[*BCM*] Re: Bostoncriticalmass Digest, Vol 34, Issue 17

[ian schwartz]

This is probably going to get taken out of context, so I apologize
about pissing people off. But I don't think Huntington Ave is that
dangerous. Wasn't this guy splitting lanes when he got killed? And
last I checked splitting lanes is a pretty awful idea on a bad road,
not to mention illegal.

Bike paths are not the answer to making things safe for cyclists. In
fact they are counter-productive. Bike paths on the roadside become
full of debris, cars double-park in them and they often aren't outside
the door zone. Segregated cycle paths become full of joggers and
pedestrians. The biggest problem with any kind of bicycle path is that
it's impossible to have them everywhere and you're eventually going to
wind up on an actual road, only now it's with drivers who don't expect
you to be there. Why spend a ton of money on segregated roads for
cyclists when there are perfectly usable roads?

"Bicycle safety is not as simple or easy as following a few road
rules." I really beg to differ. Ask yourself if the tragedy that
sparked this discussion would have occurred if the cyclist hadn't been
riding dangerously on a major Boston roadway? When I ride on
Huntington, I have no qualms about taking the lane and forcing
motorists to either wait behind me or pass in the way that they would
a car. It's the safest way to make sure you don't get clipped and the
law is on your side when you ride that way.