Could not agree more regarding the need for dedicated bike lanes! One fact that really, really bothers me is that the majority of the civil codes that require bicyclists to ride on the street were written around 1910 when the average bicyclist was fairly capable of maintaining a compatible speed with traffic.


Riding on the streets of any sizeable city is simply a recipe for disaster. All it takes is that one careless driver or p*ssed off individual having a bad day and someone winds up in a wheelchair, or possibly a zipper bag. 200 lbs of man and bike is simply no match for 2+ tons of moving metal.


Yes, I am an unapologetic sidewalk rider. I obey the pedestrian signals relgiously and I match my speed to the amount of foot traffic present. I dismount and walk if there are simply too many people. In 10+ years of riding this way I have never had a collision with another pedestrian or cyclist. Even if I did ride in a less controlled manner the most likely bad outcome is some bumps and bruises, at worst a broken leg.


In college I was fortunate enough to attend school that had a compact campus, wide, wide sidewalks, some mixed-use and dedicated bike paths, and a police force that had better things to do than ticket bikers.


The city I live in now is a less fortuitous situation. The sidewalks are very narrow. They are cut up by many, many sidestreets, and drivers will simply block your travel or roll up on you as you cross the street even though they have a STOP sign. The one key advantage is that nearly no one walks on these sidewalks.


Better yet, the newspaper recently ran a story about the local police staging a 'crackdown' on people who ride sidewalks in the downtown area. Apparently a few bad apples have spoiled it for us all.


Perhaps I should just suck it up, get my deathwish on, and start riding the streetz to reduce my already fairly small carbon footprint!

I'm not going to dive into the bike lanes or no bike lanes morass. Nope, not going there today.

But I will state my opinion that it is our car culture that is the strongest deterrent to the rise of transportation cycling in the US.

So whether we build bike lanes or not, the situation won't change much until we change the culture.

Of course, Peaksters know changing behavior and culture by a different name - Demand Destruction.

Sincerely,
Peter Wang
League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor
Petroleum Geophysicist

In 300,000 miles on two wheels I've been injured by motor vehicles twice. First time the driver was drunk and was exiting a blind enter-only alley at speed. I got the ticket (as I'm being loaded into ambulance!) and the drunk got a pass. Second accident I got hit in a separate dedicated bike lane, a one-way bike lane. The post office truck was coming the wrong way down a bike lane and was still parked in that position when the California Highway Patrol arrived. That driver also got a pass. It later turned out that driver was using a fake green card and a fake driver's license. The simplest roadside check could've determined that on the spot.

Police simply hate bicycles. They see us blowing stop signs and otherwise being scofflaws and know they can't spend the time to enforce their standards of proper behavior. When a cyclist is injured they will not blame anyone in a motor vehicle. Make motorists liable for what they do and the streets will get safer.

Here is a column I wrote last year on the same subject: Guess what kind of resopnce I got in small town midwest!?

Columns > Natural patriotism

Consumption lifestyle endangers our country, future

I was coming home from work the other day. It was a beautiful sunny day. I was minding my own business when a large SUV flew by me very close. He honked and yelled, “Get off the #$@%ing road!”

I ride my bicycle to work as often as I can.

I get this a lot. And it’s too bad. As someone who is all about conserving natural resources I feel that I am doing the right thing. The patriotic thing. Yes, I consider myself a patriot.

I am a patriot because I believe in the democratic process. Unlike what is going on in our county today. I am a patriot because I work to protect this process through words and deeds. But the point I’d like to make now is - I’m a patriot because I conserve energy.

Doesn't sound very romantic or heroic, does it? But that’s what I do. You see, that SUV that flew by me was burning away our future. The very act of filling up our cars, heating our homes, even doing the things many of us do at our jobs is supporting the very “petro-authoritarianism” that is at the root and the financial backing of all this hate directed at us.

(“petro-authoritarianism” - Thomas Friedman "Foreign Affairs" columnist for The New York Times)

You want to be a real patriot? I’m talking about doing something for our country. Not armchair quarterbacking an illegal war. Try walking or biking to work. Get a smaller or a hybrid car. Get a smaller house and keep the thermostat set as low as you can stand it in the winter or as high as you can in the summer.

We have a finite supply of non-recoverable energy on this little planet and the people that control most of it are not us. The quicker we learn to power our future with safe, clean, renewable energy the sooner we can live in peace. Yes, really - in peace.

