Advocacy & Safety - Advocacy Works?

--- This excerpt is from a relevant post on the Commuting Forum entitled "Merging Problem - looking for advice"


...I called the police non-emergency number about this, and they referred me to CALTRANS. It turns out there's a bicycle coordinator whose purpose in life is making the streets safer for bikes. ...For any other California commuters, you can find the contact info here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/contacts.htm
WHOA! That is one of the most positive things I've read on these Forums. Does anyone know what advocacy efforts (finally) resulted in the creation of the "bicycle coordinator"?

that's cool - wonder what other states or high up transportation departments have one (not just cities like boulder or portland but actual states or big city governments)

even if it's just someone's part time work to be the coordinator, or a full time person designated solely for that it's still great to recognize the need and create it

Tempe, AZ has bike web presence (updated frequently) and also bike contact via email and phone.
http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/
http://www.tempe.gov/bikeprogram/bikeresources.htm

After looking up Georgia's DOT website, there is a lot about bicycling. Here's a great excerpt from Georgia Bike Sense: a Guide for Cyclists and Motorists, a Georgia DOT publication:

"Do not harrass or endanger a cyclist or pedestrian. Harrassment, which may include threats, taunting or intimidation, is a misdemeanor offense (Georgia Code section 40-6-397 a.) Reckless endangerment is also a misdemeanor offense and involves conduct which places another person at risk of personal injury (Georgia Code section 40-6-397 b.)"

The entire publication can be downloaded in PDF format from this web page:

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/planning/projects/bicycle/georgia_bike_sense/index.shtml

and here's a neat page:

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/planning/projects/bicycle/georgia_bike_sense/motorists_cyclists_sharing.pdf

and:

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/planning/projects/bicycle/georgia_bike_sense/riding_in_traffic.pdf

that's cool - wonder what other states or high up transportation departments have one (not just cities like boulder or portland but actual states or big city governments)

even if it's just someone's part time work to be the coordinator, or a full time person designated solely for that it's still great to recognize the need and create it

Oregon has had a BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/obpac.shtml) since 1973. It resulted from the passage of HB 2793, introduced by Representative Johnson, at the request of Don Stathos, who was the author of Oregon's landmark 'BICYCLE BILL' (http://www.bicyclesource.com/body/safety/laws/oregon-bicycle-bill.shtml) in 1971.

Dogbait

--- This excerpt is from a relevant post on the Commuting Forum entitled "Merging Problem - looking for advice"


WHOA! That is one of the most positive things I've read on these Forums. Does anyone know what advocacy efforts (finally) resulted in the creation of the "bicycle coordinator"?

The Iowa Department of Transportation has had a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for a long time. In fact the current one is on the board of directors for the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, the state bicycle advocacy organization.

The Iowa Department of Transportation has had a Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for a long time. In fact the current one is on the board of directors for the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, the state bicycle advocacy organization.
Bicycle coordinators can be helpful, but "bike/ped" coordinators are a step backwards for cyclists. "Bike/ped" coordinators tend to think of cyclists as slightly-faster-than-normal-pedestrians rather than as slow-moving traffic.

Even if the coordinator himself or herself doesn't have that bias, the creation of a "bike/ped" position in a transportation department means that department doesn't see cyclists as legitimate traffic. The department sees us as pedestrians who should be excluded fromt he traffic flow.

Bicycle coordinators can be helpful, but "bike/ped" coordinators are a step backwards for cyclists. "Bike/ped" coordinators tend to think of cyclists as slightly-faster-than-normal-pedestrians rather than as slow-moving traffic.

Even if the coordinator himself or herself doesn't have that bias, the creation of a "bike/ped" position in a transportation department means that department doesn't see cyclists as legitimate traffic. The department sees us as pedestrians who should be excluded fromt he traffic flow.


I do not agree. In Iowa the bike/ped coordinator has a responsibility for both the needs of cyclists & pedestrians, so she has an equal bias to both, not more of a bias to one or the other.

Example, part of her job includes but is not limited to: For cyclists it is making sure the new guidlines for shoulder width along state highways are being adhered to. For pedestrians it is making sure the new guidlines for new side path/walk width is adhered to, especially when it comes to a side path/walk along a state highway that goes through a town or city. Yes there are quite a few that do.

