Portland-- moving beyond cyclist vs bus [Archive]

View Full Version : Portland-- moving beyond cyclist vs bus

Pages : [1] 2

Dogbait

01-26-06, 07:45 PM

This is not a permanent or immediate solution to the conflict that exists between cyclists and other traffic but it may open some positive conversation among those who must compete for space on the right of way.

SHARE THE ROAD (http://bikeportland.org/2006/01/26/city-calls-for-civility-and-unveils-new-campaign/)

Dogbait

buzzman

01-26-06, 07:50 PM

Thanks for this post and the link.

looks like a mature and sensible response to an unfortunate incident. It would be great if some good came of this.

genec

01-26-06, 07:51 PM

Talk about positive advocacy... Whether it works or not, the idea that we should be civil and respect each other on the road is great.

I hope it works... better yet, I hope motorists get involved too.

This is a two sided issue and cooperation from all users of the road is important.

chipcom

01-26-06, 08:07 PM

Looks like someone got proactive. I think this is great and I hope we hear some folks' opinions of the impact and results down the road.

Brian Ratliff

01-27-06, 09:43 AM

Perfect.

DCCommuter

01-27-06, 10:28 AM

bigskymacadam

01-27-06, 10:37 AM

darn, i missed it this morning. it was across the street from my work. bummer.

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 02:14 PM

... but it may open some positive conversation among those who must compete for space on the right of way.
I don't mean to nit pick, but I think having the attitude that we are out there competing for space is starting out on the wrong foot.

Football players compete for space. Public right-of-way users only have the right to space that no one has claimed. In other words, my space is mine, until I give it up. Sure, once in a while you have two drivers trying to use the same currently unoccupied space, but, overall, that's a relatively rare situation, (e.g., much more common in parking lots with respect to parking spaces than out on the roadway).

Realizing this, and how it applies to cyclists the same as to any other road users, really, really helps in forming an attitude that makes cycling in traffic much more pleasant, as opposed to viewing it as a competition for space.

peregrine

01-27-06, 02:39 PM

Looks like someone got proactive. I think this is great and I hope we hear some folks' opinions of the impact and results down the road.

Yeah, it's good news, I hope it makes a difference. While bike commuting here in Portland I've found the biggest problem to be not so much the unwillingness of drivers to share the road as the fact that they just don't see me.

[edit]

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 02:49 PM

Yeah, it's good news, I hope it makes a difference. While bike commuting here in Portland I've found the biggest problem to be not so much the unwillingness of drivers to share the road as the fact that they just don't see me.
Are you riding where they're looking for traffic, in the vehicular traffic lanes?
Or are you obeying the law and riding in the bike lane?

How many guesses do I get?

peregrine

01-27-06, 03:21 PM

Are you riding where they're looking for traffic, in the vehicular traffic lanes?
Or are you obeying the law and riding in the bike lane?

How many guesses do I get?

:rolleyes: I am riding mostly in the bike lanes when there is one (with some exceptions). I don't ride on shoulders and I don't ride on sidewalks. And yes, 90% of the times when drivers pass me too close is at higher-speed (> 35 mph) busy roads when I'm in the bike lane. Are you saying I shouldn't obey the law?

webist

01-27-06, 03:39 PM

I don't mean to nit pick, ....

It seems you are though. :mad:

Daily Commute

01-27-06, 03:41 PM

This is a nice start, but the devil is in the details. If part of the campaign is cracking down on cyclists who, like Randy, decide that a given bike lane is not safe to ride in, then it could become a negative for cycling.

But it's worth a shot.

chipcom

01-27-06, 03:44 PM

I don't mean to nit pick

yada, yada, like a broken record.

chipcom

01-27-06, 03:51 PM

peregrine

01-27-06, 04:32 PM

Oh no, here comes the BL, DLP, centerish lane position lecture.

hehe, yeah, I was hoping to avoid that :)

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 04:37 PM

:rolleyes: I am riding mostly in the bike lanes when there is one (with some exceptions). I don't ride on shoulders and I don't ride on sidewalks. And yes, 90% of the times when drivers pass me too close is at higher-speed (> 35 mph) busy roads when I'm in the bike lane. Are you saying I shouldn't obey the law?
No. But you might want to use paragraph (2) to its fullest extent:

(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.

