A few weekends ago, we were treated to demos by four bike sharing vendors. You can find my photos and notes after the jump, and Willamette Week has a nice roundup.
The common factor among all the vendors is that they won’t espouse a preference for a business model – they all say that’s up to the City, which points to the underlying problem: bikesharing probably won’t be self-funded, it will require some kind of subsidy. In other cities the subsidy has been generated by allowing the selling of advertising in public space.
But that’s not a fit for Portland – we have a lower tolerance for display advertising, and what we do allow is already booked up.
So here are some thoughts and questions (by no means comprehensive – just a prod to stimulate conversation) on what it would take to make such a system thrive in Portland:
- A lower cost model – the leading contenders all have an initial installation cost of $4K per bike. Somebody has to figure out a cheaper entry strategy that takes less hardware.
- Do we need lockers? Lockers are an answer to the vandalism problem, which seems to vary tremendously by city. Would vandalism be an issue here in Portland?
- A way to leverage our vibrant bike culture. Current cyclists are NOT the market for a bike sharing system, but my gut tells me that we need to find a way for the cycling community to take some kind of ownership for the success of any system. What might that look like?
- A Raison d’être. Why would we do this? Cycling is growing rapidly without such a system. What role does a bike sharing system play beyond being cool? Whatever policy basis we find for this needs to align with a funding stream.
- Upgraded bike facilities in the central city. I think the target market for a system would be the “interested but concerned” category of potential riders who need facilities that feel safe and comfortable. Confident cyclists find downtown’s streets accomodating, but casual riders don’t. We’re going to need many more facilities like the protected lane planned for Broadway.
Portland Bicycle Tours will text you the location of a bike and the combination to the lock – this is the hyperlocal, grass roots end of the spectrum. 
The Bike Share group was touting their Seattle roots. Their gimic is a very low-profile locker. 
Bcycle is out of Denver. 
Bixi is clearly the Cadillac of the group, with a model very much like Velib in Paris, and is the only vendor with a deployed system (in Montreal). |
48 responses to “What Will It Take for Bike Sharing to Succeed in Portland?”
These really seem more to be aimed at tourists than regular transportation.
Personally I’d rather see more bike lanes, or maybe 24/7 bike locker setups ala Bikestation:
http://www.bikestation.com/seattle/index.asp
To kind of repeat a comment I made on Bike Portland: It drives me a little crazy to see the comments saying this is just for tourists. I own a bike, but I don’t always want to take it with me. For example:
-I want to make a one-way trip, or
-My plans change along the way, or
-I don’t want to lock it up somewhere, or
-There isn’t room on the MAX, or
-I meet up with someone while only having one bike, or
-Something on my bike is busted?
There are a lot of reasons why someone may not want to have a personal bike for all trips. Bike sharing would be a great option, if it can be accomplished without taking away from other important projects. I also hope that Portland is able to look beyond the city limits and work to eventually make it a regional system.
I think the fourth bullet point gets to the heart of the matter … why should we do this? If it’s a question of getting more people on bicycles, Portland is already doing that very successfully. If it’s a matter of moving people around the core without a car, MAX and Streetcar will do the job quite nicely.
It strikes me that if there was a real market for this, somebody would be doing it already.
Maybe they should come with a liability insurance policy. Ever since my street turned into a Bike Boulevard I have been nearly run over by cyclists riding at night without lights. Several years ago I was run over on North Lombard just as I came out of a building. Luckily they were teenagers and their combined mass was not all that great. A 200 lb. adult could do a lot of damage, thank you.
On my own bike I have three blinking red lights, two facing back (one of them mounted by the left grip) and one facing forward (mounted below the seat). I also have an led headlight than can blink–so I think I am fairly visible. Better than getting hit or hitting someone else. I also have some reflectors facing each side.
Since bicyclists are required by law to be lighted at night ( See p 4, Oregon Bicycle manual)perhaps fines against non-complying cyclists would help fund their transportation improvements.
Ron Swaren: Since bicyclists are required by law to be lighted at night ( See p 4, Oregon Bicycle manual)perhaps fines against non-complying cyclists would help fund their transportation improvements.
I’m in favor of that idea, along with a much more aggressive ticketing of bikes in general. I’m a big fan of encouraging cycling in Portland, but there are too many dangerous riders out there–to themselves and to others.