Another reason the same person does both is it costs the state less money. Which means it costs the tax payers less & it can provide more funds for bicycle/pedestrian facilities & improvments in the state.

In Iowa cyclists are considered legitmate traffic by the IADOT. Remeber Iowa hosts RAGBRAI every year. The RAGBRAI officials work with the IADOT & the state highway patrol department. If cyclists were not considered legitimate traffic RAGBRAI would not be allowed to continue for as long as it has, over 30 years now. In fact it got to the point where the RAGBRAI officials had to start working with the IADOT & highway patrol to make sure cyclists wer considered legitimate traffic or it would have been shut down.

I do not agree. In Iowa the bike/ped coordinator has a responsibility for both the needs of cyclists & pedestrians, so she has an equal bias to both, not more of a bias to one or the other.

Example, part of her job includes but is not limited to: For cyclists it is making sure the new guidlines for shoulder width along state highways are being adhered to. For pedestrians it is making sure the new guidlines for new side path/walk width is adhered to, especially when it comes to a side path/walk along a state highway that goes through a town or city. Yes there are quite a few that do.

Another reason the same person does both is it costs the state less money. Which means it costs the tax payers less & it can provide more funds for bicycle/pedestrian facilities & improvments in the state.




The situation is similar in Oregon. The Oregon Bicycle Advisory Committee (OBAC) became the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (OBPAC) in 1995 as part of an attempt to reduce duplication of effort and cut costs in state government.
The OBAC was signed into law in 1973 and was a direct result of the 1971 law that established a source of funds for bicycle facilities within the Deptartment of Transportation (DOT). The OBAC is an advisory body that acts as a liaison between the taxpayers and the DOT on matters that relate to bicycle facilities. Since the OBAC only meets quarterly, it was decided that adding pedestrian facilities to their area of responsibility would better serve the needs of the taxpayers than having two separate boards.
The OBAC was in the bicycle facility business for 22 years before taking on the additional pedestrian oriented duties and the DOT does not seek to exclude either group from the traffic flow.... indeed, they cannot, as the DOT does not make policy. The Department's job is to carry out the wishes of the taxpayers, as defined in the Oregon Revised Statutes which are the product of the people's elected representatives.

Dogbait

Why do you think that the interests of cyclists and pedestrians should be grouped together?

If it saves money, why not have pedestrian interests considered by the same people who consider, say, the interests of trucking? Or better yet, if it doesn't matter whether interests are logically linked together, then we have no need for even a cycling coordinator. The transportation department can look after everybody's interests.

Why do you think that the interests of cyclists and pedestrians should be grouped together?

If it saves money, why not have pedestrian interests considered by the same people who consider, say, the interests of trucking? Or better yet, if it doesn't matter whether interests are logically linked together, then we have no need for even a cycling coordinator. The transportation department can look after everybody's interests.

Should...? I doubt that anyone can think of why they should, but I'll bet that many people can see that no harm will come of it. Oregon has a bit of a problem with revenue at the moment, rippling back from the high tech crash, and combining the coordinators is much better than not having one or the other. While I am an advocate for better cycling, I also don't expect that it come at the expense of government waste. And if harm to the cycling community does come from it, people can sue, citing the law making a bicycling committee a requirement.

You seem to have much criticizm of how Oregon, in particular, is structuring its cycling advocacy and government programs. Is it envy, or is Oregon on the list because its "wayward" structure of laws makes your brand of advocacy harder to impliment in your own location? How does your city deal with cycling related activities at the governmental level? Oregon is committed to making cycling easier on our roads, and works to do this in any way possible. If that means jerryrigging some things until laws can be formally changed, then that is what we do. If that means experimenting with different facilities to determine what works, then that is what we do. In some ways, your criticisms indicate that the "VC'ists" (for lack of a better term) are more interested in ideology than in practical results. You are constantly criticizing real advocacy efforts in favor of more theoretical interests, simply because these efforts are not politically correct amongst vehicular cycling interest groups.

In BC, we have a Provincial Advisory Cycling Committee (roads in Canada are a provincial jurisdiction, and the committe is established to support the the Ministry of Transportation’s Cycling Policy). Individual cities have Bicycle Coordinators.

