The Chainlink

Did anyone read this article in the Sun-Times? Drivers are the New Smokers in City

This isn't in the opinion section, it's under the news section.

 

Sun-Times Link here.

 

While driving home Tuesday along the Mayor Emanuel Bike Path — formerly known as Kinzie Street — a chubby guy on a bicycle wearing plaid shorts swerved from his “protected lane” in front of my car. I honked. He extended a certain finger in my direction. I got a bit riled up.

I did not give in to road rage and run him down with my station wagon.

Still, that moment was extra irritating because the goofy street reconfiguration project championed by our new bicycling mayor — who probably uses it as a shortcut to the posh East Bank Club — has bugged me for weeks.

From the curb there’s a wide bike lane, then a barrier of flexible plastic posts, spots for parked cars and, finally, a skinny lane for moving automobiles. At the Kinzie and Milwaukee stoplight, there’s a section of green painted concrete for cyclists to wait out red lights. And it’s in front of cars so drivers have to wait for the pedaling to begin.

The whole thing is awkward, if not unnecessary, and probably just as dangerous as cycling on a street without the elaborate and hideous markings.

Besides, the new bike lanes ruin a driving shortcut through River North. This particular stretch of Kinzie now gets inexplicably backed up with cars while a handful of folks on two wheels zoom by unaffected. Parking used to be prohibited on this stretch of Kinzie during the evening rush — 4 to 6 p.m. — so drivers could use both lanes to escape downtown for the expressways.

Now, Kinzie is a parking lot with bike lanes during those hours.

What’s worse is that the Mayor Emanuel Bike Path seems to have empowered cyclists with a sense of lane entitlement. What happened to sharing the road?

The worst of the cyclists — daredevil bicycle messengers, antique Schwinn-riding hipsters and arrogant office workers on hybrid mountain bikes — fly through stop signs, narrowly miss gastro-wagon patrons and swerve instead of stop for pedestrians.

And that’s just while I’ve been watching.

I’m not just being a crank about a minor traffic jam and a jerk on a bike. What worries me is what the great bicycle takeover of Kinzie Street might mean for the future.

Last week, city Transportation Department spokesman Brian Steele put it this way: “The goal behind this is to reduce the amount of vehicle traffic and increase the amount of bike traffic.”

I’ll put it another way: Drivers are the new smokers.

City and state leaders want to snuff us out, too. First with increased fees and taxes, and now with restrictions on where we can drive. Sound familiar, smokers?

In the last few years, the fees for city stickers, license plate renewal, gas taxes and even moving violation fines — which help pay for paving and repairing roads — have significantly increased. If you drive an SUV in Chicago, for instance, the price of your city sticker went from $75 to $120. Now, starting with this section of Kinzie, nearly a third of the road has been set aside for a pesky pedaling minority who take to the streets for only a part of the year.

Radical bicycle-riding advocates certainly will push to expand Emanuel’s segregated Bike Path system — and ruin every side-street shortcut for city drivers.

Some bicycle commuters are drooling at the prospect of a side-street bicycle takeover.

“Give me an entire street and I’ll be happy,” a rabid bicyclist pal of mine said. “They should put these lanes on Elston, Blue Island . . . and every diagonal street.”

What a nightmare that would be for everyone else on the road — commuters, truckers, little ol’ ladies going to the Jewel and guys like me.

Emanuel has said the new bike-path configuration makes riders safer on city roads. I get it. It is dangerous riding a bicycle in the big city. I once got “doored” on the North Side by a ditzy Jeep-driving woman from Ohio. Wear a helmet.

Urban cyclists have a right to co-exist with car drivers. And that’s how it should stay.

But if cyclists want sectioned-off lanes snaking through every part of the city, then the rules must change. They shouldn’t be able to ride freely through stop signs and pedal on the wrong side of the street anymore. Hit a pedestrian, go to jail. And heck, if cyclists need their own lanes, they should pay for it — maybe by requiring a bicycle sticker tax for commuters. And officers on bikes, Segways and ATVs should pinch more rogue cyclists who break the rules of the road.

