If a motorist hits a cyclist, they often try to excuse themselves by claiming they "didn't see" the cyclist.
Why, therefore, do any motorists expect us to take them seriously when they oppose bike lanes because they claim they "don't see" many cyclists using them? Personally, I think the best answer to a motorist who claims not to see cyclists in the bike lanes goes like this: since you need to look where you point your car, and you shouldn't point your car into the bike lane, your not seeing cyclist in the bike lanes just proves you drive carefully. It does not, however, prove anything about the number of cyclists using those lanes.
You can't take a census and drive at the same time. Even Statistics Canada doesn't drive and take the census at the same time; they get out of their cars to take the census. Why some motorists think we should believe they can take a census of bike lane users as they drive I don't know.
Comments
dances_with_traffic (not verified)
Asking drivers to always look where they are going
Sun, 04/18/2010 - 16:59is too much. Maybe the answer is that if you don't expect a rock slide then you just won't see it... possible. I am skeptical though when you one is driving through a bicycle lane they won't expect to find a cyclist.
dash (not verified)
Even if they can (and
Mon, 04/19/2010 - 13:24Even if they can (and frankly, I take an approximate count of cyclists when I'm driving), I find some motorists are basing overly opinionated positions on a daily, unchanging commute route that half the time isn't even on a road typically popular with cyclists. (ie, streets that are too narrow and fast to allow for safe sharing except for the brave and well experienced cyclist)
People don't like hearing this one, but I strongly support the statement "if you build it, they will come". Cyclists WILL populate a safe route if it is created for them.