Seattle is adding more and more cycle tracks to our streets these days. A cycle track is a semi protected lane that can be uni or bi directional. There is a proposal and now some money to add a bi-directional cycle track to a street just one down from mine.

I am very much against this..... I think that cycle tracks, and especially ones that have cyclists traveling *against* traffic are an extremely bad idea. Even the Dutch admit that this arrangement is less safe at intersections (in their study collisions at intersections rose 18%! and I think that may have been with uni-directional lanes) and Dutch drivers are much more accustomed to bike traffic and suffer stricter penalties/liability laws than our drivers ever will.

The argument is that they encourage more people to ride as they feel safer.... to me this is a very painful way of thinking... The idea of putting people in more danger to make them feel safer - it really hurts my brain that real data and experience are discarded to make people feel warm and fuzzy, rather than doing the hard work of actual education and law making that really could increase safety.

Do cycle tracks reduce overtaking accidents - yes... marginally - are overtaking accidents scary to new cyclists - yes. Are cyclists on city streets likely to be hit in an overtaking accident.... no (they comprise about 4%... and are more likely to take place at night, on narrow, poorly lit, often rural, roads with speed limits over 35mph) Even the city's own web site all but admits these tracks only make people *feel* safer... they say "Cycle tracks help eliminate perceived risk and fear of collisions". Is it worth it?