Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Transportation »

Apr 8, 2007 12:00 AM | last updated Apr 8, 2007 11:57 AM
Yellow card for cars.

The magnetic yellow card for cars.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Becoming uninvisible: taking Seattle's bicycle plan for a ride

The challenge for cyclists in the big city is to be seen. The mayor's plan actually recognizes this.

By Paul Andrews

Two days after Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels unveiled a new Bicycle Master Plan, I was riding in a well-marked bike lane on Phinney Avenue North when someone reached out of an SUV and tossed a bottle-full of Gatorade all over me. At least, I hope it was Gatorade.

There was no malicious intent. The car was stopped in traffic, I was breezing by on its right. It's unclear why the passenger chose to toss out the drink, but she immediately apologized when she saw what she'd done.

Less than an hour later, in the University District, I was crossing Roosevelt Way with a green light in my favor when a car coming the opposite direction turned left in front of me. I grabbed handfuls of brake and screamed at the driver to watch out. (My screams are not ones of anger but of the near-dead. It's really the most effective attention-getting mechanism, particularly on a hot day when drivers have windows open.)

Hearing me, she at first skidded to a stop. But when she saw I was slowing, she gunned the engine and continued to turn directly in front of me.

As any experienced bicycle commuter knows, such is the life of cycling in the big city. Bike lanes, bike paths, bike routes, bike bridges — they're all great. But the challenge for bicyclists is not how to get somewhere, no matter how bike-friendly the route.

The challenge is how to become uninvisible.

To the credit of the mayor's plan, which shows that Nickels and his staff really paid attention to cyclists' concerns, it actually tries to address the invisibility factor. If enacted effectively, the plan will be as significant for raising cycling's traffic profile as for the conduits it provides or enhances.

Included in the plan are sharrows — arrows painted on pavement encouraging bikes and cars to share a road lane. They'll go on Northeast 45th Street in the Wallingford neighborhood, on Third Avenue West, South Henderson Street, and Seneca Street. Renton Avenue South will get marked for shared use. Greenwood Avenue North will get paved shoulders beyond 85th Street. These are all strategic bike routes in need of improvements.

Shrinking car lanes from four to two on bike routes, including Stone Way and perhaps 35th Avenue Southwest, is another great idea. New bike lanes in West Seattle (Avalon Way and 16th Avenue Southwest), on Eighth Avenue Northwest, and along Eight Avenue downtown will aid two-wheelers. And some connector elbows, including overpass access from Queen Anne Hill to Myrtle Edwards Park at West Thomas Street, and completion of missing links at Interbay, the Ballard Bridge, and Seattle Pacific University, are much welcomed.

Overall, in fact, the plan addresses many of the key problem areas in Seattle, including better south-city access, a start on improved east-west routing, and enhanced downtown flow.

I did get one chuckle at lanes being added to Northeast 65th Street above Sand Point Way, the problem there not being cars but a grisly, unforgiving hill climb. Any chance of a regrade as well?

Sharing bike and bus use on Third Avenue, albeit only during peak times, is a huge move for embattled downtown cyclists. Cycling downtown is not as dangerous as one might assume, since traffic tends to move slowly. The main problem is congestion: dodging taxis, double-parked cars, and Metro buses while still trying to weave through pedestrian thickets. Bike lanes might help in this mix, but three years of riding in San Francisco taught me that urban-core bike lanes tend to get used by just about everything except bikes.

The plan also refers to better police enforcement of cyclists who run red lights and motorists who turn in front of bikes. Kudos on both counts. Bike messengers in particular tend to push the regulatory envelope downtown. (In their defense, a cowboy mentality is their best survival mechanism.) As for drivers cutting off cyclists, any rider knows it happens just about every time you're out. And the only time a cop appears is when the cyclist actually goes down.

The mayor's plan is encouraging in another respect. Early on, bike plans tended to — how to put this? — not "get it." They forced cyclists onto routes and conduits that were inconvenient, illogical, and second-class. They favored separating cyclists from transportation corridors via bike paths that actually encouraged invisibility and forced bikes to dodge inline skaters, baby strollers, joggers, dogs, and walkers.

The mayor's plan does a lot to elevate cycling's stature, as much for transportation as for recreation. The mayor's notion that bikes will help alleviate congestion from whatever comes of Alaskan Way Viaduct construction may be a stretch, but one can always hope.

If the mayor and his cycling staff are smart, they will find ways to nudge potential bike commuters into taking that fateful first step, the toe in the water, er, pedal, that turns a would-be into a hard-core commuter. The plan notes that more cyclists would commute if they felt safer, but that's like the fat guy saying he'd get more exercise if he had more time.

The trick is to start small. In fact, pick the nicest day of the year, the flattest and shortest route, whether it be down to the grocery store or a brief section of the Burke-Gilman Trail, and just get out on the bike. You'll almost certainly love it, and you can build from there.

