On Tuesday, in light of the two recent fatalities of bicycle riders in the city, the Oregonian published an article that makes light of a Portland trial run of “bike boxes” at intersections. In the absence of any publicity to educate the public of the existence of these new traffic control markings, many cyclists and drivers are unaware of their significance and purpose.
From the Oregonian:
[The] bike boxes on Southeast Clinton Street on Tuesday — one on either side of 39th — only two out of about 40 cars that traveled through the intersection during one half-hour period stopped at the bike box line — set about 15 feet from the crosswalk — when the light was red.
Few of the dozen or so cyclists that passed through during the same time strayed far from the bike lanes that straddle the boxes. A majority of the drivers made illegal right turns when the light was red, despite large signs telling them not to turn.
The article proceeds to mention that subsequent installations of bike boxes will use brighter colors and markings in an attempt to better alert cyclists and drivers of the presence of the box.
However, given that bike boxes are presently installed in only one location, I believe it would be helpful and affordable to place uniformed police officers at the intersection of SE 39th Avenue and Clinton Street to educate both cyclists and drivers about the purpose of the boxes and – in particular – warn or cite drivers that violate the law at this intersection. If this project is ultimately to be successful then cyclists and drivers alike must be properly informed. Many times the only way to educate drivers about a new law is to have a police officer tap on their window and issue a warning.
Read the Oregonian article: Portland thinks outside ‘bike box’
[Update: 2007-11-06 – B.R.]
Over on Commissioner Adams’ blog, they’ve just posted a long article with bike box program implementation details:
Roger Geller explains PDOT’s position, plans for bike safety improvements
80 responses to “Portland thinks outside ‘bike box’”
“Many times the only way to educate drivers about a new law is to have a police officer tap on their window and issue a warning.”
BINGO! Without some sort of publicly visible enforcement nobody will follow the rules.
EXAMPLE: ‘yield to bus’, 1/20 actually do it.
I think I’ve mentioned before that certain types of motor vehicle drivers are consistently the worst, under the guise that motor vehicle travel is the prevalent ‘market force free enterprise’ mode of travel. Enough of me sounding like the opposite of some on here. :)
Actually, I think the best way to enforce traffic violations would be with a uniformed police officer and a tow truck. Change the law so that certain “minor” motor vehicle traffic violations are punishable with an immediate 7-day drivers’ license and vehicle confiscation, and a $500 fine. Sure, not everyone could be caught, but the ones who do would have such a bad enough story to tell, the very thought would probably be enough for many. Oh, and the punishment if caught a second time during the suspension would be forfeiture of the vehicle (whoops, that driver better tell their friend the police now own their car), and a 30-day additional license suspension.
I realize people will say “but that will hurt the poor; people who will lose their job if they can’t drive there; and the people that spend all their money making ends meet…” well, then let’s look at why those people are poor, why people’s jobs require them to drive there, and why certain people are spending 100% of their income on monthly expenses, and address those issues as well, and what can be done to address those issues so the new rule wouldn’t be a burden to them.
Besides, this is just a brainstorm moment from a transit rider and pedestrian who when he sees an accident between two private motor vehicles says to the rest of the folks “hmm… looks like someone else who should be joining us on the bus!”
The property and monetary confiscation would probably (hopefully!) be enough to remind people that driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.
‘yield to bus’, 1/20 actually do it.
And those same people are a lot of the ones complaining that the bus takes twice as long as driving.
Bike boxes are only a ploy by the bicycling community so bicyclists can leap across intersections before the signal turns green getting a jump on drivers, and then ride down the center of motor vehicle lanes blocking a more expeditious but legal traffic flow.
In addition to not blocking other traffic, one of the basic rules of the road is that a vehicle does not travel faster than conditions allow. That means being able to stop without crashing into the side of a garbage truck or in other emergency situations. The basic rule applies to all vehicles on the road including bicycles. One reason trains have the right-of-way over motor vehicles is because a train is heavier and it takes longer to stop a train than a truck or car. Likewise, it takes longer to stop a truck or a car than a bicycle. The problem exists with laws that continue to allow bicyclists to have the right-of-way in places where they should not, and the bicyclists themselves that insist on proving that law is right even if it means dead right.
These laws need to be changed and bicyclists need to set aside their egos by learning how to YIELD and follow other traffic rules such as stopping at STOP signs and RED traffic signals. It should be the bicyclists that receive a hefty fine and have their bicycles confiscated when they ignore safety concerns, bypass traffic control devices and make excuses. Bike lanes and exclusive bicycle infrastructure are a privilege that non-users are getting extremely tired of financing, especially when bicyclists are unwilling to take any blame themselves for their lawless behavior. The California law that allows drivers to drive in bike lanes when signaling and making a turn holds currently the most promise to protect all interests. Additionally, bicyclists accepting some direct responsibility through a bicycle tax to pay for bicycle infrastructure would also help friction between motorists and bicyclists. Sharing the road is also sharing the financial responsibility.
Bicyclists have an egotistical attitude that they are always in the right and doing the rest of society a favor by riding a bike instead of driving. They always attempt to blame others including motorists for their faults. Bicyclists should take to heart some lessons learned with the rash of recent bicycle accidents. Instead of always making excuses, instead of demanding more specialized infrastructure the bicycling community itself continues their unwillingness to be directly taxed to pay for, and instead of standing tough and not giving an inch towards compromise – to reduce the potential of more accidents where people are killed and injured; bicyclists need to drop their arrogant attitude, express some humility to the other users of the road, follow all traffic control devices, and be willing to yield when it is in the best interests of safety and common sense.
Bicyclists have an egotistical attitude
Really? All of them?
that they are always in the right
They do?
and doing the rest of society a favor by riding a bike instead of driving.
All of them? (Frankly, I don’t ride very often but I do think bicyclists are doing the rest of society a favor by biking instead of driving. I think pedestrians are also doing society a favor by walking instead of driving. Is this really a matter of major dispute?)
They always attempt to blame others
Always?
Instead of always making excuses,
Always?
instead of demanding more specialized infrastructure
I’ll remember that the next time motorists demand more exclusive specialized freeways.
the bicycling community itself continues their unwillingness to be directly taxed
You’re in luck, Terry — a major government now shares your views and wants to directly tax bicyclists. Communist China. Those social engineers over there sure know how to do things right.
and instead of standing tough and not giving an inch towards compromise
Not an inch?
bicyclists need to drop their arrogant attitude,
No arrogance has ever emerged from one of your own posts, right?
express some humility
Why your comments are just steaming with humility.
“It should be the bicyclists that receive a hefty fine and have their bicycles confiscated when they ignore safety concerns, bypass traffic control devices and make excuses.”
