[SDCBC] A good opinion piece in Voice of San Diego this morning about Pershing and the I-5

[Serge Issakov]

Thanks for the meeting reminder Kathy, but I disagree with your assessment
("good") of this opinion piece.   From the perspective of bicycling
advocacy, my opinion is that this piece by Crawford Oates is a disaster,
much more likely to discourage existing cyclists than to encourage
non-cyclists to take up cycling, and highly unlikely to make cycling any
more safe or comfortable for any cyclists.

Here<http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Pershing+Ave,+San+Diego,+San+Diego,+California+92104,+United+States&sll=32.8418,-117.269453&sspn=0.011881,0.015664&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=0,32.743920,-117.134640&ll=32.720464,-117.14543&spn=0.001487,0.001958&t=h&z=19>is
a google map satellite image of the intersection from Pershing to I-5
north:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Pershing+Ave,+San+Diego,+San+Diego,+California+92104,+United+States&sll=32.8418,-117.269453&sspn=0.011881,0.015664&ie=UTF8&cd=2&geocode=0,32.743920,-117.134640&ll=32.720464,-117.14543&spn=0.001487,0.001958&t=h&z=19

The bike lane seems to route inattentive cyclists who remain in the bike
lane too long onto the onramp and then forces them to cross the ramp
pedestrian style into the triangular gore region that gradually diverges
traffic on Pershing Drive from the I-5 North onramp.  The bike lane stripe
should end 200 feet before the onramp starts (and be dashed for 100' before
that), if you ask me.

While there is a token mention towards the end of the piece about the role
of bicyclist behavior in traffic cycling safety,

But choose your routes carefully, wear a helmet and lights, and obey
> traffics signs as if you were a car (because, under the law, essentially you
> are). And importantly, make sure drivers are aware of your presence. Ride
> respectfully, but assertively. As they say, it's a two-way street.
>

most of it is not like that at all.  Taken out of context that paragraph is
actually okay, but the dominant message of the piece is that safety is
mostly determined by motorist behavior, and implies that bicyclists in
traffic are essentially sitting ducks, no matter what we do.   This is
stated or implied over and over in various was in all of the other
paragraphs in the article.  Even in this one okay paragraph he starts by
suggesting the most important factor about what the cyclist should do for
safety is route choice, and second is wearing a helmet.  Both
recommendations arguably at least hint at the cyclists-are-sitting-ducks
paradigm.

Apparently to establish the dangers of cycling, Mr. Oates starts the article
with gory descriptions of cyclists hit by cars, "a towel soaked with blood
and a driver who was inconsolable...  the cyclist was killed."  Also:
"Officer Bernard, who was visibly upset. Bits of bicycle reflector littered
the street and splotches of liquid were covered in chemical agent."
Language like that is unlikely to inspire even suicidal teens to take up
cycling.

Then he goes in with his analysis.  "This is a particularly treacherous road
for cyclists. "  Apparently Mr. Oates believes other roads are
*merely*treacherous for cyclists, not
*particularly* treacherous like Pershing.

Then Mr. Oates provides his suggestions, a flashing sign and reflective
paint for cyclists across the ramp, all implying the main factor in these
crashes is lack of awareness on the part of the motorists.  Never mind that
it is the cyclists that need to need yield, negotiate and merge into the
flow (or stop and cross per pedestrian rules) before they *cross the
path*of the main traffic headed onto the ramp, and that the reflective
paint
(presumably like the Portland blue bike lanes) would probably make cyclists
*less* likely to do that properly.

Eventually Mr. Oates builds up to what I see as his main theme statement:
"From bicycle lanes that simply vanish to laws that are written for cars and
car-on-car accidents, *riding a bike is dangerous*"  (my emphasis). Yes,
riding a bike in traffic *can* be dangerous, but it's the cyclist that makes
it so, not bike lanes that "simply vanish" nor the laws (which were well
established before cars were even invented and so could not possibly have
been written for cars).

By the way, bike lanes only "simply vanish" to those cyclists who have been
induced into mindless cycling by relying on the false promise of the stripe
to tell them where they should be riding and keep them safe, to the degree
that they are not paying sufficient attention to what's ahead of them to
notice that the bike lane is ending and they need to merge (which they
probably should do long before the stripe ends anyway, not because the
stripe ends, but because they're probably also approaching an intersection,
or, in this case, a ramp that they don't want to take).

An appeal to drivers to pay attention is based on this observation:

> In each case, the driver was making a last-minute merge or turn, as well as
> speeding. Drivers, please beware that cyclists are very vulnerable and drive
> as though there are bicyclists are around you, even if you don't see them.
>
That the driver was merging or turning in each case should be no surprise to
Road 1 students, since a merge or turn almost certainly implies an
intersection or junction, where we teach destination positioning is so
important partially so that you are noticed and accepted as part of the
traffic flow as early as possible, rather than off to the side where you are
much more likely to remain unnoticed until it is too late.

Towards the end apparently Mr. Oates realizes, at least somewhat, what a
dismal picture of bicycling he is painting, "If you have been thinking about
riding a bike, don't let me talk you out of it.", but he can't even do that
without again emphasizing the inherent dangers: "...despite the danger
inherent, I would recommend it to just about anyone ..."  Even his reasons
to take up bicycling are framed with the dangers: "The very reasons drivers
are dangerous -- their lack of attention, their hurry, their aggression --
are reasons to ditch the car and pick up a bike."  Apparently Mr. Oates
believes being inattentive, in a hurry, and aggressive is inevitable when
driving a car, and the only way to avoid being those things is to get on a
bike.  So motorists are inevitably inattentive, hurried and aggressive, and
there is nothing that cyclists can do about it (again, the sitting ducks
paradigm) except try to encourage some of them to get out of their cars and
onto bikes (by pontificating about how dangerous cycling is).

Mr. Oates concludes with a restatement of many of his misconceptions:

> But as safely as we operate, tragedies such as those I've witnessed on
> Pershing will continue to occur as long as drivers have the run of the road.
> It's high time our driving culture checked itself in the rear-view and took
> its foot from the gas. The social costs are too high.
>
I believe the widely shared view about motorists having "the run of the
road" (and thus creating sitting ducks out of cyclists) reflected in this
article is the single biggest reason inhibiting more people from taking up
cycling, even at $4.50/gallon, and that our highest priority should be about
correcting this misinformed thinking, starting with cyclists.  As long as we
cyclists ourselves are thinking this way, there is no way we will be able to
bring around the public at large.

Serge


On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Kathy Keehan <execdir at sdcbc.org> wrote:

>  Just in time for the regional bike plan meetings
>
> Kathy
>
> http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/coates062508.txt
> <postmaster at stickman-computing.org>



-- 
NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared by
any organization in which I am involved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080625/4ed68008/attachment.html