Should...? I doubt that anyone can think of why they should, but I'll bet that many people can see that no harm will come of it. Oregon has a bit of a problem with revenue at the moment, rippling back from the high tech crash, and combining the coordinators is much better than not having one or the other. While I am an advocate for better cycling, I also don't expect that it come at the expense of government waste. And if harm to the cycling community does come from it, people can sue, citing the law making a bicycling committee a requirement.
But why is a bike/ped coordinator any better than a bike/ped/car coordinator?



You seem to have much criticizm of how Oregon, in particular, is structuring its cycling advocacy and government programs. Is it envy, or is Oregon on the list because its "wayward" structure of laws makes your brand of advocacy harder to impliment in your own location? How does your city deal with cycling related activities at the governmental level? Oregon is committed to making cycling easier on our roads, and works to do this in any way possible. If that means jerryrigging some things until laws can be formally changed, then that is what we do. If that means experimenting with different facilities to determine what works, then that is what we do. In some ways, your criticisms indicate that the "VC'ists" (for lack of a better term) are more interested in ideology than in practical results. You are constantly criticizing real advocacy efforts in favor of more theoretical interests, simply because these efforts are not politically correct amongst vehicular cycling interest groups.
Real advoacy? I believe in makeing cyclist safer, not making cyclists feel safer. Oregon's goal of making cyclists feel safer in a segregated system seems more theoretical--and less "real"--to me.

And again, if Oregon thought cyclists would naturally use its bike lanes, it wouldn't pass laws requiring us to use them (unless a cop, judge, and jury composed of non-cyclists thinks our reasons for leaving the lane were justified)? Oregon is near dead last in terms of the quality of its bicycle laws.

Oregon is near dead last in terms of the quality of its bicycle laws.
In accordance with what authority and whose criteria? Let me guess: Fred Oswald and a handful (if that) of VC™ self styled interpreters of legal issues in other people's backyards.

No? Not the usual suspects? Then whom - Buckeye DC?

But why is a bike/ped coordinator any better than a bike/ped/car coordinator?

I guess I could make the obvious argument, that both bikes and peds have issues separate from that of cars. Let me turn the question around. You imply that a bike/ped coordinator is worse than a dedicated bike coordinator. Why? Is it simply the ideological argument that a single office should not work on two things because... er... it looks bad to group cyclists into the same office as pedestrians? If an org structure change does not make a difference in implimentation, is it still "wrong" simply because it is not PC to group cyclists in with peds?


Real advoacy? I believe in making cyclist safer, not making cyclists feel safer. Oregon's goal of making cyclists feel safer in a segregated system seems more theoretical--and less "real"--to me.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I don't think many people who live here share your opinion. Then again, I guess everything about Oregon is theoretical to you by definition. After all, you've never given any indication that you have every lived here, much less ridden here.


And again, if Oregon thought cyclists would naturally use its bike lanes, it wouldn't pass laws requiring us to use them (unless a cop, judge, and jury composed of non-cyclists thinks our reasons for leaving the lane were justified)? Oregon is near dead last in terms of the quality of its bicycle laws.

First, a nit. Us??? You don't live here, unless your profile is wrong.

Second, we are near last by who's measure? If you state something like that, you need to cite the source. I know it is not the LAB. I know it is not the BTA (our local bicycling advocacy group). I know it is not any mainstream newspapers or public opinion surveys. Show me the beef.

I guess I could make the obvious argument, that both bikes and peds have issues separate from that of cars.
But both cars and bicyclists have issues separate from those of pedestrians. So that argument is not as obvious as you think.



Let me turn the question around. You imply that a bike/ped coordinator is worse than a dedicated bike coordinator. Why? Is it simply the ideological argument that a single office should not work on two things because... er... it looks bad to group cyclists into the same office as pedestrians? If an org structure change does not make a difference in implimentation, is it still "wrong" simply because it is not PC to group cyclists in with peds?
No, because vehicular traffic should be grouped with other vehicular traffic. Cyclists have to follow the rules of the road that cars do (red lights, stop signs, lane changes) while pedestrians have a nearly entirely separate system. I know this is a little different in Oregon, where "bicycle advocates" cheered a law that non-cyclists can use to bar bicycles from any road with a white stripe.



I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but I don't think many people who live here share your opinion. Then again, I guess everything about Oregon is theoretical to you by definition. After all, you've never given any indication that you have every lived here, much less ridden here.