Perhaps the same thing should apply to motorists as well. The driver that killed the biker on Interstate Avenue the other day has been convicted of 25 traffic violations over a period of 20 years, including speeding tickets, driving without a license, failure to obey traffic signals and violating the basic rule, among other traffic violations. If Terry’s proposal had been applied to automobile drivers this recent tragedy never would have happened.
“Bike boxes are only a ploy by the bicycling community so bicyclists can leap across intersections before the signal turns green getting a jump on drivers, and then ride down the center of motor vehicle lanes blocking a more expeditious but legal traffic flow” You are not capable of getting inside the brain of all bicyclists. Don’t pretend like you secretly know the motives of the bicycle community. Your statements are offensive and inflammatory.
“Bicyclists have an egotistical attitude that they are always in the right and doing the rest of society a favor by riding a bike instead of driving.” Nice stereotype.
“They always attempt to blame others including motorists for their faults.” Really. Always huh? The term “sweeping generalizations” come to mind.
“bicyclists need to drop their arrogant attitude” Likewise, I might say the same thing about other certain individuals in this community.
“One reason trains have the right-of-way over motor vehicles is because a train is heavier and it takes longer to stop a train than a truck or car.”
That’s an interesting point and a good one too!
However, let me speak up for bicyclists here a little bit. I drive transit in this city for over a decade now, and I personally have never had a problem with any bike. Most bicyclists do indeed obey the law. They go through the red lights, but that’s not big deal, they should be allowed that option anyway in my opinion.
I always make sure I have at least ½ a lane before passing any bicycle, and you’d be surprised how many times bikers have expressed their appreciation that I did that.
Given the fact that if an auto/bus/truck hits a bicyclist will cause severe harm to them, but not to the person in the vehicle, bikers must have the right of way, not unlike pedestrians using the roadway.
I personally always give them the right of way, and agree it should be the law. And the law needs to be enforced.
If Terry’s proposal had been applied to automobile drivers this recent tragedy never would have happened.
We don’t know that. Its possible any other truck driver would have made the same mistake.
And Terry may well be right that Brett, the bicyclist on Interstate, was traveling too fast for conditions. That is not clear. He apparently skidded before he hit the truck, so had he been going slower he very likely would have survived. That doesn’t exonerate the truck driver.
Terry said:
“One reason trains have the right-of-way over motor vehicles is because a train is heavier and it takes longer to stop a train than a truck or car. Likewise, it takes longer to stop a truck or a car than a bicycle.”
Trains have the right of way not because it takes longer to stop, (it does,) but because it takes longer to get going. If a train had to go up to every intersection, stop, wait for it to clear and then go, by the time they actually got up to a noticeable speed, the intersection wouldn’t be clear anymore… But the reason a train takes longer to stop than a car has to do with the physics of metal wheels on metal track, and has nothing to do with the weight of the train: A handcart with good brakes can stop just as fast as a fully loaded freight train with good brakes. (And yes, most trains have good brakes: Ever heard of hard braking “flattening a wheel”? You can’t do that without good brakes.) The reason it takes longer to get going has to do with the power to weight ratio of the train.
A car and a bicycle are both rubber tires on asphalt, so should be able to stop in very similar distances, (again, if the brakes are good: If you can lock them up, (with ABS off,) then they are good.) It is the geometry on the bike (with a high center of gravity and the need to maintain balance,) verses a car (with a low one and 4 wheels,) that actually makes it possible for the average car to stop faster than the average bicycle. ABS has complicated matters, but a car without ABS with an experienced driver is able to stop from 60 mph to 0 in 2.75 seconds, or 121 feet, and that is again, regardless of the weight. Of course, that is assuming perfect reaction time, and perfect braking procedures, neither of which exist in the real world… A reaction time of 3 seconds means that you’ve traveled 264 feet at 60 mph, so the actual theoretical stopping distance of the vehicle itself is actually a very small part of the total stopping distance. Given your attitude towards bicyclist as a whole is that they aren’t very good operators, I’m going to assume that you have to agree that it takes them longer to stop as well, which means they should get the right of way over cars by your analogy.
(And, bicycles have a poor power to weight ratio compared to an automobile, although it is better than the average train.)
“If Terry’s proposal had been applied to automobile drivers this recent tragedy never would have happened.
We don’t know that. Its possible any other truck driver would have made the same mistake.”
Fine. let me rephrase that to “might never have happened.”
My primary objective was to point out the inherent bias directed against bicyclists that was present in Terry’s proposition. If this proposal was applied to all methods of personal transit, it is true that situations like these might be mitigated. However, I find honorable intent in this proposal suspect, as the suggestion was directed solely against bikers and no one else.
Sorry, very little sympathy for the bike crowd from me. As a pedestrian, I’m pissed by aggressive bicylcle riding on sidewalks, endangering pedestrians. Same crap went on when I lived in NYC. They don’t even signal from when they barrel past right next to you you from behind.
I bet there’s going to be major tension eventually between bike and peds–which both happen to be alternative means of transport.
I’m pissed by aggressive bicylcle riding on sidewalks
Senior citizens have been complaining about this for ages – “those damn kids”. But I never have noticed it was a problem in Portland. Most cyclists over 12 seem to prefer streets to sidewalks.
The place where there is a conflict is the shared trails, like the esplanade, and the bridges where bikes are forced to use sidewalks. I agree there are some folks who ride way too fast for a mixed environment.
I have seen people riding bicycles on sidewalks downtown. Not many, but it does happen.
What really irritates me is when the bicycle cops do it. Way to set an example, guys.
“My primary objective was to point out the inherent bias directed against bicyclists that was present in Terry’s proposition.”
You may have noticed that there is an inherent bias against bicyclists in EVERYTHING TERRY HAS EVER SAID ON THIS BLOG. Seriously, if bike-hating were a profession, this guy would be Bill freakin’ Gates.
First, I’ve lived in communties with lots of bike boxes- in my experience they worked really well for everyone. As the article notes, though people need to understand what they are and how to use them.
And Nick…”Sorry, very little sympathy for the bike crowd from me. As a pedestrian, I’m pissed by aggressive bicylcle riding on sidewalks, endangering pedestrians.”
Well isn’t that nice?
Why do cyclists ride on sidewalks? As Ross noted, I don’t see this often. When I do see it either they are a little kid, a cop/patrol downtown or someone riding who is scared to be on the street.
So Nick, you can take your marbles home and refuse to play or we can all rise above our provincial points of view and work together to support transportation options. You being pissed might feel good, but it’s not making the streets safer for bikes or making it easier for them to get off the sidewalks.
“What really irritates me is when the bicycle cops do it. Way to set an example, guys.”
