The lecture describes the case story done in the San Fransisco after bike lanes were installed. It shows drawbacks of bike lane that expected good for both pedestrian, driver and bike rider.
For one, the case shows that bike lanes are not helpful to pollutions. Altough bikes themselves are green transportation, there is little rise of bikerider. Because riding bike is too demanding people prefer driving car to using bike. Eventually, there is no improvement to enviroment. This case shows that the passages' idea which said bike lanes could improve pollution is wrong.
Secondly, the case also shows that bike lanes make driver stressed because drivers should endure a road work that makes bike lanes for months. Moreover, after that work, congestion became more serious because of losing one lane for empty bike line. Thus bicyle lanes did not reduce congestion, as promised by the reading passage
Last, bicycle lanes are not reduce the accident between drivers and riders. After lines were installed bike riders tend to neglect a danger of car, and this immediately makes accident rate high even before. The reading passage, however, argued that bicycle lanes rduce the number of accidents between cyclists and drivers, which was clearly not the case in San Francisco that the lecturer described
|