First, a nit. Us??? You don't live here, unless your profile is wrong. I have been there, but not ridden there. "Us" means cyclists.



Second, we are near last by who's measure? If you state something like that, you need to cite the source. I know it is not the LAB. I know it is not the BTA (our local bicycling advocacy group). I know it is not any mainstream newspapers or public opinion surveys. Show me the beef.Your laws bar cyclists from using the roadway (except for a narrow striped strip) unless cops, judges and juries of non-cyclists agree that the reason for leaving the narrow striped area is good enough. Other than banning cyclists from the road altogether, how much worse can it get?

And again, if Oregon thought cyclists would naturally use its bike lanes, it wouldn't pass laws requiring us to use them (unless a cop, judge, and jury composed of non-cyclists thinks our reasons for leaving the lane were justified)? Oregon is near dead last in terms of the quality of its bicycle laws.

I guess you can be forgiven your ignorance (you're not from around here.... are you?) but since January 1st, Cyclists are legally allowed to decide when to leave the bike lane to avoid hazards and to prepare to make left turns. Cyclists can pass on the right to go to the head of the line at a traffic signal even if there is no bike lane. Autos must yield to bicycles when making left or right turns. Here is a LINK (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/news/nr_20051220_1.shtml) to a news release on our new laws which came about through the good work of our Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board working in concert with the state government.

"CAUTION !! Due to cost cutting measures at the DMV, the above cited link also contains information about some new laws related to pedestrian issues.... viewer discretion is advised."

Dogbait
(who is from around here and has been enjoying the steady improvement in the cycling environment since 1977)

"Bike/ped" coordinators tend to think of cyclists as slightly-faster-than-normal-pedestrians rather than as slow-moving traffic. ...The department sees us as pedestrians who should be excluded fromt he traffic flow.
--- Arguments aside, the only actual people who can confirm or refute that assertion are the bicycle coordinators of the various state departments of transportation. This copy-and-paste from the Caltrans site lists their actual people:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/bike/contacts.htm
----------------------------------------
Headquarters Bicycle Facilities Unit:
Ken Mcguire - (916) 653-2750
David Priebe - (916) 653-0036
Bicycle Facilities Unit, MS 1
State of California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001

DC, does Ohio even have a bike/ped coordinator, or a bike & ped coordinator in the DOT dept? If not maybe you ought to lobby for one. You spout off & say it is a terrible idea to have one perosn do both, yadda, yadda, yadda but yet offer no proof as to why. At least I have not seen any yet.

Where for those of us who live in states that have a bike/ped coordinator, whether working for the DOT's or not, the same person doing the job of both has been very successfull. You are making assumptive statements with nothing to back them up. Do yourself a favor, go find some proof before you make another statment about this issue.

One place you may find proof is on the IADOT web site. If you think you can find proof that it is a bad idea to have one person do both then look there & prove it to me & others here as well. I will even go as far to say do the same for Oregon too. Then maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

But both cars and bicyclists have issues separate from those of pedestrians. So that argument is not as obvious as you think.

So you object to the type of categorization. I noticed you have neatly sidestepped the question of how this works in practice. Is you objection based purely on political correctness grounds?


No, because vehicular traffic should be grouped with other vehicular traffic. Cyclists have to follow the rules of the road that cars do (red lights, stop signs, lane changes) while pedestrians have a nearly entirely separate system. I know this is a little different in Oregon, where "bicycle advocates" cheered a law that non-cyclists can use to bar bicycles from any road with a white stripe.

As many have pointed out, the bicycle is a hybrid, our environment is neither strictly vehicular or pedestrian. Both peds and cyclists are human powered; using this fact as a basis for grouping, I can find no harm. And again, there is the practicality issue. If this works, then your objection is purely based in political correctness.


I have been there, but not ridden there. "Us" means cyclists.

Since not all cyclists are in Oregon and affected by our laws and bike lanes implimentations, then you "we" could only mean "Oregon cyclists." This is tied into the implicit assumption that "bike lanes" equates "laws required to use them" and it is a red herring. Not all states have this law, and the ones that do, they only affect those cyclists who are blocking traffic in similar manner to a slow car with too many cars backed up behind. Even then, in practice, the fact that there is this law does not lead to your "cyclist discrimination" that you keep worrying about. But what am I saying, you've never seen how this law affects things in practice. All your concerns, are again, purely theoretical and merely about political correctness.


