Vicious Cycle
Portland is not so bike-friendly—But it could be. Here’s how.
July 2nd, 2008
Manhunter | Almost every state lets bounty hunters chase down its most wanted. Why doesn’t Oregon?63 comments
June 25th, 2008
Get Wet: WW’s Summer Guide 2008 | The rain is finally over. Now let’s get wet!1 comment
June 18th, 2008
New Kids In The Flock | Gresham’s twin teenage sensations go about their Father’s business. And it’s making them superstars.46 comments
June 11th, 2008
The Price is WHAT? | Second-guessing City Hall—it’s more fun than Monopoly! 17 comments
June 4th, 2008
Welcome to Googleville | America’s newest information superhighway begins On Oregon’s Silicon Prairie.18 comments
May 28th, 2008
Fleeced | While students across Oregon celebrate graduation, many are facing a gnawing problem—they’re getting sheared by huge debt.57 comments
May 21st, 2008
A Bridge Over The River Why? | Local pols say global warming is a dire threat. But they want to spend $4.2 billion on a project that makes driving easier.70 comments
May 14th, 2008
Higher Ed | Reed College is exceptional for more than academics. It’s one of America’s most permissive colleges for experimenting with drugs.555 comments
May 7th, 2008
Best New Band 2008 | Portland music insiders take our local scene to the chopping block—and come out with 10 new faves. 0 comments
April 30th, 2008
For The Love of Politics | WW’s endorsement page-turner has all the candidates worth falling for this election.36 comments
 White-line Lane on Southwest Naito Parkway: A buffer between bikes and cars would add elbow room here. IMAGE: BikePortland.org Jonathan Maus |
|
Story attachments
|
|
|
Planned and Existing Bike Routes On Oct. 26, the Portland Office of Transportation released a list of 14 intersections around the city where it plans to install bike boxes and blue bike lanes. The intersections are:
City transportation planners also want to build another 110 miles of new bicycle boulevards. Check out this PDF file for a map of planned and existing bike routes. |
[October 31st, 2007]
Repeat something often enough and people will assume it’s true.
Portland is bike-friendly.
Portland is bike-friendly.
Portland is bike-friendly.
Year after year, Bicycling Magazine ranks Portland the best cycling city in the country. The League of American Bicyclists gives us a gold rating, and we may soon become the first big city to join Davis, Calif., in the coveted platinum category.
Virgin Vacations recently put Portland among the world’s “bike-friendly paradises.” Last year, the Austin American-Statesman noted, with some jealousy, that Portland “lives the dream of car-bicycle equality.”
Really? Tell that to Brett Jarolimek, the 31-year-old expert cyclist who died after colliding with a garbage truck on North Interstate Avenue on Oct. 22, or to Tracey Sparling, the 19-year-old student who was crushed by a cement truck at West Burnside Street less than two weeks earlier.
It’s been a bad year for Portland cyclists. Six have died in 2007. And while this is not necessarily a trend (over the past 15 years, bike fatalities have remained flat while ridership has increased), each new death offers a macabre reminder that despite our street cred as America’s most bike-friendly city, Portland is not even close to what it could be.
Being more bike-friendly than Albuquerque is one thing. Being on par with Amsterdam is another.
Indeed, an analysis shows our city’s bike infrastructure has been built in fits and starts, with serious concessions made to the car-centric status quo.
We’ve got a congressman, Democrat Earl Blumenauer, who founded the Congressional Bicycle Caucus, and helped get millions of dollars for streetcars, but compromised heavily when he secured passage of a paltry $20 monthly tax credit for bike commuters.
We’ve got City Commissioner Sam Adams, who is building a mayoral campaign around “Safe, Sound and Green Streets.” His proposal would still leave Portland spending far less of its transportation budget on bikes than Boulder, Colo.
And we’ve got a cyclists’ lobby that pursues a strategy of “incremental successes,” even as funding for new bicycle projects has declined.
Portland could actually become a cyclists’ utopia. And it should be if, after we’re done mourning the deaths of Jarolimek and Sparling, people get serious about making Portland a world-class bike city.
Former city bike planner Mia Birk likens bike programs to affirmative action. The cars already get the best of everything, sort of like rich white guys. Bike programs would be minorities in her analogy, getting increased and overdue access to common resources.
“You have to step back and say, this isn’t just about bicyclists,” she says. “It’s great that it benefits bicyclists, but it really improves safety for all of us.”
Here are 14 ways that Portland could really live the dream of bike equality.
1. SEPARATED BIKE LANES
Portland claims a “bikeway network” of nearly 300 miles—bigger than Copenhagen’s. That may be true, but our network is decidedly not better.
Well over half of Portland’s bike network consists of those striped bike lanes you see along the shoulder of the road. These lanes are a legacy of limited thinking about what makes for a bike-friendly city.
Alan Durning of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, dismisses Portland’s bike lanes as “white lines on the pavement.”
That’s a fair description (see photo, bottom right).
What’s better than white stripes? Durning points to Copenhagen’s “bike tracks,” which are elevated from the street but lower than the sidewalk, and protected from car traffic by a buffer.
“Bicycle tracks don’t have to be that expensive—it’s just raised asphalt,” says Mark Lear, who’s directing the city’s Safe, Sound and Green Streets program.
The problem, engineers say, is that Portland has more intersections and driveways than European cities that employ bike tracks.
While creating separated lanes like Copenhagen’s may be difficult and costly, it shouldn’t be ruled out where it’s physically possible—especially on busier streets and intersections, where most accidents occur.
2. SLOW DOWN
Speed kills. Scott Bricker, executive director of Portland’s Bicycle Transportation Alliance, has the stats: Pedestrians have a 90 percent chance of survival if hit by a car going 20 miles per hour. If the car is doing 40 mph, their odds drop to 1 in 10.
Many European cities limit speeds to 12 to 20 mph through residential neighborhoods. The city of Graz, Austria, lowered its speed limit to 18 mph and cut serious road casualties by a quarter, according to the British Medical Journal . The Brits found that where speed limits were lowered from 30 to 20 mph, child pedestrian and cyclist accidents dropped by two-thirds.
 Bike Box at Southeast 39th Avenue and Clinton Street: Get ahead of traffic. IMAGE: brandon rush |
The benefits are clear. But to change Oregon’s 25 mph speed limit on a residential street, Portland needs approval from the state transportation department, which prefers to keep traffic moving briskly. Bricker calls that “screwy.”
Even so, putting speed limits under local control is not high on the bike lobby’s agenda. “It’s one of those really sticky political issues,” Bricker says.