Our gluttonous ways have only fueled (no pun intended) the waves of hatred and terrorism we now face. Policies set in play by our administration for the benefit of the oil and military industries have repressed, choked and all but destroyed any hope of working together with the nations that control most of the oil.

Right now we need to start conserving everywhere in our lives. We have to reduce our consumption-period. That includes unnecessary highway projects, another plastic toy, driving land yachts, etc... Mostly we need a government that can not only see this future, but actually spend as much time working on a solution as they do lining their campaign contributor’s pockets with no-bid contracts.

We have to start investing individually, corporately, and mostly civically in alternative (non-nuclear) renewable energy, like solar and wind, to fuel our tomorrow. I do. The value of my IRA has almost tripled in the last year. I only invested in alternative energy companies. Not bad for a tree hugger?

Becoming an energy independent America will take an effort like we’ve never seen or done before. It could take 30-40 years. It could be too late already! But it’s the most patriotic thing we can do!

So, the next time you see someone on a bicycle don’t get mad and yell at them. Slow down, move over and think hard about the patriotic gesture that they are making. Or better yet, join them.

For your edification:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4794198.stm

I can see where physically separated bike lanes can be helpful in many situations.

In places where car traffic is especially dense the physical separation seems most important.

I ride on streets, but I ride a bigger rig than most bikers -- a cargo trike or pedicab (Organicengines SUV) and often have boxes of tools and supplies with me. This makes me a bit more visible to car drivers somehow.

You can see photos of the SUVs here:

http://organicengines.com/

We need to make this point also: Bikes are legal and safe on all city streets. Car drivers need to learn to share the road, "Same rights, same roads, same rules."

People who park in bike lanes deserve a hefty ticket for endangering bikers, IMO.

RE Police attitudes:

I've noted that some police officers despise bike riders who they view as "young and rebellious" or who come across as especially anti-establishment. I've talked with some police officers who like bikes and even encourage bike riders. The latter type of officer seems a bit in the minority in my city of Minneapolis, MN, USA.

One more thought: as gas becomes more pricey, more people are biking and walking more in my town. I think this trend will continue. The topic of bike/ped infrastructure will become more important, but so will educating all to the "Share The Road."

Superb post from TOD:NYC!

The cyclocity program in Lyon needs to be part of the city infrastructure to get people cycling.

http://www.jcdecaux.co.uk/development/cycles/

People can hire the bikes for a small fee. Forless than 30 minutes its free.

More on this from Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lo%27v

This may be of interest as well on plannng

Architect peddles idea of cycling city

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/on-your-bike-sydney/2007/03/31/11...

My bike is my primary transportation. Cambridge MA is not ideal biking terrain. Too many narrow streets and high traffic volume. It's not really the drivers' fault, and in fact most drivers are quite good about respecting my safety. The infrastructure just isn't set up to accomodate bicycles separated from traffic. Although it is getting better, with some dedicated lanes demarcated on existing streets, and bike advocates making themselves heard when road alterations are planned.

In general, my experience is that mororists will respect my right to the road if they (a) see me, and (b) understand what I'm going to do. I consider it my responsibility to make sure that those conditions hold, or at least to preserve a safe exit in case they don't.

One thing that ticks me off is the large number of cyclists who wantonly break the law. If you've checked and there's no cross traffic, I guess I don't really care if you run the red light. But all the time I see cyclists trying to beat cross traffic when they don't have the right of way. It's dangerous, and it casts cyclists in a bad light. Most of the motorists who disrespect cyclists probably developed that attitude because some cyclists disrespected them.

peace,
lilnev

A couple of months ago we had a 13 year old boy killed in our town while biking to school. He had a pretty long ride, about 3 miles, and some of the streets were busy. The boy was going in the same direction as the car that hit him, and he was pretty far over on the road, but apparently the low morning sun blinded the driver and he never saw the kid.

Seperate bike lanes are not just inane but unsafe, a waste of resources and counter productive.

Read Effective Cycling by John Forrester. Talk to him and learn from his wealth of experience.

Personally I don't like bike lanes - they "shove" the bike "off" of the road and then the drivers just ignore you. I've had auto-morons grind me into the curb as they pull up beside me and just pull over.

I've been hit by oncoming drivers turning into me, ones coming out of a side street accelerating into me - overtaking turning right into me. To be honest they only look at the street and a bike lane ain't the street.

