Irresponsible ignorance

I was recently made aware of the existence of a web site that disturbs me. Simply identified as "e;Bike Lanes", it appears to be the coordinated effort of an unidentified individual, working in concert with four South Carolina based bicycle organizations, to collect signatures to petition the state legislature to designate more bike lanes within the state.

The rational for this activity is attributed to a bicycle/motor vehicle fatality which occurred on 10 March of this year. A talented and upcoming amateur competitive cyclist, Garrett Wonders, was killed when a pickup truck collided with him during a training ride. The truck appears to have side-swiped the cyclist, forcing him from the road and resulting in his death.

The very premise on which the advocacy of bike lanes rests is flawed from the outset. Most every state recognizes a bicycle which is operated upon a roadway as a legitimate vehicle. South Carolina is not an exception. When functioning as a vehicle, a bicycle is granted the same rights and is subject to the same responsibilities as its motorized cohorts. Just as there is a certain degree of competency which must be demonstrated prior to being let loose upon the byways when driving a motor vehicle, so too must a cyclist riding upon the roadway exhibit confidence and expertise doing the same. Bike lanes play into the irrational fears of the novice or the cyslist suffering from an inferiority complex. A solid line of paint confers no higher level of security than does the broken line of a standard lane delineation.

The petitioner and his collaborators go one step further in this irrational enterprise. Chief among their errors is the lumping of bicyclists with pedestrians. They state that "ALL PEDESTRIANS IN SOUTH CAROLINA DESERVE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR BICYCLING, RUNNING, WALKING AND EXERCISING ALONG OUR PUBLIC ROADWAYS." Cyclists and pedestrians are two different populations with two different needs. Vehicular cyclists are classified as vehicles and are, therefore, obligated to operate upon the roadways in a responsible and competent manner. Recreational cyclists are simply playing around for health or pleasure and should restrict themselves to areas conducive to their activity (e.g. multipurpose trails). Club and competitive cyclists are a hybrid of these two groups. By and large they operate upon the roadways and should thusly abide by the rules of the road. Most do not and that is unfortunate — for both them and those of us who do cycle in a responsible, vehicular manner.

Most disconcerting is the statement that the presence of a bike lane "likely would have prevented this accident." This was a competitive cyclist engaging in a training ride on a highway. He was operating as a vehicle. The tragedy took place in a semi-rural locale. Ignoring the fact that neither the state nor a municipality is going to install a specialized facility such as a bike lane in this type of location, the irrational opinion that a three inch wide stripe of paint would have protected the cyclist from being side-swiped is pure folly. Ignorance is said to be bliss. In this instance it is irresponsible.

One can only guess at what prompted the four designated organizations to support this enterprise. They offer a mixed bag of support on their own web presences. Only half even mention the petition; of them only one lobbied for participation.

First among the cited affilate/sponsor organizations is the Palmetto Cycling Coalition. Being the pseudo-political entity their name suggests, they appear to have adopted the most ambiguous stance of the four affilates. No where on their site to they take a firm stance one way or the other with respect to vehicular cycling or protected facilities, though they allude to the latter with thinly veiled verbiage. Nevertheless, they make no reference to neither the death of Garrett Wonders, nor the bike lane petition. Sadly for the petition, their support of this project seems lacking.

The Coastal Cyclists site states,

Experienced bicyclists have an accident rate only 20 percent that of casual bicyclists. Bicyclists can prevent most accidents by knowing how to control their bicycles and by riding according to the established rules of the road. Ride to be visible and predictable. Give other drivers time to notice you and react to you."

That certainly does not appear to be the stance of bike lane advocates. I could find nowhere on their site that even mentions bike lanes.

Of the indicated affiliates of this petition, only the Savage Hill Cycling Team and the Low Country VW Racing Team mention the petition. The former lists it among several links to "More Information abaout Garrett". Not necessarily a ringing endorsement. In fact, within the context of the team's "Ride of Silence" they write:

The ride is a safe, responsible, professional, and mature response to the aggressiveness, intimidation, and carnage that cyclists often face on the roads we ride. It is a means to:

• Remember and mourn those killed or injured by motorists
• Raise public awareness that our Central Ohio community has, and supports, a large population of cyclists
• Show the larger Central Ohio community that cyclists are going to continue to ride on our roads
• Point out that we ask for respect and consideration from motorists, as well as our rightful place on the road
• Remind motorists that we wish only to safely SHARE the roads with them

Again, where is the advocay of segregated facilities? It does not exist. Why? Because competent and experienced vehicular cyclists do not need special facilities to operate as the vehicles they are recognized to be!

Low Country is the only affiliate of the four that has adopted the same ignorant stance of inferiority espoused by the petition organizer. They not only make multiple references to the petition, but they actively encourage visitors become signatories. Regurgitation of the same tired and untenable argument that bike lanes somehow convey an invisible wall of protection can be inferred from their rhetoric. Ironically, they also advocate the "Share the Road" principle, which is in stark contrast to the goal of the petition. Sharing the road means just that, being traffic and interacting with it safely and responsibly. It does not mean cowering at the curb behind a comforting paint stripe.

Perhaps most telling of all is the makeup of the signatories. At the time of this writing, 3891 individuals had submitted their name for inclusion to the project. Scrolling through the comments some have chosen to contribute, one is quickly made aware of three primary groups of participants: motorists that want cyclists off the road; friends and acquaintances of the cyclists who was killed; and those suffring from cyclist inferiority complex. Very few of these participants would personally benefit from any changes brought about by this endeavor — regardless of the number of days some have pledged to ride if successful.

It is quite doubtful that knee-jerk reactions such as this will have much effect upon actual legislation. Elected officials are more intelligent than many give them credit. They will see the flawed logic behind the goal and will, hopefully, take the petition with a grain of salt. Education and stiffer penalties for violators are a much more effective use of state and municipal dollars. Painting stripes on the roadway to accommodate a class of individuals who are at present a significant minority is fiscally irresponsible and does nothing to address the underlying problem — inattentive drivers.