Cycling “Infrastructure”: Friend or Foe?
We ask local governments for “cycling infrastructure” and take it as a given that to have more of it is to our benefit. But cycling here in Vienna has led me to re-examine this notion. When we ask for infrastructure – by which Americans often mean a European model of lanes and paths – what exactly are we asking for? And would we like the result?
In Vienna, as well as many other cities with well-developed networks of bike lanes and paths – those lanes and paths are mandatory: In areas where such infrastructure exists, cyclists must use them and are not permitted to travel on the roads with motor vehicles. The problem I experienced with this was two-fold: When using the paths (which are built on the sidewalks and are segregated from motorised traffic, à la Vassar Street in Cambidge), it is impossible to pick up speed due to the meandering pedestrians, strollers, dogs, and other obstacles. Slow cycling can be nice, but not when one is late for work, and these paths give you no other option.
But the more serious problem is with the bike lanes on the side of the roads. Like in Boston, the lanes in Vienna are often in the “door zone”. But unlike in Boston, cyclists are not permitted to cycle outside the lane or even on the leftmost edge of the lane in order to avoid being “doored”. This made me extremely nervous, and I am confused as to how such a layout could have been designed in good conscience. Some Europeans say that the door zone is not a problem if one practices “slow cycling”. But I just can’t get behind that line of reasoning. Personally, I would have to cycle barely above walking speed in order to notice an opening door in time to successfully stop for it. And if I am forced to go that slowly, what is the point of cycling at all? I have also heard the argument that European motorists are more conscienscious than American motorists, and check carefully before opening the car door. But can I ever get comfortable with trusting my life to this idea? I don’t think I could. Out of the 12 persons I know in Vienna who are, or at some point were, cyclists, 9 have been involved in bicycle-vehicle collisions of varius degrees of seriousness, and that anecdotal statistic does not sit well with me.
My point here is not to deride the idea of cycling infrastructure, but simply to suggest that we must understand what we are asking for before we ask for it. I am not certain whether most Americans – when praising European systems with well developed networks of paths – realise that these systems do not permit vehicular cycling. Cycling in Boston may seem more chaotic and “dangerous” at first glance, but my personal conclusion is that it is actually overall safer than Vienna, because it does not continuously force the cyclist into accident-prone situations. I am interested in what others think of this subject – though please be courteous and polite in your comments.
Doesn’t seem that complex to me. If bikes are going to be kept in bike lanes and punished when they go outside, pedestrians and cars (and cars’ doors) need to be kept out. If that happens, things should be fine. If that doesn’t happen, then the regulations need to take account of this and build more flexibility in the system.
If we increase the number of cyclists to a significant part of the population, and bike infrastructure is aimed at doing exactly that, most of those cyclists are not going to be aggressive or fast. I think that probably makes it worth it. As a fast cyclist, I think we should work something out for folks like me as well, but I’m happy if my (admittedly smaller) group takes a back seat in this regard, as long as we’re not written out altogether.
geoff – I’ve lived in Germany and have visited Holland a number of times, though before my cycling days. The way I remember it, Berlin, Cologne and Frankfurt were not too different from Vienna in terms of how the paths and lanes were organised – but perhaps I am not remembering it right. Amsterdam is of course very different, and the paths really do work there because of how the city is organised.
BMH – As far as I can tell, the police do not do much in Vienna to make sure that non-cyclists stay off the paths and that cars behave well on shared roads. Not sure about doors. However, cyclists are very much kept in line if they are to deviate from the prescribed infrastructure. Also, I am told that if a car hits a cyclist who is cycling outside of the designated bike lane, the car is not held accountable – so that alone scares most cyclists into following the rules. Does not seem like a well-balanced system to me : (
here in new haven we have the same sort of bike lanes. on the right in the door zone. we also have designated bike routes which, i suppose, are to keep drivers aware of the possibility of heavy bike traffic. the lanes dont actually link up in any specific way or lead you anywhere you may need to go. i did get to have a nice conversation with a bike cop one day. he said no matter what anyone tells me, traffic laws state cyclists are to be as far right as they can SAFELY ride and that he never rides any farther than the middle of the right lane. so i do the same. i imagine bike laws are different for every city. ive been doored once and hit 5 times in the 6 years ive been a bike commuter. until cities begin proper reform of their streets to transport cyclists safely, i say take the lane. ride in the middle of the lane where no one can miss you. madison, wisconsin and portland, oregon have really great cycling routes. amsterdam is amazing as well. there are foundations for city planners to emulate.