Don’t expect any regulations to be promulgated from city hall against bicycles here in the America’s Platinum rated bicycle #1 city in the entire county:
PORTLANDIA!
(just think what that would do to “our” reputation!)
Be happy that the “dangerous riders” are on bikes not in cars. It is not easy to do harm with a bike. Why waste police resoures on essentially victimless crimes…coasting thru stop signs, etc.
Downtown is not very bike friendly if you are not comfortable taking a lane; other than Waterfront park/Esplanade where would a visitor want to ride in the Central City? Park Blocks?…impossible to cross busy streets. Transit Mall? with MAX and all the buses! Broadway? with the hotel visitors blocking the bike lane! OK to the Tram for a great view of the territory, but why not just take Streetcar.
Generally, traffic regulations are the responsibility of the State, not local governments; and they certainly do apply to bicycles. And while I wouldn’t necessarily crack down on bike riders who merely “roll through stop signs”; I would crack down on those who race down sidewalks, dart through traffic, or engage in numerous other risky behaviors.
I get the feeling that bike sharing in Portland is an expensive solution looking for a problem. Whatever the source of funding, it could be better spent on continuing to upgrade our bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Every mile ridden on a bike is one less taxpayer helping to pay for transportation infrastructure. Sustainability starts with financial self-sustainability – including NOT subsidizing a project from other resources or a source of revenue outside of what the project itself generates.
If the project is 100 percent self funding, then OK. That might require accepting some sort of billboard type of advertising being displayed on the bikes (similar to what appears on TriMet’s busses), and /or at the rental locations. But if taxpayers are expected to pick up any part of the tab for a bicycle sharing program – including funding infrastructure, the upfront costs including for bikes and/or rental facilities, or even providing space for the rental locations without charging market rate rents – then the program needs to be scrapped.
Be happy that the “dangerous riders” are on bikes not in cars. It is not easy to do harm with a bike.
Spoken like someone who’s never been hit by a bike before. At 15 mph or so, a 200 lb person on a bike can cause quite a bit of damage from hitting a pedestrian. It’s better than getting hit by a car, but that doesn’t mean they can’t knock out teeth, break bones, or otherwise significantly hurt a pedestrian.
Exactly, Dave H.
If you got knocked down by a bike and then they ran over your abdominal area you might be finished. A skinny tire and a heavy rider would be very dangerous. I know the overwhelming majority of cyclists are safety conscious….but accidents can happen.
That is why I am very concerned about what I call the “Growth Agenda” that is apparently sweeping the Portland area and the entire US. How much more crowding can we stand on freeways—where truck-car collisions are especially lethal; or on city streets where car-bicycle or car-pedestrian collisions could be lethal; or even where bicycle–person collisions. About two weeks ago I had two near misses, both from late stage teenagers: one was riding his skateboard down the ped ramp to the Hawthorne Bridge; another riding his mountain bike through Salmon Springs. In the latter, a collision would have sent me flying head first down the steps.
Make my Oregon livable, please. Leave density experimentation to the New Yorkers.
If bike sharing can work and is completely marketable, a private company should be able to come in and invest in it w/o subsidization. The only city intervention that is acceptable is accommodating such new businesses to take root.
Just like the “Oregon Convention Hotel”. Hotels are built 100% w/o public money all the time, and it is wrong to throw public money at such projects because it leads people to believe that they are sustainable when they are not.
I have really become a fan of bike sharing after trying it out in portland a week ago. I was skeptical at first when I had just heard about it thinking it was like the yellow/white bikes. But after trying it I think it is great and could actually revolutionize urban transportation. I find it a lot easier to use than even my own bike because of the conveinent kiosks.
It functions much like the SmarteCarte at the airport.
The people who’ll use this aren’t “cyclists” so you’ll have a different kind of rider/attitude, infact it will primarily be your pedestrians and transit riders. IMO its in the best interest of the “cyclist” community to see a diverse range of people riding bicycles and not just the stereotypical “cyclist” as we have now.
I can see it working a lot like the fareless square as in people are downtown and need to get to another part of downtown or close-in neighborhoods. Theyve already come by transit downtown and just need to get around the immediate area.