The law has an exception for them, and for “employees of the Association for Portland Progress and companies providing security services operating a bicycle in the course and scope of their duties. These employees must have in possession an identification card issued by the Chief of Police certifying the rider has completed a training course in the use of a bicycle for security patrol.”
The problem: the course doesn’t exist, and therefore they don’t have the ID card. Which means the bicycle security guys that are riding on the sidewalk are breaking the law and should be paying $296 per offense. Unfortunately, the police aren’t going to issue those tickets to the rent-a-cops, so…
“Don’t pretend like you secretly know the motives of the bicycle community.”
Pretending is not needed. The bicycling community flaunts their extra long want list of infrastructure projects at every opportunity for which they expect non-user and motorist taxpayers to pay for, but have excuse after excuse to defend an unwillingness to open up their own wallets and actually accept some financial responsibility by supporting a bicycle license fee and/or bicycle user tax. This unwillingness to directly tax themselves is very offensive to a lot of people and only adds to the friction between bicyclists and drivers.
“They (bicyclists) go through the red lights, but that’s not big deal. they should be allowed that option anyway in my opinion.”
Not a big deal? Is the underlying statement here that motorists should obey traffic safety laws but not bicyclists? Is it OK for bicyclists to challenge the law if they can get away with it? Is this not an egotistical and arrogant attitude problem? No big deal huh? Well a bicyclist just this evening running a red light in downtown Portland was struck down by a pickup truck. The bicyclist was also cited by police for running the red light. Is it a big deal yet?
Pretending is not needed.
Pretending is all you got.
This unwillingness to directly tax themselves is very offensive to a lot of people and only adds to the friction between bicyclists and drivers.
No, Terry, it’s not offensive to “a lot of people.” It’s offensive to a small handful of people way out on the fringe. And you’re pretty much the only one around these parts who obsesses about it to the point that you drag it up in every single post on any topic whatsoever.
“Senior citizens have been complaining about this for ages – “those damn kids.” But I never have noticed it was a problem in Portland. Most cyclists over 12 seem to prefer streets to sidewalks.”
>>>> No, people a lot older than 12–like in their 20’s–ride aggressively on the sidewalk, weaving around peds without signaling. I see it along West Burnside and around PGE Park, where there are a lot of peds.
“The place where there is a conflict is the shared trails, like the esplanade, and the bridges where bikes are forced to use sidewalks. I agree there are some folks who ride way too fast for a mixed environment.”
>>>> Yes, and I’ve read about this in the press. Add to this the mountain bikes in Forest Park.
Are they even legal on the unpaved trails?
Like I said, I have little sympathy for a crowd that complains about motorists, and then some of them put peds in danger of injury. Sounds very hypocritical and arrogant to me.
BTW, there were a number of posts on Cranky Jack’s blog about bikes on sidewalks.
So it’s more common than you think.
Putting aside the predictable anti-cyclist rants of Terry, which really don’t even merit discussion anymore, this thread is about bike boxes.
A simpler treatment than bike boxes that we lack in Oregon is stop bars at signalized intersections. The crash that occurred two weeks ago, in which a cyclist was run over by a truck while in a bike lane, seems to support the use of stop bars. Basically, the treatment would be to stripe a stop bar for autos in advance of the crosswalk (at a traffic signal), rather than allowing autos to wait AT the crosswalk. Many states do this already; Oregon, Washington, and California are some of the few that do not. Where on-street bike lanes are present, the stop bar should be set back 10′-20′ from the crosswalk, placing waiting bikes ahead of waiting autos at a signal, and ensuring their visibility to right-turning autos. It is not as bike-friendly as bike boxes, in that bikes do not get to take the lane, but it would seem to be a small but effective improvement to implement on streets with bike lanes.
‘”es, and I’ve read about this in the press. Add to this the mountain bikes in Forest Park.
Are they even legal on the unpaved trails?”
I’ve seen them on the wildwood trail, and NO, they are not supposed to be on that trail or any other trail in forest park!
What about this monthly ruckus that they cause on my street (nw 23rd ave) every month hooping and hollering and blocking traffic?
What is that all about anyway?
And lets not bring up the zoo bombers, who are singlehandedly ruining the bicyclists collective reputations
I have to concur with Nick and point out that cycles on the sidewalks is not a minimal problem. As a pedestrian, I deal with it daily on my walk on the Macadam on-ramp toward the pedestrian trail at the Macadam and Gibbs (the tram tower) and then down that trail toward the new OHSU building.
Cyclists should be acting as vehicles and using Corbett street to access the bicycle lane on Moody to reach OHSU. Instead, they use the sidewalk to ride in the same route where I am walking. It’s a narrow sidewalk that is often compromised by vegetation. They frequently ride up behind me at a high speed and then make snarky comments if I fail to jump aside to accommodate their travel speed. I often don’t hear them approaching because I am wearing headphones, but the traffic noise is usually enough to mask the sound of them approaching as well. As a vehicle, if they were in the roadway at this point, they would be traveling the wrong way on a one way street. When they use the pedestrian path to travel east at the tram tower, they are running the risk of not being able to adequately brake because of the steep grade, which could send them careening into the streetcar or pedestrians crossing the street.
Riding on sidewalks is legal, except in downtown; bicyclists must yield to pedestrians, just a motor vehicles must yield to bicyclists in bike lanes.
I often think that bikelanes are actually for motor vehicles…if they were not provided we bicyclists would be out in the lane. So they help get us out of the way.
If encouraging trips by bicycle is good policy…and few would argue that it is not (Terry, et.al. excepted), then public policy must provide for maximum safety, especially for the most at risk users of public streets.
I think as the number of cyclists increases, we should revisit the need to mediate conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians, especially where sidewalks are concerned. As a mode user group, pedestrians are the most at risk users, not cyclists.
Years ago I was walking on a multi-use trail in Seattle, and the rule was clear:
Pedestrians must yield to bicyclists, but ONLY AFTER a bicyclist slows down, makes an audible signal (usually a bell) and yells “BIKE ON YOUR LEFT!”. At that point the pedestrian must move over as far as possible to the right (or even off the trail) to let the bicyclist pass.
You know what? It was consistently followed, every bicyclist gave me a smile and a “thanks!”, and there were no altercations, no hard feelings – everyone got along happily because everyone followed the rules.
Fast forward to Portland’s Springwater Trail, and the same arguments that the bicyclists complain about motorists – they are in fact the guilty party when it comes to respecting pedestrians. I would never dare let my child walk on that trail (never mind that it is JUST AS MUCH a walking trail for ALL PEOPLE as it is a bicycle path; unlike Ross’s assertion that streets are also playgrounds for which they clearly are not) as I’ve been near-hit several times (and keep in mind that there is no safe place to walk off the trail to the east as there is a chain-link fence there to protect against the railroad track).
