Bikeable

I ride a bike to get around pretty often. But I'm not always clear what people are getting at when they say they want to make New Orleans a more "bikeable" city. I think it's pretty bikeable as it is. The terrain is flat. Finding a route accross town on lightly trafficked streets isn't too difficult. There's usually something to tie up to once you get where you're going. Aside from encouraging motorists to be slightly less dickish toward cyclists, I'm not sure what else needs to be done.

A lot of "bikeability" enthusiasts get excited about bike lanes. The city is currently installing a few of those, most notably right now on Carrollton Avenue. I'm not as sold. So-called "vehicular cycling" advocates suggest that bike paths exist primarily for the convenience of motorists to the detriment of the convenience and even safety of cyclists. One example of the argument:

Bike paths are far more dangerous than roads because they increase the risk of collision with the large numbers of pedestrians, dogs and inexperienced cyclists that these facilities inevitably attract. These risks are often exacerbated by unsafe designs. Bike lanes promote unsafe turning practices by both motorists and cyclists. Bike lanes tend to collect road debris that would normally be swept to the curb by passing cars. Both types of facilities discourage competent vehicular cycling and undermine our status as legitimate road users.

Furthermore, critics argue, convincingly I think, that bike lanes also provide an excuse for motorists to be less than courteous toward cyclists with whom they share the road.

Other bike advocates oppose efforts to move cyclists to separate bikeways and argue instead that bicycles need to reclaim the city streets. "The bikeway system was designed for the convenience of motorists -- the safety arguments are bunkum," says John Forester, a bicycling engineer from Lemon Grove in San Diego County.

Forester is the father of the "vehicular cycling" movement -- a philosophy that views the bicycle as a form of transportation that belongs on the streets alongside cars.

According to Forester and others in the vehicular cycling camp, efforts to push bikes into separate lanes or bike paths reinforce the notion that bicycles don't belong on the street and relegates them to separate and not-quite-equal status. Segregating cyclists to their own paths reinforces motorist resentment toward cyclists and may encourage drivers to view cyclists on the road as scofflaws unworthy of their courtesy, Forester says.

I think bike lanes get a lot of attention because they're easy. They're inexpensive to install, most often going in as an afterthought to other resurfacing or maintenance projects. And they're a tangible, visible thing advocates can tout as an accomplishment and the city can use as an cheap example of its "forward thinking". But, beyond the cosmetic appeal, I'm not sure that they really do anything useful.