evandyk
Senior Member
That probably would be quite difficult to show since it isn't true. What people seem to keep forgetting in this whole thing is that people ride bikes in a dense urban city whether there's a bike lane or not. So they would still be there traveling at bike speed, in a place where there often isn't enough room to pass them safely. The only difference being that if bikes (and sccoters) are forced to share a lane with motor vehicles it makes them much less safe. And that lack of safety means there are fewer of them which can increase motor vehicle traffic. Plus, combining lanes with users of very different speeds and sizes is more disruptive to traffic flow since the road becomes more complicated and less orderly to navigate.
Most of the studies they do show that there is some small increase in travel times for drivers. If the city even had done a study where they showed that driving times would increase by 1 minute/day each way for 10,000 drivers (or whatever), they could have argued that the tradeoff in safety is worth it because the city would collectively save 83,000 hours a year of people not stuck in traffic. You might disagree whether it's worth it, but that's a policy decision that the government should be able to make.
But the government didn't even bother trying to meet that minimal threshold. They just said they should be able to do whatever they want, even if it puts people at higher risk.





