Marin Voice: Electric bicycles will be threat to pedestrians on paths
I’ve always thought the multi-use paths were originally based upon the idea that bikes are kids’ toys, that those adults who enjoyed cycling were harmless eccentrics reverting to childhood, and therefore they and pedestrians could share the path in happy harmony.
That was way back then. Over the years, cycling has grown and changed. Bicycles have evolved into lean, mean machines well suited to transportation if provided adequate facilities. Recently, I’ve seen more and more electric bicycles. If the planet is to be saved, this is a favorable and necessary trend.
Nonetheless, as e-bikes begin using paved suburban MUPs, the risk is shifted. Rather than cyclists being threatened by large, heavy, fast motor vehicles on our streets, e-bikes become the large, heavy, fast motor vehicles on our paths, threatening novice riders as well as foot people of all ages.
This issue has arisen from the Marin Parks Department’s decision to allow e-bikes on the paved suburban paths within its system: the Mill Valley/Sausalito Path, the Corte Madera Creek Path upstream from Bon Air Road and the Pacheco Path in northern San Rafael. Aware of differing user needs, the speed limit has been set at 15 mph, 10 mph in a few areas.
Yet e-bikes can attain speeds of 20-28 mph, higher if the motors are tinkered with, and Marin is home to a number of talented tinkerers. How will the posted speed limits be enforced? By monitoring, I’m told. By whom and how often? Riders are expected to be courteous and law-abiding, and while a great many will be, speed is fun. Alas, my view of human nature is such that I fear parks’ hopeful goal will be too often honored in the breach.
Bicycles without any electric power can also travel fast and cause serious injuries to pedestrians: witness the two incidents in recent years on the Mill Valley MUP.
What about tots on tricycles, Safe Routes kids, moms and dads with strollers, joggers, dog-walkers, the disabled, the very old walking on doctor’s orders?
These two groups of antithetical users cannot share the same high-speed corridor in safety. Means to separate them must be devised, all different, depending on the particular area.
Gradually, over time, the present MUP concept may have to be abandoned and paths repurposed for bicycles only.
Planners mean well. They want to support walking. But stakeholders often have superseding agendas. Drivers want to drive. Cyclists want to cycle. These user groups participate in organizations that promote their interests.
For short distances, feet in shoes provide transportation that is efficient, environmentally friendly and pleasurable. But what association represents suburban walking as its sole and primary purpose? None – or if I am wrong here, please speak up. A public dialogue about pedestrians’ requirements is long overdue.
One pedestrian-friendly organization is Safe Routes to Schools, which focuses on school kids. That is their mandate and the program fulfills it well. Although not touted, every age can benefit from their improved crosswalks and even, at times, their friendly crossing guards. All who walk should support and take an active interest in this group. However, Safe Routes is too limited to serve the broader community of adult walkers.
Tending to be mild-mannered, retiring folks, at least as I have known them, our walkers seem content with “the cool sequestered vale of life where they keep the noiseless tenor of their way.” My apologies to Thomas Gray and that country churchyard. Since he wrote his poem, in 1751, times have changed.
To advocate for their own unique interests among the vastly increased numbers of “the madding crowds,” walkers can no longer rely on the kindness of strangers. If they are to achieve their unique infrastructure needs, they must organize into a large and mighty chorus of little roaring mice.
If the change seems daunting, they might take heart from the maxim of that ancient sage: To the squeaky mouse goes the cheese.
Cindy Winter is a Greenbrae resident.