To the editor:
Thank you for your coverage of the RI House bill H5192 (“Bill would change bike path traffic patterns,” April 21). The bill seeks to have all users of the bike path …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
Thank you for your coverage of the RI House bill H5192 (“Bill would change bike path traffic patterns,” April 21).
The bill seeks to have all users of the bike path keep to the right. This replaces the current pattern where pedestrians walk on the left, facing bike traffic. Since this pattern has been in place for at least 33 years, a change would result in confusion and conflicts, and would also necessitate a change in signage.
Most bicyclists do not support this change, and there is little evidence that this pattern would be safer. It would however, make RI conform to patterns in other states.
But what is the cost of conformity if there is no evidence that changing to a new pattern would be safer?
Importantly, the main institutional stakeholders in the State, DEM and DOT, were not involved in this initiative.
Comparison with other states is also challenging. For example, Maine is much larger than RI, and although it has similar population numbers, Maine has 395 miles of bike paths. RI has only 72 miles of bike paths. Also, the East Bay Bike Path is one of the most congested in the US, with a high percentage of small children.
During the past few weeks, yet another new issue has arisen on the bike path: the use of motorized electric unicycles, which are totally unregulated but capable of speeds from 12 to 50 mph. A few high-end unicycles are capable of much faster speeds.
Finally, any future effort to make the bike path safer for all requires deliberation and collaboration, as there are many improvements that would be helpful. Some include: speed limit under 20 mph; no class 2 or class 3 motorized bikes; ride single file; audible warning when passing (so no amplified music or earbuds); helmets for riders under 21; no smoking or littering; closed from dusk to dawn (like all state parks).
These initiatives could be the focus of any future efforts.
Further delay in postponing safety measures is making the bike path less safe each day.
But does anyone in this state have the guts to deal with this evolving nightmare? Do we need to be reminded yet again that institutional inertia kills?
And if not now, when?
Judith A. Byrnes
62 Seabreeze Lane