Springwater and Tacoma? Never mind that bicyclists have a very clear STOP sign that applies specifically to them; have had a few bicyclists nearly hit my car (fortunately for them I was the “better person” so to speak and braked, so they would not hit me.)
And just this morning walking into my building off of S.W. Harrison, I had to jump back from a bicyclist who decided to race up behind me as I was exiting the sidewalk and to the door of my building. Any “Bike on your Left!” from her? Nope, she was in too much of a hurry and had zero regard for a pedestrian on a sidewalk (not crosswalk, sidewalk) with the right-of-way.
Solving these problems doesn’t require new or different laws, it involves enforcing the laws that we already do have. However it seems the BTA is more bent on claiming itself to be righteous that we have the “vulnerable users” law which makes absolutely no sense in the world. (On the other hand, the incident that caused that law to be passed – why is it not a felony in Oregon to drive with a suspended/revoked license?) Instead of focusing on all groups following the law, it seems that motorists are automatically the big bad devil and bicyclists are perfect little saints that belong in heaven, even if they commit every sin 100 times over.
With regards to the “bike box”, how would the bike box have prevented the Greeley & Interstate incident; if the bicyclist was BEHIND the garbage truck the entire time? A bike box only serves to queue bikes in front of traffic on a red light, prohibits a safe and legal right on red, and then causes traffic to bunch behind the slower moving bike traffic. It does absolutely nothing when the light is green, or if the bicyclist doesn’t reach the intersection while the light is red.
And it seems that the bike group has conveniently forgotten the other incident at Interstate & Greeley, where a BICYCLIST disobeyed THREE POLICE OFFICERS who were barricading the street (for the Portland Marathon), a traffic light, and crossed the road illegally – causing him to be pinned underneath a MAX train that was going through the same intersection. Why didn’t he get citations for that?
I cross SE 39th via Clinton eastbound every weekday on my bicycle, so I am familiar with how the bike box works during all seasons of the year. It has some good points, and some real problems.
Note that at this location, cars may not travel across 39th; they must turn right or left. Almost no cyclists turn; they all generally cross.
During the summer, when a lot of folks are biking, a bicycle rider will often be first in line, thereby reserving the box for additional riders. The mass of riders gets across quickly, then the cars flow smoothly. Throughput of both cyclists and cars is maximized.
Most of the year, however, the first car in line pulls to the front of the bike box. If it is turning right, chances are it will try to do so on red, contrary to the signage. If it is signaling for a left, or is not obviously turning right, I can usually pull far enough ahead of it on the right so that the driver can see me. This time of year, the bike lane is covered with leaves, and is invisible to both cyclists and motorists.
Problem:
The bicycle approach lane is on the right. Regardless of Oregon law or personal rights, I think it is a mistake to have bicycles overtaking cars on the right when cars will be turning right, because motorists lack the sensory and mental processing ability to avoid bicycles under those circumstances.
When the light turns green, what is the reasonable action for a cyclist in the bike lane approaching from behind? During the peak, the queue of cars often extends past the start of the lane.
I look for turn signals, and fortunately many drivers signal, and most are turning left. I can ride along in the bike lane and position myself next to the most-forward car signaling left. Keeping in mind that it might still turn right, we can both enter the intersection together. Meanwhile, I have to be wary of what the opposing motorists are doing. They may not understand from the signage that bikes can go straight. They may turn and cut me off. Otherwise, I take my place in line with the cars, and do not use the bike lane.
I don’t know what would be best here, but the current setup is confusing to both motorists and cyclists who are not familiar with it. Perhaps in this situation, users of the bike lane leading up to the bike box should be directed to yield to right-turning motorists. Motorists who do not use turn signals should be ticketed. Additional signs or signals should inform motorists that opposing bikes traveling straight through have the right-of-way.
Alternatively, the light could be replaced by left and right red and green arrows. A signal just for the bike lane could be positioned prior to the bike box, and it would turn red before cars are allowed to turn right with a green arrow across the cycle lane.
I oppose handing out tickets to confused motorists. Not a good way to make allies.
Erik: “With regards to the “bike box”, how would the bike box have prevented the Greeley & Interstate incident; if the bicyclist was BEHIND the garbage truck the entire time?”
It wouldn’t prevent the accident in that case, but it would have prevented the accident that occurred at SW 14th and Burnside. The truck and cyclist were both stopped at the light, when the light changed the cyclist went straight and the truck (who didn’t see her at all) turned right and hit the cyclist, ultimately killing her.
I agree that bike boxes won’t solve all of the world’s ills, but they can help prevent the sort of accident described above. There are definitely several intersections downtown where I put myself out in front of cars at a stoplight (at the stoplight on the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge, for example), just to make sure that cars can see me biking. It’s not something that should be applied at all intersections all over the city, but at intersections that can pose a danger (such as the one at 39th and Clinton, the one at Main and 1st, and so on) bike boxes seem like an idea that’s worth trying.
Eric points out a key problem with separate bike/ped facilities, when those are combined with out clear delineation of space. In Frankfurt you do NOT walk, stand or otherwise be in the painted bike section of the above the curb sidewalk/bikeway. On the Springwater and Esplanade some cyclists do as poor a job yielding as some motorists do on the street. But remember bikes are a lot less lethal.
Downtown, I’m not sure bikelanes make sense, at least northbound and eastbound where bikes can keep up and simply take the lane. Southbound and westbound, I have been thankful for them…bikes are slower up hill.
Beyond downtown there is a pretty broad concensus that bikeways…lower traffic thru streets…are the way to go, but so far these have been at best rather timid affairs with little signage. To become real “Bike Boulevards” the signage must more aggresssively favor non-motorized modes.
A couple of thoughts here:
1) Bikes on sidewalks. I think this is a cultural thing. It works quite well in Japan where bikes and peds mix quite safely (but folks on bikes aren’t going much faster than peds). My experience here is that in dense pedestrian areas the mixing does not work well, perhaps because we have more of a ‘go fast’ bike culture (not criticizing that, just saying it doesn’t mix well with peds). In Europe on the other hand, bikes are more separated from cars than here, but also stay separated from peds.
2) One potential solution to the ‘ignoring the bike box’ problem might be to put the bike box on the far side of the crosswalk. I heard this idea from several cyclists at last night’s Safe, Sound and Green streets town hall in NW. While our drivers may not recognize bike boxes, they do (generally) recognize crosswalks.
I wonder if painting a bike box would work… Filling it in with blue paint would be cheap, and might make it a lot more noticeable. Also I wonder if more would help. One intersection with a weird paint pattern is much different than 100 intersections with the same paint pattern…
The problem with motorists ignoring the box can be cured by having more boxes, and by cyclists like me who pull around in front of the stopped motorists, who quickly figure out what they did wrong.
