Portland (ie. BFOC’s “Magic Kingdom“) Bike Lane.
While interviewing area cycling advocates, BFOC spoke to shop owner,
Beth Farrell, of B&B Bicycles in Cedar Hill. In a sad revelation, Beth noted a conversation with Dallas Bike Co-Ordinator PM Summer, where he stated, “As long as I’m the Bike Coordinator for the city, Dallas will never have on-street bike lanes”.
That’s what we’re up against. Of the top 10 most populace cities in the US, Dallas is the only one whose coordinator refuses to allow on-street bike lanes.
BFOC intends to mount a campaign to battle the misinformation promoted by Vehicular Cyclists, which we feel is perpetuating Dallas’ current ranking as “Worst City for Cycling in the US”. This year alone, you were 5 times more likely to be killed on a bicycle in Dallas, than in Portland. With that in mind, the latest curious defense from Dallas’ Bike Coordinator, is that our existing VC model is far “safer”. Confused?…We are too. Vehicular Cyclists are not promoting safety, they’re promoting the idea that bicycle lanes are merely “bicycle control devices“. In contrast, Portland has 150+ miles of on-street bike lanes, over 10 times the ridership of Dallas, and has had no cycling deaths in 2008.
“Personally, I don’t want my daughter riding to school on her Huffy, and sharing a lane with an SUV”, said Oak Cliff resident Rob Shearer. “It’s insulting to think, in this day and age where cities throughout the world are successfully adopting these things (and have so for years), that we’d have to defend them…if they were nothing but death traps, Boulder, Colorado would be considered the Killing Fields for cyclists.”
In an email to BFOC, Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator for the US’ top rated cycling city Portland, Oregon, stated “Bike Coordinator’s who are still married to VC-only models are preaching dogma, and are fighting for systems that work for perhaps only 1% of the population…they’re holding their cities back”.
If you are interested in getting involved, or wish to promote change, please contact us for more information. A simple first step is to communicate with your city councilperson, and let them know that Dallas deserves better, and that the voices of dissension are attempting to mislead with known false information.
Bike Friendly Oak Cliff 
“This year alone, you were 5 times more likely to be killed on a bicycle in Dallas, than in Portland.”
Can you back that up with some data? I tried to find some myself recently but was mostly unsuccessful. I know there was a 10 year old boy recently killed on a Dallas street and a young girl killed while walking her bike across a street (does that count?). I also found a reference to a rider hit somewhere on Mockingbird that was, at the time, in critical condition. I can only hope he survived but I don’t know. So that’s 1-3 depending on how you count.
I think that most people (including Roger Geller) would agree that bad bike lanes are worse than no bikes lanes. Portland has spent a lot of time and money working to implement bike lane designs that are safer than those who simply slap down a line of paint and is still continuing to experiment.
In fact, even Portland is starting to recognize that bike lanes are only part of the solution. See for example their recent plans to develop a network of “Bicycle Boulevards” which are basically the same as the extensive bike route system that Dallas has had for years.
If you think that you can convince Dallas City Hall (and citizens) to invest the same kind of resources to improving the state of cycling as a means of transportation that Portland has, I say to you “Good Luck”. And I mean that with all sincerity.
BTW, any chance you could enable a comment feed on this blog? It would make it easier for us to follow the discussion.
Yes. You’re not factoring in the ridership level. It’s actually a much higher number than 5x greater. (ie. If Dallas had a total of 100 cyclists, and 1 was killed, where Portland had a total of 500 and 1 was killed…you’d be 5 times more likely to die on the streets of Dallas).
How timely. The wife and I just returned from a trip to Louisville, Kentucky and were talking about how awesome it was to see bike lanes, and people riding throughout the city.
Keep up the good fight!