I seriously doubt anyone has had public hearings for many if not any of the bike lanes in which you ride, so, technically, you're probably off the hook. But you might want to make an inquiry, in writing, to the "state or local authority with jurisdiction" for all of the bike lanes on your route, as to whether there was such a hearing, and, if so, what was the finding.

I get ridiculed around here a lot for expressing my strong opinion (and, yes, chipcom, that's "all" it is) that riding "out of the way", including in bike lanes, contributes significantly to motorists not being aware of our presence on the roadway, but, it seems to me, posts like yours are evidence (no chipcom, that doesn't make it proof, or a "fact") that I'm correct.

What works for me starts with using a rear-view mirror (I use a Take-a-Look attached to my sunglasses). You have to get good at using it. That takes about a week. The most important thing about mirror use is to never rely on it for lateral moves - those must always be preceded by an actual look-back over the shoulder. For one thing, no mirror is 100% accurate. You have blind spots, etc. Second, a look-back doubles as a signal to others that you intend to be moving laterally. Always look back over the shoulder in which you're moving (if moving left, look back over your left shoulder).

If you're not comfortable with 1-2 second look-backs, those should be practiced in an empty parking lot or school ground. It's important to be able to maintain a straight line while looking back. The natural tendency is to veer in the direction you're looking. While following a straight line, look back over your shoulder for 2 seconds, then look back straight-ahead again. Learn how to do it without veering off the line. Practice doing this over both shoulders.

Once you can use a mirror, you establish a habit to check behind you every 3-5 seconds. Again, this takes getting used to. But once it becomes habit, maybe another week, perhaps you could combine it with the first week while you're first using the mirror, it becomes automatic and a non-issue. You can quickly learn to do a miror check for traffic approaching from the rear in a fraction of a second. It's a very useful ability to have at your disposal when traveling in traffic, especially when you're generally slower than others.

Once you have the mirror usage and look-back skills developed, you're ready to venture out of the bike lane.

The point is not to be "in the way", but to be in the vehicular traffic lane where others are looking for traffic. This is especially important whenever there is no other same-direction traffic traveling with you. If you have a car beside you while you're in a bike lane, that car is going to prevent anyone from cutting out into the street. So, in that case, it doesn't matter if they see you or not. But if there are no cars traveling with you, then the road is likely to look unoccupied to those who don't think to check the bike lane, and they will treat it as such (cutting in front of you as if you're not there, etc.; you know the drill).

So the point of the mirror is to use it to monitor for traffic approaching from the rear while you're riding outside of the bike lane. When cars get "close enough", look back over your right shoulder, make sure it's clear to merge back into the bike lane, and, if it is, do so. This way, you're never really in anyone's way, but you're also not invisible in the bike lane when the rest of the road is unoccupied.

That's what works for me, and ever since I started riding like this, I virtually eliminated incidents with motorists who "didn't see me", incidents that I encountered all too often back when I kept to the side and/or in the bike lane except when I felt I absolutely needed to get out.

YMMV.

Brian Ratliff

01-27-06, 04:41 PM

Yeah, it's good news, I hope it makes a difference. While bike commuting here in Portland I've found the biggest problem to be not so much the unwillingness of drivers to share the road as the fact that they just don't see me.

Anyway, I hope this is not too off topic but I can't understand very well the bike lane use in Oregon. Am I required to or is it optional?