Because if cyclists got treated more like the rest of us on the road, I might not get so honked off the next time a guy on a bike flips me the bird from his precious bike lane.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Views: 237

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on July 6, 2011 at 12:44pm

I share Mr. Konkol's optimism.

A few years from now cars will be banned from public spaces in most major cities, nobody will be willing to admit to their doctor that they drive, and 4/5 of the price of a car or of gasoline will be "vice tax."

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on July 6, 2011 at 12:49pm

I agree.

 

I think next we should go after the TV sets.  Those things are just plain evil.  I think a $10,000/year tax/fee on them should be about right.  I''m so sick of going into places of business or friends houses and seeing those damn things blaring.  They even have them in the checkut lanes of the grocery store these days.  I just about wore out my TVbGone keyfob turning them off wherever I go. 

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on July 6, 2011 at 3:29pm

Here's a copy of the letter to the editor that we just submitted...fingers crossed that it gets published.

 

Thanks,

Ethan Spotts, Active Trans

 

While riding into the office on the new Kinzie Street protected bikeway, I was thinking about Mark Konkol’s recent Sun-Times column that takes issue with this new street design that serves to make everyone on the road safer.

 

As a Chicagoan, protected bike lanes are new to me, but I quickly see why such designs have brought safety and comfort to Dutch and Danish streets for decades. While biking on Kinzie Street, I’ve noticed an unprecedented level of safety and comfort partly because it keeps people on bikes out of the “door zone,” where unsuspecting people can be knocked off their bikes by an opening car door. I didn’t worry about speeding car traffic running me off the road, and I didn’t worry whether the driver behind me was texting, reading email or eating breakfast. 

 

Cities around the world have experienced a higher level of safety on streets with protected bike lanes. After a protected bike lane was installed on New York City’s 9th Avenue, for example, injuries to all street users dropped 56%, injuries to cyclists dropped 57% and injuries to pedestrians were reduced by 29%.  

Most people still do not feel comfortable riding on Chicago streets. We strongly support Mayor Emanuel’s vision of a city where more people choose biking as a safe, healthy, convenient and green transportation option. No matter if you are a 12-year-old child or an 80-year-old grandmother, you should be able to ride your bike without fearing for your safety.

 

We agree with Mr. Konkol on one point: Following the rules of the road is essential whether you are behind the wheel or behind the handlebars. Traffic laws should be enforced to protect bicyclists, pedestrians and drivers alike, and we should continue to educate all street users about how to safely share the road.   

With only a small fraction of our road space dedicated to people on bikes, Chicago motorists need not worry about being “snuffed out.” The truth is that it doesn’t have to be “us versus them.”  A network of protected bike lanes will provide Chicagoans with more transportation options, and even help some folks—perhaps Mr. Konkol—feel safe enough to ride a bike instead of driving a car.

 

Adolfo Hernandez

Director of Advocacy

Active Transportation Alliance

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 6, 2011 at 4:58pm

There is a lot of poor grammer in this letter, I would expect more from someone with the title "Director of Advocacy". Reading it felt like grading a high school assignment. 

 

I will write my own letter to the editor tomorrow.

Serge Lubomudrov said:

I only object to a grammatically awkward (actually, wrong) phrase, "As a Chicagoan, protected bike lanes . . ." etc. Should be something like "Protected bine lanes are new to me [as a Chicagoan] . . ." It is you, not the bike lanes who is a Chicagoan, right?

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on July 6, 2011 at 5:01pm
Coming from Wisconsin the phrase, "as a Chicagoan," tends to go down a little sideways for me too.  In WI we have a term for that ;)

Serge Lubomudrov said:
I only object to a grammatically awkward (actually, wrong) phrase, "As a Chicagoan, protected bike lanes . . ." etc. Should be something like "Protected bine lanes are new to me [as a Chicagoan] . . ." It is you, not the bike lanes who is a Chicagoan, right?


Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on July 6, 2011 at 5:18pm
Ouch, I've committed a nordwoodz no-no.
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on July 6, 2011 at 5:48pm

+1

 

Nice summation.

 

I think you hit just about everything other than the author being a big poopie-head but I think this is evident to anyone understanding the above bullet points and doesn't need to be included ;)

Cameron Puetz said:

For anyone planning to write a letter the key talking points I see in refuting Konkol’s arguments are:

• Cyclists do pay for roads. City stickers and gas taxes cover a small portion of the costs; the rest comes from the city’s general fund. (See Liz’s post earlier in this thread)


• Cyclists on Kinzie are not the small pesky minority that he makes them out as. CDOT traffics counts show them to be a substantial portion of traffic. (Not sure if there are counts for Kinzie, but on the portion of Milwaukee feeding in, cyclists accounted for almost 1/3 of traffic in one count)

• Cyclists do ride year around

• Helmets are not the end all of bike safety and do little to protect against doorings. Helmets are like airbags in that they provide limited protection in the event of a crash. Avoiding the crash is a much better approach.

Let me know if you see any other points that should be covered.

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on July 6, 2011 at 6:02pm

Cool, glad to hear others are planning letters! We're also trying to meet with the Sun-Times editorial board to discuss the new protected lane and other bike, walk, transit issues and excitement.

 

Thanks,

Ethan, with Active Trans

Permalink Reply by Duppie on July 6, 2011 at 6:10pm

The decrease in crashes mentioned in the New York study is a powerful statistic that should be included in a response.

 

Also, if you mention statistics, it's important to get them right. I am interested to see where you got the "almost 1/3 of traffic" statistic. The only statistics I found (see here) mentioned a high of 21.9% of total traffic in September 2009 at the point you reference (640 N Milwaukee).

 


Cameron Puetz said:

For anyone planning to write a letter the key talking points I see in refuting Konkol’s arguments are:

• Cyclists do pay for roads. City stickers and gas taxes cover a small portion of the costs; the rest comes from the city’s general fund. (See Liz’s post earlier in this thread)


• Cyclists on Kinzie are not the small pesky minority that he makes them out as. CDOT traffics counts show them to be a substantial portion of traffic. (Not sure if there are counts for Kinzie, but on the portion of Milwaukee feeding in, cyclists accounted for almost 1/3 of traffic in one count)

• Cyclists do ride year around

• Helmets are not the end all of bike safety and do little to protect against doorings. Helmets are like airbags in that they provide limited protection in the event of a crash. Avoiding the crash is a much better approach.

Let me know if you see any other points that should be covered.

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on July 7, 2011 at 12:02am

 I'm hoping this posting is w/sarcasm, but *F* drivers who want to own the road to get 5 car lengths ahead to wait at the next red light to avoid congestion on the freeway while nearly clipping me.

 

I'd be willing to pay a fee to ride a bike in a dedicated lane as it wont be filled with potholes and if I obey the traffic laws and a car doesn't it's treated just like a traffic accident (if I'm not killed) and if I'm injured fines and/or charges levied against the driver.

 

I've swerved out the bike lane to avoid baby strollers,people using it as a staging area for the stuff they get out of their car, people jogging, people thinking it's a sidewalk from the parking garage ,delivery trucks, cabbies and of course parked cars.

 

There is no sharing in a culture of greed.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on July 7, 2011 at 10:44am

That's a nicely cogent and bulletted response. Far better than the response I would've given, which was The Gas Face.

 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on July 7, 2011 at 10:49am
I think the response I gave was the same one as the guy in plaid shorts-except for I don't have plaid shorts and the last time I was on Kinzie and gave the finger to someone I had a bright Hawaiian shirt on.   Do you think he just made up the plaid part?

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service