As far as PMS goes, he should be fired. If your job was to be the coordinator of something and after 10 + years, the thing you were supposed to coordinate was ranked “5th worse in the nation” you have NOT been successful. Oh, and he had to fight AGAINST the pro-cycling council member to achieve this level of “success”.

Additionally, he has managed to divide and alienate many cyclists, both in Dallas and in the rest of the world. As an employee of the citizens of Dallas, he should be answering to their needs, not pushing his will against them. In any other city a coordinator would be working WITH the pro-cycling Council member, not against.

I agree with the statements above regarding some of the older bike commuters – They had to be “hard-headed” to do what they did in the past, but now that “hard-headedness” just makes them difficult to deal with and unable to compromise to move to the next level. They seem to feel that everyone needs to ride in the streets and compete with the cars and trucks just like they did 10-15 years (or more) ago.

Newsflash here Elliott. Cyclists get struck while riding in bike lanes too. As well as on sidewalks, parking lots, alleys and everywhere else that un-aware people tend to ride bikes in a futile attempt of “staying out of the way” of motorists.
So you guys need to quit acting as though bike lane cyclists never get struck by cars.

Adding bike lanes to Dallas streets would intentionally create danger zones for cyclists like what’s shown in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhMoE2flLqg&eurl=http://www.sfbike.org/?octavia
People just don’t pay attention to signs.

If that guy had been over to the left, he couldn’t have gotten hit like that. Motorists don’t tend to look to the sides, but do tend to see what’s directly in front of them, like say, a 551.103 cyclist.
However, had he not used the bike lane in order to be safer, he would have likely faced driver hostility for not using it. So in this case, the mere existence of the bike lane increases the danger posed to all cyclists, VC or not.

In mulling over the situation, I realized that drivers are often required to turn across other lanes, but that in those situations, they are trained to watch for other road users. In the same way, they should be trained to watch for cyclists. Practically speaking, I doubt this will ever happen until bikes outnumber cars.

You say:
“My question is, when they plan to build/rebuild roads like 75, 635, etc…why don’t they incorporate bikelanes there? Or put them on the big streets that could actually use them, so that cyclists can also enjoy a “straight shot” type of route across town as motorists already do?”

I couldn’t agree more. For years, all I have wanted were streets built wide enough to comfortably accommodate bikes and cars. I didn’t really care much about bike lanes. I have come to realize, however, that they are quite important in getting more people to ride bikes.

When Mopac was about to be opened (and for a short time thereafter) I used to ride on it (on the left shoulder) from about Steck (as far north as it went!) to Enfield. It is enormously fast (an easy 22mph average!) going south, and very quick! Hard to imagine that now, but then there were hardly any cars on it.

I sometimes fantasize that since it is harder to ride a bike than drive, that cars should be given the inconvenient routes, and bikes should be given the optimized routes, like mopac!

I wish the law did afford the same protection in practice.

Another problem is that inexperienced riders will be led to believe they are safe in places such as the one I pointed out in the pics, but they won’t figure that out until they almost get hit, or actually do get hit. To me, it’s just not right to give people a false sense of security that could end up costing them their life.

Then you have issue that Steve posted a link to. The #6 comment in that link sums it up pretty well. If the gov spends tons ‘o money on a bike lane system, you can bet there will be pressure to use it even if it forces cyclists to use parts of it that are much less safer than what we have right now.

FWIW, I’m not totally against bike lanes, I’m just against those that route me into places that increase my danger, are added to streets that don’t need them and those that diminish in any way my Rights to travel that I currently enjoy.

My question is, when they plan to build/rebuild roads like 75, 635, etc…why don’t they incorporate bikelanes there? Or put them on the big streets that could actually use them, so that cyclists can also enjoy a “straight shot” type of route across town as motorists already do?
Here’s a good idea that won’t cost much money. Right now they could give us the right lane on all multi-lane major through-fares.
The whole right lane could quickly and easily be transformed into a combo 12′ wide bike lane and “right turn only” lane for cars. No pouring of concrete required. The lanes are already there.
All it needs is magic paint, and the police {at least for awhile} would have to be willing to take a zero-tolerance approach when enforcing “no right turns from the center lane” to get it through to motorists that it’s our Right to be there.
In a nutshell, I want a system that ENHANCES our ability to get around town. One that educates drivers, and one that generally increases our ability to be able to efficiently get somewhere, quicker.

Another question I have is why does this whole bike lane thing have to be snuck in the back door the way it was? When was input sought from those who currently ride the streets of Dallas? Everyone that does seems to have been caught by surprise by this.
I get the feeling they don’t really want to hear from us.

As far as the law not affording any protection, it should afford the same “protection” whether you were in your car, on your bike, or as a pedestrian. Assuming of course, that you were the one with the ROW. If the po-po don’t treat it as such, then they’re not doing they’re job. Which is a whole other topic.

Personally, I strongly believe cyclists should have the RIGHT to use the roads in accordance with traffic rules. I’m suspicious of anthing that might infringe on that right or cause others to disrespect it (see website link). It doesn’t mean I rejoice when a cyclist who advocates paint gets knocked down by politics…

The law does not afford the cyclist any protection. It will merely allow for some punishment after the fact. In practice, there is no penalty for hitting cyclists.

If the lane is less than 14′ {as virtually all lanes on multilane streets are} you aren’t supposed to ride all the way to the right edge, as that encourages the drivers to attempt to fit into the lane alongside of you, thereby greatly decreasing your safety in the way you mentioned.
Riding in a 551.103 manner also alleviates the same issue at every other type of intersection too. {makes it a virtual non-event}

Sorry, but I don’t care to have MY personal safety diminished as a convenience to people in cars. Thanks anyways.

Yes, drivers SHOULD be held accountable for the hazards they create, but unfortunately because of the very attitude you’ve mentioned, most street cyclists tend to ride in ways that remove any protection the law would otherwise allow them.
Most of the stats I’ve seen over the years show that the reason the motorists oftentimes aren’t cited is simply because the cyclist was riding in a manner that wasn’t exactly legal, and were treated as any other un-lawful user of the public ROW. i.e. wrong way riders, those without lights at night..etc etc.

As far as the 150+ people who were so eager to hear about this, how many of them are full-time riders that understand the risks currently posed to VC cyclists? I get the feeling they don’t care about us at all and are so obsessed with the relatively low danger posed by the car from the rear, that they become blinded to where the real risks are actually at.