The life-and-death problem is how to get to the box safely. ORS 811.415 says “Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaking vehicle is a bicycle that may safely make the passage under the existing conditions.” Once traffic starts moving, your best bet is to be in the auto lane. Otherwise, you have to hang back until some motorist notices you, and you are sure that they do, or you need to be pacing the right rear bumper of a car with its left turn signal on, brakes at the ready. By then you may end up sitting through another signal cycle.
“Bikes on sidewalks. I think this is a cultural thing. It works quite well in Japan where bikes and peds mix quite safely (but folks on bikes aren’t going much faster than peds). My experience here is that in dense pedestrian areas the mixing does not work well, perhaps because we have more of a ‘go fast’ bike culture (not criticizing that, just saying it doesn’t mix well with peds). In Europe on the other hand, bikes are more separated from cars than here, but also stay separated from peds.”
>>>> It probably is a cultural thing: PORTLAND IS NOT EUROPE OR JAPAN AND NEVER WILL BE, despite all the proclamations of self-professed Euro-wannabe’s around here. A lot of self-delusion is going on.
BTW, I lived in Europe when I was a teenager, and also during the 90’s spent well over a month between two vacations exploring Madrid and surroundings.
Nick exclaimed: PORTLAND IS NOT EUROPE OR JAPAN AND NEVER WILL BE
And therefore we should never evaluate or discuss ideas from other countries because we must never, ever adapt them for use here. Only ideas uniquely developed in America by Americans and without input from or knowledge of other cultures are suitable for use or discussion here.
[Personally directed comment removed. – B.R.]
I don’t know what would be best here, but the current setup is confusing to both motorists and cyclists who are not familiar with it… I oppose handing out tickets to confused motorists.
Taking a look at Google Maps Street View at SE Clinton westbound at 39th (kudos to Google’s driver for stopping behind the bike box, by the way), one can clearly see the “Stop Here on Red” sign and, just beyond, the “No Turn on Red” sign. I don’t know how this is “confusing” to motorists; I’m not sure how much more clear we can be, and those are not one-of-a-kind signs in this city. Not paying attention to signage does not earn you a break in my book, it means you are careless and inattentive – or that you choose to disregard that which inconveniences you – and none of those excuses should get you off the hook for a citation.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not of the mind that we should only be citing motorists for their offenses. However, there are far more motorists than cyclists, and thus a far greater number of offenses committed by motorists than cyclists. I believe many of those commenting are making sweeping generalizations about the negative behavior that they witness by one side or the other, which really isn’t fair to either side. There are respectful and disrespectful motorists as well as respectful and disrespectful cyclists. In general, the disrespectful motorists pose more of a hazard than do the disrespectful cyclists, but that does not mean that cyclists should be allowed to disregard traffic control devices of any kind. Everybody should have to follow the rules or risk being cited; it’s only fair. With that said, we should be able to count on law enforcement to issue citations, and I can’t count the number of times I’ve witnessed police officers flat-out ignore drivers and cyclists alike who blatantly violate one or more laws. At the very least, these should be considered opportunities for educating (or re-educating) people about the rules of the road.
Link: Google Street View of SE Clinton St., Eastbound, at SE 39th Ave.
(Click the orange human icon to open the street view. Click the “E” (East) arrow to travel/zoom closer to the intersection and signage.)
Doug said: “There are definitely several intersections downtown where I put myself out in front of cars at a stoplight (at the stoplight on the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge, for example), just to make sure that cars can see me biking.”
Exactly! I do the same thing. Works like a charm. The bitch is that I usually can overtake cars going up the hill…
We need a bicycle track for the new Burnside street, IMO. Some shitty little gutterized-bicycle lane designed so we slam into parked cars and fall on streetcar tracks ain’t gonna cut it.
Like NYC’s 9th ave:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/10/04/streetfilms-nycs-first-legit-on-street-cycle-track/
Bob –
You lack any sense of humour. If someone calls themselves the “oldurbanist”, it seems to me its reasonable to ask whether the experience they relate “as a teenager” was pre-automobile era. It was intended as a joke, but not entirely.
Part of the conflict between “pedestrians” and “cyclists” is a generational conflict that is as old as time. I remember that even in the 1970’s when knocking on doors that “kids on their bikes” was a major concern for senior citizens. They simply were frightened that the kids would run into them – even though they had never had it happen. It has to do with reaction times and how comfortable people are with quick movements. As we age we tend to like things a lot calmer.
While some cyclists ride too fast and are careless, you aren’t going to end the discomfort of some older pedestrians. They are uncomfortable with sharing the space with cyclists period. At least any cyclist moving faster than a walk.
Ross –
I actually found the original comment to be LOL funny, but nonetheless it was a personal jab that I felt was just outside the bounds of the web site policy.
– Bob
Interesting how people see what they want to see. Some look at Google Street View and see no problem. I ride thru the intersection in question (39th & Clinton) every weekday, and the motorists are obviously confused or oblivious, and the net result is the same: This is a dangerous and confusing place for both motorists and bicyclists.
For the third time: The problem is in approaching the bike box and what cyclists and motorists expect of each other once the light turns green.
A great idea needs some tuning before I will feel comfortable going thru, and this is after however long it has been in place, well over a year!
There are two law breaking gangs of bicyclists in this city, which do nothing to gain sympathy from the motoring public:
ZOOBOMBERS
CRITICAL MASS
You haven’t lived until you have been stuck in the middle of the zoo bombers, kamikaze’s on bicycles intent on killing themselves using your vehicle to do it!
“You haven’t lived until you have been stuck in the middle of the zoo bombers, kamikaze’s on bicycles intent on killing themselves using your vehicle to do it!”
I have always been unclear what laws the zoobombers were breaking. It seems like they are just riding as fast as they can downhill. I understand some of them yell loudly while doing it, which is annoying to the neighbors. Is that it? Or is this just annoyance at youthful exhuberance/recklessness whether legal or not?
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the zoo bombers and the critical mass I have some video footage for you.
The first two are about the zoo bombers. Neither of these videos quite captures what its like to be a motorist surrounded by zoo bombers.
The last one is about the critical mass. Its San Francisco, interesting that there is no footage (at least that I am aware of) for the Portland critical mass, but its pretty much the same thing. They block traffic for about 15 minutes whooping and hollering and generally making idiots out of themselves and alienating the motoring public.
I’ll get footage myself the next time they go through my neighborhood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlRVi_jYyXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBxqCgEhgds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7-MxK8AvHI
“I have always been unclear what laws the zoobombers were breaking.”