Cyclists should be on the street observing the same rules.
It's the best use of the streets as they're often direct ways to get there. Up here we also have this thing called winter and those people who love dangerous, dog, kid and who-knows-what cluttered pathways thru parks and you've got to ride on the street in the winter as that's the only place to ride during those 3 to 4 months.

If you've driven or ridden a bike in Europe - it's very different than North America. We have insanely wide lanes ( a massive waste of the former farm land and oil/pavement) and we have drivers who seem unable to keep their pollution belching dragons within a lane that is 1.5 to 2x as wide as their vehicles. I've cycled in Europe in countries where there are bike lanes and ones where there are not. I am more psychologically comfortable with the wider roads here but the drivers there are, on average, much better.

I'm against separated bike lanes. They tend to put the riderider in the wrong place at the wrong time. Around here(DC area) there usually is not room for separated lanes. If there is room enough, then the lane is not necessary.

I agree with oldhippie that riders should stay off the sidewalks, but I also agree with Wolverine and ET that some streets are too dangerous to ride. Then I take the sidewalk. WebHubble, you are right to ride aggressively, but be sure you have eye-contact when you stare them down. Don't hesitate to yell, if necessary.

I hate so-called bike paths. All of them in my area (Maryland suburbs) are multi-use. They are obstacle courses. They are never cleared in winter and can become unusable for weeks. I avoid them.

My advice to NEW riders is to study a pamphlet titled "Bicycling Street Smarts" by John S. Allen (did I see your name above?) It tells you about all you need to know to ride reasonably safely in traffic. But do look at bicycling accident statistics (see "Effective Cycling" and "Bicycle Transportation" by John Forester. They are educational (most accidents happen at intersections) and encouraging (the mean riding distance between 'serious' accidents is around 17,000 miles. In my roughly 18,000 miles of city riding, I have only been hit once, while standing at an intersection. The driver didn't see me.

As to community or government intervention, I would only like to see an effort to educate drivers to coexist with riders. And fix the potholes.

One small correction: That 17,000 mile between accidents is for street-wise riders. That first year or so of riding is more dangerous.

Some sort of safer bike lanes are needed. Painted lanes are often too narrow and as the video says, not respected. I have never biked in NYC. I'm talking based on western Canadian cities and small towns. The latter are horrible, as the cyclist is treated like some recreational rider who doesn't belong on the road. Lots of twits ride that way, no sense of traffic rules, including driving on the wrong side of the road. I am an experienced cyclist and motor vehicle driver, and I follow the rules of the road. We are just getting bike lanes in my town and I have been honked at and cursed at when using them, e.g. when someone in a car wanted to use the bike lane to turn in. They are poorly designed.

If as suggested by one person in the movie, we are to share the sidewalk with walkers, the sidewalk needs to be wider than it often is. There needs to be enough room for two lanes of bike traffic. One problem that applies there is that many people who are inexperienced would enjoy cycling in a leisurely way, but they do need a bit of education to respect pedestrians. Ironically, many cyclists seem to treat pedestrians as cyclists have been treated by cars -- as just annoying obstactles to whiz around. It's frightening and stressful to be treated that way.

Skilled leisure type cyclists could manage on a narrower sidewalk, as I do, by being very courteous to pedestrians if I need to go there. On the other hand, being an experienced cyclist, I prefer to ride fast. Generally need the road for this and can't do it with a lot of pedestrians around. I wonder if there is some handy measurement to express the range of speeds of vehicles that can coexist? At any rate, a walker and a cyclist of any speed do not match well, nor, similarly, do a cyclist of any speed and a driver beyond the very cautious. There are few drivers like that.

Since the roads are not designed for cyclists, when I am in my motor vehicle and in a rush, I do find cyclists to be in the way, which surprises me. Though I am a cyclist and very sympathetic, yet an erratic cyclist blocking my way with nowhere for them to go is very inconvenient. THis just doesn't work that well, despite my best intentions and understanding from both sides. I note other drivers get hostile with cyclists even when they are not driving erratically, though most indeed do drive erratically in my little redneck town (40K people).

The separation of the roadway can be a low curb, or vertical posts, with in some places removable posts, in case of need for emergency access.

More place for bikes, safer, many more people will use it. We need this for our health, as well as the fuel and pollution concerns.

There are sidewalks, and there are sidewalks. I don't ride on narrow city sidewalks, with lots of pedestrians, doorways, stoops, etc. Out in the suburbs, however, I gladly ride a wide empty sidewalk rather than share the lane with guys doing 60 in a 45 mph zone, and chatting away on their cells. The few dog-walkers I see just smile guiltily and wave.

My connection is too slow to run the video, but in the diagram above what about bus traffic? In DC, parking on many large roads is forbidden during rush hours, so the buses use the parking lane. I used to ride from Navy Annex to Bethesda, and much of the way I was sharing Wisconsin Avenue's parking lane with Metrobuses. A gas mask would have been helpful. Buses make so much noise that you can hear them behind you, but the drivers had no hesitation about pulling to the curb and cutting me off. Swinging out to the left of a bus is the sort of death-defying maneuver I could only make before I had dependents.

Looking at the diagram again. If buses are kept out of the parking lane, you'll have little knots of pedestrians crossing the bike lane to get on and off the buses, perhaps even lining up to wait in the bike lane. In NYC, I presume you have a lot of taxis using that lane, too.

Also, someone alluded to the problem of which lane scooters, mopeds and electric bikes would use. From several years of driving a moped in DC, I have found that if you can't match the speed of the autos, they pass you on the left, then just in front of you they move back to the center of the lane, pushing you off to the shoulder, or parking lane. Scooters can keep up, but mopeds and e-bikes governed to 30 mph should ride with the bikes.

Indonesia has physically separate lanes for *scooters* (mainly because nobody rides bikes over there and because road rules based on vehicle weight prevail... gota' keep'em separated!).

Unless those dashed white lines represent significant curbs, (and I don't believe they do) then the above proposal is useless. What will happen is cars will park in the bike lane and then usage of smaller "secondary" lane will emerge as the driving behavioral norm.

Secondly, if you think relations are bad between bicycle riders and the driving public, you haven't encountered the wrath of the bipedal, walking public towards bicycle riders (although this might be an American thing). Keeping bicycle riders separated from the walking public is just as important as keeping bicycle riders safe from the driving public.

> “First they ignore you.
> Then they laugh at you.
> Then [they shoot you]"

If getting shot dead is "winning", I'd rather lose.

The "elegant" bicycle, or must we ban cars to have human powered/human scaled transport?

Severeal days ago, on a TOD string called "The Slow Movement Movement" by Prof. Goose, I made myself somewhat unpopular by casting some level of doubt on bicycles as a serious method of transportation. I was making the argument regarding (a)safety (b)health and age of the American rider and (c) weather. These to me are the big issues.

But the bicycle idea, or something close to it, keeps calling me back. What kind of bike/trike could be more useful as real transportation?

As we see in the posts above, the safety issue is a serious one. We must admit that we live in an aging country, with people are in many cases less able to get about by bicycle or walking than they once were. Amazingly, the perfect demographich for a widespread use of bikes for transportation was in the 1970's energy crisis. And while human powered vehicles were quite the fad among a certain cultural group as transportation, they did not catch on even then, with a huge young healthy population. The odds are even longer now against a major "bicycle generation", but the human powered movement could be enhanced at least be used to assist at the margins if we chose the right "path" (o.k., a little pun intended! :-)

For the purpose of observation, I have chosen three towns/cities, and intend to work with them more, as test cases: (a) Irvington, Radcliff and Louisville, all three in central Kentucky. Why? These are perfect demographic/geographic test cases, being
(a) a small town of 1200, Wiki article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvington,_Kentucky
(b) a small city near a military base of some 22,000 pop. (Wiki article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcliff,_Kentucky
(c) a large metropolitan city of some one quarter million people, Wiki article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville,_Kentucky

I intend to look at the usefulness of bicycles/velomobiles, and very small electric or even solar vehicles in these markets. But that's not all. This is a bigger test than that. Since I am involved in various ways in market research at this time, the goal is to go further as time progresses and look at ways in which fuel consumption could be reduced by truly noticable amounts in markets of these sizes, giving a picture of reproducable results in other and more varied locations.

I do not intend to do this in this post (aren't you singing your praises now!), nor, in fact will I do much of it for free! But this is by way of an introduction to the type of idea I am working with.

What we have found so far is that:
(a) It is in a small town sitting, such as Irvington, that bicycles, velomobiles, and even small electric or solar trikes are most usable. This is due to lack of traffic congestion, many small side streets with little traffic, almost no crime, and the small area in which to conduct business (the school, local doctor, grocery, restuarant, and friends and neighbors are within one mile or so distance. The downside is that for more varied activity, one must leave town, and this will involve a trip of some 20 miles minimum in most cases, often to Radcliff, Elizabethtown, or even Louisville. Inter city traffic, not inner city traffic is the big consumer of fuel in many if not most small rural towns.

