Portland Riders- Creepshow advisory

[Daily Commute]

. . . You can discount polls due to "reality vs. perception"; you can discount analysis due to want of facts. However, experience many time tells all. . . .
This is shorthand for, "I know I'm right, I just can't explain why."

And remember, nowhere did I say that the accident in the OP was caused by bike lanes.

Seriously, one interesting study would be to scientifically survey motorist attitudes towards cyclists in cities with different kinds of bike facilities. Then we'd see if the lanes had a positive, negative or negligible effect. The only thing I can clearly say is that you can't say with confidence that a city-wide bike lane system makes motorists more accomodating of cyclists.

[Brian Ratliff]

Someone wondered what a poll would show about the attitudes of Portland motorists. I gave a source to see what the attitude of Portland motorists were. That was a direct answer to another post. I also pointed out that I did not blame Portland's bike lanes for this specific incident. What's so wrong with that? Instead of what you think is a better source for information about the attitudes of Portland drivers, you just said, "shut up." Do you have a better source to describe the position of your city's drivers toward cyclists?


You must have added this after I read it.

In answer to your question: I have my experiences. From your own argument about perception vs. reality skewing the results of a poll; you have cut your own leg out from under you. Motorists may think that cyclists should not be on the road, but they accept the fact that we do; despite your evil bike lanes. Or, perhaps, because of the bike lanes, it makes it easier to accept that cyclists have the right to the rest of the road as well. You and your ideological brothers seem to reject that argument out of hand, instead, preferring to call us Portland cyclists either deluded (such as in your previous post; something about how bike lanes make us feel or some such nonsense) or simply discounting our experiences entirely, in favor of the world you made for yourselves.

Fact is, you single out Portland whilst others (even HH, in his more lucid moments) at least have the good practice to keep their comments in the abstract. You criticize without knowledge and somehow insist that your analysis from your perch trumps experience on the ground. If you wade into specifics of an actual place in an actual city, mindlessly applying some ideology or another, you will attract arguments based on counter-examples from actual experience.

[randya]

The irony of Serge's position is that motorists in Portland complain long and loud about bike lanes, too. The attitude of the more neanderthal motorists isn't actually 'get in the bike lane', it is more like 'bikes don't belong on the road at all'.

In the almost 20 years I've been in Portland, I have seen more proposed bike lanes go down in flames than I have seen get striped, because they were opposed by business and motoring interests. And the facilities movement in Portland isn't 'heating up' as Serge supposes, because all the easy-to-stripe bike lanes already have been installed (Portland has a lot of narrow arterials which have NOLs and no room for adding a bike lane, at least in the older parts of town).

My guess is that the next phase of 'facilities development' will be sharrows markings, which are an explicit indication to motorists that bikes are allowed a full lane. The other direction bicycle facilities are taking is 'bike boulevard' development - enhancing parallel routes for bicycle travel (w/o bike lane stripes).

[Helmet Head]

The only thing I can clearly say is that you can't say with confidence that a city-wide bike lane system makes motorists more accomodating of cyclists.
Actually, I think a city-wide bike lane system might make motorists more accomodating of cyclists as long as the cyclists are acting like rolling pedestrians and staying out of the way of same-direction motorists.

[Brian Ratliff]

Seriously, one interesting study would be to scientifically survey motorist attitudes towards cyclists in cities with different kinds of bike facilities. Then we'd see if the lanes had a positive, negative or negligible effect. The only thing I can clearly say is that you can't say with confidence that a city-wide bike lane system makes motorists more accomodating of cyclists.

You are right. A good study would be interesting, and my experience is not the end of the story. However, experience is better than analysis from ignorance, and it is better than a bunch of letters to the editor. In other words, while I cannot say "with confidence" that bike lanes make motorists more accomodating of cyclists; I can say that I have "high confidence" that bike lanes in the west Portland area do help cyclists, including the driver/cyclist interaction.

It is interesting that you feel a counterweight, in the form of yourself, is needed about Portland's system, since Portland area cyclists cannot be counted on to criticize Portland's bike lanes. Odd, that. I'll leave the conclusion unstated. Just leave us be and experiment on your own cities.

[Brian Ratliff]

Actually, I think a city-wide bike lane system might make motorists more accomodating of cyclists as long as the cyclists are acting like rolling pedestrians and staying out of the way of same-direction motorists.

Actually, while I use the bike lanes as much as you apparently do, between stops, I leave the bike lane freely when I see the need and still, drivers are accomodating. Another argument from ignorance, this is.

[Dogbait]

Someone wondered what a poll would show about the attitudes of Portland motorists. I gave a source to see what the attitude of Portland motorists were. .................


That someone was me and it was a sarcastic remark prompted by Mr. Heads' penchant for creating meaningless polls. I have been cycling on the streets of Portland since the late '70s and have a pretty good handle on what the attitudes of motorists are hereabouts. I daresay better than someone in Ohio whose primary source of information is the local fishwrap (THE OREGONIAN). Letters to the editor reflect only the attitudes of those who are moved to write in, filtered by the opinion of the editor, and are not a true reflection of the situation on the street.

So, I can't draw conclusions when Portland motorists nearly universally say that cyclists don't belong on roads......

Horse schmidt! This is not true! Portland motorists do not "nearly universally" say this. As we have heard, from actual Portland cyclists (including the OP), the idiots are a small fraction of the motoring public here. True, things can be improved but there is nowhere near "universal" disaproval of cyclists using the roads.

Dogbait

[Brian Ratliff]

I should hasten to note that my experiences are from the west side cities of the Portland areas which are quite new. This is in contrast to randya's comments about other parts of Portland. On the west side, there is constant road construction, and bike lane are most always installed, and most always help with both navigation, driver/cyclist interaction and with decreasing motorist frustration.