And much more can be done to educate the driving public to put bikes on par with cars. My favorite strategy comes from a Vienna artist, Peter Miller, who came up with yellow refrigerator magnets bearing the message: "This magnet was tossed onto your car by a cyclist who felt that you might have been driving in a way that could have endangered their life. They chose to toss this magnetic note because it can neither damage your automobile, nor affix itself to rubber or glass and will therefore not affect your driving. It serves to warn you. With thoughtful contemplation and reverence for humanity, we can adjust our behavior to allow for all people to live life. This is a yellow card, let’s please not let things get to Red."

The idea is to slap the magnets on the doors and fenders of vehicles that come too close. I'm trying to get a swatch made — for after the scream.

  • Paul Andrews is a former technology columnist for The Seattle Times and co-author of Gates, the biography of Bill. He and his wife, Cecile Andrews, founded the Phinney Ecovillage in North Seattle and are active in neighborhood and civic affairs. Andrews also serves as editorial director for Greenforgood.com, an Edmonds-based green lifestyles startup.
Comments
I voted for Sound Transit...and all I got was this lousy bike lane
Report a violationPosted by: the former Tom Heller on Apr 8, 2007 11:12 AM
(I didn't, but many did...)

Could it be that all the money being gobbled up by Sound Transit *could* have gone toward improving transit across and around Seattle, including better & more frequent E-W services?

Just a thought....
Just Stay Out of My Way
Report a violationPosted by: Patriot on Apr 8, 2007 12:33 PM
This article said nothing about the cost to taxpayers for the pleasure of a few. It will cost taxpayers $4,000 per cyclist to endanger the cars and slow them up. It does not get my vote.
RE: Just Stay Out of My Way
Report a violationPosted by: lazyfives on Apr 9, 2007 12:23 PM
You should cite where that info could be found. If not, I'd say you sound like every other selfish driver out there.
RE: Just Stay Out of My Way
Report a violationPosted by: DavidT on Apr 9, 2007 2:00 PM
Is Patriot actually Dori Monson?
Cyclists still need to look out and LISTEN also
Report a violationPosted by: Andrew_Taylor on Apr 8, 2007 6:44 PM
Editor's Pick Even with all the Mayor's improvements, the interaction between car and bicycle in inherently asymmetric.

Cyclists need to have ALL their senses about them to stay safe in traffic. Many times I have heard the very characteristic ker-clunk of a car door starting to open, and hence avoided the carelessly opened car door. Ditto hearing tire noises etc, around me. Hearing is a very useful sense for urban cyclists.

I am thus MOST disturbed to see the increasing number of adult cyclists out in traffic wearing headphones, and humbly suggest that the use of headphones by cyclists in Seattle be prohibited.

Yes I am an unfair, unfeeling 57-year old codger. But I have been hit by a car and I have recovered from a traumatic brain injury. Trust me, you don't want to experience either. So, please wear a helmet, but NOT with headphones under it.

Thanks
Andrew Taylor
Taxand Ticket the Bikers
Report a violationPosted by: animalal on Apr 8, 2007 7:33 PM
Time to register, licence, tax, and ticket all the bicyclists who endanger all the drivers and pedestrians of Seattle. From no helmets to no heed to any of the rules of the road; the bike scofflaws must pay up and stop terrorizing auto drivers. Road diets = the new religious zealotry of autophobes. God bless rain, snow, sleet, hail, and FLAT TIRES!!
RE: Taxand Ticket the Bikers
Report a violationPosted by: jputnam on Apr 9, 2007 3:12 PM
You can ticket cyclists already, they don't need to be licensed or registered to be ticketed. But it would take political will and bigger police budgets.

Maybe fund better enforcement by cutting subsidies to freeloading motorists who impose expenses far beyond what they pay in gas tax and licensing fees? How much of the city's emergency services budget (police, fire, aid) goes to traffic accident response?
No defense for bike messengers...
Report a violationPosted by: NWotter on Apr 8, 2007 9:07 PM
nothing less than a summary execution would satisfy me when they ride on sidewalks, and they all do.
Interesting mix of comments
Report a violationPosted by: Matt on Apr 9, 2007 3:16 PM
Editor's Pick Everyone seems to have a strong and different opinion on how to handle bikes - here and on other forums.

Personally, the overall anouncement seems quite good to me. One of the changes I'd make is to enforce bicycles less rather than more. Actually, I'd love to see relaxed road rules on bicycle-friendly roads. Your ability to see/hear your surroundings is much higher compared to a car, plus the effort involved in stopping at a stop sign/light just before a hill (even though you can clearly see there are no other vehicles for blocks) tries even the most civic-minded citizen's sense of ethics (translation: I now routinely run stop signs/lights, despite being the type of person that puts on my seatbelt to drive a block).