I see the potential for two seperate bike share systems in Portland, one is the Portland centered heavily-used easy-to-use system following the Bixi or Bcycle model and the other is a suburban system located at MAX stations and transit centers outside Portland using more of the Bike Share Group model of lockers and cell phone based. With the suburban system the bikes could be lent out for a longer time and would be returned to the same place where they were lent out… say someone rides MAX to the closest MAX station to Nike, then checks out the bike at that station to ride to the Nike campus and then returns it in the evening to the same station bike kiosk. Bike sharing in the suburbs would function very different than the more urban model where there is lots of turn over. I just dont think the Bixi/Bcycle model would work in this suburban environment, likewise I dont think the Bike Share Group model works in an urban environment which is all about grab and go for pedestrians and heavy turn over. In the suburbs it all about the traveling by transit to the closest station then using the bike sharing to make a round trip from the station to an off-line destination.
Bike sharing will put more pressure on getting more protected bike lanes and paths especially since the people using this are your occasional riders who are less experienced and more concerned about riding in traffic.
I strongly believe this system should be self-supporting. And I for one would definitely be a subscriber to the program especially after giving it a try.
Ron Swaren:Make my Oregon livable, please. Leave density experimentation to the New Yorkers.
ws:Density is not an experiment, unless you factor in that so much of low-density areas have been created by city government and preserved by city government rather than letting “market” forces work. This has slightly changed over the last few years in Portland area which is favoring density over low density. (Keeping in mind density is a very relative term).
Letting people do what they want with their land will ultimately lead to single family home owners on city core fringes selling their property to developers to which they will put their multi-unit condos up, etc.
Generally, as cities get bigger, they usually increase or maintain a certain level of high density feel. It’s a natural progression…farm to village, village to town..town to city.
The same NIMBY crowd that is vociferous at maintaining their way of life is somehow absent when highways need to be expanded with eminent domain to suit theirs and other people’s low density “lifestyle” choices. Would traffic on I-5 to/from Vancouver be bad if there was not so many commuters from Clark County? Probably not.
This goes for the same NIMBY crowd in the Portland area. They love their homes in the suburbs, but they don’t want any more new people to live out near them that gets in their way – and often times are quite critical of new housing developments.
Growth will always be controversial but too many people do not understand the implications of the built environment on quality of life issues.
I can’t quite figure out who the target for this program is. I bike commute every work day, and I can’t imagine I’d ever use the bikes.
For a while I was driving to work, parking my car, and making my way up to PSU at the end of the day, but it was really convenient to just jump on the bus mall and take the bus for free. There are so many free transit options downtown that I’m not sure how this sort of system fits in. Couple that with the fact that a lot of the people who feel comfortable riding bikes downtown already do so, and I just don’t see the demand for something like this.
Just like the “Oregon Convention Hotel”. Hotels are built 100% w/o public money all the time, and it is wrong to throw public money at such projects because it leads people to believe that they are sustainable when they are not.
Some projects are sustainable, if done right. Austin is one example of a city that’s actually making money from a convention center hotel funded by bonds, and have also done a great job marketing their convention center. Portland has very few modern hotels in downtown or near the CC, most are quite old and dated, so it might be a way to jump-start the competition as well as boost the hotel. Quite often one company owns the land and building, and another operates the hotel. Since that land is city owned few developers will be willing to build on it without a very long-term lease (50+ years), or without selling land that will likely just keep gaining value.
The bike share is a similar concept. Portland could take a stake in it if we’re willing to make some sacrifices to make sure it’ll break even. Allow advertising on the bikes/stands like TriMet does, for example. We could look at a public/private partnership, but I’m not sure the Portland market would be enough to bring in a private company without guarantees the city would work with them to provide spaces for the racks, allowing advertising, etc.
It might be something for the city to float out there, where we could allow a private company to install/manage the system, but make sure the city has plainly committed to allow for the requirements they’ll have to be possible.
Dave,
Any public investment is serious considering the budget problems every city is experiencing. Yes, things can pay off – but not always. And when it doesn’t, it erodes people’s confidence in government.
I like the concept of bike sharing, though. I think the city should promote it, not necessarily invest in it.
Bike sharing is a simple concept, it shouldn’t need any fancy city involvement.
ws, I think we’re on about the same page. I’m not exactly sure where I stand on the OCC hotel, it might be a good idea to lease out the land at a cheap price and let a private developer incur the cost/risk of building the hotel, but the city will lose a lot of influence that way in the outcome of the project. We can’t be too obstructionist of their plans if we’re going to force them to take the risk/reward of the project.
The same goes for the bike sharing thing. I’d love to have a bike share, since I don’t really care to ride too much (too many bad experiences), but I’d love to see Portland have the system so if I did want to ride I could.
