Dedicated bike streets a better alternative

Re: “Two wheels vs. four: Which lane are you in?” column, Sept. 24.

If I read Jack Knox correctly, he’s saying divided bike lanes are a bad idea. In his Sunday column, he cites several reasons, including driver ignorance, cyclist irrational behaviour and a counterintuitive design.

But there’s one major reason he misses. If we have two or three of these short stretches of divided bike lanes that are meant to make people take to the streets on their bikes and feel safe, what happens before and after they’ve ridden these short and supposedly “safe” stretches? Are they, somehow, to be transformed into fearless and totally competent cyclists able to navigate all kinds of city traffic? Or are they to walk part way, pushing their bikes?

For all the money these lanes are costing and their dubious benefits, it seems they are poorly designed, inadequately thought out and an extravagance the city can’t (or shouldn’t) really afford.

Much better, in my view (Lycra-clad cyclist that I am), is to create a system of dedicated streets as preferred cycle routes (with chevron and cycle motif à la Vancouver’s system); educate people in bike handling skills; enforce helmet, light and signalling regulations; and prodigiously produce road signs that encourage cyclists and drivers to “share the road.”

If cyclists want to feel safe on our streets and roads, they must behave as if they belong there. For that to happen, they must be given the right environment, and demonstrate the respect and courtesy that drivers of vehicles give and expect from each other.

John Crouch Victoria