I posted this on bikeportland.org, but just wanted to throw out a heads up for you all. Ride safe please.
"Wow, just got home and I'm kind of shook up right now.
Just wanted to put a heads up for all the other portland riders out there to keep an eye out and ride safe.
I was riding home from Peet's coffee in the Pearl today and cruising up SW Broadway through the heart of downtown. I was in the left lane and came to a red light on Stark St. I believe. As I trackstanded at the light, I looked to my right to see if there was any traffic coming down stark which is a one way. A block and a half up there was a slow moving pickup truck in the right hand lane, so I made the decision to turn left into the left hand lane of Stark. As I get onto the street and pedal, I hear the sound of an engine racing and frantic honking. I look over my shoulder and see the truck running up on me at a high rate of speed. The guy then proceeds to accelarate to get even with me then slam on his brakes repeatedly. I ignore him and continue riding. Then, he rolls down his window and starts screaming at me "You ****ing reckless bike riders, I should ****ing kill you!!!" he repeats his threats several times while I try to explain that I am fully in my rights to occupy a lane if there is no bike lane present. Finally, he slams on his brakes and opens his door. At this point, I decide it would be prudent to get out of there as quickly as possible and whip through a parking lot and ride the wrong way down an empty one way street towards the river, reasoning that he's unlikely to follow me and that if I can make the safety of the river path he has no way of getting to me.
Wrong.
He whips around the block and starts parallelling me on Front. Ave as I ride the bike path near the river, stopping periodically to scream threats at me across the road and grass. Finally, I pull out my cell phone and dial the police and he slams on his brakes and begins to get out of his truck. Luckily at this point, a Portland Police car pulls in behind him and he quickly gets back into his truck and turns right onto the cloverleaf interchange for the Burnside bridge (i think it was the burnside).
I gave my report to the police just in case this guy is a habitual bike stalker, but the whole experience left me feeling very shooken up. I can't really figure out where I was at fault in the incident except for the possiblity of turning left onto a one way against a red light (I alwasy thought that if there was no traffic, this acted sort of like the "right on red" rule). When I made the turn, the guy was nowhere near me (he was at least a block and ahalf away at this point) and I accelarated up to speed very quickly. Regardless, I did not deserve to be menaced. I realized the situation was turning seriosu when he kept following me and attempting to get out of his car repeatedly. I don't know if he was armed or not.
The pertinant information about this man is that he was white, skinny with brown hair, and a mustache, looked to be in his mid forties and was driving a grey extended cab Dodge Dakota with a diamond plate tool box in the back. He also appears to dislike cyclists.
Anyways, I thought I'd post this up so you can all be on your guard. If you see the guy, I would not even attempt to converse with him since this appears to agitate him even more. Also, if you are menaced by this man, please call the portland police to report it.
Whew..."
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Glad you're okay. I agree that despite the technically illegal move (and who of us hasn't done that sometime?), it was nothing that warranted that response. He obviously has some "issues" with cyclists, maybe from past history. Or he's just a psychopath. Hooray for the police!
ME.Alex
The more stories like this I read, the more I want to buy a handgun.
Blue Order
Did you or the police get his license plate number? This guy needs to be prosecuted before he follows through on his threats. Contact Ray Thomas (http://www.stc-law.com/) about this motorist and see if he can help or has any suggestions about what you can do. There is a state statute that cyclists can use to initiate a prosecution for a citation, and Ray Thomas can give you information about how to proceed with that as well.
Don't let this guy get away with this.
Dchiefransom
If you;re on a one-way street, it is usually legal to make a turn on red onto another one-way street.
HoustonB
Glad you're okay. I agree that despite the technically illegal move (and who of us hasn't done that sometime?), it was nothing that warranted that response. He obviously has some "issues" with cyclists, maybe from past history. Or he's just a psychopath. Hooray for the police!Downtown Portland is predominantly one-way streets and it is legal to turn both left and right on red from one instance of a one-way street to another.
N_C
In my community you can turn left on red from a one way to a one way, but only lane to lane. You can take another lane only after you have completed the turn.