Well, they don’t tend to stop at stop signs, but besides that for the most part they are pretty law abiding. They do go down 26 sometimes but that is legal. A few go into freeway tunnel, (not legal,) and get tickets for it, they are supposed to get off at Canyon. Given that 80-90% of the people going down 26 are breaking some law anyways (speeding mostly,) comparatively, the zoobombers are a bunch of saints.
Given that 80-90% of the people going down 26 are breaking some law anyways
Please specify your source for that “statistic”.
Al,
What’s your point?
You say, “The first two are about the zoo bombers. Neither of these videos quite captures what its like to be a motorist surrounded by zoo bombers.”
Which would be what? Annoyed? Surprised? Delighted? Mad?
Who cares? Those poor motorists are zipping along in vehicles that weigh thousands of pounds…
Then you say, “The last one is about the critical mass. Its San Francisco, interesting that there is no footage (at least that I am aware of) for the Portland critical mass, but its pretty much the same thing.”
Except it’s not. In fact it doesn’t happen in Portland much anymore. No the reason that’s the case is actually a more interesting conversation…but I don’t get the sense that you are interested in that.
“They block traffic for about 15 minutes whooping and hollering and generally making idiots”
Probably wise to think about the names we call people.
“alienating the motoring public”.
And finally, just who is this motoring public that I hear some posters on this website speak of? You seem pretty confident in knowing what they want and how they feel.
Plenty of posters here make declarations based upon this downtrodden group…but the best I can tell they are a myth. After all, I am part of “the motoring public” and I disagree with much of what you say that I care about.
Can we start speaking for ourselves instead of using fictional groups to prop up our arguments?
@ Erik
Hard to tell if you are interested, being cranky or don’t believe that such a high percentage of the motoring public would be violating the law. I don’t have stats for that particular road, but this survey is interesting:
“Problem size. Speeding is common, and on some roads almost universal. About two-thirds of all drivers in NHTSA’s 2002 national survey reported that they exceeded the posted speed limit on each type of road — interstate, non-interstate multilane, two lane, and city streets — within the past week, and about one-third reported this behavior on the day of the interview (Royal, 2004, p. 29). One-third of all drivers reported that they often or sometimes drive at least 10 mph faster than most other vehicles (Royal, 2004, p. 31)”
source: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/Countermeasures/pages/Chapt3/3AggDrivandSpeed.htm
Given that the above stats are self reported and people often underestimate their own behavior, I’d say 80% isn’t far off.
But how did we get to this? That people are debating Zoo Bomb and law breaking cyclists in a post about bike boxes and making Portland safer for cycling?
“But how did we get to this? That people are debating Zoo Bomb and law breaking cyclists in a post about bike boxes and making Portland safer for cycling?”
>>>>> Oh yeah? How about making walking safer for pedestrians from aggressive bikers riding on sidewalks? Or is walking not considered alternative transportation any more? (Or are just ‘snail rail’ and biking esteemed in this town?)
AGAIN, just before I got home tonight to post this, ANOTHER ONE with his stupid mountain bike flew by me outside PGE Park–and it wasn’t a 12 year old or under. This is a quite common occurence.
“What’s your point?”
My point is, there are reasons why many Portlander’s are hostile to the bicycle lobby, Critical Mass and Zoo Bombers are part of that reason.
“You seem pretty confident in knowing what they want and how they feel.”
LOL!! You’re pretty funny. Obviously I speak for me and nobody else. The purpose of a discussion group is to “discuss” how the various participants feel. You don’t like what I have to say? You get all uptight at my point of view? Well I have one word for you:
TOUGH!
You bicycle people have no empathy at all at WHY the rest of us citizens might say “F*** those bicyclists and jump out of buses and beat the crap out of a bicyclist and throw the bicycle over the bridge?
Read your response to my post and then wonder why it is that there is so much hostility to bicyclists in this town.
Get stuck in a pack of Zoo bombers or stuck at an intersection for 15 minutes when you have an appointment.
Then you might have a clue why it is that so many Portlanders’ want bicycles banned completely from the streets!
Nick –
I suppose it is a question of priorities…
Contrast:
How many bicyclists are killed in automobile-related collisions each year?
How many pedestrians are killed in automobile-related collisions each year?
With:
How many motorists are killed in bicycle-related collisions each year?
How many pedestrians are killed in bicycle-related collisions each year?
I fully agree that cyclists should bike politely and alert pedestrians to their presence. My last bike (before it was stolen) had a cute devil-head squeaky horn on the handlebars. Pedestrians were not only pleased that I routinely signalled my presence, but delighted at the humor of it.
Nonetheless, as a regular pedestrian, I’ve never felt my very life threatened by a rude cyclist. I have felt my very life threatened (sometimes in the form of a collision) by other motorists.
I have, however, as a motorist, been concerned that I nearly hit an inattentive cyclist and I share your concern about that.
Interestingly, a significant percentage, perhaps a majority, of motorists that I know are also bicyclists.
The horror.
– Bob R.
“many Portlander’s are hostile to the bicycle lobby.”
And who are these “many” Portlander’s and how many are there who feel that way? Portland’s considered a cycling friendly town for a reason. My guess is that most Portlander’s don’t give the “bicycle” lobby any thought at all.
“Obviously I speak for me and nobody else.”
Great. But if that’s true how come just above you spoke for the many Portlanders?
“You bicycle people get…”
There you go again creating a fictional group- only now you have put me in it.
“there is so much hostility to bicyclists in this town.”
Really? Best I can tell it’s a few cranky men (and isn’t interesting that they always seem to be men?).
“Get stuck in a pack of Zoo bombers or stuck at an intersection for 15 minutes”
Dude. Get real. Just how often does anyone get stuck in a pack of Zoo Bombers? And as noted Critical Mass isn’t rolling these days…so that isn’t a real problem. It does seem to be a favorite fictionalized problem to whinge about though.
“that so many Portlanders’ want bicycles banned completely from the streets!”
Oh do they? Thanks for speaking up for “so many.” My guess is that a poll would tell you otherwise. Then again, if we ban them from sidewalks and the streets, maybe they would just go away!
Bob R
I would like to point out that there are no “organized” kamikaze car events aka zoo bombers.
And there are no “organized” automobile demonstrations that “intentionally:” stop all other traffic for the sole purpose of entertaining the participants in the demonstration.
Both of these events are clearly part of a “look at me and how great I am” psychology.
Sure there are bad drivers, but they sure as hell are not organized into collectives that seek to disrupt the peace and tranquility of ordinary citizens.
Hawthorne,
You have your point of view, I have mine.
And, I am not personally against bicyclists, but have a complete understanding why so many people are.
And while I speak only for myself, I have personal knowledge of more than a few people who hold a very dim view of the bicycle program in this city.
I can tell you,as a bus driver, we have plenty of problems with the way bicyclists handle themselves on the road
“I would like to point out that there are no “organized” kamikaze car events aka zoo bombers.”