No one said this would be easy.
3. BIKE BOULEVARDS
Changing the layout of streets can regulate traffic more effectively than changing the posted speed limit.
To that end, Portland planners are betting on “bike boulevards.” The idea is to redesign certain low-traffic streets so that bikes, not cars, dominate. With enough bike boulevards, cyclists can choose routes that avoid the busier and more dangerous arterials. What makes a bike boulevard? Signage and pavement markings designed to make motorists more cautious, as well as to signal the route to cyclists. The boulevards work best with traffic-calming measures like speed bumps, traffic circles and raised diverters that allow bikes, but not cars, to cut through.
Today, Portland has a scant 30 miles of bicycle boulevards. They vary in quality. Southeast Clinton and Lincoln streets represent the ideal of the form, where bikes often outnumber cars.
Unfortunately, the majority of the city’s bike boulevards incorporate no traffic calming, according to Portland’s bicycle coordinator, Roger Geller. So they’re more like suggestions: Bike here, but please consider taking your car somewhere else.
“We haven’t realized the potential of what a bike boulevard can be,” says Jonathan Maus, who edits bikeportland.org. “You’ve got to cross major streets that are pretty dangerous, and there’s no designated crossing.”
Portland’s Office of Transportation wants to create another 110 miles of bike boulevards, mostly on the east side, as part of a $485 million transportation package proposed by Commissioner Adams.
They probably won’t work if the city tries to do things on the cheap. Geller says it’s too soon to say whether new boulevards would incorporate the traffic-calming measures that make them most effective.
4. BETTER SIGNALS
Eighty percent of crashes happen at intersections, where crossing is especially tricky for cyclists. Portland’s traffic signals are aging. As the city replaces them, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians should take priority.
Certain kinds of signals are especially useful for cyclists trying to cross busy streets. Tucson, Ariz., uses a lot of so-called HAWK signals. With these, the traffic light stays dark until a cyclist (or pedestrian) presses a button. When they do, the red lights flash, so the cars stop and the people can pass.
Last year, Portland installed a $140,000 HAWK signal at East Burnside Street and 41st Avenue.
At the Broadway Bridge and the Eastbank Esplanade, the city has also experimented with bike-specific traffic signals, which are activated when a cyclist comes to a stop inside a magnetic loop. “It’s a solution that seems to be working for us,” says Portland traffic engineer Greg Raisman.
OK, then, let them work elsewhere as well.
5. GO BLUE
At 11 high-traffic Portland intersections, the bike lanes are colored solid blue, rather than demarcated by an ordinary white line, to make them more visible to motorists.
It really helps. After Portland engineers painted the blue lanes, they videotaped the traffic, and found that more cars yielded to bikes. A study of Denmark’s blue bike lanes found that they significantly decreased bicycle accidents. Montreal found the same thing.
Portland’s colored bike lanes could grow in a couple of different ways. The Germans use colored lanes as a wake-up call at key spots, like intersections and turn zones where cars need to cross a bike lane. The Belgians paint the whole lane.
Either way, this city could use more color. It’s not like we’re rationing paint.
6. TRUCK FIXES
Witnesses to Tracey Sparling’s death said she was in the cement truck driver’s blind spot. Installing convex rear-view mirrors can eliminate those blind spots.
The Brits now require mirrors like these on all new trucks. The European Union has gone further, requiring that all trucks be retrofitted with blind-spot mirrors—at an expected cost of $150 per vehicle—by 2009. An “under-run” protection bar, running low to the ground along the sides of a truck, would keep cyclists from getting dragged under the wheels.
7. BIKE BOXES
The blind-spot problem can also be mitigated at intersections by a “bike box,” which simply moves back the line where cars are supposed to stop by about five feet, creating a space next to the crosswalk where bicyclists can queue up at the traffic light.
Story continues belowadvertisement
 Bogotá, Colombia: See something missing? On Sundays, they don’t even allow cars. IMAGE: themikebot |
The idea is to put bicyclists ahead of cars, where drivers can easily see them (and they’re not “sucking fumes,” as one cyclist puts it).
This is not a new idea, just a foreign one. Bike boxes are used extensively in Canada and Europe.
Today, there is one bike box in Portland, at Southeast 39th Avenue and Clinton Street. Geller, the city bike coordinator, has identified several intersections that could use bike boxes, including Southeast 39th Avenue and Lincoln Street, Southeast 21st Avenue at Ladd and Division streets, and Southeast Madison Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, near the Hawthorne Bridge.
The costs are negligible. Geller figures that design, labor and materials comes to $2,000 per intersection—probably less.
Last week, in response to public concern over the latest cycling fatalities, Commissioner Adams released a list of 14 intersections where bike boxes and blue lanes should be added.
8. NO RIGHT ON RED
For the bike boxes to really work, the city would have to prohibit right turns on red at certain intersections. Engineers say this would have to be done strategically to avoid screwing up the flow of traffic. And it would require a new city ordinance.
9. CLOSE SOME STREETS TO CARS
Every Sunday, Bogotá, Colombia, shuts down about 70 miles of its busiest streets to automobiles. They fill up with people instead. About one-seventh of the city comes out on bikes and on foot for the weekly ciclovía party. In 2006, New York City began limiting car traffic through Central Park.
Portland is just beginning to consider limited closures modeled on the ciclovía , says Linda Ginenthal, with the city’s transportation office.
“We’re not thinking about doing something like this on a business street, because it’s complicated,” Ginenthal says. “Also, we don’t want to do anything on a transit street…. We don’t want to hassle people to change their bus.”
The city would still want people to be able to drive to their homes. And most of Southwest Portland is out. “I don’t want to throw a monkey wrench into the complicated traffic situation they already have,” Ginenthal says.
So planners are willing to bring car-free days to Portland, as long as people can still get around by car. Figure that one out. Ginenthal says the scope of any car-free festivities depends on public demand. The ball’s in your court, people.
10. NEW TRAILS AND ROUTES
Portland has 71 miles of off-street bike paths, like the Eastbank Esplanade along the Willamette River and the Springwater Corridor that cuts through Southeast Portland and runs to Boring.
More such paths are needed to build the unbroken bikeway network that makes cycling safe and convenient.
Where to begin? Planners and cycling advocates want to close a short gap between the Esplanade and the Corridor, and build a whole new path in Northeast Portland, that would connect the Esplanade to the I-205 path.
