To the Editor:

Regarding John Frederick’s letter to the editor  [“No Effort Seems to Be Spent on Impressing Local Cyclists With Their Responsibilities,” Mailbox, July 16], one could easily argue that motorists are the ones that could use a little impressing.

Of greater relevance is the fact that our transportation infrastructure cannot simultaneously handle motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, most evident when one considers bicycling to our frequent destinations: the library, our schools, the downtown area. I would posit that our driver-centric roadways contribute to Fredrick’s “prevailing anarchy.”

Confronting streets jammed by speeding traffic, a bicyclist might use the sidewalk as a safer alternative, indifferent to pedestrians; then switch back and forth between sidewalk and roadway depending on conditions. Intersections complicate things: a bicyclist is expected to dismount at crosswalks, but the tendency is to keep riding rather than dismount at every switch. If policing this behavior is difficult, a better choice may be tempering or eliminating the underlying circumstances that encourage it.

We have done little to improve our facilities: no bike lanes, no real bike paths, no dedicated streets. There are signs saying “share the road” and symbols on the pavement, but signage does not create room on streets smothered by motoring traffic. Further, the distracted motorist who would strike a bicyclist is also the driver who is too distracted to notice signs. There are walking paths, but many don’t lead to frequent destinations, and they are dangerous for bicyclists: poor sight lines, too narrow, indirect, poorly maintained, only useable at low speeds. Princeton’s Complete Streets Resolution, like the glorious language in our Master Plan, is non-binding—we may never see bike lanes on streets that really need them. We install curbing, narrowing the effective travel lane, squeezing our bicyclists. We stand idle before a steady increase in motoring traffic.

Conversely, we could design obstacle-free roadways with considerate sewer placements, more active pothole repair, and strive to keep trashcans, brush, and other debris out of travel lanes. We could reduce the danger of speeding traffic: not more enforcement, more literal enforcement. Additionally, we could fine more heavily for speeding and related offenses. We could re-structure the way we meter on-street parking, meaning higher fees, but spaces would free up. Searching would lessen. And we could allow for handicapped parking, or other matters, through specially issued Smart Cards. These things mean safer streets for all of us.

Still… central to our problem is our unwillingness to relocate any on-street parking. Bicycle lanes along routes to major destinations would get more folks on their bikes and out of their cars, of significance to a community interested in sustainability. Lanes mean less congestion and pollution from motor vehicles, yielding a higher quality of life with healthier constituents, and a reduction of inherent conflicts, making our transportation system more equitable to all users. Communities all around us stripe bike lanes, while we in essence, promote the use of fossil fuels. Is private use of public property really more vital than our bicyclists’ safety and promoting alternative transportation?

Commendably, we have done things to promote awareness and safety through Bike Rodeos, free helmets, and free bicycle lights, but we as a community are failing in a fundamental aspect of bicycle advocacy: we are not providing equitable facilities.

Ron Lessard

Birch Avenue