Life on Two Wheels: Bicycle Lanes, Rider Safety, and "Biker Terrorists"
The rebirth of bicycle ridership has been a triumph for some, a curse for others. While bicycle infrastructure has been found to save cities money, not all urban dwellers appreciate what it means for the state of civic transit.
What's the Latest?
Bicycle riders and infrastructure designed for them has been a hot topic in recent years. For example, I live in Washington DC (often rated as one of the country's top cities for bicycling) and many recent street construction projects have included the installation of some really safe and lovely bike lanes. Al-Jazeera America reported this week on a new study by the NIH that shows bike infrastructure is worth every penny of civic investment. The rewards come in many different forms: decreased traffic congestion, lower health costs related to traffic injuries, and reduced pollution, to name just a few. Plus, a workforce that commutes on the power of its legs will be healthier than one made up of sedentary drivers.
What's the Big Idea?
Not everyone is thrilled about the bicycle boom. Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy recently penned an article lambasting the "bullies" and "terrorists" who ride in DC. I won't pretend that Milloy's arguments warrant much thought or attention -- he's ridiculously hyperbolic and advocates at one point for drivers to clip misbehaving cyclists. His article is essentially another example of the "angry, out-of-touch, middle-aged man tossing bombs" trope. The Post, which also publishes George Will, are masters of it.
Simply put: thousands of bicyclists have been killed in recent years by unruly drivers; no driver has ever been killed by a bicycle. Milloy's article completely misses the point and Post readers (as well as the rest of the internet) rightly let him have it this week.
With that out of the way, I'll say that some elements of his article -- when viewed rationally -- do embody rightful indignation. Some bicycle riders are lousy (just as some drivers are lousy) and the massive shift toward accommodating them sometimes comes at the expense of those for whom cycling isn't feasible, like those with lengthy commutes or large families. Ideally, cyclists and drivers should be allotted separate lanes on city streets. When that's not the case, it's important that both do their part to be respectful of the other and share the road. This means not being reckless on two wheels. It also means not being a jerk on four.
But to actively oppose making city streets safer for bicyclists is to resist change that is both health-conscience and cost-effective. That's not just short-sighted, it's unreasonable.
Photo credit: thebezz / Shutterstock
New research links urban planning and political polarization.
- Canadian researchers find that excessive reliance on cars changes political views.
- Decades of car-centric urban planning normalized unsustainable lifestyles.
- People who prefer personal comfort elect politicians who represent such views.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.
- Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
- What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
- Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.