The BTA has a 40-project wish list, which can be found on their website at bta4bikes.org. First and foremost is the replacement of the “nearly uncrossable” Sellwood Bridge (see photo, page 29). The organization notes that the bridge is 3 miles from a safe alternative route.
11. HELMETS FOR GROWNUPS
Like most states, Oregon requires helmets for bike riders under 16 years old. Many U.S. cities, including Dallas and Seattle, mandate helmets for adults, too. Helmets are the law for everyone in British Columbia, Finland and even Australia, where nobody wants to look like a sissy.
Portland cyclists don’t want stricter helmet laws. Why strap on a helmet for a trip down the block? What’s next? Drivers wearing seatbelts?
“The love affair we have with European bike cities is great, but what worries me is people take the fact that none of them wear helmets [and think] it’s OK to not wear helmets,” says Maus. “It’s just not safe.”
In part, the bike community’s helmet-law aversion is a PR thing. Helmets imply that cycling is dangerous.
Helmet law opponents cite Australian studies that show the helmet law there discouraged people from cycling. But there is a broad body of research that shows helmets can prevent serious injury.
Don’t buy it? Try taking a helmetless head-first fall to the pavement, and refute it thus.
12. BUST BAD BIKERS
The stereotypical bad biker is an overgrown adolescent riding a brakeless bike, blowing through stop signs at night, with no lights, listening to an iPod, with an American Spirit in one hand and a can of Pabst in the other.
 For cyclists, the Sellwood Bridge is 3 miles from a safe alternative. IMAGE: brandon rush |
If you see this person, call
the cops.
Sure, it’s an exaggeration. But cyclists could do more to dispel the idea that a bicycle is a license to break the traffic laws.
“I have friends who say, ‘If you’re drunk, you should bike instead of driving.’ I think that’s definitely a prevailing sentiment,” says 23-year-old Reed College grad Lurline Sweet, who broke her collarbone in a bike crash this July on Southeast 2nd Avenue. (Sweet was sober. She just hit the train tracks wrong.)
“Certainly, from a PR perspective, it would help if cyclists stopped at red lights,” says the city’s Geller.
“We have to ride slower,” he adds. “That’s what we ask motorists to do.”
Brian Leber, a former Chicago bike messenger, is a salesman at the downtown Bike Gallery. In Chicago, Leber had to break the rules to make money. Here, fellow cyclists scream at him after he blows a stop sign.
“People like you give us a bad name!” they say.
Shame is surprisingly effective, with most people. For everyone else, there’s tickets. Of course, that applies to drivers, too.
13. DRIVERS’ ED
In the 113-page Oregon Driver Manual, only a page and a half applies to how to drive around bicyclists.
After meeting last week with officials from the state Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division, Commissioner Adams said that section of the manual may get beefed up, and a Portland-specific section could be added to the drivers’ test. The DMV may also consider refresher tests for drivers, Adams said.
Good ideas, all.
14. RIDERS’ LICENSES
Bicycle licensing could have two benefits. It could improve safety by teaching cyclists how to behave on the road, and it could raise money for bike projects.
Some cycling advocates wouldn’t rule out licensing, if it funds a new trail or two. “Why should we be looking at bake sales when we represent 5 percent of the traffic and get 2 percent of the funding?” says Maus of bikeportland.org.
Commissioner Adams is dead-set against licensing. He says the administrative costs would outweigh the revenue.
That would depend on how the program was implemented.
But let’s say he’s right, and bicycle licensing doesn’t pencil out. Let’s even assume it would be really expensive. It might still be worthwhile, if it creates an opportunity to educate cyclists.
A municipal licensing program aimed at cyclists—as opposed to their bikes, which has failed in other cities—could provide that missing education. It could also mitigate the perception among motorists that cyclists get special privileges, even if they’re just sucking fumes.
Making all this happen will cost real money. There are many ways to raise it. San Francisco, for example, raised $56 million for its bike network with a half-cent sales tax.
What we should be asking is, how livable a city do we really want?
For the sake of livability, Portland made choices that seemed wild at the time—rejecting highways and encouraging urban density while others made a fast buck off of sprawl.
All that paid off. So could this.
Bicycles make cities more sane. They’re quiet. They burn no fuel. They’re slower and thus safer than motor vehicles. Most people can use them. They offer exercise. And they’re a bargain.
Mayor Tom Potter’s two-year Vision PDX process has cost $1.5 million, enough to more than double the city’s annual capital budget for bicycle projects.
Building the Aerial Tram cost $57 million. There’s your new bikeway network, and then some.
It costs about $25 million to take the streetcar a single mile. The same amount of money will buy 110 miles of new bicycle boulevards, per Adams’ proposal.
If Portlanders will raise their taxes for trains, why not bikes? Because cyclists haven’t asked for much. Next to the well-heeled rail fans, the bike lobby is a disorganized rabble.
“We know that bike boulevards and trails are good for property values,” says former city bike planner Birk, now of Alta Planning and Design, “but we haven’t been able to make the full tie into the business strategy.” The economic benefits of bikeways, as Geller notes, are more diffuse than those you see with, say, a streetcar line.
Diffuse doesn’t mean nonexistent.
Portland’s earlier investments in the bikeways network spurred a dramatic increase in ridership, which is why we’ve vacuumed up all those national accolades and, consequently, made a lot of people want to live here.
The best thing Portland could do to increase safety for the growing ranks of cyclists—not to mention everyone else on the roads—would be to have more cyclists around.
History shows that if we build it, they will bike.
The city of Portland figures bike boulevards cost $20,000 per mile, and up to $100,000 per mile if they include new traffic signals at intersections.
Portland contains more than 3,800 miles of roadway, measured by the lane, with 171 miles of bike lanes.
Portland’s bicycle fatality rate, as measured by the bike advocates at the Thunderhead Alliance, is slightly below the average compared with 50 large U.S. cities. Las Vegas is the most deadly city for cyclists. Milwaukee is the least deadly.
To comment on these and other bike safety proposals, contact Commissioner Sam Adams at commissionersam@ci.portland.or.us or Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller at Roger.Geller@pdxtrans.org.
Check the city's gettingaroundportland.org for bike route maps, parking and other resources. Bikeportland.org is a clearinghouse of information and discussion.
Check out the Thunderhead Alliance's 2007 benchmarking report to see how Portland stacks up to other American cities when it comes to accommodating cyclists and pedestrians.
Actually, the bicycle commuter tax incentive provisions were included in the House passed energy package on August 4, 2007.
In Gresham, the Springwater Trail is considered a park and is closed from dusk to dawn. That means it's open for only nine hours a day in December. Bike commuters can be arrested for criminal trespass.