This is an excerpt from the most recent ODOT publication (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/bike-ped_statutes.pdf)

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 infraction. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338]

There are formal exceptions written into the law now. Just use the bike lanes when you feel like it, and don't when you don't. Some of us make a lot of hay here about the "mandatory bike lane law," but it is rarely, if ever, enforced in Portland, even before the law was changed last year to allow the exceptions. Some of the people from Ohio and California on these forums paint Portland as some sort of getto with the dreaded bike lanes and the big bad facilities law; but I think they are just jealous of how good we have it here. Too bad it has been raining for the last month straight.

Daily Commute

01-27-06, 04:45 PM

hehe, yeah, I was hoping to avoid that :)
That's why I limited my post to "a given bike lane" that a cyclist decides is not as safe as the regular roadway. I hope the program works out.

CB HI

01-27-06, 04:47 PM

Does anyone really believe this "positive" action would have occurred if not for a $50,000 lawsuit still outstanding?

chipcom

01-27-06, 04:49 PM

hehe, yeah, I was hoping to avoid that :)

Liar! You just couldn't resist feeding the cute little preaching mantis! ;)

chipcom

01-27-06, 04:51 PM

Does anyone really believe this "positive" action would have occurred if not for a $50,000 lawsuit still outstanding?

Most likely, but sometimes good things actually happen for honest reasons. Who cares, a step forward is a step forward, even if you are running away from something. :)

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 04:52 PM

I think they are just jealous of how good we have it here.
Oh, yeah, we're real jealous of how "good" you have it:

While bike commuting here in Portland I've found the biggest problem to be not so much the unwillingness of drivers to share the road as the fact that they just don't see me.
...
And yes, 90% of the times when drivers pass me too close is at higher-speed (> 35 mph) busy roads when I'm in the bike lane.
If we had it that "good", I might start supporting segregated cycle facilities too! :rolleyes:

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 04:57 PM

...the cute little preaching mantis!
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Brian Ratliff

01-27-06, 05:01 PM

Does anyone really believe this "positive" action would have occurred if not for a $50,000 lawsuit still outstanding?

Well, people have to know there is a problem before it can be fixed. What is nice is that this action shows that Portland is committed to cycling and alt transportation.

Another thing is that the $50,000 number is one of those numbers which is tailor made for settlement. Think of it this way. The guy was assaulted (even though provoked) and the bus driver, and TriMet by proxy, was directly responsible for that assault. So the $48,000 in damages would probably have to be considered. Now, $48,000 does not buy a lot of time from a lawyer when they start having to prepare for dispositions and trial. This will probably end up being settled simply because the city will not want the publicity of actively fighting a cycling advocate, and the dollar amount which is asked for is less than the money the city would have to pay in legal expenses, regardless if they win or lose. Plus, it is pretty clear that the guy would get something, as the bus driver was clearly responsible for the assault and it was caught on tape.

In fact, I wouldn't be suprised if this campaign is part of a settlement negotiated behind closed doors. It is pretty cheap to organize the printing and distribution of some bumperstickers.

chipcom

01-27-06, 05:16 PM

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Funny, i didn't see any argument nor was I addressing you...but if the stiff collar fits....

gonesh9

01-27-06, 05:18 PM

It gave me a very emotional feeling crossing the bridge this morning and seeing so many people coming together for this issue. You just don't see this type of thing happening in too many cities in this country.

SansCar

01-27-06, 05:20 PM

Just when you're about to give up your faith in humanity, something like this comes along.

Two questions:
1. Where can I get an "I share the road" sticker for my car?
2. Where can I get "I Don't share the road" stickers to put on the cars of people who cut me off?

I think they're limiting stickers only to Portland residents..but there's a website where you can leave your address and they'll mail them out to you.

check it out - http://isharetheroad.bikeportland.org

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 05:20 PM

Funny, i didn't see any argument nor was I addressing you...but if the stiff collar fits....
Funny, nothing I said indicated I thought you were addressing me.

SansCar

01-27-06, 05:25 PM

I wouldn't be suprised if this campaign is part of a settlement negotiated behind closed doors. It is pretty cheap to organize the printing and distribution of some bumperstickers.