At the same time, I don’t want to see it be a money-losing proposition, so maybe we can find a private company where we can support them without actually contributing money, just resources the city already owns without additional out of pocket costs. The roads and parking spots are already there, we have a lot of parks that could give up a few square yards to create rental areas.
A bike share could be great for Portland, we just have to do it right, like any other project.
Terry got it backwards. For every mile traveled on a bike instead of a motor vehicle, that roadway capacity is made available for other motor vehicle trips at virtually no cost.
Encouraging bicycle trips is the cheapest way to reduce congestion by far; it would even pay to offer financial incentives to bicyclists.
re rogue bikers…they are out there, but I think the numbers are down; folks are behaving better with their two wheelers. Some of that is demographic…folks under 30 think all laws are optional.
Once again Lenny is the one that has it backwards, and as usual, twisting the problem around. Suggesting that; “for every mile traveled on a bike instead of a motor vehicle, that roadway capacity is made available for other motor vehicle trips at virtually no cost” doesn’t even make sense. By turning one taxpaying motorist into a freeloading pedal pusher to make room for another taxpaying motorist, is still works out to be every mile ridden on a bike is one less taxpayer helping to pay for transportation infrastructure.
The fact remains, bicyclists continually act like spoiled little children whom expect mommy and daddy – in this case the taxpayers – to pay for the specialized niche infrastructure they clamor for and use. As a group, they are basically irresponsible deadbeats that are arrogantly unwilling to follow even the simplest of traffic safety control devices and rules of the road. These freeloaders will come up with any and all the excuses they can think of to raid general taxpayer funds and poach motorist paid roadway dollars to buoy up their fixation – and now these deadbeats want to get paid for their pedal pushing ways. On the same note, I should be able to play golf totally free of green fees on any public golf course, courtesy of other taxpayers, and drive my truck free of any road taxes too. What a shaggy dog story Lenny tells us.
A question for the moderator (and this is a serious question): how many times does a someone posting on this board get to violate the “Rules of Civil Conversation” before enforcement is exercised and the user is suspended or banned?
I ask because whatever that number is, Terry appears to have just moved about five or six notches closer to it. To insult me and every other person who ever gets on a bicycle as “spoiled little children” and “freeloading pedal pushers” and “irresponsible” and “unwilling to follow even the simplest of traffic safety control devices and rules of the road” and “deadbeats” violates rules 2 and 4, and in Terry’s case, Rule 1 since he’s tossed out the same or similar smears dozens or perhaps hundreds of times before.
Rule 4 says “While you are welcome to disagree, you are not welcome to be disagreeable. Please treat fellow participants with the respect you would give a guest in your home.” This forum would be a much more pleasant place if those who aren’t following this rule would either comply with it or simply go away.
It’s a serious question that is getting serious thought.
Let me just say that while it does make sense to charge bicyclists for projects that especially benefit them (such as the pathway on the Morrison Bridge, though that and others also benefit pedestrians), it also makes sense to give them a 100% discount on any fees since they are not creating any air or water pollution (and, for example, it has been said that 40% of the Big Pipe is needed because of road runoff) and are getting exercise, something many Americans do not get enough of.
Also, any fees would be small since bicycles take up less room and cause less wear.
“Growth will always be controversial but too many people do not understand the implications of the built environment on quality of life issues.”
I understand it perfectly well. I don’t care to have crowded interstate freeways that take more lives; I don’t want bicyclists and pedestrians to be more in harm’s way; I don’t want to have my chances of an auto accident increased around town. I don’t want lots of construction projects, noise, dust and foul tempers. I don’t want to see long traffic jams when I drive back from the beach. I don’t want all the available parking spaces to disappear. I don’t want the US population to double within the next forty years.
I could go on. I don’t want the self-serving “Growth Agenda” that powerful political interests are pushing upon us, whether you believe it or not. All the brilliant mass transit in the Portland area has, so far, not stayed ahead of growth. We didn’t have a choice in the past. But now we can table the less cost-effective ideas, and hopefully the pork barrel related growth..