The Portland biking community needs to step up by paying for improvements and maintenance of bicycle infrastructure by imposing a tax related to bicycle activity. A sales tax on bicycles and parts, an annual biking fee or both would provide the funding desperately needed by the city and demonstrate the progressive, proactive nature of the Portland biking community. If the Portland biking community is growing and wants to continue to make Portland a great biking city then they must be willing pay for it. There’s no such thing as a free ride.
Dean, bikes in Portland make up at least 5% of trips and use less than 2% of transportation revenue. Since 3/4 of road maintenance is paid for by general tax funds, not car-related taxes, and since most people who bike still own cars and use them, by your logic, we are subsidizing amenities aimed only at motorists. 6 billion dollar freeway bridge expansion, anyone? There's a lot of ground to make up in funding bike routes. Thanks.
Yeah, taxing the kids who bicycle to school is progressive.
It's a canard to tax individual users of the commons. We don't tax walkers who use sidewalks or readers who use libraries because we understand that the whole community benefits from these common facilities.
In any event, the number of Portland cylists who don't also use cars and pay gas taxes is so small that taxing them would not generate significant revenue.
This article illustrates a better biking community with the examples of cities in Europe.
There is one thing that I have not found mentioned anywhere as a main difference between the US and European cities: Europe and other continents in the world don't always solve their problems with money thrown at it.
In fact, we become more creative in solving problems with less cash in the pocket.
Most of the discussions I have read in the last weeks in internet forums make mention of taxing, licensing cyclists or get more money from DOT.
Money will not solve the problems, you can do something about it by simply getting on your bike everyday and influence others who don't (and who could). This is how you make a bike town.
Two points I'd like to offer:
1. Helmets have nothing to do with making Portland a better biking city; they are a personal choice for personal safety. You reference Europe where "nobody wears one." In a bike-friendly city, you shouldn't have to. Helmets did not save Brett and Tracey.
2. By licensing cyclists, we would create a legal paradigm wherein cycling, like driving, was a privilege, that can be taken away. Think about that for a minute: cycling is bigger than commuting or bike lanes or traffic laws. Cycling is also riding to the park with your friend as a kid. It's meandering to the neighborhood cafe on a Saturday morning, without worrying about bringing identification. It's teaching your children the same thing you enjoyed when you were a kid. Shall we also license skate-boarding?
Furthermore, cycling is closer to walking than driving. Driving is DANGEROUS, the most dangerous thing most people do on a daily basis. Cyclists (like pedestrians) generally put only themselves at risk. Operating a car requires training because it's so dangerous to others. Riding a bike is something many of us learn while we're in grade school.
If requiring a license is the only way to "save" cycling in Portland, I'll take the bus.
We are becoming enough of a "papers, please" society already without adding another thing that citizens need to be "authorized" to do by the government.
From reading an eyewitness account of the accident involving Tracey: The truck hit her bike and knocked her over. The truck ran over her bike and did not run over her. She was bleeding out of her mouth before she died. Tracey was not wearing a helmet.
I do not know how she hit the ground (e.g. sideways, front, head-first), but if she hit her head, which I presume that she did, a helmet would have gone a long way towards saving her. Hitting one's temple on anything hard can kill one instantly.
I'm not saying that she would have lived if she had worn a helmet. I don't know how she fell. However, wearing a helmet would have increased her chance of survival, assuming that she hit her head on the pavement or the post.
You're missing a 15th key area that the city could do right now - publicity. Make people (both drivers and cyclists) much more aware of each other and of their responsibilities. Billboards and newspaper commercials are cheap. TV commercials are affordable. Signs and flashing lights warning drivers to look for cyclists would be a cheap and effective aid on busy streets, such as the nightmare of the NE Broadway bike lane.
Making people more aware isn't a cure, nor as effective as bike boulevards; but it's cheap, it's quick, and it would certainly help.
KG -certainly money cannot solve everything, but it certainly doesn't hurt if spent pragmatically and thoughtfully.
Example: in 1992, there were 2,800 bicyclists crossing the Hawthorne, Broadway, Steel and Burnside bridges every day.
Bicycle amenities like bikelanes, bikepaths, and improved bridge access have been and continue to be incorporated into the bridge designs for each bridge over the years since 1992.
Result: 2007 bicycle counts reveal 14,500 bicyclists now use those briges. Many of those bicyclists would not choose to do so if they had to ride on street, in busy traffic, with no engineering tools to help protect them.
I do agree with you though, that money for bicycle safety and infrastructure is sparse, and should be spent carefully.
PS - great article, Corey! Thanks so much.
I am not a cyclist. I am not opposed to cycling. But there is one point in that article that is tucked away, and should be on the front at the top: point #12 about bad bikers. I'm sure that it is a minority of bikers who break the rules, and ruin it for every one else. I don't notice those of you bikers who do follow the rules any more than I notice the auto traffic around me, and that's the way it should be, right? But I certainly do notice those bikers who break the rules, and I know a lot of other people who notice as well. To say the rule breakers give all the other bikers a bad name is an understatement. They are fostering an agressive attitude in the motorists towards ALL cyclists.
There are a couple of other things in that article I found troubling. For one, who says it's a good thing to keep attracting more people to live in the Portland area? Remember Tom McCall? "Welcome to Oregon, now please go home". Our city has an uban growth boundary for a reason: so we don't look like California.
The other point is about the aerial tram. Of the $55 to $57 million dollars it cost to build that, only $8 million was from tax dollars; OHSU, a for-profit corporation, paid for the rest. This is just poor journalism.
How do you go about not attracting more people to Portland? Make it less desirable to live here? Forced sterilization (about 50% of future growth in the region will be births)? More people are coming, like it or not - let's plan for it instead of waiting until its too late.
The bigger problem is proper traffic engineering when it comes to bike lanes.
Bike lanes are to the right of the lanes used by cars. Cars making right turns cannot use the bike lane so they must cross the bike lane to turn right. Bikes in the bike lane have the right of way and are allowed to pass cars on the right.
Cars turning right are trying to look at the pedestrians on the sidewalk, at on coming traffic, traffic from the cross street they are turning into and traffic passing them on the right at 20 mph in the bike lane. A driver can signal their intent to turn, make sure the way is clear then turn only to find them selves turning into a cyclist.
Where else in traffic engineering do you have a lane with through traffic to the right of a lane that to turn right has to cross the through traffic lane? Where else in traffic law is passing on the right allowed? It is a recipe for disaster as we have seen with two deaths.
