On my morning bike ride earlier this week, I was waiting at the light to turn onto the Broadway Bridge to go to my favorite east-side breakfast food cart and witnessed an incident that mostly gave me hope for our collective cycling progress…
Two women came down the Lovejoy ramp (positive, a greater proportion of women riding is an indicator of good infrastructure) and moved into the bike box at 9th and Lovejoy to make the “Copenhagen left” onto 9th (positive, that’s the only safe way to cross the tracks on that turn and it’s been a challenge to get people used to the movement).
But then one of the women immediately darted across the street without waiting for the light to change (negative). However, the other woman started yelling at her “you’re making all cyclists look bad” (positive peer pressure!) repeatedly.
On the whole, the encounter left me optimistic.
53 responses to “Signs of Bicycle Progress (mostly) in the Pearl”
The subject of “calling out” applies to all modes of travel, and is a bit contentious. I have read several comments on BikePortland where people have shared bad experiences while calling out. They person being called out can respond very negatively, verbally or physically abusing the caller. Personally, I won’t do it, but I think there can be a positive effect.
Hahaha!
As much bad press as some bicyclists get they can’t hold a candle to the reckless drivers behind the wheel.
When was the last time a person was killed after being hit by a bike?
People who ‘call out’ other people generally tend to be D-bags, even when they’re correct. My experience is that the impulse comes more from that persons own feeling of self-righteousness rather than a genuine concern for another individuals safety or the functioning of a system as a whole.
Unfortunately, communications between motorists are somewhat limited to honked horns and flipped birds…
Calling out people and getting called out tends to make the commuting experience more stressful. I’d rather that no-one did it (self included).
Behavior change is hard, and on a societal level its even harder.
I think there’s a difference between calling out someone using the same mode you are, particularly when you’re in a peer position, not in conflict with the person you’re calling out.
I think there’s a difference between calling out someone using the same mode you are, particularly when you’re in a peer position, not in conflict with the person you’re calling out.
Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t have flipped the bird to the two drivers that accelerated through a crosswalk (one with blinking yellow lights) when someone was trying to cross the street.
My sympathies are with the one yelling, frankly.
When a PBOT staffer years ago told me how bikers pisssed her off, I noted that while getting around by bike is fun and energizing, it also leaves me often, if not always, angry due to the almost constant assault by motor vehicle operators. Not assault & battery thank god, but assault as in threatening actions…too fast, pulling out, not stopping, the usual stuff, etc. So I do vent from time to time.
Mellow the vibes, dudes!
I am a sweet, kind, generous person and so avoid all conflicts.
“People who ‘call out’ other people generally tend to be D-bags, even when they’re correct. My experience is that the impulse comes more from that persons own feeling of self-righteousness rather than a genuine concern for another individuals safety or the functioning of a system as a whole.”
What!?
So someone does the right thing — calling the BS when they see it — yet they’re the D-bags?
I must be on another planet.
What if I see someone illegally dumping trash into the Willamette? I guess I shouldn’t say anything and let them get away with it. I wouldn’t want to make anyone around me feel uncomfortable and I don’t want to look “D-baggy”.
As for the those admonishing the people who follow the rules and try to hold their respective community members accountable to some degree…get lost and don’t ever have an opinion about something.
Behavior change can happen, and the biking community is getting better and it’s from those within that community holding each other responsible.
The argument that you can enforce your standards of ethical behavior is a false one.
You might get grudging compliance in the best case scenario, you could encounter violence in the worst case scenario.
With grudging compliance you could see complications further down the road.
This idea of “calling out” behavior might work with children but seldom works with grown adults.
That’s been my experience. Grown people have pretty much crystalized their ethics.
If it’s somebody you know well and is willing to “listen” you might have hope. Other than that don’t expect results from challenging people’s behavior.
My 2 cents.
If more people called others out within reason, those who were violating the rules would be certainly change their ways.
I understand what you’re saying, what we have here is .05% of people calling others out with little efficacy.
If more did it, the results would be different.
Portland’s such a passive PC city. Those that violate the rules severely take advantage of the majority of Oregonian’s niceties.
The result is serious s-talking on internet forums and websites from their daily experiences of those who are not being held accountable in the public sphere.
Hah, I saw that! I was on my bike on 9th waiting to cross Lovejoy on my way to work. At the time I thought it was just amusing, but you’re right, it’s nice to see someone use that intersection appropriately and point out someone else’s misuse.
