The recent string of high-profile cycling fatalities has been really dispiriting. Seattle is killing people on bikes at the rate of 1 per month, and we seem more interested in discussing the behavioral problems of people driving and cycling rather than addressing the structural problem, the underlying safety of our transportation network. Given the fallibility of human behavior and the assurance of operator errors, we would be wise to reduce structural risk rather than rely on educational campaigns. I was a vehicular cycling advocate myself until a near-miss last December removed cockiness from my advocacy equation. (I landed on my head after a 20mph, over-the-handlebars crash on River Road in Puyallup, escaping with ‘only’ a cervical spine sprain and permanent neck pain.)

Rather than emphasize the vehicular status of bicycles and make a point of accommodating them on all streets, we should recognize that, wherever possible, separated facilities benefit us all. Even as a daily bike commuter I recognize the general incompatibility of non-motorized and motorized modes (including transit!) at anything approaching arterial speeds. In collisions below 25 mph the odds of survival are much higher. Why in the world would I want to ride on a 35 or 45 mph street if I had reasonable alternatives? Yes, we still need traffic calming measures throughout the city, but the need for separated uses persists.

When our government installs bicycle facilities, it implicitly vouches for the general safety of their use. In my opinion, in Seattle we dangerously overemphasize the need to accommodate bicycles on arterials. Many of our bike lanes (hello 2nd Ave!) leave people unnecessarily susceptible to injury and death at the hands of both cars and transit. I bike through Madrona and the Central District every morning, and for my own safety I rarely use 23rd, MLK, Cherry, and/or Union, streets that our Bicycle Master Plan seeks to emphasize. Rather, low traffic streets work perfectly well and with a bit of repaving could be optimized as safe bicycle boulevards. In my case, I’d happily trade Union for Marion, MLK for 27th, and 23rd for 19th/20th. Other substitutions could be King instead of Jackson, Federal instead of 10th, and many others.

Vancouver BC does this very well. While justly famous for its separated cycle tracks downtown on Burrard, Hornby, and Dunsmuir, I am more impressed by Vancouver’s western neighborhoods. Take a look at Vancouver’s official bicycle map (full PDF):

Between Cambie St. and UBC, the main east-west arterials for cars and transit are 4th, Broadway (9th), 16th, King Edward (25th), 33rd, 41st, and 49th. Looking at the official bicycling map you’d hardly know it! Bicycles are directed instead to use 3rd, 8th, 10th, Nanton (29th), 37th, and 45th. Bikes don’t ride in high traffic, and they rarely interact with transit except to cross north-south arterials. The same pattern holds for north-south streets.

In Seattle we may lack many things, but we have an abundance of quiet, low-traffic streets directly adjacent to our busiest arterials. We should put them to better use and save a few lives.

Event Notice: On September 22nd several grassroots community groups advocating for neighborhood greenways (aka bike boulevards) are hosting a presentation at the UW with Mark Lear and Greg Raisman who are experts on the subject. Facebook event here.