Your laws bar cyclists from using the roadway (except for a narrow striped strip) unless cops, judges and juries of non-cyclists agree that the reason for leaving the narrow striped area is good enough. Other than banning cyclists from the road altogether, how much worse can it get?

So what you are saying, is that by your rating system, Oregon has the worse bike laws. Hardly an objective source. I suppose that we will, again, simply have to agree to disagree. As for "...how much worse can it get?," hearing some of the stories coming from NYC and from the South and California, I'd guess that if you had any experience riding here, you'd find it gets much, much worse.

Now, you've tried over and over to make a negative example out of Oregon, what is the state of Ohio bicycling advocacy? Do you even have an effective cycling (not Forester's trademarked term) advocacy group in Ohio? Or are you simply envious that Oregon can make it work, despite not conforming to the politically correct vehicular cycling line?

I should make mention that this Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (OBPAC) has been around for a decade already, and there have been concurrent, steady improvements in the cycling environment in Oregon since then. Like I've said, it works; why mess with it?

Do you even have an effective cycling (not Forester's trademarked term) advocacy group in Ohio?

http://www.ohiobike.org/

Whether they are effective or not remains to be seen. It seems to me the rails-to-trails and other recreational adovcacy groups have actually accomplished more for cyclists here.

So you object to the type of categorization. I noticed you have neatly sidestepped the question of how this works in practice. Is you objection based purely on political correctness grounds?
One harm is that the group thinks laws to keep cyclists off the road are good things.



As many have pointed out, the bicycle is a hybrid, our environment is neither strictly vehicular or pedestrian. Both peds and cyclists are human powered; using this fact as a basis for grouping, I can find no harm.
You still haven't said what interests cyclists and peds have that are so similar. And cyclists outside of Portland are affected. Here, our local bicycle industry lobbying group keeps pushing Portland as an example of where my city should go. (Columbus has no cyclist advoacy group in which the membership has a voice in leadership or policy). They use Portland as an example of why we should put bike lanes on 25 mph streets and have laws ticketing cyclists who leave the lanes.

You imply that it's wrong to criticize Portland without riding there. Is it also wrong to praise Portland without riding there?



http://www.ohiobike.org/

Whether they are effective or not remains to be seen. It seems to me the rails-to-trails and other recreational adovcacy groups have actually accomplished more for cyclists here.
The Ohio Bike Federation is a mix of bike lane/trail advocates and traffic advocates. Until recently, their Board included a member of the get-bikes-out-of-the-way LAB (although I don't know what his position was on the issue). The organization is pushing a bill this year to expand the right of cyclists to use the road, which look like it has a chance of passage. The bill has bi-partisan backers and has a decent chance of passage.

The rails to trails folks have done good work for recreational cyclists, but their work generally doesn't help people who cycle to get from point A to point B. (only from point A to point A). There's nothing wrong with that. Recreational trails are fun. But they shouldn't be mistaken for transportation.

The rails to trails folks have done good work for recreational cyclists, but their work generally doesn't help people who cycle to get from point A to point B. (only from point A to point A). There's nothing wrong with that. Recreational trails are fun. But they shouldn't be mistaken for transportation.

Oh bull crap. The O&E Towpath, Summit Bike & Hike and Emerald Necklace mups are probably used by more bicycle commuters up here than you have en total in the whole Columbus area...which is indeed a nightmare for both cyclists and motorists. Not transportation my okole...just because it isn't a roadway does not mean that it cannot be used for transportation.

You still haven't said what interests cyclists and peds have that are so similar. And cyclists outside of Portland are affected. Here, our local bicycle industry lobbying group keeps pushing Portland as an example of where my city should go. (Columbus has no cyclist advoacy group in which the membership has a voice in leadership or policy). They use Portland as an example of why we should put bike lanes on 25 mph streets and have laws ticketing cyclists who leave the lanes.

You imply that it's wrong to criticize Portland without riding there. Is it also wrong to praise Portland without riding there?