I guess I have “called out” a few riders in the past, but generally for only one situation: riding against traffic in the bike lane. This creates a major hazard, because I either have to go into traffic to avoid the rider, or play a dangerous game of chicken. I have also encountered this on the Hawthorne bridge.
A large part of what we call society is based on calling out. We learn it in the schoolyard. Dangerous and stupid behavior should always be pointed out , outloud. Cops can’t be everywhere , it is your city , own it.
When I’m biking, and I see bad behavior by another biker, and they can still hear me, I often let them know what I think. Generally with some kind of judgmental yet not too confrontational statement like, “Stop Sign!” or “Stop Light!” or “Pedestrians!”
When a PBOT staffer years ago told me how bikers pisssed her off, I noted that while getting around by bike is fun and energizing, it also leaves me often, if not always, angry due to the almost constant assault by motor vehicle operators. Not assault & battery thank god, but assault as in threatening actions…too fast, pulling out, not stopping, the usual stuff, etc. So I do vent from time to time.
And I suppose, Lenny, that you obey all traffic laws when bicycling? Do you come to a complete stop at stop signs? Always signal for turns? Use the appropriate lighting? And do you conflate motorists’ confusion with malicious anger?
[Moderator: Personally-directed remarks removed — ES]
Unfortunately, communications between motorists are somewhat limited to honked horns and flipped birds…
I doubt that motorists have a franchise on the infamous finger salute. Furthermore, confused “polite” Portland drivers do not use their horns enough. A horn is to be used to “warn” in order to prevent a breach of good driving practices—-not as retribution once someone has already wronged you (accompanied, of course, by the “finger”). [Moderator: Another over-the-line comment excised. ES]
I doubt that motorists have a franchise on the infamous finger salute.
Wasn’t intending otherwise–my remark was meant to note that drivers in enclosed automobiles have limited options for communicating with other motorists–you can’t hear other drivers talking, so non-verbal cues must be used. I don’t intend to suggest that motorists are unsophisticated brutes.
Furthermore, confused “polite” Portland drivers do not use their horns enough. A horn is to be used to “warn” in order to prevent a breach of good driving practices—-not as retribution once someone has already wronged you.
Agreed. One striking thing I notice when visiting China is that the horn is used for its intended purpose and interpreted that way. Many motorists (and bikers and pedestrians) here view a horn honk as an insult or challenge, not as a caution–and thus are far more likely to respond with a one-finger salute than with any sort of appreciation.
BTW–a common dramatic convention in the movies is the traffic jam scene where all the stuck motorists are each blaring their horns, as though doing so will make the car in front of them move. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered this behavior in real life… was this once commonplace somewhere?
Ron Swaren,
Do you come to a complete stop at all stop signs? Nearly every car I see around town does not come to a legal stop. Your wheels have to stop rotating completely. You also, by law, need to stop BEHIND the sidewalk when using a driveway. This, too, is ignored by nearly every motorist I see. Do you ever speed? Most motorists do that, as well.
My coasting thru a stop sign doesn not threaten anyone but myself. Its a victimless “crime.” Someone on a bike, no matter how they operate it, is rarely if ever a meaningful threat to another person. Every motor vehicle can kill in an instant of operator distraction. The failure of some to appreciate the differences between a slow 50# human powered vehicle and a fast one-ton plus motorized ones suggests what? stupidity? malice? ignorance? Help me out here.
Lenny, that’s simply not true. Cyclists can and do scare and injure pedestrians (and occasionally cause property damage to vehicles).
Keep in mind, the weight of a cycle includes (and is dominated by) the weight of the rider–thus many bikes have effective weights of 200 pounds or more–similar to a full-size deer. (I trust that it’s well-established that striking an adult deer with an automobile poses considerable danger to the occupants thereof). I’ve had a few close-calls while on foot with bicyclists speeding down the sidewalk (including one recently near my home, which occurred despite the fact that the street I was on has two perfectly usable bike lanes and is considered a key bike thoroughfare in Beaverton).
The danger posed by bikes is less than that posed by cars, which is why it makes perfect sense that you need a license to drive a car but not to ride a bike; but the danger posed by bikes is not nil.
I often perform rolling stops on my bike if I have the right of way, mainly because it reduces the amount of acceleration I have to do. Is it technically illegal? Yes. Does it matter if I am going 1mph as opposed to zero? No.
I also jaywalk if I am absolutely sure I can cross the street completely without interfering with traffic. It annoys me to no end when people walk out in the street when traffic is actually coming.
Basically, I obey the spirit of the law, if not the letter.
It seems to me that its perfectly reasonable to demand a decreasing standard of care from the following (and correspondingly less regulation and licensure) from the following types of people engaged in mobility.
