestrians alike--to stay to the right.

2. It gets dark early in the winter. If SDOT is so into promoting cycling in Seattle, why the HELL doesn't it put up decent lighting so the trail can be used safely at night as well as during the daytime?

OK I'm done ranting, at least for awhile.

Posted by Mud Baby | May 18, 2008 2:35 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).