City Council, and the Inquirer, both miss the point

The Inquirer, as it often does, misses the point. Deliberately, I sometimes think.

Here is the lead of a story posted Thursday, after City Council pretended to listen to objections to a bill that would prohibit stopping in bike lanes:

“Philadelphia lawmakers unanimously passed a measure Thursday to ban motor vehicles from stopping in any of the city’s bike lanes. The legislation follows recent high-profile fatal collisions in which drivers hit cyclists and pedestrians, fueling public outrage and lifting traffic-safety advocates’ campaign for protections.[I added the boldface.]”

Outrage, yes, but not a single one of those “fatal collisions” were caused by a car stopped in a bicycle lane, which is what the bill addresses. The “fatal collisions” were a red herring, having nothing to do with the bill.

In fact, the Philadelphia Police Department tells me it has no reports of any injuries on the Spruce and Pine bike lanes for the past five years, the time frame I asked PPD to research.

Had there been any injuries, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia would have trumpeted them. Bet on that.

Let me be clear: The bill, which passed unanimously, aims to fix a problem that Just. Does. Not. Exist.

Keep that in mind when you read this quote from Coalition executive director Christopher Gayle: “This is common sense legislation that prioritizes safety over convenience. That’s what it boils down to.” 

But that’s bullshit.

There is no safety issue. Allow me to be cheeky and quote my own testimony submitted to Council. (I could not get inside to deliver it in person):

“Why were there no injuries? Because when a car stops in a bike lane, every bicyclist I have ever seen either goes up on the sidewalk — yes, they do — or carefully rides around the stopped car.”

To illustrate an earlier bike lane story, the Inquirer absent-mindedly ran a photo (see above) showing exactly that — a cyclist easily riding around a stopped van. No drama, no trauma.

The facts were obvious, but City Council was not interested in facts. It is obvious the decision was baked in the cake, long before the vote.

I have a feeling when the Bicycle Coalition mentions “safety,” it’s like a Hindu’s flute to a Cobra. Council is entranced. They sway in their seats. They think they are doing something good. I think they are deaf, not dumb.

For dumb we turn to Inquirer architecture writer (and ex-officio chair of the paper’s pedalphile caucus) Inga Saffron who says on Instagram she is “baffled” by complaints of Pine and Spruce residents. She is not that hard to baffle. 

“Other Philadelphians who live on similar, 3-lane-wide streets can’t do that because there is parking on both sides.”

Here’s a question:

Do the people living on such streets, as in South Philly where I lived for a decade, like not having a safe place to pull over?

Of course not. 

Wouldn’t they like an alternative?

Of course they would.

But since they don’t have one, they are forced to stop In the middle of the street, in the operating lane.

That is unsafe. And illegal under state law. 

Is Saffron recommending or forgiving breaking the law? Let’s just say most cyclists approve of breaking the law by ignoring stop signs and blowing through red lights. They think they are special.

[Disclosure: I successfully sued the Inquirer and Saffron for defamation. My criticism here is not personal; it is based on her ideas. The jury found Saffron guilty of “outrageous conduct.”] 

You know what else is outrageous?

The way Council has given the Coalition a seat at the table in a broad range of city planning.

The Coalition is a partisan lobbying group. It is not neutral, and, sadly, there is no balancing group representing the interest of residents, or motorists. The Coalition seems to be the tail wagging the dog. That is pretty amazing with only 2,400 members.)

Council is supposed to represent all residents, not just the 2% who commute by bike.

On this issue, Council was in the Coalition’s hip pocket.