* Commercial airline pilots or freighter captains
* Railroad engineers
* Truck drivers or bus drivers
* Motorists
* Bicyclists
* Pedestrians
This shouldn’t be hard, folks.
I’m supportive of the “Idaho Stop” law standard. You can roll through a stop sign (after slowing) if you can identify that there is no conflicting traffic that has the right of way. But you still have the responsibility to yield the right-of-way to another user (vehicle, pedestrian) if they have the right-of-way.
That’s very different from ‘bicycles are harmless’.
And usually the deer (or cyclist) is killed when they collide with a motor vehicle. I think the numbers killed and injured by both types of vehicles will bear me out…human powered vehicles are virtually harmless compared to the motorized sort. Bicyclists are a meer irritant to some at worst. That said, it is always wise to be considerate of fellow human beings. I ride by three rules: 1. don’t get hit; 2. don’t be a jerk; 3. don’t lose momentum. Ride by the law, and you may well be killed or injured.
I like your 3 rules Lenny. I use a similar hierarchy of priorities when traveling by any mode:
1) Safety
2) Good manners
3) Efficiency
4) Legality
Taking someone else’s right of way is a violation of #2 and probably #1, therefore no running stop signs/lights when another road users is present.
If you prioritize for 1, 2 and 3 you will end up following the law most of the time, except when the road is empty of other users.
By principal #3 I will roll through 4-way intersections at a safe speed when no other users are present.
I suppose living right on the very street that is the link in the Springwater Trail somehow does not qualify to speak intelligently on this? And, to be fair this street also has motorists who drive too fast, considering it also is a school zone. But since they’re tavern hoppers I suppose in Portland they get a free pass.
If a motor vehicle does happen to be coming too fast, I will hear the noise and can get out of the way. If it is at night I will hear it and see the lights and avoid getting hit.
However, I have nearly been run down by bicyclists traveling at night with no lights and no sound—just trying to cross the street in front of my house. And one time, on N. Lombard, I actually was run down by a bicyclist who was riding on the sidewalk just as I exited the front door of my union hall. And it hurt and could have been very serious had he run over my spine or abddomen. Or if he weighed 250 lbs. So don’t tell me that bicyclists are innocent of hurting people.
I had one very close call with a heavy adolescent mountain biker type, who could have easily knocked me headfirst down several concrete steps as he barreled through Salmon Springs. This could have been extremely dangerous. I’ve never seen an automobile careening through Salmon Springs.
Moreover I expect that a bicylist who was riding at night w/o lights or even a horn would also be the type who would leave the scene of an accident in a hurry. If they can do things like steal a $50 nylon tarpaulin off my front porch (which happened recently) I’m sure they wouldn’t stop to learn if they were liable for hundreds of thousands of medical costs.
t seems to me that its perfectly reasonable to demand a decreasing standard of care from the following (and correspondingly less regulation and licensure) from the following types of people engaged in mobility.
And I’m sure the Oregon legislature has already calculated that in. Bicyclists don’t have to wear a seatbelt or have brake lights, rear view mirrors, a loud horn or turn signals do they? Moreover, if you object to a law you should obey it and later seek to have it repealed. We don’t tailor our laws so that each individual gets what they want.
Stealth aircraft are fine when it comes to defending this country.
Stealth bicyclists who ride without lights, audible warning devices or, apparently, even a regard for pedestrians whom they hit, are not. And there are a lot of them out there. What attitude has arisen which gives these dark knights the thought that they they are above common human dignity?
And to the moderator: I have a thing about certain activists who, at first personal meeting—use offensive remarks as their very first statement. I was involved in public transport advocacy before any of you.
Why does this lil’ flamewar–arguing about whether there are more and bigger scofflaws and maniacs among the motoring public vs the bike-riding public, come up so frequently?
It seems that whenever someone in one camp complains about the other, there’s always a cascade of “yeah, but”, and eventually the assertion that those in Camp A have no business complaining about those in Camp B so long as the set of Camp A scofflaws is not empty. And there are plenty of jerks to be found in both camps, many of whom have little disregard for the rights of others.
My sneaking suspicion is that–like many things–the whole bike-vs-car debate is a proxy for broader cultural arguments and disputes. (On both sides). Which is why it frequently turns nasty.
To address Ron specifically–rude remarks you have encountered outside this forum don’t concern the moderators here, to be frank. Lenny’s initial post contained no personally-directed remarks to other posters here–even if it did contain a generic complaint about motorists. Your response, however, went beyond a generic vent about bikers, and crossed the line–hence the moderator action.
