// What if We Didn’t Need Bike-Car Accident Laws?
Posted on Friday, July 2nd, 2010
Yesterday’s post was all about what kind of bike-car accident laws should be in place. Should it be the case (as it is now) that these things should be handled only in civil lawsuits and settlements? Or should drivers of cars involved in accidents with cyclists be prosecuted on criminal charges?
I pretty much agreed with Ben at the GJEL blog that the laws here in California were too lax, and that drivers should be prosecuted. But I was operating under the assumption that cyclists would always be in danger of being taken out by a giant SUV. What if it didn’t have to be that way? What if we never had to worry about prosecuting drivers because there could never be an accident?
I hadn’t really thought about this option until I read an article on Slate today about the possibility of giving cyclists their own “highways.” The author, Tom Vanderbilt, explains that it’s a fairly American concept that cyclists must share the road with cars. This so-called “vehicular cycling” is apparently not so common in the rest of the world. In fact, Vanderbilt informs us that in the Netherlands, all new roads must have a bicycle path that is at least 2.5 meters wide, and 1.5 meters from the road. Meanwhile, here in the States, there’s no requirement that bike lanes be included at all, and when they are, they’re usually a measly one meter or so wide.
As Vanderbilt notes in his article, most major cities are trying to increase the number of residents who are using bikes as transportation. What better way to do this than to give them their own “bicycle highways?” The story reminds me of something I saw on Public Television here in California. There’s a show, called California’s Gold, and in one episode, the host explored the history of cycling in California. As it turns out, there was a plan for a great elevated highway from Pasadena to Los Angeles (see the photo to the right!). It had overwhelming support from cyclists, all of whom were willing to pay a toll to ride on this raised path. It was shut down, however, when a railroad company refused to grant the project the right to cross railroad-owned land. It’s all about the money, right? Anyway, this was an amazingly long time ago–1897. Over a century ago!
Maybe they had it right way back when–give cyclists their own place to ride, and they’ll be safe, happy, and there will most definitely be more of them. Now the challenge is fitting these separate cycling paths into our current infrastructure–and, in my opinion, finding a way to keep pedestrians with roller blades and strollers off them.
Thoughts?