The city of San Francisco has proposed to eliminate select traffic lanes and parking spots in the congested streets of downtown. A couple of problems - according to Rob Anderson, District 5 supervisor - are that the plan will increase traffic congestion, and pose a serious threat to public safety. Anderson has filed suit against the San Francisco Bike Coalition (SFBC) for failing to complete an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) for the proposed plans' impact on the city, as required by law. The SFBC , in turn, asserts that such a move is a waste of time because bicycles burn no fossil fuels, and further more, Rob Anderson is a stupid asshole.
According to Anderson, eliminating traffic lanes would simply force more cars in to the fewer remaining lanes. Also, the plan to remove parking spots may also impact downtown businesses. Further more, putting more bicyclists on the street is asking for more bicycle related crashes and fatalities.
Read the case as put forth by Rob Anderson in his blog here. It may sound reasonable, but not necessarily to all of those in SF's bike community. Also, in my humble opinion, Anderson's assertion that adding more bicyclists would increase the number of bicycle related fatalities is misleading, since the cause of death of those riders is often the hood/ bumper of a car, and if people are riding their bikes they will not be behind the wheel ready to kill two-wheeled commuters.
Looking at the claim from a purely analytical standpoint: If 'X' amount of motorists get in their car today, 'Y' amount will have fatal accidents. The same rationale can be applied to bicyclists. And since an exponentially larger number of commuters die every year in their automobiles, I think safety is not the primary concern here. In addition, increasing the number of bicyclists might also serve to increase drivers awareness of them, and in turn work to decrease the number of bike vs. car accidents.
But what do I know? I ride the bus.
No comments:
Post a Comment