Comment
I think this is a terrible idea. I rely on bike lanes to safely run errands and travel to and from work. I’m currently 6 months pregnant and I absolutely do not feel as safe on roads without bike lanes. I don’t own a car and being pregnant makes walking difficult—riding my bike allows me to still be engaged in my community and shop at local businesses. Bike lanes mean I can do that and come home safely to my family. I don’t know that I even understand the purpose behind this bill—is the intent that cyclists should take the lane (as we are allowed to) and be merged with car traffic, rather than travel safely in our own lanes? I don’t see how that would reduce gridlock or improve traffic—bikes can’t accelerate as quickly as cars, and drivers tend to get annoyed if they are behind a cyclist in a lane. But that seems to be the alternative to bike lanes—it’s not always safe or advisable for cyclists to squeeze between a row of parked cars or the curb and traffic, so taking the lane is often the best option for safety but certainly doesn’t improve the flow of traffic and is still less safe for cyclists than biking in a protected lane.
I plan my routes to shop, volunteer, work, and visit with friends based on where I know there are safe bike lanes. This often means longer-than-necessary travel times or inefficient routes, but I would rather keep my and my baby safe than take a risk on a wide, busy road. I just want to be able to get home safely to my family, and this bill makes me scared for the future.
Submitted October 22, 2024 1:31 PM
Comment on
Bill 212 - Reducing Gridlock, Saving You Time Act, 2024 - Framework for bike lanes that require removal of a traffic lane.
ERO number
019-9266
Comment ID
101902
Commenting on behalf of
Comment status