Wait for it... Wait for it... I've got it. Here is the reason why you have a thing against Portland. You are fighting your own rearguard actions against an advocacy group which uses Portland as an example, to promote ideas which run contrary to your ideology. Perhaps it is wrong to hold Portland up as an example without actually riding here; just as wrong as it is to criticize it without riding here. However, this is your problem, not mine, as I do live here and ride here.

It sounds like those groups have already beat you to the corner though, since they have you arguing against Portland's model (which demonstrably works fine for Portland), instead of arguing why the ideas originating in Portland don't work in Columbus (though whether they do or not, I suspect you have no way of knowing). From what you describe, Columbus is trying to do a Portland lite job with their bike lanes and laws, with no real research into our actual efforts since the early 70's. Perhaps you will have better luck arguing against the Portland lite model instead of the Portland model itself.


The Ohio Bike Federation is a mix of bike lane/trail advocates and traffic advocates. Until recently, their Board included a member of the get-bikes-out-of-the-way LAB (although I don't know what his position was on the issue). The organization is pushing a bill this year to expand the right of cyclists to use the road, which look like it has a chance of passage. The bill has bi-partisan backers and has a decent chance of passage.


Nothing but good, IMHO. Are these the same people who are trying the Portland lite model of bike lanes?

Bicycle coordinators can be helpful, but "bike/ped" coordinators are a step backwards for cyclists. "Bike/ped" coordinators tend to think of cyclists as slightly-faster-than-normal-pedestrians rather than as slow-moving traffic.
I agree that though both cyclists and pedestrians both use human power, they have entirely different needs.

However, "Bike/ped" coordinators might not be as ignorant of the needs of all cyclists as one might think. Here are some excerpts from Georgia Dept. of Transportation's Bike Sense: a Guide for Cyclists and Motorists, and a link to the publication:

Be patient and wait until it is safe to pass, as you would with any other slower-moving vehicle. Be aware that when a road is too narrow for cars and bikes to ride safely side by side, bicyclists should ride in or near the center of the lane to discourage motorists from trying to pass them without enough clearance. (from Chap. 4, Motorists and Cyclists - Sharing Georgia's Roads)

http://www.dot.state.ga.us/dot/plan-prog/planning/projects/bicycle/georgia_bike_sense/index.shtml

This manual is the official publication of the Georgia DOT, which employs the Bike/Ped coordinator. This manual clearly groups cyclists with motorists, not pedestrians, as vehicular road users.

One harm is that the group thinks laws to keep cyclists off the road are good things.



snip, snip..... They use Portland as an example of why we should put bike lanes on 25 mph streets and have laws ticketing cyclists who leave the lanes. .......snip, snip.


Since this is no longer true, you should stop citing it in your arguments. It is however a good example of what is right with the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Due to their efforts the law has been changed. SB 938 allows cyclists to travel outside the bike lane.

Have a look:
"SB 938---Modifications to Laws Regarding Bicycles (Chapter 316, 2005 Laws)
Amends ORS 811.415, 814.410, and 814.420 to allow a bicycle to overtake and pass on the right and to identify exceptions when a person is not in violation of the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path. These exceptions are:
· When passing another bicycle, vehicle, or pedestrian in the bicycle lane or path
· When making a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway
· When avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions
· When making a right turn
· When continuing straight at an intersection when the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.

Effective Date: January 1, 2006"

The old law:

"814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338]"

You say:

"One harm is that the group thinks laws to keep cyclists off the road are good things.

I don't see where this is the feeling of "the group". "Laws to keep cyclists off the roads..." are your words and your opinion. Why do you attribute them to "the group"? Nothing in the statutes claims to ban cyclists from using the road. The OBPAC certainly does not feel that bikes should be kept off the roads and the recent changes to the laws reflect that. If Columbus has no cyclist advocacy group in which the membership has a voice in leadership or policy, maybe you should start one.

Dogbait

Yes, it's still true. If the lane is poorly designed, you still have to ride in it unless you convince a cop, judge and jury (all likely non-cyclists) that the lane was hazardous enough to force you to leave it. You also have to convince them that you didn't leave the lane half a block too soon for your left turn, etc.

The exceptions (enforced at the whim of non-cyclists) prove the rule.

Why not just eliminate the law altogether? Another thread showed that only 7 (I think) states have any bike lane requirement at all. That means that Oregon's bike lane law is the 43rd worst in the nation. About where Alabama is in education. Congrats!