How do we improve the safety of bicycling, get the health benefits of exercise for a large percentage of our population, have a more environmentally friendly transportation segment, reduce infrastructure costs, and ultimately, have more fun in our lives?
I just saw this reference from Lynn W (thanks!) on a recent Sci American article on this general topic - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-more-bicyclists-on-the-road - it follows several recent articles on bicycling and bicycling safety which bear pondering on the sport and what "should" be done. Safety always strikes me as a really important aspect of cycling that too often just gets lip service....until something happens. The Economist article from 2011 (http://www.economist.com/node/21528302) talks about the issue of mixing cars and bikes together and the need to have cars slow down (calming) or keep better separation from bicycles which is more done in some parts of Europe and now in New York City. The reality is that bikes and cars (and trucks) will have to co-exist on the same road infrastructure for quite some time in our rural areas where we all do lots of miles of riding. The issues as I see them have to do with dealing with driver/cyclist education on what each is supposed to do, societal attitude changing (from the "cars uber alles" mindset), better/stronger legal remedies for damages and responsibility, and more assertive enforcement on all parties. Those of you who followed some earlier notes from me may recall my own personal moment of a "near miss" with a car in my lane on a blind corner during a ride around Vashon Island....very scary and the driver learned nothing from the event (in my opinion) about enhanced safety.
A recent NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) made the assertion based on European urban cycling perspectives that more people would be bicycling and healthier (and adequately safe) if no helmets were required for cycling. I really don't know if there are good statistics or if there is good data segmentation that would meaningfully correlate the helmet protection level against type of cycling & cyclists (slow urban errands, kids playing on bikes, biking on multi-use trails, road riding in the city, road riding in rural areas, etc) which might take suggest that some conditions and types of cycling are not much served by the use of helmets versus the overall health benefits of getting more people riding. The NYT article is a thought provoking piece but ultimately unsatisfying for me in terms of trying to define and develop policy. Right now, I am still with those who believe a helmet should be required but data properly categorized and analyzed would be informative in perhaps telling me how my position should be modified. Philosophically one has to address the issue of whether policy is for the cumulative "greater good" (more cyclists may mean better overall health, reduced car pollution, better
mental health, etc) versus the protecting against the extremes (e.g., someone falls off a bike and suffers a major traumatic brain injury).
Another study out of U Cal Davis (a very bike friendly locale) has been published by Susan Handy, Chair of the Department of Environmental Science and Policy (The Bicycle Studies - http://www.uctc.net/access/39/access39_davis.shtml ) - the synopsis of the article is: "A consistent message thus emerges from our Davis bicycle studies: while good infrastructure is necessary to get many people bicycling, it is not sufficient for getting most people bicycling. In our studies, the effect of infrastructure on bicycling appears to be as much indirect as direct, since good infrastructure attracts bicycling-inclined residents to the area by increasing bicycling comfort and enjoyment. But, as Davis demonstrates, even with good infrastructure cities hoping to increase bicycling will need to find ways to change attitudes. For example, training programs for children and adults can help to increase confidence in bicycling ability, while promotional events may help to increase liking to bicycle. Such activities encourage more residents to take advantage of the opportunity to bicycle that good infrastructure provides.
Many cities in Europe have combined such programs with infrastructure investments—and with disincentives for driving—to good effect. My favorite example is Odense, Denmark, a city about three times the size of Davis where one quarter of all trips are by bicycle. Densities and distances are similar to Davis, but the quality of the bicycle infrastructure puts Davis to shame. On my stay there several years ago, I was particularly impressed with the bicycle signage, parking facilities, and "green wave signals (a sequence of traffic signals timed for the speed of bicycles rather than cars). The live bicycle counts publicly displayed on an electronic sign in the city center were especially fun. The city has implemented many creative programs in its efforts to increase bicycling, including giving bicycles to domestic workers, taking senior citizens on guided bicycle rides, and lending bicycle trailers to parents of young children. The city's efforts produced an 80 percent increase in bicycle trips between 1984 and 2002." So we have to have bicycle infrastructure but even more important we need to change attitudes and values - we have a long history of successfully doing this in our country with social legislation (I know this is a loaded topic in an election year) but look at the improvements we have been making with the Civil Rights Acts, Title IX for women's sports, the decrease in the acceptability (for most of us) of smoking and of "drinking & driving" (for example, the MADD effects on legislation and attitudes) - is it all perfect for these topics? - no, of course not! - but I would argue we have made remarkable progress from where we were - perhaps we will have to address bicycling and car co-existence ultimately by winning people's hearts and minds using all of our tools (including but not exclusively legislatively).
So how do we get more people bicycling for all (and any) of the reasons to support cycling? I suspect it will ultimately be based on a "one ride at a time" approach; getting more people engaged; more outcry over improper enforcement and follow-through by government bodies; and, somehow, we need to come together in a myriad of small and large ways to amplify our voices on these issues. Ultimately this feels like an issue involving changing shared social values (with a lot of engineering solutions needed too!). I think it will be a slow slog but one worth doing. The key will be to keep from getting discouraged along the way and reinforcing each others' positive thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment