Editor,
I read the letter to the editor titled “Share the Road” and was surprised by its safety claims, which don’t align with my experiences in San Mateo or widely peer-reviewed research. The letter made two main points: one about visibility and another about safety.
Visibility concerns are being addressed through daylighting intersections per state law. I hope San Mateo leaders prioritize this crucial safety measure for all road users.
The letter’s statistical claims come from a University of Nebraska master’s thesis that fails to account for user volume. Peer reviewed research shows that better bike facilities attract more riders. More riders means there are more conflicts. The thesis itself acknowledges this limitation:
“This study divided the length of the road by the crash count in order to normalize, but this crash rate is still inaccurate … . To improve the accuracy of the crash rate, we needed the average volume of bicycles per day and data such as average volume of vehicles per day for each segment ... . However, this thesis could not obtain auto-mobile traffic volume and bicycle volume data that corresponded with the crash data that was used.”
We shouldn’t plan our streets based on flawed research and techniques. We need more transportation options to get around our city safely and a connected and safe network of bike lanes is a step forward. Previously Humboldt Street was identified as part of the San Mateo County High Injury Network for all users and returning it to that state is irresponsible.
David Hunt
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(2) comments
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Hunt, and your analysis of cited research. I’m sure we can point to flawed research on both sides of the argument. The bigger question is which solution is the best for the majority of people living in the area? Not folks who occasionally use bike lanes but folks who use the roads all day, every day?
At the council meeting there was a large number of people living on Humboldt St. voting for the bike lanes.
The where hardly anyone living on Humboldt St that thinks removing them is a good idea.
The people that are fighting to get them down are people on the side streets and many people are known to actually not even live in the neighborhood. So why would somebody living in Gramercy Mounds or Baywoods speak out FOR free car storage in a completely different neighborhood?
Yes you are correct, these were "Crisis Actors".
The best argument offered multiple times was something along the line of "I don't want to change my lawn into a parking spot for my own car."
And the city or county probably reimburses you to rip out that lawn anyways and replace it with draught resistant sand.
So no surprise, the council went with the "crisis actors" they themselves might have brought in in the first place.
For anyone who doesn't know, city council meetings are mostly scripted theater productions, the outcome is often predetermined. Often things in the consent calendar are the worst, but they get voted through in no time. And if the council wants to "virtue signal", they have it as a special agenda item. This time around the council was "virtue signaling" to the car industry: "We still love you more".
... and to the many kids that were speaking: "What future ....?"
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.