Brian, I can tell you without a doubt that this campaign has absolutely nothing to do with a settlement. That's just not how the City of Portland operates.

I-Like-To-Bike

01-27-06, 05:47 PM

...the cute little preaching mantis!

Sophist with the thin skin:
Whaa, Whaa, Whaa!

Funny, i didn't see any argument nor was I addressing you...but if the stiff collar fits....
I'd be bent out of shape if you infered I was an insect like a mantis!

Now Mothra is an insect! With far more power to cause property destruction but probably is a 90 pound weakling when it comes to hijacking power, compared to the Mighty Mo of Pedantic Pests.

chipcom

01-27-06, 06:05 PM

Funny, nothing I said indicated I thought you were addressing me.

'cept the fact that you quoted me. oops!
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Brian Ratliff

01-27-06, 06:14 PM

Brian, I can tell you without a doubt that this campaign has absolutely nothing to do with a settlement. That's just not how the City of Portland operates.

Good. Even better.

Brian Ratliff

01-27-06, 06:15 PM

'cept the fact that you quoted me. oops!
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I was wondering about this. Usually when you quote a post, you are responding to that post. Right? :rolleyes:

Helmet Head

01-27-06, 06:22 PM

Funny, i didn't see any argument nor was I addressing you..

Funny, nothing I said indicated I thought you were addressing me.

'cept the fact that you quoted me. oops!

I was wondering about this. Usually when you quote a post, you are responding to that post. Right?
Of course, just like you quoted and responded to a chipcom post here.
I never said I didn't respond to it. I said nothing I said indicated I thought he was addressing me. That's entirely different from quoting and responding. This is so typical of you guys. Twist, twist, twist.

Responding to a post does not imply you thought the post was addressing you.

Me quoting and responding to chipcom indicates that I thought he was addressing me no more than you quoting and responding to chipcom indicates that you thought he was addressing you. Namely, none.

I repeat: nothing I said, or did for that matter, indicated I thought chipcom was addressing me.

The point is, regardless of who chipcom was referring to, it was an ad hominem attack.

(you guys are out of your league) :D

I-Like-To-Bike

01-27-06, 06:27 PM

I was wondering about this. Usually when you quote a post, you are responding to that post. Right? :rolleyes:
Apparantly not on Planet Serge. But then, none of the normal rules of logic or common sense are in place in that bizarre world of self satisfying warm effusions.

Brian Ratliff

01-27-06, 06:36 PM

Brian, I can tell you without a doubt that this campaign has absolutely nothing to do with a settlement. That's just not how the City of Portland operates.

I read the flyer. Too bad I could not attend. How did it turn out?

genec

01-27-06, 06:44 PM

I really like the idea that this was driven at the city hall level... not from some bike group or advocacy group.

That kind of commitment to the road users of the city is a heck of a statement.

chipcom

01-27-06, 06:47 PM

buzzman

01-27-06, 08:17 PM

Of course, just like you quoted and responded to a chipcom post here.
I never said I didn't respond to it. I said nothing I said indicated I thought he was addressing me. That's entirely different from quoting and responding. This is so typical of you guys. Twist, twist, twist.

Responding to a post does not imply you thought the post was addressing you.

Me quoting and responding to chipcom indicates that I thought he was addressing me no more than you quoting and responding to chipcom indicates that you thought he was addressing you. Namely, none.

I repeat: nothing I said, or did for that matter, indicated I thought chipcom was addressing me.

The point is, regardless of who chipcom was referring to, it was an ad hominem attack.

