> CK and I have co-written a number of essays on this
> very topic, safety in numbers. Well aware of it. The
> effect arises precisely where drivers *do* have to
> share the road with cyclists, not where cyclists are cordoned
> off in free-biking zones. Charlie seems to be arguing here, if
> I read him right, that bike lanes engender more cycling
> in general and then as a consequence there's a spillover
> of more cyclists into mixed-use streets, with a consequent
> SIN effect. Maybe that's true to some extent.
I can only elaborate the basic points that shag and Mike Smith are making, though I fear that given list history people will take what they're saying as some sort of deliberate dirty thumb in the eye. It's not. The cycling tactics and rights they describe are well established by the US's uniform vehicle code (sometimes with generally minor modifications), endorsed and advocated by mainstream cycling organizations and, FWIW, the Chicago PD.
The question of cycling-specific infrastructure is one of those flame wars that sank a thousand ships. An prominent early-modern (starting in the 70's) proponent of what he called vehicular cycling, John Forrester, had/has a jaundiced view of such measures, which might be based in part on the stats that Charlie has in mind. Forrester characterized a tension between cyclists, who typically ride as the vehicles they legally are, and cycling advocates, who don't ride as much but characterize cycling as a dangerous activity in need of special protections, and are typically motivated by environmental or other outside concerns. At least now the separation between the two groups isn't clear as he described, but the fault line is familiar. Few cyclists I know -- and I know plenty who rack up 1000s of miles yearly, without racing -- would characterize themselves as all-vehicular-all-the-time, yet some advocates of dedicated infrastructure accuse vehicular cyclists of all manner of fanaticism. It's interesting to watch. The notion might have its roots in Forrester's principled rigidity on the subject, which I have encountered first hand and reminds me of unsympathetic portrayals of Richard Stallman.
Forrester also called the motorist superiority shag describes "bicycle inferiority complex", the point being that it's more complicated than motorist superiority. It's also a mix of the fear that certain advocates tend to invoke, a kind of patronizing "concern for safety" on the part of motorists, and a general unawareness on all parties of cyclists' legal rights and responsibilities. I got a close-up view of this recently from a family member who griped about cyclists behavior on the multi-lane, one-way street with a bike lane behind her building in Chicago. She was all for encouraging cycling, but what really burned her was misuse of the bicycle lane, which after all narrowed the lanes on the street in question. By misuse she meant cycling against traffic and not using the lane, namely cycling in the far left lane (of the one-way street). Now, cycling against traffic is obnoxious, dangerous and illegal, whereas a slow vehicle in the far left lane of a one-way road is perfectly fine, at least according to Illinois vehicle code and the CPD, officially. (For most of my years in Chicago cycling was my primary transport mode, I was active in various organizations, and I knew a thing or two about cycling law.) In fact, at least in Chicago there is no obligation at all to use the bike lane: the obligation is to stay to the right as far as "practicible", with the exception described on one-way streets, same as for all slower vehicles, per Illinois code. This means that staying out of the door zone that Mike describes, making a left-hand turn, or going around an obstacle or poor road conditions may necessitate leaving the bike lane, and cycling in a full lane may neccessiate taking the full lane as shag describes and the CPD recommends. My relative simply could not acknowledge this, even after having read the vehicle code. The law didn't matter anyway, it was simply dangerous to have cyclists outside of the bike lane, which takes up valuable road space.
I started out with a very advocate-minded view of bike lanes, which atrophied with experience until I came to see them useless at best. Michael describes the problem with encouraging riding in the door zone, I would add to that laying down a line of slippery-when-wet paint on a good line for riding, plus the awkward problem when a legit double parker (for deliveries, say) occupies the full traffic lane per the law, and requires the cyclist to shoot the tube -- the smart thing is to slow down because you don't know who is going to cross your path from either direction. I'd rather they park in the fucking bike lane and I go to the left. What then does a bike lane afford the individual cyclist? Squat, as far as I can tell. They don't protect you from getting dinged from any direction. You have to "go vehicular" anyway at intersections, turns and when the bike lane peters out. They also encourage the notion I describe above that the bike lane is a kind of reservation that you are not expected to stray from, which is legally false in the jurisdictions that I'm familiar with.
More recently there seems to be data that bike lanes encourage cycling and that there is SIN, and the traffic calming effects that Charlie describes are perfectly plausible. Those are Good Things, but I have to note that they were not presented as arguments when bike lanes were first introduced, and that the problems they cause stand regardless. They might, might be a *net* positive.
-- Andy