So is Lenny under “constant assault” by auto drivers? I bicycle when I can, and I find most Portland drivers are polite to a fault–and suggested that a lot of offensive conduct might be more reasonably attributed to mere, innocuous confusion. Yet Mr. Anderson apparently is angry about this, to the point where he feels it is important for everyone hear to know about it. Was my response wrong?
So I confronted him—in a way that is in fact rather common on this board. Additionally, I think a lot of Oregon drivers would benefit from a more complete understanding of Oregon Revised Statutes as they apply to the vehicle(s) they operate. A drivers education course would be one way to achieve that. Sorry you objected. The last drivers test I was require to take—in Washington state– I missed only one question.
It always helps to know the actual law—rather than just guess at it. From my experience, many drivers in Portland are clueless about right of way, use of turn signals (100ft minimum warning required), use of warning devices, yielding for and following emergency vehicles, and highway merging.
How could anybody argue that common courtesy is wrong.
If there is a 4 way stop, then all vehicles should stop before proceeding, including bicycles.
Pedestrians need to stop also, You’d be surprised how many idiotic pedestrians in this city that don’t even miss a stride when crossing an intersection.
Bicyclists do have a duty to operate with lights that are visible at night. Unbelievable as it may sound, there are numerous examples of 2 wheelers that operate without any illumination at night.
Operating your bicycle without lights should be subject to a fine as far as I am concerned.
The ZOOBOMBERS are a hazard and the fact that they are allowed to operate with impunity shows how screwed up our public policy has become.
The bottom line for bicyclists is that they take their put their own lives at risk with their bad behavior.
And from my perspective as a professional driver, the guy behind the wheel of a gas combustion engine is the real risk to my safety on the road, not the bicyclists.
Al,
There is a fine for operating at night without a front light. The law only requires a rear reflector, but many of the “ninja cyclists” don’t have those, either. Personally, I consider it suicide to ride around at night without very bright front and rear lights.
Pedestrians need to stop also, You’d be surprised how many idiotic pedestrians in this city that don’t even miss a stride when crossing an intersection.
Yeah, I wonder what is going on there, too. Is something so important going on in their mind that they can’t look around? I question the Portland C.C. redrafting of the pedestrian crossing ordinance. E.g. When you see a person yakking for a minute on a cellphone, while standing on the streetcorner, and then the next second he steps off the curb —what are you supposed to do? Are we required now to be prescient? This ordinance has tremendous implications for personal liability. Any time you change a statute or ordinance the legal and monetary implications are huge. So what points of view did the Portland C.C. consider? Don’t tell me. I think I know.
ZOOBOMBERS?? I get the picture. Truly a menace. What is the bicycle community doing to mitigate this?
And from my perspective as a professional driver, the guy behind the wheel of a gas combustion engine is the real risk to my safety on the road, not the bicyclists.
You’re absolutely right…there are a lot of incompetent people behind the wheel. I wonder how so many of them are able to afford the Beemers and Porsches (as well as the other expensive, imported cars with Obama ’08 stickers, which have taken employment from UAW members).
I’ve never seen an automobile careening through Salmon Springs.
But, unfortunately, it does happen:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/09/car_plunges_into_willamette_ri.html
And must have been pretty rare:
It’s not clear what happened. Portland’s major crash team is at the scene reconstructing what happened. “In my 20 years here, I’ve never seen anything like it,” King said.
C’mon Ron, you were begging for that one!
Statistics please. When the ZOOBOMBERS nearly miss you, but scare you out of your wits, do you really think to report it?
While Ron’s anger is misguided, there are some unfair aspects to riding a bike versus driving which he hinted at.
You don’t have to wear a helmet, which is the craziest thing I have ever heard of.
I mean, c’mon…you can’t even smoke in a bar or text on your phone while driving…
I don’t know if I’m misguided or not, but there are some serious things to consider in operating any vehicle on a roadway. No one should ignore the law. Tragically, some people only learn that at others’ expense. Uninsured motorists and hit and run drivers are a major woe in our society.
Yet what protection is there if an unlighted—and uninsured—cyclist causes you an injury? This warrants very serious discussion.
It’s interesting. Motorists are required to carry insurance (or otherwise demonstrate financial responsibility), bicyclists are not. Yet there don’t seem to be a rash of incidents of people getting hurt by under-insured and judgment-proof bicyclists.