(b) The next most appropriate location for bicycles, velomobiles, and even small electric or solar trikes in our study is Radcliff, with a town some 4 to 5 miles wide and deep encampassing all dialy activities on most days. However, the traffic congestion is denser, roads are larger with faster traffic, and the issue of crime arises as a factor, though at this time, not a great threat in most neighborhoods.

Unlike the "small town" test case, there is a wider variety of housing and employment, making it possible to have a more varied lifestyle using bicycles, velomobiles, small electric or solar trikes on a daily basis. In fact, it is not impossible nor would it be a major hardship to imagine using the human powered or small electric vehicle in town, and renting a car for going out of town. If the small human/electric vehicle were sized very carefully, for most of the year, it could even make the trip to the next largest town when needed, Elizabethtown KY, only 10 miles away (the two are often viewed in the mind of residents of both as almost sister cities, with a straight stretch of highway US 31W connecting them)

(c) Depending on where in the city one lives, the large city test case of Louisville KY is most difficult to evaluate for human/small electric power transportation, and in fact would require at least one or more separate studies. it goes without saying however, that the much higer traffic congestion, much higher crime and security issues, and sprawling suburbs makes the bike/trike/small electric trike a more difficult option.
However, the major advantages are at least twofold: (a) If one can move well about the city, there is not often a reason to leave it. Louisville, as do most major metropolitan areas, have everything tha is needed to not only survive, but thrive. What times a person would have to leave the city could be accomodated by rental car or airline flight. If a vehicle could deal with some 8 to 12 miles in range, the city could be covered by the small human powered or electric or solar bike/trike, the city could be, for the most part made available. We must take the security crime issue very seriously however, as there are large sections of the city that are very dangerous, even by car. A bicyclist/or small electric vehicle user would not be considered safe in approximately one quarter of the city at ANY TIME.

The above examples show that: removing other considerations, a relatively healthy rider could make use of a human powered vehicle as transportation in many cases in all three of the above environments. The areas are not impossible to be transversed this way. However, with the increased size of each city, the complexity and risk to personal safety increase.

With the increased size of each city, however, along with the risk, the usefulness of human powered and or small electric or solar trike also increases, up to a point of decline. Most study we have done so far indicates the middle range, or (b)Radcliff scenario being most appropriate for this type of transportation. This is even more true if employment is local for the rider.

The major variables we have left aside: (a) Weather and (b) ability/health of the rider. These issues are of extreme importance in determining the acceptance/usefulness of human powered vehicles or small electric/solar bikes or trikes in all three test cases, regardless of size of city.

This is why we have been developing along the following lines: (a) a velomobile type vehicle, instead of an upright bicycle, allowing those with less ability and health to ride, (b) some type of enclosed canopy for weather protection, but that can be quickly removed in hot weather, and (c) the possibility of electric assist/solar assist on trike or four wheel vehicle of very light weight, thus assisting in moving the vehicle from standstill or getting a tiring rider home. Below are examples of vehicles already in design around the world:

http://www.velomobiles.net/

http://www.velomobiles.net/

http://www.logotrikes.com/

http://www.twike.ca/

http://www.aerorider.com/

http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/wianecki/leaning_trike.htm
http://www.hypertrike.org/
http://www.hypertrike.org/pics/full/lugbrs.jpg

In closing this commentary, allow me to comment on the design of the city(s) in question: The small town test case is nearly perfect for this type of transportation, and Radcliff is very good, simply due to the way they are arranged, something of a blessing of history. However, of great interest is Louisville.

The city of Louisville is blessed by (a)having a natural "cross arrangement", along each axis of the cross being most of the locations one needed to visit on most days, a great deal of housing/apartment space, a university (actually more than one if private ones are counted) , a good variety of employment, and the airport.

The other blessing is the Parks of Louisville. The city has had a long heritage of the Frederick Law Olmstead park system. It has recently added a long park system complete with bicycle paths East to West up and down the Ohio River Waterfront Park area. This area wil also include a pedestrian walk over the Ohio River to Indiana. Arrangements for bikes/velomobliles/electric assist/human assist trikes are not known.

