[SDCBC] What were they thinking?

[John Eldon]

If a beginner must traverse one or more of these intersections even to get from Point A to Point B, how do we ever get him or her into cycling? 

As for intersection classification, I see two types. An "inconvenient" intersection is one for which I can slow or stop safely on approach, to watch and wait for a comfortable break in traffic before proceeding across. In contrast, an inherently "dangerous" intersection is one in which I either do not have a shoulder or other safe stopping zone or do not have decent visibility from that perch. Fortunately, most intersections are more "inconvenient" than "dangerous," but there are exceptions. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but I avoid the segment of northbound Mission Bay Dr. from East Mission Bay Dr. to Rosewood St., because of the northbound I-5 offramp which spews two lanes of fast traffic to my right from a dark underpass, because I consider it unacceptable inherently dangerous.
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/%5B3518-4274%5D+Mission+Bay+Dr+San+Diego+CA+92109/ 

Serge Issakov <serge at issakov.org> wrote: 

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Mike Elliott <camping.elliott at gmail.com> wrote:
 
 While riding with and in traffic is always risky business, there are
 degrees of riskiness, and intersections like this one are riskier than
 many other places where cages and bicycles mix. To my mind, such places
 are essentially combat zones where only the alert, hardened, and trained
 rider can survive; and if it is a war there then either the bike lane
 should be removed so civilians don't wander into that meat grinder by
 accident, or new signage should be added describing the area as a
 conflict-level intersection.
John Eldon wrote:

My point has consistently been that Mike's "combat zone" intersections need to be demilitarized ... 

With all due respect to Mike and John, I think such language ("always risky business", "combat zones", "can survive", "need to be demilitarized") greatly overstates the dangers of cycling in such areas, and exaggerates ("only the alert, hardened and trained can survive") how difficult it is to obtain and develop the skills, knowledge and confidence required to ride through "intersections like this one" safely, and reflects a cycling-discouraging attitude.  One might argue (but I won't) that such fear mongering language has no place on the list of an organization that promotes cycling, including, presumably, the notion that cycling in traffic is (given roads and motorist behavior as they currently are) a reasonably safe activity.
 
Having said that, yes, the average cyclist whose traffic cycling safety beliefs rest on the premise that the primary rules are to assume you're invisible and stay out of the way of cars is going to find such intersections to be challenging and uncomfortable to navigate.  And, yes, you do have to be alert - but that should go without saying.   But the solution is not to feed the monster by reinforcing false notions of exaggerated dangers, but by spreading within the cycling culture the knowledge and skills required to slay this imaginary monster.  It's just not very difficult to achieve the necessary level of traffic cycling skill and knowledge, and the rewards are enormous.  That's what I would like to see at least one cycling advocacy group focus on, and this San Diego organization seems to me to be an excellent choice for that.
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikesandiego.org/pipermail/sdcbc/attachments/20080326/a10bd9d1/attachment.html