My friend, you need to get out a bit more. Have you ever heard of street racing? Portland represents!
“And there are no “organized” automobile demonstrations that “intentionally:” stop all other traffic for the sole purpose of entertaining the participants in the demonstration.
Al, do I have to SHOUT? Portland doesn’t have an active critical mass anymore.
“Both of these events are clearly part of a “look at me and how great I am” psychology.”
Thank you, Dr. Al. Do you bike? Often? Do you know many bikers? Do you understand how offensive you are?
“Sure there are bad drivers, but they sure as hell are not organized into collectives that seek to disrupt the peace and tranquility of ordinary citizens.”
Wait a second…collectives…the Communists organized in collectives. I can see where you are going with this. We really need to crack down on these roving hoards of cyclists who are purposely roaming the streets trying to disrupt the lives of the motoring public. If we don’t stop it now…who knows where it may lead?
“Please specify your source for that “statistic”.”
Okay. Sometime when it isn’t jammed up, drive down that road from Sylvan Rd to the tunnel and obey the speed limit. Count how many cars pass you, compared to how many stay in the same place relative to you. You’ll get a number, something like 30-40 people passing to 1-2 that are traveling the same speed as you. Do it as many times as you want, you’ll find out that more than 90% of people brake the speed limit, maybe not by much but, it is the speed “limit”, not the “try to stay within 5-10 mph of this speed…” (And yes, I’ve done this.) So if more than 90% of the people break the speed limit in your test period, why do only 80-90% of the people break the speed limit in general? Because at the peak of rush hour, the freeway isn’t moving fast enough for anyone to break the speed limit in the first place.
haha, this is getting funnier by the minute…
OK, let approach it from another angle.
WHY in your opinion are there ‘some’ people who seem to be anti bike?
Is it like racism, just an illogical hatred for anything bicycle?
Or is there some other reason why ‘some’ (I’ll yield to your point that very few people have any problem with bikes) people take a very dim view of bikers in this town?
(like Nick for example, or terry)
For you Hawthorne:
You Know You’re Addicted To Cycling When…
10. Your surgeon tells you you need a heart valve replacement and you ask if you have a choice between presta and schrader.
9. A measurement of 44-36-40 doesn’t refer to the latest Playboy centerfold, but that new gear ratio you were considering for your Cobra.
8. A Power Bar starts tasting better than a Snickers.
7. The bra your significant other finds in your glove compartment belongs to your Trek and not the cute waitress at Denny’s.
6. You wear your heart monitor to bed to make sure you stay within your target zone during any extracurricular activities.
5. The funeral director tells you “NO!” you can’t ride your Cannondale in the funeral procession, even if you keep your headlight on.
4. You experience an unreasonable envy over someone who has bar end extenders longer than yours.
3. You’re too tired for hanky-panky on a Friday night but pump out a five-hour century on Saturday.
2. Your wife tells you the only way she’ll let you ride across the country is over her dead body and you tell her, “If that’s the case, you’ll be my first speed bump!”
AND the number-one reason you know you’re addicted to bicycling…
1. You no longer require a hankie to blow your nose.
*good night!*
^ First off… excuse me?? Street-racing? Ever heard of it? Happens all the time… last time I drove down I-5 I was passed by two white Honda Civic traveling in excess of 120 mph. What about the event “rush-hour” – millions of automobiles each day, at specific times of the day, flood all of the streets throughout the entire country, making it dangerous for everyone – even if you are driving! Hundreds die each day as a result of this crowdedness on the roads. Many exceed the safe speed limit for the street. Then there’s the pollution issue and amount of foreign oil they consume.
Secondly… critical mass and the zoobombers are hardly “organized.” They’re just… a mass of people engaging in a similar activity, with the Critical Mass event designed to bring awareness to the fact that more than 10 people in the world cycle, and thus they need space on the roads to do it.
If someone is obtuse enough not to realize this, it belies a certain bias and self-centered-ness.
Is it like racism, just an illogical hatred for anything bicycle?
Yes. It is largely illogical and with the same kind of generalization from the specific. 99% of all bicyclists have no more responsibility for zoo bombers than the posters complaining about them. 99% of all bicyclists have never participated in Critical Mass.
To get back on topic, I’ll note that Sam Adams response plan to the two recent bicycle deaths includes adding bike boxes at 14 new intersections!
To the more recent comments, I think it’s important to distinguish between Zoo Bomb and Critical Mass.
Critical Mass in its purest form is a deliberate act of civil disobedience to make the point that bicycles are legitimate vehicles on our streets deserving of respect. In practice, this waxed and wained depending on who participated and what the police response was.
Zoo bomb is a celebration of exuberance, that I worry has very real safety problems.
While I can understand that motorists may have objections to both, I think it’s worth noting the differences in their purpose.
OK Chris;
I understand that,
The only reason I brought any of this up is to identify WHY there is anti bicycle sentiment.
The two groups, not affiliated with each other obviously, create in the minds of the public a “in your face” attitude, which very seldom leads to cooperation and kindness.
Let me tell you about getting caught by a pack of zoo bombers. You can be driving into the tunnel or off the goose hollow ramp and all of a sudden you can be SURROUNDED by what appears to be dozens of crazy maniacs on all sorts of wierd “bicycles”, some of them appearing 20 feet high!
Or you drive into the tunnel and all of a sudden you see a wild bunch of bicylists all over the road and you have to jam on your brakes to prevent hitting them!
The YOUTUBE video did not catch the mass hysetria, although you could see one person doing what is usually a pack of about 12 doing.
Its just hard to believe that somebody hasnt gotten killed yet by that bunch, either themselves or some pedestrian as they do down the back roads up there on the hill.
The only reason I brought any of this up is to identify WHY there is anti bicycle sentiment
Al –
I think you need to start talking for yourself – is this why you are anti-bike? Because if it isn’t, then who are these people you are speaking for?
You can be driving into the tunnel or off the goose hollow ramp and all of a sudden you can be SURROUNDED by what appears to be dozens of crazy maniacs on all sorts of wierd “bicycles”, some of them appearing 20 feet high!
Are you telling this tale based on personal experience or simply passing it along. Because your videos don’t show anything like this.
Or you drive into the tunnel and all of a sudden you see a wild bunch of bicylists all over the road and you have to jam on your brakes to prevent hitting them!
Its always possible someone is driving a car as slow as the cyclists isn’t it? So you shouldn’t have to “slam on the breaks” unless you are driving too fast for conditions. Isn’t the speed advisory for the tunnel 35 mph?
Its just hard to believe that somebody hasnt gotten killed yet by that bunch,
Maybe that is just an indication that the stories about the zoo bombers are exaggerated. From some of the descriptions there ought to be nightly fatalities.