This park, in conjuction with a bit of pathing work, would make it possble to have a city almost completely connected by bike path/ or "light human powered/assisted" size vehicle paths that would give access to the city.
Thus, east west on the waterfront/north/south on the 4th street corridor/University of Louisville/ slight connections to Olmsted park system (three major parks within 3 to 4 miles of University of Louisville) and a short tail to the airport.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.254,-85.760&spn=0.11,0.18

As large cities go, Louisville is more easily adapted to bike/trike
assisted solar/electric trike than most cities of it's size.

Conclusion: Human powered vehicles can be useful, but the environment in which they are to operate means a great deal. Also, the vehicles are becoming more advanced, with recumbent bycycles, recumbent trikes, and even small electric and solar assistance vehicles, using peddling to launch the vehicle, and then a motor powered by battery (s) to assist. Given the very low power demands, even solar assist become possible.

At some point of course, the electric assist recumbent trike will very possible converge with a very small electric car, possible with on board solar asist, and create the very light/virtually no impact inner city vehicle. It is very possible that almost all out of city driving will be done by renting a car to leave town, and having only a small electric "appliance" for in town travel. Only the wealthy would own large sporting/racing/high performance vehecles, probably near private racetracks in the country to enjoy the cars) and possibly powered by synthetic fuel (bio butanol or alcohol of some type)

Since transportation is the first and most serious of emergencies given our U.S. dependence on foreign, expensive and unreliable oil, I will be developing a continuing series of these types of market aea studies, looking at transport and energy alternatives in markets of various sizes. While not all of the information we learn can be shared, I will keep TOD and TOD NYC somewhat in the loop about what we are learning. I personally have already learned a great deal just doing this study. The fact is, most people have far, far more vehicle than they can use in most cities. A rapid and schocking rise in oil prices, I am convinced, in no way shut down U.S transportation, a sthe "ego" penelty of most vehicles would have to be paid, and consumption would drop very fast, creating a shock to the markets that would be completely unpredictable. It is to be noted that demand of oil for status/ego vehicles went up very fast for no good reason, sheer vanity. It can go down as fast or faster if there is a good reason.

Thank you, Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom

I've been an cyclist for a long time. I ran a handyman business with a bike trailer for a number of years, hauling large loads of tools/ materials all over town. I also led a campaign to get the the city in which I live (Charlottesville VA) to install bike lanes. (There were none prior.) I have traveled all over the U.S. with a folding bike.
The Forester approach of "no bike lanes," encouraging cyclists to ride in the street, is useful in some ways, but has also divided the cycling community in unforunate ways. Forester's work is useful in that it helps some cyclists get over their paranoia about the dangers of riding, and puts the real risks in context. The limitation of the Forester approach is that 95% of cyclists (according to one FL study) are not professional or experienced enough to ride in traffic, and that is why bike lanes are useful.
The video from NYC is great, but also specific to NYC and other large cities. The problem with separated bike lanes in smaller cities is that they, as others have pointed out, are not swept and maintained. If a city is not willing to sweep/ maintain separated bike lanes, then on-street bike lanes are an improvement over no bike lanes at all. The safety of riding in the street also varies tremendously one city to the next. In many eastern cities with choked/ slow traffic, being in the road is fine. With some cities with high speed traffic, it's just plain foolish to be out in the road. I don't think sidewalk riding on abandoned sidewalks is all that hazardous, but it is NOT a viable means of transportation. It's also bad publicity for cyclists.
The bottom line is that transportation funding is a long-term process, and that cycling infrastructure rarely gets taken seriously. If cycling infrastructure were taken seriously, as it is in some countries and cities (try Davis CA, lovely bike system there), then it simply becomes a question of how to design the best bike system, and the whole debate about how to survive on car-dominated streets becomes moot. At this point in history, it's hard to say if long-term planning processes concerning transportation infrastructure are simply going to be trumped by fossil fuel price instability. I know that $3.00 gasoline did wonders for the cyclists around here. That may be how it goes. Personally, I am not worried so much about transport, or even food, in the post peak-oil age. I am much more concerned about the political fallout. The latter Roman Empire, though they contracted for other reasons, is most instructive in this regard. Even with peak oil, we still have a lot of energy, but we have the same problem that previous civilizations had -- a blind culture. Blind culture does not adapt well to contraction. I wrote a book about those issues, which you can see at conev.org

Meanwhile over on DailyKos "I want to ride my bicycle"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/1/72416/12281

Bike lanes is stupid. There should be bike streets. Anytime you have cars and bikes together, it is not a good formula. How about shutting down some of those backstreetss and only allowing pedestrans and cyclists on them. Make them nice, rather than the horrblie industrial ghettos they are now.