I'm not quite sure what solution would make the most people happy, and I admire Nichols for his effort.
Seattle drivers are generally polite
Report a violationPosted by: paul@paulandrews.com on Apr 10, 2007 6:38 AM
Editor's Pick In my experience, Seattle drivers are often more than accommodating to cyclists, waving me thru an intersection where I by law should be yielding to them. A hateful dynamic isn't going to help either side, though, and most cyclists I know recognize that the majority of near-accidents and actual collisions happen simply because the cyclist does not get seen.
Bikes Need to Help Pay Their Way
Report a violationPosted by: drool on Apr 10, 2007 10:40 AM
Bikes and bike stuff should be taxed to help pay for these improvements. I am an avid cyclist and i don't mind paying some tax towards it.

The numbers published are misleading. How many are commuting? A fraction of the "commuting and recreational riders" I would suspect. On the radio I heard less than 2% or commuters were by bike.

If Nickels really wanted to accomodate recreational riders he'd open up the old railroad grade that goes from Landsburg Park to Cedar Falls. You could then ride all the way from Lake Washington (Renton) to the Columbia River.
Bikes already pay their way
Report a violationPosted by: jputnam on Apr 10, 2007 1:50 PM
If we want bicyclists to pay their fair share, the obvious answer is to raise taxes on cars, since cars, not bicycles, are being subsidized today.

There's a popular fallacy that motorists pay their way and other road users don't. But most city roads are not paid for by gas taxes or license fees, they're paid for by property and sales taxes, taxes that cyclists are already paying. Cyclists shop and live in homes, just like motorists. (Maybe moreso -- cyclists who don't own cars are less likely to shop 20 miles from home to save a few dollars, so they're more likely to pay their sales taxes within their home jurisdiction.)

Meanwhile, motorists place far greater demands on the roads than cyclists -- larger, heavier vehicles need stronger, wider roads; high-speed accidents demand emergency services; large amounts of property is taken off the property tax rolls to construct public streets and public parking.

I drive to work most days, and I drive 15,000 miles a year for business on top of commuting and pleasure miles. I'm receiving a huge subsidy from bicycle commuters and bus riders. At more than 30mpg, my car doesn't even rack up that much gas tax for state transportation funding! (15,000 miles at 30mpg = 500 gallons * 34 cents/gallon = $170/year in state gas tax. Like that really pays for my share of road use!)

I'm all in favor of fair funding, but I'm under no illusion fair funding would cost less for motorists.
bicycling may or may not be a "pleasure"
Report a violationPosted by: windybill on Apr 11, 2007 4:20 PM
Bicycling needs to be considered a valid form of transportation,to be encouraged - it is not simply "the pleasure of a few" as a commenter suggested. Taxpayer money - and bike riders pay taxes too - SHOULD be spent to help get folks on bikes. Seattle's a challenging city for bikes compared to, say, pancake-flat Amsterdam, not to mention the weather. (I need to get in a couple of licks in here about the WAY many bike riders here do it, however - "American-style" - the need for "proper attire", the macho aggressive approach, the competitiveness that creeps into every thing we Americans touch, the snobbery that aggravates - but all that being said, I still admire the committed bike rider). And if it's the pleasure part that gets under the commenter's skin, what driver is not driving for the pleasure of it? Should taxpayers be required to pay for the pleasure of the many drivers who don't explore other options, who won't get out of their cars no matter what? Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ to calculate just how many TONS of emissions you produce per year by driving and see what pleasure there is in that. Bike riders have to breathe a lot of that crap. Well, we all do.
cyclists need to follow their own rules
Report a violationPosted by: windybill on Apr 11, 2007 5:04 PM
A couple of weeks ago my morning bus halted between stops. The driver said "There's a guy lying in the road". We all jumped up to look. He stopped the bus short of a tangle of 2 bikes and one still form, face down on the pavement, and other with bloody face aimlessly moving about. The face-down cyclist was stunned, in a pool of blood from his mouth, bus driver called aid, other biker sat down, a couple of passengers sat with the stunned biker who began to stir, asking what happened?

What happened was this: the regular bike commuter - we saw him every day with bright vest, lights, helmet, zooming down the street at legal traffic speed before daylight - t-boned the other biker who had crossed in front of him with NO lights, NO vest, NO helmet and DID NOT STOP at the stop sign before crossing the main thoroughfare. He did not see the bike commuter coming and the commuter had no chance to see him venturing across the road without lights in the dark.

Aid came, they were hauled off to hospital banged up but okay. Radio reported the bus had hit the biker. Wrong.The biker who did not follow the common sense rules nearly killed a fellow biker who was following the rules and could have vegetablized himself without a helmet.

I've known several bike riders who have had terrible accidents and it makes a body cautious, sometimes disabled. Riding again can be a fearful experience.

But it's the cleanest, most efficient mode of travel yet designed. Not everyone can do it, but why not make it the highest priority so the ones who CAN do it DO do it? I think the city and the citizenry should support bicycle transport in every way. Hooray for the bike racks on buses, for instance.
How your brain works.
Report a violationPosted by: RazelG on May 2, 2007 8:29 AM
Everyone should read Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales. With great clarity and compelling true stories this book goes far in describing how our brains process, or in many instances don't process, what would appear to be obvious information all around us. It explains a lot when it comes to bike and auto interactions, especially the issue of "uninvisible."

Carey
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement