Capstonians: the University of Alabama announced its new bike policy last month. For the most part, it reads as a pedestrian-protection and an anti-bike policy.

Ronnie Robertson, director of transportation services, said, “The policy was developed over a two-year period as a joint effort of University Recreation, Housing and Residential Communities, the UA Police Department, the University Planning and Design Department, Transportation Services, Risk Management and Facilities.”

So, two years of work, and no one thought to involve actual bikers on campus? It seems as though this joint effort convened with the shared belief that bikes cause problems. They certainly did not believe that our non-bike-friendly campus shuns a healthy and efficient form of campus transportation. This best explains the regulatory tone of the policy.

The encouraged need (re: impending requirement) to register bikes will affect students the most. Though the University promises online bike registration in the future, the only places to register bikes currently are the Transportation Services office and the University Recreation Center. The bike policy promises two main benefits from this, which have advantages and faults.

Robertson said, “Through registration, the University will learn how many students and faculty/staff on campus use bicycles.” This will help mend the current policy, but it is more important to study how these individuals use their bicycles on campus. For instance, it would be constructive to know the busiest bike lane or most used bike rack during the day.

The second proposed benefit is the added bike security enabled by registration. Mainly, if a registered bike is stolen, and the thief lacks the smarts to avoid riding the bike on campus with the registration label showing, the University could, in theory, catch the culprit.

Like all good UA polices, the new bike policy throws in this revenue foreshadowing: “There will be no charge to register your bicycle at this time.” The University should pay students to ride bikes, if anything, especially from off-campus housing.

The new policy also demands that bikers ride only in bike or traffic lanes and walk their bikes in pedestrian areas. Refusal to do so could result in a Student Non-academic Misconduct citation. This stance wouldn’t be so radical if more and safer bike lanes permeated campus.

One solid white stripe with a biker symbol painted every 10 yards isn’t cutting it. Neither bikers nor cars easily recognize this and act accordingly. Defeating their purpose, many of these “lanes” on campus are on streets sparingly used by cars. Other lanes pose far too many run-ins with cars or buses to even consider. The Quad’s lack of bike paths also makes it near impossible for bikers to follow these new rules.

To further supplement bike use, the University should install more bike racks where needed. This would lessen the exaggerated concern for the “free ingress/egress of buildings” – as if pedestrians can’t impede this. Instead, the University will use bike registration as a tool to remove abandoned bikes on current racks. This will free up space, but the University is just dragging its feet on buying new ones.

The proposed rebuilding plan for Tuscaloosa includes the construction of bike lanes on most streets in the city. However ideal, the result would be phenomenal in health, community, environment and transportation aspects. The University would benefit just as much as Tuscaloosa would.

Support for bikers must become a priority of the University for this proposal to have any hope of realization. Unfortunately, this new bike policy casts bikers as a problem. The cities and communities that are slowly figuring out that bikers can help eliminate the real problem of car-dependency are beginning to thrive.

Hopefully the University understands this and will begin to reconsider how it deals with biking on campus.

Wesley Vaughn is a senior majoring in public relations and political science.