One further comment on this subject.
I’m sure most of you recall the incident where a bus driver and a bicyclist had some sort of confrontation with each other.
A passenger intervened by getting off the bus, punching the guy in the face , throwing his bike off the bridge then getting back on the bus to the cheers of the other passengers.
The bus had a full standing load yet not even one person bothered calling in the incident, to the police or TRIMET.
What does that tell you about how bicyclists are viewed in Portland?
(the guy sued, ending up getting $60 or something like that)
ross:
I personally have had it happen..to me…in the bus…twice now…
One time they surrounded me on the goose hollow ramp and the other time I almost ran into them in the tunnel….
both of my descriptions are based on what happened to me personally….
Chris:
One of the problems the bike box on Clinton suffers from is that it doesn’t stand out enough. I hope that the new bike boxes will be colored in so as to make them much more obvious to drivers.
The plan calls for using blue Thermoplastic and/or some kind of striping.
I’m a part time commuter cyclist and I think they’re a potentially bad idea – mostly because I think they’re likely to exacerbate the car-cyclist antagonism. They certainly have here! What I’d prefer to see is a 5 second advance signal for cyclists and pedestrians at major intersections. At intersections that already have walk signals the cost would be minimal since all you had to do is add the bike symbol lights. And no maintenance, either!
To my mind the real problem is there don’t seem to be widely accepted (or followed) standards for cyclists – for example, if there’s no bike lane should I go to the head of a line of cars stopped at a light or stay in my place in line? If we can’t get it down to 5 or 10 rules of the urban road I think we’re doomed to continue with the friction we have now. I mean, how long have we been talking about whether it’s legal for cars can use a bike lane for right turns?
• Cyclists, drivers find safety net in rules
The deaths of two bicyclists on Portland streets in recent weeks have heightened the sometimes bitter debate between cyclists and motorists about who owns the roads.
WOOPS!
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1193466354179340.xml&coll=7
“A passenger intervened by getting off the bus, punching the guy in the face , throwing his bike off the bridge then getting back on the bus to the cheers of the other passengers. The bus had a full standing load yet not even one person bothered calling in the incident, to the police or TRIMET.”
“What does that tell you about how bicyclists are viewed in Portland?”
Not sure that it tells me anything. You leave out noting that the TRIMET employee didn’t bother to report this, either. Which tells me that there are TriMet employees who would seem to condone criminal assault and that you sound sympathetic to this. Quite a cognitive break from ranting about law breaking cyclists….
If a motorist had been mouthing off to a bus driver and a passenger got off, punched him, and got back on, does that tell us how “motorists” are viewed in Portland? Of course not.
If the bicyclist started an argument with the driver and was being obnoxious or out of line, the reaction to his getting punched in the face by a passenger tells us only about how a small group of people react to some loud, obnoxious jerk interrupting their trip. His bicycle has exactly NOTHING to do with the story.
The Vietnamese tried bicycle bombing a few times, but gave it up for the car bomb. But it looks like the bicycle bomb is making a comeback: 24 people, killed by bicycle-bomb. That is fairly amazing, most car bombs have trouble doing that much damage.
Bicycists are best to keep to the streets, except in places like Swan Island, where the % of trucks is just too great.
The bitter irony regarding riding legally or not is that both riders killed recently were riding legally. Had they been doing so illegally…had Tracey seen a break and run the Burnside light or had Brett taken the lane down Interstate…they might still be alive.
Given the lack of police enforcement and the incomplete bike network, it is often safer to ride illegally…to run lights, take lanes, etc.
When on a bike, while it is nice to not offend motorists, it is more critical that one not be killed or injured by motorists.
If it wants to see a larger number of trips by bicycle, the City has an obligation to increase enforcement, improve engineering and increase education with the primary focus on motor vehicle operators who pose the greatest risk to both bicyclists and pedestrians. It has to make riding a bicycle legally a safe thing to do. Today that is not the case.
Or is there some other reason why ‘some’ […] people take a very dim view of bikers in this town?
I’d say it’s the ones that cause the problems that people remember when people comment on websites like this.
There’s several that come to mind for me:
– bikers that plow through red lights against vehicle traffic and me as a pedestrian trying to cross the street with a valid “walk” sign.
– I’m waiting for 70-12th Ave. on 11th. Ave. at the stop between Madison St. and Hawthorne Blvd., and some woman barrels through on the sidewalk screaming ‘get out of the way!,’ where it was clear I was at a bus stop. There was no motor vehicle traffic on the street at the time, and the bicyclist was traveling in the direction of motor vehicle traffic.
– bikers going very slowly down SE Divison St. on the stretch after SE 52nd Ave., where there’s no motor vehicle traffic passing, and cars parked up and down the parking strip, where the cyclist could’ve just as easily picked a side street; or if they absolutely had to use the Division corridor, walked their bike down the sidewalk, being courteous and conscientious of any pedestrians they might encounter along the way.
It’s the equivalent of someone riding the bus for years, but quit because of one bad experience, and say nothing but complain about that one bad experience that overshadowed all 1,000 others.
Such biker behavior is unpleasant, but not deadly; does not one get this? Come on.
This morning on my ride in…a motorist speeds along a back street near by place in the fog past me, with two runners approaching as well as another biker. Who should slow down? Who is putting their neighbors at risk?
On Broadway at 24th as motorists hit the three lane couplet westbound…speeds increase dramatically; the city sets the signal speed here too high…its a real racetrack, where I have never seen a cop enforcing what speed limit there is. But the other day there was a motorcycle cop pulling over a biker with a kids trailer at the east end of the Bway Bridge…must have coasted thru a stop sign. Big f**king deal.
My last thought yesterday was to organized a “bikers drive day.” We all get back into our cars with signs that say “I used to bike” and clog the roadways by going the speed limit.
This was interesting, so I posted it:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_110507_special_news_bicycle_safety.1e0324b9e.html
Over on Commissioner Adams’ blog, they’ve just posted a long article with bike box program implementation details:
Roger Geller explains PDOT’s position, plans for bike safety improvements
where the cyclist could’ve just as easily picked a side street; or if they absolutely had to use the Division corridor, walked their bike down the sidewalk
The motor vehicle users could’ve just as easily picked a side street; or if they absolutely had to use the Division corridor, got out and walked instead.
For those of you that don’t read bikeportland, another person got hit at Greeley and Interstate today, (but didn’t die,) and they have since closed the right turn lane off Interstate. (Not a big loss, I’m not sure why anyone would want to turn right there anyways.)
While I totally support it, (I bike through that intersection, I was there 20 minutes before the accident today,) the cynical part of me also points out that Sam Adams bikes through that intersection too…