2008 Bicycle Deaths in Dallas:
BERARDI, COLE, 10 (Oct 21, 2008)
MUNGIOLI, RITO ANOTONIO, 57 (Sept 29th, 2008)
MEREDITH HATCH, 38 (June 8th, 2008)
MICHAEL ALFARO, 36 (June 8th, 2008)
I wanted to comment quickly in support of your cause–your efforts are great for cycling culture and Dallas life. I appreciate your work to make cycling more practical, fun, and normal. As a cyclist, I most closely associate with the spandex/shaved legs racing crowd, who, like the VC guys, tend to be pretty elitist. That elitist mentality can be great for competition but is unsustainable and inherently doesn’t scale to widespread acceptance of bike culture.
It seems to me that arguments for vehicular cycling (and no bike lanes) overlook the fact that not having bike lanes is bad for cars as well as cyclists. I rode my bike to work today through 14 miles of some of the most heavily SUV-laden roads in Dallas and probably pissed off a lot of cars. With a bike lane or “bike boulevard” I would not only have had a more peaceful ride, but also would have been much less disruptive to everyone else on the road.
I look forward to following your efforts and finding ways to get involved.
Mungioli was in Richardson. Hatch and Alfaro were in Grand Prairie. Their deaths are no less tragic but the street environment for cyclists is very different in the suburbs than in the city. Additionally comparing numbers from the entire DFW metroplex to those from the city of Portland is not really fair.
You’d still add up to 5x greater…even with a single death given the ridership. And obviously, Paul Jerde wasn’t killed, but he was struck on Mockingbird and in coma.
Remember, using the last census data showing Dallas bicycle ridership levels (2006), we’re at 0.2%
Portland was at 6%…they are now calculating 8%. If we’re even averaging 1 death at .2% ridership, and we assumed the lower 6% number of ridership in Portland, you’d be 30 times more likely to be killed on a bicycle in Dallas in 2008.
I would argue also that the suburbs are not built differently infrastructure wise as the rest of the city, as your contention notes. Though, I will agree that including the entire metroplex would not be apples-to-apples, but again, that still leaves you with a far greater risk in Dallas using the latest figures.
I would also agree with you that the problem with other cities attempting to impelement lanes are that they’re hamstrung by having to build in a piecemealed fashion with limited funds. BFOC advocates an all-or-nothing wholesale change to bicycle infrastructure for the city, and not just small changes that invite ridicule.
The other point here is that you’d have to assume cities like Portland and Boulder are Death Traps for cyclists…the data just doesn’t back that up. My point was also to note that you’ll never get 0 fatalities every year in any transit form…it’s a strawman argument. What has to be noted is that Portland is increasing ridership by 28% every year. That’s monumental no matter how this is debated.
Something for the people on the fence –
This garners reading. I think this is a solution that we will be seeing on local streets in the near future in several of our North Texas cities. If nothing else, it at least puts motorists on notice that bicycles belong here too.
Click to access Shared%20Lane%20Marking%20Full%20Report-052404.pdf
There is also much that could be done in the way of signage and public information campaigns. All of those things go a long way. Although bike lanes appeal to many people they are not (nor should they be) the sole solution!
Love the work you’re doing! I’m stuck in Michigan for school, but hope to help out with the cause when I get back to the Cliff this summer. Good luck in the meantime!
[…] Building the Cause for Change, Bike Friendly Oak Cliff In a sad revelation, Beth noted a conversation with Dallas Bike Co-Ordinator PM Summer, where he stated, “As long as I’m the Bike Coordinator for the city, Dallas will never have on-street bike lanes”. […]
if the dude doesn’t want to allow on-street bike lanes, then get off-street ones – they’re better anyways. and by ‘off-street’, i just mean physically-separated bike lanes/path on the street – no shared space.
else, that guy needs to be fired.
Shouldn’t that quote in the upper right be attributed to Beth Farrel, or is hearsay your standard?
I’ll throw my 2 cents in here.
I was part of a study of pedestrians and cyclists down on Jefferson Boulevard and in the Bishop Arts area back in 2002. What I found was a vibrant community, ripe with urban renewal and gentrification (not always a bad thing). But the demise of B & B at the Jefferson location had nothing to do with a lack of bike lanes. I ride down there routinely now, and when I RIDE LIKE I AM A VEHICLE, then people respect me AS a vehicle.
