Ready and waiting. A cycle lane without two-wheeled traffic. Photo / Stephen Parker.
Ready and waiting. A cycle lane without two-wheeled traffic. Photo / Stephen Parker.
COMMENT: We have a name now apparently for the way people like me feel about cycle lanes.
It's called "bikelash".
It's being studied - isn't everything being studied? But it would appear to me it's being studied in a highly dubious way, which isn't a surprise given most ofthe crap that's peddled about bike lanes is dubious.
Last time I wrote about this questions had been raised about estimates for some Auckland cycleways and the reality when it was actually measured seemed to bear little resemblance to what they'd forecast by way of usage.
To bring yourself up to speed look up the Herald article entitled 'Bikelash: Researchers examine what drives opposition to cycle lanes'.
Ready and waiting. A cycle lane without two-wheeled traffic. Photo / Stephen Parker.
Cycleways don't get used much, they take away valuable bitumen for cars, they take car parks, they prevent access to retail, which as a result harms business. And to achieve all of this, it costs a fortune to make them.
There is not a lot to understand when it comes to the cycleway, it's peddled (no pun intended) by zealots who are driven by ideology.
They operate on the "build it and they will come" scenario, except they have built it, and we didn't come. When it all becomes obvious it doesn't work it leads to anger frustration and upset for the rest of us who feel duped — hence the bikelash.
Now to Dr Field.
In the Herald story, he says the obvious problems he found towards cycle lanes are the aforementioned lost parks, narrowed roads and motorists having to drive slower . . . and he says . . . you ready? . . .
"There is nothing wrong with any of these." Sorry Dr YES THERE IS, if you don't get that, you are missing the entire bikelash rationale, it's exactly what's wrong. It's not the change, it's the futility of the change. It's the inconvenience and the inefficiency of being forced into a pattern of movement that simply isn't necessary.
There is more. After all, he said "bike lanes were good for society they offered a boost to public health"
Really? Even when they're not used?
He's got the cart before the horse, if we were all on bikes yes, the public health might improve, do we know by how much? No, but given we are not all on bikes do we know if public health has been altered one jot? And if we don't . . . why is he suggesting it has? Once again, theory not reality.
And that's before we get to Lime scooters who have taken lord knows how many people off bikes.
And then the good doctor tries this out: "If we've only got 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, the bike is part of the change." What? 12 years? Where does that number come from? And what happened to the 12 years when in 2000 they said the same thing and 19 years later we're still having the same stale argument.
And the term climate change "catastrophe" gives Field away on his views of the environment.
All of which he is of course entitled to, but is this research a balanced piece of work designed to find answers?
"After initial resistance most people appreciate bike lanes.."
Really? How many out of how many asked? What percentage? Is there any proof of any of this? And if we all love them so much why is he studying bikelash? Why, if we've all got used to them does bikelash even exist?
Does anyone ask any questions any more? Or are we happy to just all roll over and accept research as fact?
