It's not like they are used that often. I go days without seeing a bike on them. Has anybody ever done a cost/benefit analysis? Why aren't they licensed, and the fee used to pay for bike lanes themselves?
Do they have to obey traffic laws? I see no evidence that they do. They can run through traffic lights and stop signs, and whiz by me in school zones.
And what about those bikes that have a motor attached? The people who ride them shouldn't be trusted with a gallon of gasoline and a two-stroke engine. They're like a suicide bomber on a mission.
I live in Boise, Idaho. It is a city that is as obsessed with bicycle lanes as it is with the Boise State Broncos.
Several years ago, there were three automobile/bicycle collisions within a few weeks of each other. The automobile always wins. A local TV station displayed the pictures of the three cyclists (none sustained life-ending injuries). Here's the strange coincidence: they were all photographed in competitive cycling attire with numbers. My take is that because they were "skilled" cyclists, they thought they owned the road. Indeed, it was discovered later they were at fault, but because they were cyclist, they were portrayed as the victims.
Near the same period of time, I personally witnessed an automobile/bicycle collision. A cyclist was speeding on the sidewalk. He had his racing helmet and tights on. He was slumped forward like he was heading for the finish in the Tour de France. With a bike lane available, he chose the sidewalk. He didn't bother checking for traffic because, after all, this was the Tour de France. An automobile, having the light and about a three-thousand-pound advantage, collided with the bike. I'm grateful the cyclist was not killed.
The bicyclists and the lanes are a menace and should be changed into something useful. I don't know what, but I do know when something is useless; it's when seldom used.
No comments:
Post a Comment