The lanes have to be better engineered and the laws need to change to make everyone safer.
#15 Grant Lt. Kruger early retirement.
#16 Enact "Stop as Yield" legislation to legalize the way most of us currently safely ride.
#17 Recognize that the Columbia River Crossing is this decade's Mt. Hood Freeway and shut it down.
#18 Physically separated bike lanes with bike signals on major arterials.
#19 Encourage more bike rental opportunities (I know they're in the works...)
#20 Don't be afraid to DISCOURAGE driving in addition to ENCOURAGING bicycling.
rob: Tracey Sparling died of a head injury; she wasn't wearing a helmet.
The Vicious Cycle article rehearses several proposals to ameliorate conflicts between bicyclists and drivers. Reading them produces a sinking feeling because they are so contrived, desperate and unhelpful; though all involve spending money to retrofit a transportation system built mostly around individual motorized transport. One reason for this plethora of non-starters is different perspectives on just what the problem is. From the perspective of elected officials it’s a PR problem, hence “white lines on pavement” and garnering nonsensical awards for “bike friendliness” become surrogates for progress if not solutions. For urban and transportation planners and other pseudo professionals it’s about professional ingenuity and preserving their sinecures. If it’s up to them the streets of Portland will be clogged if not paved with the fruits of their sanctimonious intentions. For cyclists it’s about not getting squashed.
The obvious solution to this aspect of the transportation problem is to change the law. Pedestrians have priority right of way, bicyclists are second and cars, trucks and buses are third. In any accident between persons of two different transportation priorities the person with the lower priority is presumed to be at fault. If that person has a compelling story, for example, the cyclist ran the red light, then the presumption is overridden. This wouldn’t solve all the problems inherent in mixing cyclists with multi-ton motorized vehicles, for example, the long term health effects on cyclists from vehicle pollution including superfine particles, but there would probably far fewer accidents between cyclists and motorized vehicles and it would not cost much.
The broader problem of congestion can be tackled to a significant degree by shift commuting costs from employees to employers. Employers could be taxed on the carbon emissions of vehicles their employees use to commute but only during commutes. Telecommuting would suddenly blossom and congestion would magically disappear.
Finally some sense!! If we really want to make Portland more bike-friendly, let's change our laws to protect those who are more physically vulnerable - and less fuel-dependent. I would love to see laws saying that any time a car hits a biker, the car is assumed to be at fault. Add mandatory jail time for drivers who kill bikers and I bet they'd start seeing us two-wheelers.
Rob (post #7), good points, but I disagree with your comment on helmets. Are we not talking about bike safety? How do you expect the city and drivers to support safer cycling in the city when the riders themselves show disregard for their own safety? Yes, helmets did not save two cyclists lives last week as safety belts did not save hundreds of drivers lives last week either. Think about how many riders lives have been saved by wearing a helmet.
There have been numerous studies and tests done on bicycle helmet safety. Please give it some thought. I admit that I equate cyclists who run lights and stop signs with cyclists who don't wear helmets; they give us all a bad reputation. Thanks for reading.
If bike commuting in Portland is a real goal, not just PR, we will spend as much on dedicated paths for bikes as we do on light rail and trolleys. With our current bike lane style infrastructure, encouraging many more people to commute by bike will result in many more deaths and taint the concept of bike commuting.
rule #1 - you must ride to work for 1 year on a bicycle, then you get a car. The only way motorists can be educated on the awareness of bicyclists (and motorcyclists for that matter) is to be in their shoes.
Enough with the friggin bike licensing. Bicycling NEEDS to be accessible to ALL not just those who can afford a bike license. It just gives the Police one more giant fine to levy against a poor person.
And the (stereo)typical bad biker is not a hipster. It's Joe Normal, on a $99 mountain bike, riding against traffic.
I'm tired of hearing about helmets too. They don't wear helmets in Copenhagen or Amsterdam. Why? because car drivers SEE cyclists, and you generally slam your head after being hit by a damn car.
The article was a charming mix of hope, sincerity, fantasy, and nonsense. In my view, slowing cars in residential areas, better traffic signals, bike boulevards and truck fixes make sense.
But separated bike lanes? Foolish idea. Cyclists are generally safer further from the curb; and any pavement edge that keeps them to the right would be a safety hazard in its own right. It would make merging left for a left turn a dangerous operation. Besides, as the article notes, the vast majority of car-bike crashes happen at intersections. Restricting cyclist's road access complicates intersection maneuvers, and leads to deadly surprises.
But by far the most daft ideas were mandatory helmets for _anyone_, and licensing of cyclists. How sweet to think a foam hat certified for a mere 14 mph impact will make a big safety difference! And how ignorant!
A journalist should look into actual data before proposing an idea that has been proven to fail. The "body of research" that claims helmets are wonderfully effective, is based on self-selected subjects and ignores the detrimental effects of greatly reduced cycling. They have _never_ increased the safety of a population of cyclists, even in places where all cyclists are forced to wear them. Please visit www.cyclehelmets.org for many more details on this issue.
Mandating helmets and licensing cyclists - what happens next time I visit from out of state? I get ticketed for improper hat style and not having prior permission to cycle? And these are making Portland bike-friendly?
Finally, please keep in mind that cycling IS SAFE. It is at least as safe as many other activities we routinely do without worry. See www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/... for some details.
Remember, being "bike friendly" includes NOT scaring people away from riding!
I hear a bell ringing.....
Someone mentions licensing bicyclists and maybe having them pay some taxes and they seem to begin drooling like one of Pavlov's dogs.
I pay taxes on my income. I pay taxes on my home. I pay taxes to operate the vehicle I use.
Since I pay property taxes and income taxes, can I opt out of the vehicle taxes? Seems only fair according to what passes for logic in the biking community.
The standard blathering about some ficticious minority of cyclists who don't follow the laws is somewhere between laughable and pathetic. The majority of cyclists don't follow the laws and their resistance to licensing speaks volumes about the issue.
It would likely be easy to prove this using statistics gathered from enforcement but since no license and no identifying registration or plate....no data. Saaaay, bike dudes and dudettes, this wouldn't be part of the reason you fight licensing so hard, is it?
What a bunch of pantloads.
"... The majority of cyclists don't follow the laws and their resistance to licensing speaks volumes about the issue."
Yes, and the majority of drivers DO follow the laws? I watch cars come off I-5 near my apartment and about 20% stop at the stop sign. Speeding, rolling stops -- drivers do these things ALL THE TIME. And they're putting other people at risk while doing it.