The ‘silent cyclists’ are utility cyclists who ride the sidewalks to get to work, out of fear and antagonism, and basic lack of education about their rights as vehicles. Furthemore, yes, they do ride at slow speeds… However, if every pawn shop that sold bikes had a flyer in Spanish outlining cyclists’ rights and responsibilities, you’d see more cyclists commuting, more cyclists using roads for recreation purposes, and perhaps a revived bike shop scene down in Oak Cliff.
The only other thing I’d venture to mention is that cyclists should also be VISIBLE. that probably requires lights and reflectors. Again, a small blinky sold at a thrift store would go a long way toward lowering car-bike altercations.
Finally, I think a lot of bike trips and bike rides in all areas are under-counted. The growing dilemma in the economy should bring more of us out. The burden is on education, which is millions cheaper than dedicated bike lanes, signals, or trails. They’re great for the community in other ways, but they should be considered infrastructure improvements or quality-of-life improvements, and not trip-enablers.
Remember the Bill Cosby 8mm PSA film from the 70’s? It’d be a lot cheaper to put one of those in the schools, and back it up with smart educators, than to try to enforce a bike lane that becomes a gutter for trash, glass, and illegally parked cars. Enforcement can’t even keep up with code violations. What makes anyone think that a bike lane will be shiny, clean, spotless, and free of obstacles?
[…] in the week when I was doing our usual blog roundup column, I was astonished to find this article at Bike Friendly Oak Cliff, along with the quote above that is prominently displayed in their sidebar. The Dallas bicycle […]
We just wrote an article about PM Summer at Austin Bike Blog called “Why Cycle Dallas will never get a link on our blogroll.”
We feel your pain!
Hello .It has been Proven all over the World that good Segregated Wide Cycle Lanes are the Best Policy in Saving the Lives of Cyclists from Mad Motorists on our Roads. Cars must give Parity to Cyclists at Intersections they must not be allowed to Dictate to other Road users and also Pedestrians. This Pm Summer Person is only looking after the interests of the Motoring Lobby and should be sacked. You have only to look to the Netherlands and Denmark to see what is the best Policy where the Motor Vehicle is not allowed to Dominate anymore and where they treat the Cyclists with Respect because they to Ride around on Bikes as well when not using their Cars. Good Luck in your Campaign Dublin Ireland 7.30 pm GMT.
[…] I want the biggest 100 US cities to have their own Streetsblog by the end of 2009. What about ginormous places like Dallas that are struggling for even minimal bike infrastructure? […]
[…] is a radical departure from the policies advocated by the Dallas Bicycle Coordinator, PM Summer. He has been quoted saying, ”As long as I’m the bike coordinator for the city, Dallas will never have on-street […]
The problem with bike lanes is that they only address the type of car-bike accident that already has the lowest % chance of happening, while ignoring, or making worse, the type of car-bike collision that already occurs most frequently.
If we’re going to have bike lanes shoved down our collective throats, we should at least demand a system that address cross-traffic first.
Take a look at all the studies listed here.
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
Just a couple quick quotes from studies done in places that have supposedly been doing it “right”.
“Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities.
Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81, totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of paths. Car drivers, moped riders and pedestrians also suffered more accidents, with overall rise in casualties of 27%.” {Denmark}
“At junctions cycle tracks 3.4 times more dangerous than using road, but rising to 11.9 riding in ‘wrong’ direction.
Cycle lane 1.1 times more dangerous than unsegregated road for going ahead.
Left turns particularly dangerous from cycle track (11.0), less so from cycle lane (3.4).
Proportion of mistakes highly noticeable in cyclists making left-turn from one-way cycle track. Cycle track users most likely to run red lights or cycle on pavements.
Poor co-operation between road users where there is a cycle track.” {Sweden}
So why is it that the bike lane advocates only seem to want to focus on slightly reducing the risk posed from the car from the rear, while ignoring the areas that result in the majority of bike-car accidents?