Chris,
It is not my intent to personally offend anyone, only to demonstrate in the same terms the opposite side to the continual attacks on and contempt for motorists that is often posted here. Just as offensive, contentious and disagreeable to many who drive as their primary means of transportation is the zeal to make driving more expensive by implementing tolls and congestion pricing concepts, the references to “getting people out of their cars” and the siphoning off of motorist paid roadway taxes and fees, parking meter revenues, and even taxes in general assessed on non-alternative mode users to fund alternative forms of transportation where the users themselves do not even begin to directly financially support the infrastructure they use and want more of. Moreover, the latter is often coupled with suggestions that motor vehicle capacity be reduced. In short, it seems some here want to censor opposing dialog while at the same time be free themselves to make any and all kinds of assaults on the motoring public. Any genuine dialog goes the same distance in both directions.
only to demonstrate in the same terms the opposite side to the continual attacks on and contempt for motorists that is often posted here.
Those “attacks”, except on rare occasions, are your perception of the conversation, not the reality.
We simply don’t have frequent negative broad-brush characterizations of motorists on this blog. Most of the participants here are motorists.
This has been explained to you hundreds and hundreds of times now. But you never change your tune.
You’ve just used this latest opportunity to have some real dialogue to again restate your unsupported, blanket criticisms.
If you don’t see the difference between discussing policy proposals and insulting groups of people, I’m sorry, but you do it all the time and it needs to stop now.
Terry, nobody here attacks motorists with the vicious, slanderous personal attacks that you consistently launch against absolutely EVERYONE who ever gets on a bicycle. Peak pricing proposals, toll roads, increased gasoline taxes, increasing or diminishing roadway capacity, and discussion of how best to spend public money all fall in the realm of fair policy discussion, and are not “attacks” or “contempt” with respect to anyone.
If you were genuinely interested in “demonstrating in the same terms the opposite side of the argument” you would simply stick to your cut-and-paste posts about your pet “user fees for all transit modes” proposal, and leave the personal attacks out of it. Instead, you have chosen to attack the maturity, honesty and personal integrity of literally tens of thousands of people in the Metro area simply because they chose (regularly or occasionally) to travel by bicycle instead of driving everywhere.
I agree that genuine dialog needs to go in both directions, and if ANYONE on this board was slandering motorists with even a fraction of the vehemence that you repeatedly direct at cyclists, you might have a point. But you’re the only one here doing it, or anything close to it.
Eh, sorry for the duplication. I started writing my post before Bob’s was posted.
I have encountered environmental activists who spew nothing but contempt for motorists, calling them (us) things like self-centered, road-hogs, Earth-destroying, irresponsible, redneck (regardless of cultural origins), troglodyte, etc.; I’ve also seen more than a few suggestions that automobile choice by a significant fraction of the population is motivated by perceived sexual inadequacy.
I’ve also encountered numerous urbanites who have nothing but contempt for rural and suburban lifestyles–viewing those who don’t live in urban areas as unsophisticated boobs, hillbillies, politically retrograde, etc. (I’ve probably been a bit guilty of this one myself, with occasional snarky references to Wal-Mart).
And I occasionally encounter folks who have nothing but scorn for those of us who choose to have children–sometimes for putative environmental reasons; though in most cases it’s simply because they don’t like their nights on the town “ruined” by someone else’s screaming brat. (Of course, whether you let some else’s child ruin YOUR evening is up to you).
Frequently, the three areas of obnoxiousness are correlated. (I could say more on this point, but I won’t.)
However, to the extent that such people are present on this blog, they behave themselves here. I don’t see the sort of anti-motorist diatribes posted above here. People here frequently question the desirability of a car-centered culture and infrastructure, but they don’t call motorists (as a class) narrow-minded, selfish, small-dicked roadhogs. If you see any such commentary, feel free to alert the mods. There’s a difference between criticizing transportation choices, and hurling insults.
Whether its pollution…air and water, green house gases, congestion, death and mayhem, poor urban form, obesity, or what did I leave out, motor vehicles…despite their many virtues…are the problem. Bicycles and their riders are part of the solution and should be honored for that.
How can bike sharing be bad?
If only they can keep people from stealing them.
[Moderator: Link to mild joke at Terry’s expense removed. Al, I know you were trying to be funny but this is not the time or place.]
OK, I think enough has been said about the latest distraction. The discussion of the distraction has now become the distraction, itself.
Let’s go back to talking about Bike Sharing programs.
My own opinion:
The articles I’ve read, and pictures I’ve seen about bike sharing programs in other cities, such as Paris, have left me quite impressed with the idea.
