"Ten common myths about bike lanes – and why they're wrong" -- The Guardian

-- "the article"

The piece starts out with a twitter capture of a Conservative Party screed against bike lanes in a London borough, as a way to excoriate the Labour Mayor, Sadiq Khan.

I hate when smart development, sustainable mobility, is made out to a be political thing, rather than "the right thing to do."

The ten myths from the article:

1. Cycle lanes increase congestion (and thus pollution)

(Sometimes they do. Not usually.)

2. Hardly anyone uses them

(Makes a good point that unused lanes are likely an indicator of poor design and/or lack of a network.)

I would argue also an indicator of a need to do programming to assist people in taking up cycling.

3. They’re only used by white, middle-class men/commuters

(Makes the point that when it is true, it's an indicator of poor design and/or lack of a bikeway network.)

4. They’re bad for business

(Research shows this isn't true. Plus, in cities more customers tend to arrive on foot or bike, even if business proprietors don't believe it.)

5. They’re dangerous for pedestrians

This isn't true. But if it were, then we'd have to ban cars and roads altogether. (A point I made in response to a citizen when I was a bike and ped planner in Baltimore County. I joke that the response is one of the reasons I didn't get a permanent position there.)

6. Cyclists just break laws, so they shouldn’t get lanes

Yes, bicyclists break laws. But at rates far less than motor vehicle operators. Again, if the issue of "breaking the law" is foremost, then we have to ban cars.

7. How do I carry work tools/a fridge on a bike?

With difficulty and/or by preparation. And if you have to move a fridge, rent a truck or make friends with people who have one, or use a Ziptruck. (I did this a couple weeks ago, with the next door neighbor...)

8. We’re not the Netherlands/Denmark

What makes the Netherlands and Denmark special isn't culture. It's that in response to the high cost of oil, and the negative impact of cars on cities, they decided to not only make sustainable mobility a priority, but the preferred mobility choice. They didn't say it would be a good thing to do, and then do nothing substantive in terms of policy changes, etc. to make it happen. They said "it has to be done" and they reordered policy and practice in order to "make it so."

E.g., in the US, I laugh when President Trump excoriates automobile manufacturers for closing plants that produce sedans and small cars, while the sales of SUBs and trucks are booming. Clearly, he doesn't understand that as long as gas is cheap, people are incentivized to buy SUVs and trucks. By contrast, a gallon of gas costs about $7 in the Netherlands and Denmark.

9. They cost too much

WTF?

Although yes, retrofitting cycletracks especially can be expensive, since roadways were most often constructed to maximize motor vehicle throughput, not to include high quality infrastructure for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit simultaneously.

10. There’s no need

See the discussion about the Netherlands and Denmark and add to the conversation climate change.