Glass houses, etc.
I recently talked with a trauma nurse at Emmanuel Hospital and he told me that in 80% of all bike fatalities, the rider was not wearing a helmet. That percentage clinches the argument in favor of a law mandating helmets on all bicyclists. Many safety measures we take for granted, such as seat belts, car seats for infants, etc., probably don't have as high a life-saving ratio as helmets.
Gil claims that 80% of bike fatalities seen by his nurse friend were not wearing helmets.
Gil, you can't prove a "safety measure" is effective by saying it's not as popular as you'd like! IOW, the absence of a helmet does NOT prove one would have prevented a fatality. Visit members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.... for examples.
More important: Of the head injury fatalities observed by your nurse friend, what percentage were cyclists, vs. from other causes?
National data shows
I'd say that in very close to 100% of automobile fatalities, the person in the automobile is not wearing a helmet, and automotive fatalities often involve head injuries. There are a lot more automobile fatalities than bicycle fatalities per capita.
Maybe we should mandate helmets in cars.
As a bike commuter for over 10 years, I have to say that I don't think I've ever agreed with a WW story as much as this one. Some of the emphasis could have been shifted, but it covered a lot of bases. Yes on more bikeways, helmets, busting bad riders,fixing truck mirrors, fixing the bike boulevards, better signals.
If we are going to get a truly significant percentage of people to ride their bikes, we need to make bicycling safer and more practical. We need some bike freeways for the outer ring of the city, so that biking isn't woefully slower than taking a car. Those bike freeways ought to be covered breezeways so people can bike to work in the rain without having to carry an entirely different change of clothes. Build this kind of bikeway and you will see a steady stream of cyclists on it almost immediately. And it will cost dramatically less than any other transportation alternative.
What's for dinner? Red Herring!
Chris, a have a car/motorcycle license so I pay those taxes too. I think at least half of cyclists have driver's licenses.
Bicyclists get tickets now without a bicycle license, so we are not getting away with anything. There are plenty of statistics out there, we are not some elite force of invisible criminals. Although the way every car driver says "I didn't see him/her" every time they hit and KILL a bicyclist you might think we are invisible. If you can't see a person a on bicycle then your license should be snipped in half.
Gil: how many of those injuries involved a car, and in how many of those collisions was the car at fault? How many of those injuries were off-road? You might want to check your statistics about seat belts and car seats too, I am pretty sure they increase your chances of survival in an accident exponentially, especially at the speeds an automobile can travel at. Speeds much greater than a bicyclist is capable of.
Bicycling and Motorcycling would be a lot safer if cars stopped smashing into us.
And as a car driver myself, I will not get into how many moving violations I see motorists make while I am driving my car. Why doesn't that bother you?
I guess I should be glad you guys are seeing bicyclists making moving violations, at least that means you actually "see" bicycles.
If you mandate cyclists to wear helmets, then it should just be mandated that everyone wear helmets all the time. Then no one will ever die and we can all live forever.
I'm surprised no one mentioned the real solution to all this mess: outlaw cars. Cars are responsible for a huge amount of the pain and heartbreak in this country. They use all our resources and are driving us into ruin. I would be stoked to live in a carless city, and I know I'm not the only one. C'mon, let's do it!
Outstanding idea. While we are at it lets tear down all of the houses, live in tepees, make our own clothes, eliminate medicine, and get rid or current monetary system by switching to a barter system involving smooth rocks and shiny objects.
as someone who's sole mode of transportation was a bike until age 27, and still the usual form of transportation for years after that, i am all for bikes, bike lanes, bike awareness, blah blah blah. but come on! get rid of cars? that's a waste of time to talk about and i, for one, do not want to give up my car. i like not moving houses with just a bike. i like getting groceries in my car on rainy days. i like getting dressed up to go out instead of putting on rain gear. i'll happily bike often, but i want to keep my car!
i have wondered, though, if people should wear helmets in cars. i think that would be good. and funny.
licensing cyclists is probably the best idea ever when it comes to limiting bike fatalities. i bike commute and own a car and see way more traffic laws broken by cyclists. we share the same road and should share the same legal liabilities!!!!
This article perpetuates bicycle separatism!
Bike lanes are the problem, not the solution. Bicycles are motor vehicles by law and do not have any "separate" legal status. This leads cyclists to believe that they can pass autos on the right whether there is a formal bike lane or not.
If we have to accept bike lanes from the pandering politicians, then the ONLY way they will work is if they are supported by a huge signage campaign to make motorists understand what solid white lines mean and the "right of way" rules. And, the police have to start writing tickets for white line infractions.
Ask your friends what a solid white line means in Oregon. They won't know. This means you are betting your life (by riding in the bike lanes) on a set of rules of the road which no one understands.
I believe that the BTA, City Council and the Oregon Legislature have blood on their hands resulting from their insistence on bicycle separatism. Why would anyone put a bike lane on Interstate Avenue which has MAX, auto freight out of Swan Island and one lane car traffic? Shear insanity!
Any reference to cycling in Europe is irrelevant to Oregon. Europeans live by the "right of way" rules and understand traffic control lines.
I ride 3000 to 5000 miles annually as a recreation cyclist in Multnomah County.
For once I agree with cyclists. Do not make helmets mandatory. In fact outlaw them. Then the cyclists will be off of the streets one by one.
I agree to disagree--outlawing the helmets will not stop trucks from crushing cyclists. You must outlaw people.
Licensing is only useful for ensuring that the cyclists on the road are educated. Enforcement of good behavior requires bike *registration*, a slightly different concept. That way a cop or anyone else could report the "license plate" of a misbehaving cyclist, and the police would be able to trace the cyclist if they can't catch him/her right away or were not there at the time.
I think that probably most places that bike registration has been tried, and it used to be more common a few decades ago, the authorities probably concluded that the return wasn't worth the effort. Just conjecture, I wasn't there...
As for #10, don't forget the North Portland Greenway! This proposed trail would stretch (more or less) along the Willamette from Cathedral Park, in St Johns, to the East Bank Esplanade, which would allow people who commute from St Johns to downtown (like me) a much safer, more pleasant route than N Greeley. The bike-commuting population on the Peninsula is growing by leaps and bounds, and none of want to get run over by the trucks that get from Swan Island to I-5/405 and back via Greeley.