However, I feel like it’s just a tad too soon for Portland. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing — you need to both generate new riders and have safe and comfortable routes to ride.
Portland has been very good at the generating new riders thing, and relatively good but not terrific about generating safe and comfortable routes. A lot has gone into the Bicycle Master Plan which is just being unveiled, but I think we need to see that network implemented a great deal more before extensive bicycle rentals really take off.
That being said, there are opportunities for limited trials: The Waterfront Park / Esplanade loop is quite popular with locals and tourists alike, and I can envision people being downtown and picking up a rental bike for a nice recreational loop or two.
But try getting from the Waterfront to, say, the Galleria, or from the Esplanade to shopping on Hawthorne, using designated routes, and an occasional rider may find it daunting, especially if they are uncomfortable with using the main travel lane and keeping up with traffic. The route to the Hawthorne District isn’t so bad, but crossing MLK/Grand can be rather unpleasant.
The success of Sunday Parkways, and major events like the Bridge Pedal, has proven that large numbers of people will happily cycle if there’s a wide, safe, casual route to take.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I think this relates also to the utilization of streetcars: It is believed (by some of us) that part of the attraction of streetcars to people who would not otherwise ride transit is the permanence of the rails and the relative comfort of the ride. Similarly, I think more people would be willing to rent a bike for a day trip around town if they could see clearly delineated bike routes heading out in all important directions from the bike rental kiosk.
(And yes, I realize there’s a potential incompatibility with that statement, in that street rails near parallel bicycle traffic poses a hazard.)
I agree with you that it clearly has been successful all over the place. Paris is just the largest example. It has been going gangbusters in Montréal, the biggest North American example. It will be interesting to see how Boston turns out when they implement it. Washington’s implementation is clearly too small.
I disagree that it is too early in Portland, from a bike ridership and usage point of view. I think it will always be easy to say that we don’t have enough facilities to make it work. At some point you have to fish or cut bait. I think it would be a fabulous success today.
The thing I am concerned about is the financing. We should try to think outside of the box here. Some systems are funded through advertising. Are sponsorships of station locations a possibility here? Could businesses or institutions help pay for it in return for stations near their facilities?
I understand that usage fees and subscriptions could potentially pay for up to 80-100% of the operations once things were up and running. We just need to get it going.
I am heartened by the fact that there are turn-key systems now being produced that could make implementation easier and cheaper. We’re not going to be inventing the wheel here.
Hey Bob, if he can keep hammering bikes then I can keep hammering his phobia!
A bike is a bike, period.
The perpetual embellished of it’s contribution to our transportation system is not producing what is envisioned at all.
“motor vehicles…despite their many virtues…are the problem. Bicycles and their riders are part of the solution and should be honored for that.”
IMO there’s an irrational pursuit of some greater role and goal for bikes that will never be reached. Yet the effort will be keep attempting to move it along as if there’s this corresponding
beneift happening. The expected call to expand the efforts to a “regional system” is more of the same.
I really don’t know what the bike lobby or Lenny et all think bikes are going to be doing anytime sooner or later.
They certainly are not going to be used enough to make a large enough contribution to every day commuting and traffic to improve the system.
More bike infrastructure will only expand the expense with the same realitve miniscule modal share.
And that’s not hammering bikes it recognizing what they accomplish.
Speaking of bicycles, this is interesting:
Who Causes Cyclists’ Deaths?
al m.,
Any contest between a bicycle and a motorvehicle has a pretty much predetermined outcome. The bicycle and rider will lose. But that doesn’t mean the cyclist wouldn’t possibly have some contributory negligence.
In law there is a principle called assumption of risk. Not being a lawyer I could not tell you how this would play out in every instance of bicycle-motor vehicle collisions, but I could see some possibilities.
I was thinking about the case we heard of a few weeks ago where a cyclist complained about someone opening a car door “right in her path.” Well, normally vehicles must occupy a lane of travel and this law applies to cyclists, as well. But it sounds like she might even have been traveling within the parking lane—or at least on the line. She might have done this with the intention of being courteous ( I do the same) but the law might be indifferent to the motive.
What about cyclists who fail to yield the right of way? A lot of drivers don’t even understand that, from what I see. What about cyclists traveling at night without lights? Fortunately the law covers these ocurrences and liability, I think, would be mitigated by the circumstances.