Personally, I resent having my safety “experimented” with, as is done in Portland.
Honestly, this one’s been beaten to a dead horse by other Vehicular Cyclists. I will just say a few things and end commenting here. First of all, there have been innumerable studies showing the humans fear what is behind them. It is our nature. You cannot educate that out of anyone, which is EXACTLY the reason why we’ve been a VC city for 30 years and seen 0 increases in bicycle ridership. No matter how “irrational” the fear of a rear end collisions may be, you’re not going to educate it away. Doesn’t happen. Also, the study you cited was 30 years old. I could easily point you to multiple studies even in the last 5 years that would quickly counter every argument you just posted. I would do that, but if you read a few more articles here, you’ll see it’s been done for you. Also, accident rates in Dallas are much higher than those in the city you call an “experiment”: Portland. Again, I would forward you the PDF’s of these studies, but they’ve been linked from this site on too many occassions now to even make this worthy of debate.
Lastly, and the point we always return to…
If Portland, Copenhagen, Amersterdam, Boulder, etc., are such dismal “killing fields” for unwitting cyclists, how come more lanes are added every year, and not taken away? Cities can only take so many lawsuits before they change intersections. We see that in Dallas all of the time.
Also, why aren’t we seeing daily death count statistics from these “experimental” cities, given that lanes bring out more inexperienced riders? And not just 2 or 300 more riders, but a modal share of up to 10% (of which, only .2% are deemed “experienced” VC riders).
You’re theory just doesn’t add up. As soon as you show empirical data listing higher accident rates in a city like Portland compared to Dallas, then you’re argument would be valid. You won’t find it. I guarantee you.
I would suggest you check out the documentary Contested Streets, which interviews the planners, and bike coordinators in Copenhagen and goes to great length explaining how they’ve reduced accident levels to decimal points, and how ridership has grown to exponential levels…all within a matter of 40 years.
Bike lanes increase ridership. Ridership increases awareness. Awareness decreases accident rates.
mannytmoto, it’s obvious you only looked at the date on the first study listed.
The link I posted wasn’t just one dusty old study, but a collection of unbiased references to numerous studies that were done over 30+ years in all the places bike lane advocates hold up as bike lane utopias.
Some of them are on-going studies, but you dismiss them all as being “30 years old”.
All in the name of giving in to irrational perceptions of safety held by a typically non-riding public.
If theses studies show greater casualties occurring due to bike lanes, more people had to have been struck and killed by cars while riding in them.
How can you simply dismiss the higher rates of casualties they’ve experienced over the years?
{if the rate is shown to be greater with bike lanes, it stands to reason that more cyclists got hit while riding in them}
Also, the reason they keep building more of them in places like Copenhagen is because they’re so heavily invested in them it’s hard to change how they do things. Same as any other gov operated thing.
Look at the difficulty they are having in San Francisco removing bad bike lanes.
…but a stupid Judge gave in to irrational fear.
http://www.sfbike.org/?octavia
The “experiment” I mentioned is due to Portlands bike coordinator using the term when talking about trying to address the well known problem bike lanes create at intersections. My only point in mentioning that was due to the fact that so many studys have been done in places like Copenhagen that acknowledge a heightened risk at intersections with bike lanes as opposed to those without them. As I said, I resent having my safety “experimented” with by a generally non-riding public.
One reason for that heightened risk in bike lanes at intersections is graphically illustrated in the pic at the top of this page. None of those riders are not looking for cross traffic approaching from the rear before proceeding through the intersection. They just assume the paint makes them safe.
How about this? If Dallas is going to be forced to have have bike lanes, can you at least agree that as soon unsuspecting newbie riders that are lured to the perceived safety of the lanes start getting struck via right hooks, that we start a campaign to remove the bad bike lanes?
I woke up one morning recently, and I discovered that there is actually a bike culture of sorts in Oak Cliff. I’m tickled to death. Now if we could please ditch the helmet law, I’ll be even happier.