Can we add another for getting more serious about bike theft? Portlanders can't take advantage of bike-friendliness if their ride (and often primary means of transportation) gets ripped off, and it happens everywhere, all the time, day and night. Stealing a bike should be treated like stealing a car instead of stealing somebody's sprinkler off their lawn. I've had 2 well-locked bikes ripped off at different times, which elicited yawns from the police and put me unhappily back in my car till I could save up for another bike, and even now I hesitate to take it downtown even during the middle of the day. I was at the Portland Building yesterday, and there is a big sign at their bike rack: "Bikes are being stolen from here - report suspicious activity to police." Yes, that's very reassuring. That makes me feel like if I park there I'll put my bike out for sacrifice (any downtown biker has seen the same kinds of signs at REI and lots of other places) -- but what are my options? I'm sure if someone went around regularly breaking car windows at these same locations they would get a lot of police attention, and a bike costs a hell of a lot more than a car window. A bike is a serious piece of property and not a toy, and I wish I detected any attitude in town that you'd be in serious trouble if you stole a bike. Even bikers (like me) just kind of take it like it's an act of nature. It's not!
In Honolulu bikes have to be "registered" much like cars here. There is a small fee for doing so and it helps reduce bike theft. Honolulu police, however, cite cyclists for moving violations and when doing so, check the registration ID number required to be on the bike itself, against the theft data base. Pawn shops are required to do the same. The registration also creates revenue for bicycle projects.
Please, I am not that stupid! With regards to the pic and the elbow room comment. Move over honey, you failed to crop the pic right to make it fit your comments. You don't need more elbow room...you need to learn how to ride the bike in the middle of the path!
Give them the room and make sure the future bicycle tax payable on each bike gets paid for all the great road improvement ideas that come about.
One point that is missing from this conversation is how bike commuting helps people who may have no intention of ever riding a bike: drivers. If all bike commuters were to drive instead, the traffic and parking would get drastically worse. With the most recent stats at something like 15 thousand bicycle bridge crossings in the Portland metro area per day *all* of us should be happy that these are not done in a car.
Finally, a good article addressing what is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.
If a few simple changes, like painting the bike lanes a different color, or posting more signs will help even a little, then by all means let's do it.
And please don't tax only the cyclists. We all benefit from those that ride bikes - less traffic, less polution, less noise. I for one, welcome a little less traffic on my necessary morning commute.
A license is too restrictive and the administration of issuing one would be very costly. Instead, spend the dollars to educate.
I was in an accident with a cyclist. After beating myself up for weeks about how I could not have seen her, I did a little math. We all think that bikes don't travel very fast, but 12 miles per hour is 17.6 feet per second. In my case, the person was riding the wrong direction on the sidewalk and came out from behind a row of trees that ended about 15 feet from the driveway I was entering. So about 1 second elapsed between the time she appeared from behind the trees and we made contact. Thank goodness, she was not critically injured.
Having been through that experience, it scares me to death every day that I see either a cyclist or a driver acting unsafely or irresponsibly. And I believe that as a driver, I cannot afford to take a "not my problem" attitude. As drivers and cyclists we both have a responsibility to make our roads as safe as possible.
WOW! comparing bicyclists to racial minorities is one of the most over-exaggerated, bone-headed statements I've ever seen W.W. print. I know a lot of racial minorities who drive cars. I don't know one of them who would identify with a "rich white guy." Was it W.W.'s plan to marginalize the position of racial minorities in this country or was it an unintential slap in the face to people of color? As far as Copenhagen goes, if Portlanders want to pay 50% of their income in taxes, maybe in addition to upgraded, increased bike lanes, we could afford to not only feed our hungry children, but provide them with health care as well. Please note, that I am a cyclist, pedestrian and a motorist or according to the article, a racial minority, a rich white guy. Maybe being a pedestrian, merely makes me human?
You obviously didn't score well on your SATs (or you're young enough to have taken the analogy-free SATs). Analogies aren't meant to be universally applied. Black is to white as salt is to pepper. Your argument: "But salt and pepper affect food in totally different ways! I know a lot of people who use salt AND pepper! I know some people who are allergic to pepper but love salt!! I prefer white pepper, what does that say about your analogy now??"
I live in England and used to live in the Netherlands. After 8 years in Portland (98-06), I think the city is getting better but still has a long way to go. And why not go that way? No one wants more cars. I pay close to $8 a gallon for gas here, maybe that would encourage cycling.
Tax isn't a bad word. Every society with high taxes has happier, healthier people than the USA. Why don't we connect the dots. But tax the rich (gas guzzlers) and not the poor (environmentally concious drivers and cyclists).
Put a development tax on all bicycles sold or registered in the city. Also all bikes must be registered to use city streets!
Truck fixes? Are you kidding me?
Hey Corey, when you write a news story concerning bikes and trucks, you should consider rounding up the rest of the 23rd Avenue Posse, unplugging the Prius, and rolling out to Jubitz. You could have written a better article by interviewing a truck driver or two, no matter how much it might have eroded your bike-biased views.
Barring that, had you at least bothered to visit The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Website, you'd know "rear-vision mirrors and their replacements shall meet, as a minimum, the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 (49 CFR §571.111)."
If you'd chose to delve further into the un-hip world of trucking regulations, you might have learned that 49 CFR §571.111 deals with the fact trucks don't have a rear-view mirror like the one you fix your hair in at stoplights. And so, we truckers are required to carry "an outside mirror of unit magnification or a convex mirror installed on the passenger's side." That's the same side both Sparling and Jarolimek collided with, no?
Of course we truckers know these laws. Yep, our life isn't all Waylon Jennings and bike-smashing. In fact, I challenge you to find a garbage truck or a concrete mixer without a minimum of two convex mirrors.
While your doing that, I'll rest easy in my new-found knowledge of European mirror requirements, even though this is Portland, not Prague.
Oh well, typical Willy Week. Clueless and careless when it comes to blue-collar reality...
Next time, leave the trucking to the truckers, and thanks for not vilifying us further.
Dave Fitzpatrick
Dave, I'm in the automotive recycling industry... which is fancy-speak for "I work in a wrecking yard." To be sure it's a nice wrecking yard, but I digress. I love trucks. My young daughter loves trucks. We like to wake up early and watch the garbage trucks on Friday's. However, I also commute by bicycle every damn day, rain & shine (and cold, as of late), even though I have an '06 Chrysler and a '93 Chrysler (with 38k miles, thank you) sitting in the driveway.
You use many, often sarcastic, words to make the point that trucks already have convex mirrors on the right side. Point taken. What I want, and don't give a damn about what truckers want, is more safety features.
I'm interacting with The Real Trucker several times on a daily basis. And while many are sufficiently professional, many are not (I've never met someone who got into truck driving for the cognitive challenges - and I've met a lot of drivers).