I do agree, though, with randya. If a motorist yells, it is not "get into the bike lane", but rather "get off the road." But they don't yell nearly as much as 5 years ago, when I first started commuting in this area.

[Daily Commute]

. . . My guess is that the next phase of 'facilities development' will be sharrows markings, which are an explicit indication to motorists that bikes are allowed a full lane. . . .
I agree that the sharrows markings are a promising development. Do you have any in Portland? Have you had any discussions with planning folks about them?

Edit: I just noticed this:
You must have added this after I read it. . . .
Sorry. I thought no one had responded when I added the comment. I try to mark edits if they make following posts make less sense.

Second Edit:
Horse schmidt! This is not true! Portland motorists do not "nearly universally" say this. As we have heard, from actual Portland cyclists (including the OP), the idiots are a small fraction of the motoring public here. True, things can be improved but there is nowhere near "universal" disaproval of cyclists using the roads. . . .
Then the pro-cyclist ones did not say anything. Again, I think a scientific survey on this subject would be helpful.

[ZachS]

So, I can't draw conclusions when Portland motorists nearly universally say that cyclists don't belong on roads[blah blah blah]...

"cranks who write letters to the editor" /= "portland motorists universally"

most people in central portland don't even read the oregonian any more.

also, bikeforums needs a written rule against bike lane debate threadjacks.

[randya]

I agree that the sharrows markings are a promising development. Do you have any in Portland? Have you had any discussions with planning folks about them?
They are being pilot tested now in one or two locations. Unlike San Francisco, which has already implemented sharrows on a larger scale, the City Traffic Engineer in Portland is very conservative, and is reluctant to implement sharrows on a larger scale until they are officially adopted into the MUTCD (despite the fact that the San Francisco study was done by a Portland consulting firm).

[trackhub]

Glad you survived Sinfield. This is one of the more disturbing incidents of pre-meditated violence directed at cyclists that I have read about. To wit:

I know two cyclists who take classes in Krav Maga. They decided to do this, after experiences similiar to yours. I'm considering looking into this myself. I'm told the workouts are intense, but the classes are actually quite enjoyable, as long as you don't mind a few occasional bumps and bruises.

If you're considering carrying a weapon, check into your local laws first. In Massachusetts, you even need a permit to carry pepper spray. Said permits are difficult to obtain, usually involving a "waiting period". A handgun permit is impossible to optain in Massachusetts, without a political connection. (i.e. related to a judge, be a personal friend of a state representative, etc. )

This is a person who should not have been granted the legal privilege of operating a motor vehicle.

[ZachS]

I know two cyclists who take classes in Krav Maga. They decided to do this, after experiences similiar to yours. I'm considering looking into this myself. I'm told the workouts are intense, but the classes are actually quite enjoyable, as long as you don't mind a few occasional bumps and bruises.


hah, not to turn this into an 'efficacy of martial art styles' debate, but krav maga (and ALL other 'reality-based' self-defense systems) are more about marketing invincibility than it is about any scientifically-tested system of self-defense.

of course, even the best systems and techniques won't work against an armed attacker... whether he (and it's most likely a he) is armed with a car or a gun or even a crowbar or baseball bat.

reread WalterMitty's posts a couple pages back. he knows what he's talking about.

too bad you live in a state where the government doesn't trust adults to defend themselves.

[brokenrobot]

Seriously, one interesting study would be to scientifically survey motorist attitudes towards cyclists in cities with different kinds of bike facilities. Then we'd see if the lanes had a positive, negative or negligible effect.

No, we wouldn't. That's like claiming we can count ATMs in convenience stores and count bank robberies and see whether ATMs outside of banks had a positive, negative, or negligible effect on bank security. There's no evidence of cause-and-effect whatsoever, and your survey wouldn't prove a thing.

Perhaps drivers universally hate bicyclists at the same background level and bike lanes encourage cycling; if so, drivers in communities with bike lanes are more likely to have recently encountered a cyclist and to be angry about it at any given time? If so, your numbers will "prove" that bike lanes make drivers think cyclists should get off the road without actually haven proven anything of the kind; in fact, in such a scenario, there would be two possibilities were the bike lanes removed: people would quit riding, or more people would be directly exposed to those same furious dirvers. Where's the upside?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Crap... is there a book? Whose book is best... what about classes... I've only been walking since I was two... is there something I missed.

Oh rats, do I have to become a certified walker now? Is there an official agency?

Wow am I outta the loop... :D
I found it - the book written by the DC/HH duo documenting their methods of scientific analysis of the OP's (and Portland's) cycling problems. Perhaps the third member of the signifying monkey clan will drop in to this thread to confirm the gibberish that his amigoes are babbling about.

Inside the book is a picture of an alpha goose giving a steely eyed gaze at a cowering motorist. Available at all establishments where Raving Lunatics of the Effective Cycling™ fringe are taken seriously.

[Daily Commute]

No, we wouldn't. That's like claiming we can count ATMs in convenience stores and count bank robberies and see whether ATMs outside of banks had a positive, negative, or negligible effect on bank security. There's no evidence of cause-and-effect whatsoever, and your survey wouldn't prove a thing.

Perhaps drivers universally hate bicyclists at the same background level and bike lanes encourage cycling; if so, drivers in communities with bike lanes are more likely to have recently encountered a cyclist and to be angry about it at any given time? If so, your numbers will "prove" that bike lanes make drivers think cyclists should get off the road without actually haven proven anything of the kind; in fact, in such a scenario, there would be two possibilities were the bike lanes removed: people would quit riding, or more people would be directly exposed to those same furious dirvers. Where's the upside?
I respond in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=189167).