One of my pet peeves has become these recumbent style bikes. Someone backing up an auto may not even be able to see a very low slung bike, below their rear trunk line. I’m sure you would not be able to see one if it came rushing past parked cars on an intersecting street. Those people should definitely have lights–and at an elevation that anyone could see.
I agree cyclists need a plan to protect themselves. Analogous to the “Defensive Driving” public campaign of our generation. I think the legislature should look at mandating more high visibility requirements. Or the industry ahould do some self-examination to come up with visibility features. In the construction biz, that is why you see more crews nowadays with yellow and orange shirts or safety vests. Too many people were getting creamed by heavy equipment operators!
“They certainly are not going to be used enough to make a large enough contribution to every day commuting and traffic to improve the system.”
>>>> Bikes will be useful in reducing auto congestion is certain limited instances; e.g. the Hawthorne and Morrison ( when the new bike/ped lane opens) bridges.
Otherwise not really: the region wide bike system is more of a recreational thing.
Ron old buddy, facts are facts:
“clumsy or inattentive driving by motorists was the cause of 90 percent of these crashes.”
Furthermore~~~>Bikes reduce auto congestion on every continent in the world except the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
I wonder why that is?
Possibly because the “United States of America” is not a continent?
Possibly because the “United States of America” is not a continent?
OK, since your incapable of abstract thinking let me rephrase my post:
Furthermore~~~>Bikes reduce auto congestion in every country in the world except the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
I wonder why that is?
In most cities in the US, Canada, and Europe there is a lot less cycling in the winter. That is, until someone invents a human powered snowmobile. Until then, year-round transportation planning has to accomodate those vehicles that people will use in the wintertime. Now, it’s different in southern states and temperate places like the Bay Area or Portland.
Now, it’s different in southern states and temperate places like the Bay Area or Portland.
In central and South America its bicycles and scooters.
In central Asia its rickshaws.
In Africa they walk.
Check that:
In African cities, two-thirds of daily trips are made by walking.
Today, in Beijing, China, residents own over 8 million bicycles. In cities in Denmark, between 20 and 30 percent of daily trips are made on bicycles. In many Asian cities, bicycle-like vehicles called rickshaws carry between 10 and 20 percent of the freight moved daily. In Africa, the bicycle is the most common means of traveling intermediate distances.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761558787
Yes, al m, we discussed these things at the Third UN World Urban Forum. More power to them if they can build new communities that are more bike centric. I think that would make a lot of sense. I think they will have to develop the technology of building multi level—pretty well along in Asia and Latin America, but lagging in Africa.
Unfortunately there are still status seekers in those regions who want cars—especially big ones.I guess the other question is: If vehicles like the Tata Nano become ubiquitous will this stimulate a desire for suburban type development? Or living in suburban communities as a measure of status?
Typically, though, people leave rural areas for the excitement of the big cities—even if it means living in a slum. I was told by housing ministers that the construction of new homes in new villages did not succeed very well, because many people wanted to live in the slum, instead. Go figure, I guess the big city has an attraction, all over the world.
Yes, al m, we discussed these things at the Third UN World Urban Forum. More power to them if they can build new communities that are more bike centric. I think that would make a lot of sense. I think they will have to develop the technology of building multi level—pretty well along in Asia and Latin America, but lagging in Africa.
Unfortunately there are still status seekers in those regions who want cars—especially big ones.I guess the other question is: If vehicles like the Tata Nano become ubiquitous will this stimulate a desire for suburban type development? Or living in suburban communities as a measure of status?
Typically, though, people leave rural areas for the excitement of the big cities—even if it means living in a slum. I was told by housing ministers that the construction of new homes in new villages did not succeed very well, because many people wanted to live in the slum, instead. Go figure, I guess the big city has an attraction, all over the world.
Yes, al m, we discussed these things at the Third UN World Urban Forum. More power to them if they can build new communities that are more bike centric. I think that would make a lot of sense. I think they will have to develop the technology of building multi level—pretty well along in Asia and Latin America, but lagging in Africa.
Unfortunately there are still status seekers in those regions who want cars—especially big ones.I guess the other question is: If vehicles like the Tata Nano become ubiquitous will this stimulate a desire for suburban type development? Or living in suburban communities as a measure of status?
Typically, though, people leave rural areas for the excitement of the big cities—even if it means living in a slum. I was told by housing ministers that the construction of new homes in new villages did not succeed very well, because many people wanted to live in the slum, instead. Go figure, I guess the big city has an attraction, all over the world.