My point is this: mirrors are a start. But what I want is to be alive to see my children learn to ride bicycles. And I want my children to be alive when they're peddling around.
We all make mistakes; bicyclists and driver's alike. If I (or the truck driver) make a mistake, and some roll-under protection will keep me alive... I wonder how the family of a CEO or owner of a large trucking company would react if one of his or her children were crushed because they were too cheap to install guards.
So you're admitting the truck drivers had no excuse other than their own incompetence? Because they had the mirrors according to you. That sounds like a prison sentence for both drivers.
And if the mirrors didn't stop the truckers from running over the cyclists, maybe the trucks need a few more safety features.
In reading your article vicious cycle I noticed one glaring omission.. Both of these unfortunate traffic deaths took place at intersections. What is the law in intersections regarding bikes passing cars? Until the 2005 legislature came out with a bill sponsored by the PTA it is my understanding that it was illegal for bikes to pass on the right. I tried to find the testimony from the hearing and staff reports and was not able too (I did not spend a lot of time trying). What was the legislature trying to accomplish? Could you find this information and post on line so we know the purpose of this change in the law. It might help with the discussion. The law I found on the subject was in ORS 811.415 C) The roadway ahead of the overtaking vehicle is unobstructed for a sufficient distance to permit passage by the overtaking vehicle to be made in safety.
(b) Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaken vehicle is proceeding along a roadway in the left lane of two or more clearly marked lanes allocated exclusively to vehicular traffic moving in the same direction as the overtaking driver.
(c) 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.
If a car can turn right it is not exclusively the same direction and it must also be done safely. I wrote and asked the PTA, they responded with but they were in the bike lane and that is all the web site says also. What does that mean. Can a bike pass a car in a intersection?
Portland has never, ever, been bike friendly. Then cycle magazines write that crap to fill their pages and highlite small cities that have a few bike paths going nowhere in particular. I always used extreme caution when riding the streets, (usually stayed to the side walks and lesser traveled roads) and I still had close encounters with death every day on every ride. Commuter cyclists cannot compete with cars. Size and speed win everytime. Nevertheless, cyclists that think they can own the road are gravely mistaken. Legislation (money) to widen the roads and or desinate bikes/pedestrians only will alleviate, not solve, PDX\s cycle accident rate. I currently live in a very small town in central Norway, and it is not any safer over here. When we get behind the wheel, we forget about the little people walking and cycling.
Mark, you mention you ride on sidewalks.
That's seriously dangerous - not only for pedestrians, but for you.
Several researchers have examined the relative safety of riding on sidewalks, vs. riding on roads. They've found sidewalk riding to be at least twice as dangerous as riding on the road.
You're safest operating as a vehicle.
There are far too many idiots on cell phones, speeders, streetracers, drunks, grampas and grannies who cant see, meth heads, road raged yokels, schizohrenics, inattentive teenagers and a parcel of other poor drivers on the streets for my comfort to ride in anything other than a vehicle with lots of metal and an airbag. Even then I'm nervous. Portland bikers you should be scared. Very scared.
The ideas put forward in the article are good and certainly would help make biking Portland safer, but unless you can physically separate the bike from the car traffic with a barrier it is dangerous and people are going to continue to be killed or maimed for life.
Cycling in Portland is an environmentally green and noble thing to do and I have no problem with people doing it. People are also free to smoke and get all the lung cancer and heart disease they want. That doesnt mean it's worth the risk.
I fear that giving Portland a lable like "bike friendly" may give many naieve people a false sense of security. I personally know dozens of people who happily go thru life with their head in the sand, ignoring who they are sharing the roads with.
Sure life is risky but ending up under the tires of a garbage truck is not the way I would like to leave this planet.
I recently moved from PDX to Belgium and have been a cyclist for as long as memory. In Antwerp, Belgium it is (generally) the fault of an automobile in any bicycle/auto collision. It is simply the responsibility of all drivers to not come in contact with a cyclist -- this can also go a long way towards forcing a different attitude about cyclists in a community. Also cyclists can ride in both directions on virtually all one-way streets. Cars cannot turn right on red, except in specially designed intersections where pedestrians and cyclists are provided 'islands' where they are safe. Oh, and nobody wears a helmet! Sounds insane, but it works...
Well, I can see by the responses to my comment that classism is alive and well here in Portland.
For those of you who like to paint truckers as lacking "cognitive challenges," you might consider leaving the comfort of the wrecking yard for the open road. I logged 530 gorgeous miles today, read The Wall Street Journal, discussed my fall '08 law school matriculation (a fancy way to say enrollment), and still managed to craft a response to your blame-laden drivel.
Oh, and I did bike to and from work, 26 miles round-trip, fully-fixed, no less.
And so, being as I both bike and drive a truck, I think I have an excellent idea: Let's call it personal responsibility. And by that, I mean a responsibility to consider the immutable laws of physics while riding a bike.
Regardless of what laws, regulations, and safety accoutrements you try and shove on bicycles or trucks, the fact remains that a bike and rider average roughly 150-250 pounds, while a commercial vehicle weighs 20-40 tons.
Quit blaming people who are doing their jobs, and start making eye contact at intersections. Or simply slow down. I know it's those accursed "cognitive challenges" again, but I'll be damned if physics hasn't taught us that a bike stops a whole lot quicker than a truck.
I know mine does.
You can stop on a fixie? Do those things have brakes?
(Sorry, couldn't stop myself. Good to hear from you, Dave.)
You too, Man!
It is painfully clear that cyclists needs to learn how to ride safe. The vulerablility of a cyclist, of which I am proud to be every day, is the best reason to become very good at riding in traffic. Let's not legislate stupidity. I create my own bike box every day effectivley, respectivly and for free. Cyclists: take yourself seriously, and everyone else will.
I thought angela valdez had left Willamette Week.
Are bicycles considered pedestrian traffic? If so, they should stay on the sidewalks. Are bicycles considered vehicular traffic? If so they should stay on the streets.
I can't count the number of times I've been almost run over by some idiot on a bike worming their way down a city sidewalk, then careening into the street when an opening appeared. Sorry, bikers, but this ain't the set of Quicksilver.
All vehicular traffic should be required to have their lights ON at all times the vehicle is on and the emergency brake is disengaged.
Why are Oregonians afraid to be seen? Just look how many dri
Blumenauer did not "secure passage" of anything. H.R. 1498 has been stuck in committee since it was introduced last March: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?b...