In your editorial in Tuesday’s Gazette you have done a disservice to your readers by portraying opposing sides of the issue as simply those who are concerned about safety (in favor of the path) and those who are concerned about character and  aesthetics (against the path). Although safety has been referenced by the proponents searching for a justification to building the path along the Chappaquiddick and Dike roads, they have touted the bucolic appeal of cruising along a motor vehicle-less path far from the snarls of common road usage.  This, even though it probably will lie within 6 feet of the road for most of its route.  On the other hand, the opponents are the first to point to the AASHTO guide to shared use path design to show its inherent safety problems.  In fact it’s the opponents who site the plethora of studies and statistics showing that two-way side bike paths are not recommended by the state anywhere and further that they have been shown to be less safe than riding on the road.  

The issue of bicycle path safety is not unlike the issue of Airplane safety.  The public remains terrified of falling out of sky, yet casually get into their automobiles on a daily basis without a thought of the undisputed evidence that their risks of death or injury in the car is 37 times greater/than in the airplane. 
So in this case, the public, seeing the bicycles mixing it up with car traffic, assumes moving bicycles off the road to a “separate” path will “obviously” reduce the risks of motor vehicle/bicycle collision.  This is because of yours and others’ poor reporting of the facts of two-way side bike path risks.  The scientific methods of determining what these risks are lie at the root of sensible discourse and planning for the development of safe bicycling facilities.  If the public continues to rely on a gut feeling about bike path safety, poor decisions in design and planning will be made that will lead to more death and heartache.  

At Tuesday’s forum at the Chappaquiddick Community Center about the proposed bike path along the Chappy road, I sited seven studies which all point to why the state does not recommend two way side paths.   In the interest of space, the editor could refer the reader to the CHAPPYBIKEPATH.com website where I have posted my presentation.  If on the other hand the editor would like to include these studies here and now to enlighten the public’s awareness of the safety issues, they are as follows:

Zehnfenning, 1993, Palo Alto, CA.  Finding?  Streets with side paths carried 15% of bicycle traffic but accounted for 70% of the motor vehicle/bicycle accidents.

Wauchtel Lewiston, Palo Alto, CA, 1985-89---Bicyclists crossing intersections from side bike paths were nearly twice as likely to collide with cars than bicyclists crossing intersections while riding on the street.

From the Helsinki traffic planning division,  Dr. Eero Pasanen, states “ It’s safer to cycle in streets with cars rather than on 2 way bike paths which run parallel to streets. 45% of the cycling distance is traveled on paths along the streets, but 56% of injury accidents happen to these cyclists.”

The University of Lund, Sweden shows that if you are traveling straight through an intersection on a bike path you have a 3 1/2 times greater crash risk than if you were to bicycle on a road amongst the cars through that same intersection. If you are on a bike path that runs parallel to the road, but bicycling in the opposite direction of the nearest car lane, your risk is nearly 12 times that of the cyclist who rides on the road in the correct lane with the cars traveling the same direction.  

The Moritz study of 1996 shows that people who commute regularly on bike paths rather than the road are safer on bike paths by 33% but that same study shows those commuters are 5 times more likely to crash while using a side walk.  

In a Denmark study looking at 40 miles of side paths over three years,  bicycle crashes increased at junctions from 71 per year before the paths were built to 105 after the bike paths  were built.  That’s a 50% increase, yet bicycle use remained constant.  

In a summary of many bicycle studies, done by Clark and Tracy, in 1995, for the Dept of Transportation, they point to Clark and Bruckner who studied bicycling across Europe. That study shows increases of crashes on side walk bike paths. Larson, studying Sweden, Norway and Finland where Bike side paths are common, shows clear increases in intersection accidents with these kinds of paths.

 Suffice it to say here, this is not a controversial nor biased reporting of obscure studies but simply a laying out of the basis upon which engineers and designers for Massachusetts and the rest of the country have agreed on.  Two-way side bike paths are not recommended.  The AASHTO Guide for the development of bicycle facilities states, “Shared use paths are facilities on an exclusive right of way with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles.” In fact the Idaho DOT recommends against installing a multi-use path when there are more than 8 crossings per mile, suggesting an on street facility be provided instead.  Opponents are asking that alternatives be evaluated.  

No, the controversy on Chappy cannot be summed up as a choice between safety and the environment.  It is rather a fight generated by some with influence who have a desire for a particular outcome and who do not want to bother with a process that will allow others to influence the decisions about Chappy’s future.  They have not identified nor evaluated a problem, nor have they looked at alternative solutions to that unidentified problem.  They have simply proposed a two-way side use bike path for along the Chappaquiddick and Dike roads, and the neighbors and abutters are incredulous.