sean – Hit 5 times in 6 years? Wow, I am sorry to hear that. The law in Mass is consistent with what the Connecticut cop told you; to ride “as far to the right as practicable” means not in the door zone. In Somerville and Cambridge, I have found the recent “sharrowing” of the roads very helpful in the way motorists behave towards cyclists; in my view these help considerably more than bike lanes.
We would need cycling infrastructure that is more like Amsterdam and Copenhagen (at least what I’ve seen in pictures). I am not holding my breath and, in the meantime, am happier with the current set-up than with a situation that would require me legally to ride in the door zone.
I just caught on to your blog via the baileyworks blog.
Regarding the above dilemma: I don’t even think infrastructure vs. vehicular cycling is really the issue at all. The issue is culture. There are lot’s of big towns in Europe *without* cycling infrastructure. I think the fundamental issue is that the members of society need to accept and respect the bicycle, regardless of its presence on or off the road. This must be coupled with respect on the part of cyclists for other vehicles and, above all, pedestrians.
I like your blog. (I live in Madrid, Spain, btw. A town with no infrastructure and terrible respect for bikes. Unfortunately. Barcelona is the opposite.)
I agree with Marcus. I’ve been ridding in Boston for six years and the biggest problem I’ve had is simply that people don’t want us on the road. I’ve been pushed off the road several times by angry drivers because simply because i’m in their way. The problem is when there is and obstruction to on the side of the road and I have to merge with normal traffic. This is usually when I get hit in the head with a rear view mirror. When I confront drivers the answer is always “stay out of my road, I hope you learned your lesson.” Its ignorance and blind rage that is the problem. I get in arguments with people that intentionally threaten me with there vehicles on a day to day basis. As cyclists we are concidered in the way of both pedestrians and drivers and are given no options besides sidewalk or trafic. I believe that education is the best hope for the long term safety of urban riders. I realy think the “Sare The Road”mentality will help in the short term. I’ve had very few problems riding in the suburbs as people are more aware than I expect and roads are larger with fewer illigal right hand turns without warning. There is no universal ediquet to driving in Boston, the mode is usualy all in, whatever goes and hope for the best (people that drive like my mom). If drivers are held more resposible for agravated and agressive driving that puts everyone in danger than we will all be much safer. It’s rediculus that many of us need to worry if we’ll make it to work of school because of an inconvienience to anyone else.
I’ve ridden in Midtown Manhattan, Boston, Cambridge, and suburban Boston (Concord-area). I have always felt safest, by far, in Cambridge and Boston. The simple reason is (a) the expectation is that _drivers_ will not go fast, and (b) they are used to lots of bikers on the roads. A lot of this has to do with road design; I can easily keep up with the cars on poorly-timed lights on Cambridge street, and so I get respect – riding on any avenue in New York (save Broadway), which range from 3-6 lanes in one direction and staggered traffic lights, the bike is little more than a moving target to be cut off, doored, and taking up space.
In short, good manners are irrelevant compared to infrastructure accommodating to bicycles.
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment
I think you are incorrectly grouping all European cycling infrastructure together. What you describe does not reflect what I saw in Germany, Holland or Denmark, most of which allowed quick riding(though not ass-hauling sprinting) to your destination without feeling in danger. In these countries, people know most urban bikes lanes are for bicycles and do not dare to walk on them.
Sad to hear that Vienna is not on par with other European metropoles — let’s blame it on the Hapsburgs!