Home

Are Protected Bike Lanes "the" Answer?

Chicago Municipal Code section 9-52-020 (d) reads in relevant part, "Whenever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway."

Everyone is excited about the new cycle track protected bike lane recently installed along Kinzie, but some people don't seem to realize that cyclists theoretically lose rights to roadways where protected bike lanes are provided.  If the City is really planning on installing 100 miles of these lanes we should think about what consequence that will have on our right to Chicago's roadways.

I'm kind of worried about this issue with respect to the new cycle track.  If you're involved in an accident on Kinzie between Wells and Milwaukee, and you're not in the "cycle track," I would expect the driver to cite the above statute in their defense. It is true that such a defense is not
dispositive, but I think it will be somewhat convincing to a jury of Cook County drivers, and few bicycle accidents are black and white to begin with.  Even if you're not involved in an accident, if you use the road adjacent to the cycle track you might be subject to being ticketed for a violation of the above statute.

Therein lies one of the problems with such separated infrastructure for bicycles and cars.  If they build it we must use it, and we potentially lose certain rights to adjacent roadways. 

Separate is not equal.  Will the separate bike lane be maintained in the winter, or will it just be a convenient place to pile snow removed from adjacent roadways?  Will they actually clean the separated bike lanes, or will it collect glass and debris?  It is my understanding that new infrastructure is easily paid for by federal dollars, but upkeep and maintenance is paid for by the City.  Is the City committed enough to properly maintain the cycle track?  If these problems come to pass it may not be so pleasant to use the cycle track. 

For these reasons I actually like marked bike lanes and sharrows much more than separate bicycle infrastructure on a given road, unless that road is too dangerous for bicycles to begin with, which Kinzie is not.  Bike lanes and sharrows make it clear that bicyclists are intended to use the roadways. Separate infrastructure does not.

Hopefully such concerns will be taken into consideration before everyone blindly embraces separated bike lanes.  At least people should understand that there are certain rights that we give up if we relegate ourselves to separated bike lanes.

Excellent post Jim. As I said

Excellent post Jim. As I said on Brendan's blog:

This language in the existing municipal code needs to be changed.

As it stands it threatens the hard fought and hard won rights of cyclists to the road, puts them in danger of being ticketed unfairly, reinforces the erroneous notion that bicyclists should always be on a road with a bike lane, and always in that lane and on occasions puts cyclists and other road users safety in jeopardy.

I believe separated facilities are a necessary step towards encouraging more people to bicycle and to increase safety through numbers. But bicyclists should not be glib about sacrificing their right to the road. To do so is to step onto a very slippery slope.

What about accessing mid-block destinations on the opposite side of the street from which one is riding?? Are cyclists now required to pedal past their destination to the next intersection, do a box style U-turn and double back on the opposite side of the street?

Or more importantly how are left turns expected to be executed legally under this code? All turns must now be made from the bike lane, pedestrian style? How is that expected to work on Kinzie at Franklin for example?

If a cyclists moves out of the lane to avoid an obstacle, make a left turn, access a mid block destination on the opposite side of the street and is struck by a vehicle, has the cyclists compromised their legal protections under this current language?

These are not questions to be taken lightly and I think very few people realize the potential impact of this law on cycling in the city as we gain new separated facilities.

Separated facilities should be an option, not a requirement.

Thu, 2011-06-23 01:00 | Anonymous (not verified)

All valid and important

All valid and important points.
A related problem is harassment by motorists for using roads adjacent to these "tracks".
Is there anyone (else) in Chicago bike advocacy who is aware of these issues? At least that section of the city code should have been repealed (long ago, but before new paths were put in, surely).

Mon, 2011-06-27 08:32 | Paul Schimek (not verified)

I agree with you Jim. I've

I agree with you Jim. I've heard a lot of bicyclists comment that use of the new cycle track is optional. Not so much, pursuant to the ordinance you've cited.

While the cycle track takes getting doored pretty much out of the picture, the intersections it crosses seem more dangerous now. Drivers can't see you as well and bicyclists seem less inclined to stop.

Mon, 2011-08-01 08:21 | Brendan Kevenides (not verified)

As the City moves forward

As the City moves forward with these types of facilities, they should amend the Municipal Code to ensure the facilities are not mandatory. Members of the Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals (APBP) has discussed this issue extensively.

Fri, 2011-08-05 16:54 | Anonymous (not verified)

I share your concerns

I share your concerns regarding reduced rights as a result of bike lanes and bike paths. As a bike commuter, I need to be able to use the same streets and routes that cars do, especially as the defintion of "nearby" stretches. If, for example, I can get to my destination by using a bike lane that "only" requires a 6 block detour each way, my 2-mile errand has just become a lor more complicated.
I also wonder if a bike lane with a double-parked car in it is "available," but I digress.

Thu, 2011-10-06 13:39 | Rich Evans (not verified)