In the blog post "Austin: Where 150 pounds is equal to 2000 pounds", Lenitie Carter discusses the problems that plague cycling in Austin. It appears that her main argument is why the law requiring cyclists to ride on the road with motor vehicles instead of the side-walk is no good. She references to some cyclist laws and provides anecdotal evidence to support them.
One of her arguments was in regards to the law that requires motor vehicles to provide a 3 to 6 foot buffer and how useless it is. An example she gives to back up her reasoning is when a cyclist cut her off while she was going 40 mph and how the buffer law didn't help. While I would agree with her that the buffer law doesn't help in that situation, I also question as to whether or not it was meant to help in that situation. People break rules of the road all the time, be it as a cyclist or a motorist. People breaking the rules don't necessarily negate the effectiveness of the rule when followed properly. What was the law meant to help with? That may be up for debate, but I think it was meant to keep vehicles from passing cyclists to closely or tail-gating them. Both those situations could easily cause serious accidents and even death.
Later, she questions Austin's cyclist friendly culture and whether it makes sense for cyclists to be taking up the road, slowing down traffic. First off, I don't think Austin is exactly as friendly to cyclists as she states. I have ridden all over Austin, and it can be very challenging to find routes that aren't going to get me killed. A lot of roads in Austin are without shoulders or even side-walks, forcing cyclists to brave traffic. Is it fair that I may be slowing traffic? Maybe, maybe not, but sometimes there are no other options.
She makes a note about the law requiring cyclists to follow the same rules of the road as motorists and then proceeds to state that she's seen cyclists breaking these laws. I honestly don't know what her point here was. Was she making an argument that since people break the laws that the laws are useless? Again, motorists break the laws too, how does that negate the importance of the laws?
There are multiple references to the weight ratio between a cyclist and a vehicle. Her argument seems to be that in a collision a vehicle will always win and that is reason enough to get cyclists off the road. While I understand that argument, I don't necessarily believe it's the weight ratio that she's concerned about, otherwise she would have problems with motorcycles, mopeds, and semis, all of which have varying magnitudes of weight ratio to an SUV with similar outcomes. I think it's the speed that is her real issue and the inconvenience she incurs because of it.
In conclusion, I agree that the current laws or even new laws aren't going to make cycling any safer. Infrastructure is the only real answer to safety concerns. It would also help with alleviating the inconvenience that motorists feel when getting stuck behind cyclists. More bike lanes/trails around the city would help tremendously. Of course, then you get into the another debate on who is going to pay for that infrastructure.
No comments:
Post a Comment