(you guys are out of your league) :D

A whole city responds to an unfortunate and potentially destructive confrontation between cyclists and motorists/bus drivers/passengers in a positive and constructive way and this is what you want to focus on? Is no thread in A&S safe from your incessant and constant self involved diatribes? I am convinced you have no real interest in promoting cycling and are using these threads to work out some personal issues completely unrelated to bicycling. You occasionally threaten posters that they will be on your "ignore list". I beg you to start a thread where we can sign up to be on it and may I be first on the list.

spandexwarrior

01-27-06, 08:26 PM

Hey, folks, maybe we should take Mr. VC and deposit him somewhere else other than San Diego so he can test his VC theory in a more challenging environment. Maybe some place like NYC at rush hour. With wall to wall slow moving cars, he'd better get his trackstand ability down pat- or gasp he might have to take the bike lane to pass all those cars. The midwest could be fun too! Hostile ya-hoos taunting him with their cars would blast his, "They'd-all-love-us-if we-rode-VC," theory to pieces.

peregrine

01-27-06, 08:46 PM

If we had it that "good", I might start supporting segregated cycle facilities too! :rolleyes:

HH, you do realize, I hope, that this is just my personal experience and in no way does it mean that most cyclists in Portland and the area feel that way.

peregrine

01-27-06, 08:57 PM

Liar! You just couldn't resist feeding the cute little preaching mantis! ;)

I'm sorry :o Please don't hate me!

sbhikes

01-27-06, 09:05 PM

It's so sweet how Portland sees itself as a community that should support everybody no matter how they choose to get from here to there. Can I get a job there? Do they need web programmers?

chipcom

01-27-06, 09:07 PM

I'm sorry :o Please don't hate me!

Aww, you know I'm a softy for a pretty birdy. :)

Dogbait

01-27-06, 10:00 PM

A whole city responds to an unfortunate and potentially destructive confrontation between cyclists and motorists/bus drivers/passengers in a positive and constructive way and this is what you want to focus on? Is no thread in A&S safe from your incessant and constant self involved diatribes? I am convinced you have no real interest in promoting cycling and are using these threads to work out some personal issues completely unrelated to bicycling. You occasionally threaten posters that they will be on your "ignore list". I beg you to start a thread where we can sign up to be on it and may I be first on the list.

word

Dogbait

CB HI

01-27-06, 10:47 PM

Well, people have to know there is a problem before it can be fixed. What is nice is that this action shows that Portland is committed to cycling and alt transportation.

I though they knew there was a problem a year ago.

Funny how they did not take this action a month after the incident. Certainly a real bike friendly City government would have.

Why did they wait for a full year; maybe the law suit and it hitting the national news had something to do with that. What do you think?

As you said, a few stickers are pretty cheap.

I-Like-To-Bike

01-28-06, 05:21 AM

If the anti-VC'ers can restrain themselves there, maybe it's time to close this thread and discuss the event in the other thread[/URL].
And maybe its time for you to put everybody on your ignore list but the two or three who sing the VC Kumbaya song to your liking. Who appointed you as the moderator in charge of electronic decorum? What are your qualifications for evaluating the value of others' posts besides being blinded with anti-bike lane hysteria? Is it a willingness to defend fellow dogmatists no matter how obtuse or nutty their postings?

I know the answer to expect from the Anti-Bike Lane Hysteric, ignore pointed criticsm of his jack donkey critiques and keep on whining/ranting away. Same goes for the other self proclaimed ignoring monkeys.

Bekologist

01-28-06, 06:58 AM

how did the bike as lane threat theory enter into this discussion again? (over 800 words in one post!!!)

This specific thread about a community rally supporting biking.

Seattle pro bike rallies rarely have that much punch - Seattlites are so stuck in the mud of 'individuality' there's little consensus on any issue. I wonder how long, if ever, city fleet vehicles here will get 'share the road' stickers....I wonder if I could go get a few hundred, and go guerilla down at city hall one day....

Bekologist

01-28-06, 08:28 AM

..... And you blame HH for changing the subject? .....

That's right, Daily. I'll blame a guy that hijacks a lot of threads with faulty bike advice, and defend the other posters that take him to task for doing so.

800 words about how to ride a bike, in a thread about what sounds like a great bicycle advocacy program in Portland. What a jerk.

And other bicyclists should let his bullshizzle stand? His faulty and sometimes illegal, bike riding advice?