Perhaps there is a good reason the two modes are treated differently in this regard? (And given that this state of affairs long pre-dates Portland’s love affair with two-wheeled vehicles; I doubt that a “war on cars” or other such theory has much if anything to do with it…)
One more thought…at my age its wise to “drive” your bike like its a car; otherwise you run the risk of driving your car like its a bike! Yikes!
re “under constant assault”…note that most motorcyclists will tell you the same thing. Motor vehicle operators just don’t see you lights and all. All this really just boils down to the laws of physics (which over ride any foolishness from legislatures, etc.) There are inconsiderate idiots in all modes, but where do they do the most harm? In big, fast, heavy modes. Be glad those kids are ZooBombing for kicks and not drag racing down Burnside in (made in USA) Mustangs, etc.
IMO, Portland has a large number of poor drivers. So maybe it is better that fewer of them are behind the wheel. But that is its own subject….
I felt I was lucky when I did get run down on the sidewalk on N. Lombard. I doubt that the teenagers would have stayed around anyway. Perhaps the property owner would have been liable since it was on their sidewalk. Wait a minute….what’s that pain in my hip?
You might be able to sue property owners if you tripped over a poorly-maintained sidewalk and hurt yourself; but you probably can’t sue ’em if you merely happen to be on the sidewalk and someone runs you over.
Of course, that brings up a good point. If a pedestrian trips on a broken sidewalk and hurts himself, he can sue, at least in theory. If a bicyclist, however, gets hurt after riding through a pothole–can he sue the city for neglecting street maintenance? The way sidewalks are managed by local governments (much of the burden for their construction and maintenance is shifted onto property owners, even though the benefit is to the public) almost makes them a nuisance; its no wonder that large swaths of the metro area have no sidewalks at all and are terrified at the prospect of getting them.
If a bicyclist, however, gets hurt after riding through a pothole–can he sue the city for neglecting street maintenance?
My G—! Does everyone automatically think of suing a government, these days?
The answers is: I hope not! Unless you have ten or twelve inch wheels you should be able to roll through it alright. It’s not the government’s fault if you cannot maintain balance through an average road hazard. You could also get tripped by a tree root under the pavement—or a bunch of soggy leaves left by the street sweepers!
Of course, that brings up a good point
Well…actually my point was that too many people riding bicycles take the safety of pedestrians they could run into for granted. I looked for a study. Apparently in New York incidents of pedestrian/bicyclist accidents were as high as 700 in a recent years. A number of these were attributed to jaywalking pedestrians, however.
Just a good reason to obey traffic laws—-having lights at night is very important, because a pedestrian probably won’t hear you, as they would other vehicles.
Ron Swaren: Just a good reason to obey traffic laws—-having lights at night is very important, because a pedestrian probably won’t hear you, as they would other vehicles.
As a pedestrian I really appreciate cyclists who use a bell properly when they ride up behind me. It seems like a simple thing to do.
To be a bit clear–I’m not arguing that anyone sue the government for failing to avoid a pothole on a bike (or for a bike hazard which is more relevant to this blog, streetcar tracks embedded in pavement); merely pointing out the contrast between this state of affairs and the you-better-maintain-your-walks-at-your-own-expense-lest-you-get-sued regime that applies to pedestrian rights-of-way.
That society is overly litigious at times, I don’t doubt.
ES, how about a piece on those towns in northern Europe where they have got rid of all signs, pavement markings and other street clutter. As I recall this “traffic chaos” results in better throughput and fewer incidents. Basically everyone has to slow down and “negotiate the space” at intersections.
In my memory central Amsterdam is that way whether by design or not…trams, bikes, pedestrians, motor vehicles all over the place. Seems to work. PBOT(and all traffic engineers)seem preoccupied with separating modes in order to optimize motor vehicle movement, not people movement.
The term is “shared space”. I think the closest we come is NW 13th or maybe the kind of street treatment they did near Director Park (I think they could have done even better there, though.)
While I’m not planning an article on the subject, “shared space” is an interesting concept. A related concent is the naked street, in which streets are demarcated, but traffic control devices at intersections (including major ones) are removed, and motorists are left to their own devices to safely navigate through.
ES, how about a piece on those towns in northern Europe where they have got rid of all signs, pavement markings and other street clutter. As I recall this “traffic chaos” results in better throughput and fewer incidents. Basically everyone has to slow down and “negotiate the space” at intersections.
Are you talking about a town….or metro areas with 2 million people?
“Are you talking about a town….or metro areas with 2 million people?”
I see your main point, Ron. But there are many neighborhoods where the naked street concept would word. Ladd’s Circle immediately comes to mind.
Ack…meant “…would work.”