Bike paths useless

In an article about a protest staged by cycling activists in the McGill ghetto ("Faux Bike Path," Sept. 18), the Mirror reported that activists painted an impromptu bike path from Park to University, describing it as "a symbol of the lack of cycling access to the McGill campus." Now, upon reading this I thought to myself, this is patently absurd. I've never had any problems getting to McGill by bike. 

Milton Street is part of the city's network of streets, avenues and boulevards, almost all of which are accessible to bikes. How this activist group thinks that segregating vehicular traffic is supposed to make this or any other street even more accessible to bicycles is beyond my comprehension. 

Riding a bicycle in normal traffic, as an operator of a vehicle with the same rights, obligations and privileges as motorists, is exceedingly easy to learn and makes cycling not only very safe, but very enjoyable as well. And to those of us who have mastered those simple skills, it is apparent that it is the humble vélo that has all the advantages in normal urban traffic: manoeuvrability, safety, even speed when traffic gets moderately heavy. We neither need nor want our movements restricted or our safety compromised by a system of bike lanes on our streets. 

The McGill activist group, as well as the "critical massers," may have some valid political points to make about cycling as a serious alternative to motorized transport, but, in their calls for bike lanes and other forms of segregation, they do not represent the interests of competent cyclists. Nor do they represent the most current thinking on the subject of cycling safety. I have only to refer you to a couple of Internet discussion groups, "commute-logistics" and "chainguard," both of which can be accessed and subscribed to through http://cycling.org. 

                                                                              --Wade Eide > Architect 
 

As I expected (and hoped), the letter elicited a reaction. The following "flame", by local eco-activist, Tooker Gomberg was published in the 2 October 1997 issue of The Mirror: 

A bike path in every driveway 

  Last week, Wade Eide wrote that he never has trouble getting to McGill by 
bike and therefore sees no need for a bicycle path along Milton ["Bike 
paths useless," (e)Mail, Sept. 25]. How disingenuous! Few have a 
problem getting to McGill along Milton--it's a one-way street westbound. 
The trouble is leaving McGill. Most cyclists already "vote with their feet" 
by riding illegally against the flow. 

A bike path on Milton would be an easy and safe solution. And if Mr. Eide 
doesn't want to ride on it, fine--ride on Sherbrooke. But beware of flying 
doors and speeding cars. Most of us do not find it "not only safe but very 
enjoyable" (his words) to cycle amid the noise and fumes, while sharing 
space with trucks, buses and drunk drivers. 

The facts speak for themselves: those countries that have successfully 
attracted large numbers of city cyclists rely on safe bicycle paths as a 
central part of the strategy. 

Mr. Eide despises "segregation" of cyclists and motor vehicles. Does he 
decry the "segregation" of pedestrians on the sidewalk? Has he ever 
cycled along the marvellous and extremely popular network of 
"segregated" bicycle routes throughout Copenhagen, or Amsterdam, or 
any one of dozens of other European cities? I have. It's sublime. 

The question is not "bike paths or no bike paths." Sometimes they're 
useful, sometimes they're dangerous (the Rachel path comes to mind). 
The question is: how can we make this town attractive to more and more 
cyclists? The cycle-friendly Netherlands aims to go even further: they 
have made a commitment to boost bicycle traffic to 40 per cent of all city 
trips. 

So Mayor Bourque and City Council, here's a challenge: set a modest 
target of 10 per cent of all trips in Montreal by bike by the new millennium. 
Or are you too stuck in traffic to see the possibilities? 

-Tooker Gomberg 
 

This is the text of the response I sent by e-mail to Mr. Gomberg, with a CC to The Mirror

Dear Mr. Gomberg,

Your letter published in the 2 October edition of  The Mirror  in
response to my letter published in the previous week's edition was
pretty much the reaction that I had expected (and hoped for!), and I
thank you for it.

However, you accuse me in the second line of your letter of being
disingenuous. Well, as they say in my hometown in northern Alberta,
them’s fightn’ words!

It's unfortunate that the reports that I had read on the lane-painting
demonstration failed to mention that the group was in fact lobbying for
an east-bound lane for bicycles only, in addition to the west-bound lane
for bicycles and automobiles. It's an idea that has some merit. I agree
that the city's elaborate system of one-way streets is, in most cases,
an unnecessary restriction to our freedom of movement in the public
domain and is especially prejudicial to cyclists.

However, my point, that I thought was quite clearly implied in my
letter, was that, using the existing street network, egress *from* the
McGill campus is just about as easy as access *to* the campus. What's
wrong with Prince-Arthur, for example? And, since you mention it, why
not Sherbrooke? I do, in fact, use Sherbrooke every working day, twelve
months of the year, on my commute downtown from NDG. I've found it to be
by far the fastest, most efficient route. And for a competent cyclist,
it's perfectly safe. Put up with the fumes, you ask? Please explain how
the air above a bike lane is supposed to be purer than that above an
automobile lane a meter away. Opening car doors? You have correctly
identified the number one risk to the urban cyclist, but only an
incompetent or careless cyclist would put herself or himself in danger
by riding in the "door zone". As for drunk drivers, well nobody is
really safe from irresponsible maniacs, certainly not cyclists in bike
lanes, and certainly not those who use the Rachel or Berri type of
facility that even you recognise as being dangerous. The major flaw with
bike lanes on the street is that at every intersection cyclists find
themselves in conflict with even those motorists who are behaving
normally, let alone those driving with their faculties impaired.

As becomes clear in the latter part of your letter (and more explicitly
in your most recent article in  Hour ), you dream of a city free of the
dreaded automobile, a city safe, presumably,  for incompetent cyclists,
where they would only endanger themselves and each other. Sorry to
disillusion you, Mr. Gomberg, but it just ain’t gonna happen. The
interim solution that you seem to favour, the segregation of cyclists in
the public domain, quite frankly sends a shiver down my spine. A great
many brave people fought long and hard over the course of this century
to end segregation based on race. Please do not now suggest that we as
cyclists need to be relegated quite literally to the gutter "for our own
protection". That would be a shameful, "Uncle-Tom" kind of attitude. (I
should also point out that providing sidewalks for pedestrians is not
the same thing as segregating cyclists from other vehicles in the
carriage way. The centuries-old tradition of building sidewalks on city
streets has as much to do with the comfort of people on foot, providing
them with a smooth surface to walk on, as with their protection from the
mud and the vehicles in the carriage way.)

No, let's instead be proud of the fact that we have chosen the bicycle
as our principal means of transport. Because it's so much more
economically sound, so much more ecologically responsible, so much
healthier and so much more aesthetically pleasing than any other form of
transport.

Let's take back our rightful place in the street. Because we are
citizens with as much right to the liberty of the public domain on our
chosen vehicle as our fellow citizens who have chosen motorised
transport. Let's also be proud of the fact that our humble "vélo" has
all the advantages over the ubiquitous "char" in city traffic.

No, let's not accept the restrictions to our movements or the
compromises to our safety that facilities of the "Rachel" or "Berri"
type impose. Let's instead do all we can to make education and courses
available to cyclists and potential cyclists. I can tell you from my
personal experience that learning Effective Cycling techniques a few
years was nothing short of a liberation for me. Those techniques are so
simple, so logical and make cycling in traffic so safe that the pleasure
I get from cycling increased ten-fold. (Quite amazing considering that I
was already a hopeless bike junkie at the time!) And if I could learn
those simple skills, anybody can. We really do not need "critical mass"
demonstrations to get our message across; one competent cyclist leaves a
much more favourable impression on both motorists and other cyclists
than do a dozen incompetent cyclists.

Just one more point: You asked whether or not I had had the "sublime"
experience of using the bike networks of northern Europe. Good question.
The answer is no, I haven't. I have, however, done a little research and
I recently sent out a call on the Internet, asking for information and
comments. What I've garnered so far is this:
1. The European inter-city bike network is, by many accounts, quite
enjoyable, especially for tourists.
2. The network is especially enjoyable if you like to cycle very slowly
and if you don't mind waiting through the interminable cycle of light
signals at intersections, as is the case, apparently, in the
Netherlands. The heavy and slow European-style bicycle would appear to
be the vehicle of choice for this type of infrastructure.
3. The network would appear to benefit in some cases from a
well-designed system of signage. In other cases the system appears to be
woefully deficient.
4. There is some disagreement as to whether or not the urban bike
infrastructure is really safe.
5. Quite apart from the infrastructure specifically designed for bikes,
there exists a cultural ambience that places importance on the bicycle
as a serious means of transportation.
6. There does appear to be a disturbing trend, however. Where these bike
routes exist, bicycles are often banned from the public roads. Even more
disturbing: Under Dutch law, a cyclist must always yield to motorised
traffic!

I am sure that there are many useful lessons to be learned from a
careful and critical examination of European cycling infrastructure,
especially the inter-urban facilities. However, it should have been
clear that my criticism of bike lanes on city streets does not extend to
the bikeway networks such as the Route Verte, promoted by Vélo Québec,
nor does it apply to the multi-functional recreational facilities such
as the Lachine Canal path.

While I quite strongly believe that there is no real scientific evidence
to suggest that bike lanes of any design on city streets makes cycling
any safer, I would accept that there may be political reasons for
deciding to maintain bike facilities on Rachel, Berri or René-Lévesque.
But let's at least redesign them according to safer, more up-to-date
models. There are examples in Manhattan that are worth looking at, as is
my own design for bike facilities on the western section of rue de la
Commune that I did as a consultant for the Ville de Montréal a couple of
years ago.

In all honesty, Mr. Gomberg, I am a bit too thick-skinned to be affected
by a poorly thought-out accusation. I am just happy to see the debate on
cycling and cycling safety come out in the open. Only then can we start
to clear away some of the myths and start to make enlightened collective
decisions and take individual actions that will truly make this a
cycling city.

Yours,
Wade Eide