Did you not do complete the turn lane to lane? Which is what might have set this jackass off. If you did not make your turn lane to lane while turning left or you're not sure if you did, you may want to check to see if that is what the traffic law says for your community & abide by it as best you can.
LittleBigMan
The more stories like this I read, the more I want to buy a handgun.
Aggressive driving is a misdemeanor. Threatening with a handgun is assault with a deadly weapon.
Abusive drivers also might have a weapon stashed. In a gun battle, a cyclist is at a disadvantage.
bluebottle1
Did you not do complete the turn lane to lane? Which is what might have set this jackass off.
It sounds to me like this *sshole was just itching for a fight with someone. I have a hard time believing that a minor thing like an overly wide turn when he was a block and a half away would have set him off that badly unless he were already pre-disposed.
WalterMitty
Aggressive driving is a misdemeanor. Threatening with a handgun is assault with a deadly weapon.
Abusive drivers also might have a weapon stashed. In a gun battle, a cyclist is at a disadvantage.
Threatening with a vehicle isn't aggressive driving, it is assault with a deadly weapon. Many LEO shootings involve drivers trying to run them down. The challenge is to keep a clear head and properly evaluate the intentions of the driver.
I always ride armed. I live in a "Shall Issue" state and most people know what that means. Is a cyclist always at a disadvantage in a gun battle? Not hardly. Escape, evasion and finding cover in an urban environment favors the bicyclist. Don't believe it? Go to a junk yard and shoot some car doors.
Your burden, if you shoot, is to be able to prove to yourself that you were in imminent danger of death or serious injury. It sounds like you handled the situation very well, attempting to leave the situation, then calling the Police. Fortunately, it did not escalate to the next step.
If it had, well, as they say, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
"An armed society is a polite society"
huhenio
The more stories like this I read, the more I want to buy a handgun.
I dream of tasers
genec
Once again, time for Spike.
http://members.aol.com/clubnbc/spike_1.htm
bigskymacadam
thanks for your report, sinfield ... i know we're supposed to be all bike friendly over here, but this guy is one bad, bad apple. glad you're okay.
WalterMitty
Once again, time for Spike.
http://members.aol.com/clubnbc/spike_1.htm
Ha! :D Now there's a loonhead!
Helmet Head
I try to explain that I am fully in my rights to occupy a lane if there is no bike lane present.
He probably believes, understandably, that the basis for bike lanes is to get cyclists out of vehicular traffic lanes because bicyclists do not belong in vehicular traffic lanes.
Since you clearly did not understand that bicyclists do not belong in vehicular traffic lanes, he probably felt morally justified in teaching you a lesson.
Every bike lane is an official sanction of the notion held not only by neanderthals like this guy, but by most people: cyclists do not belong in vehicular traffic lanes. This is one of the main reasons I oppose bike lanes.
Given the number of segregated facilities that Portland has, it should not be a surprise to anyone that many Portlanders now believe that whenever cyclists are riding in a vehicular traffic lane, they are doing something wrong. Fortunately, most of those Portlanders are probably harmless. Unfortunately, some of them obviously feel a need to teach this (mistaken) lesson.
genec
Ah ha, once again blaming Bike Lanes for the inadequacies of poorly trained poorly informed motorists.
Sigh.:rolleyes:
If only we could give those poor underprivileged motorists as much training in "road" law and driving as we now devote to "health classes."
Helmet Head
Gene, you're hallucinating if you think it's possible to train away common sense and logical notions such as, bike lanes are necessary because cyclists don't belong in vehicular lanes. I mean, if cyclists do belong in vehicular lanes, then why do we need bike lanes? You can't have it both ways. Either there is a need for bike lanes, or there isn't.
And if there is a need for bike lanes, then what can it be other than cyclists should not be traveling in the vehicular lanes?
All the training in the world isn't going to eliminate this huge logical contradiction: We need bike lanes but it's not because we shouldn't be in the vehicular lanes.
Portland, with all its segregated facilities, stands as a monument to the notion that bicyclists should not be in the vehicular traffic lanes. You might as well put a Rick Roberts clone with a P.A. system announcing his beliefs about cyclists rights on every corner.
How can you blame any Portlander for believing that cyclists should not travel in vehicular lanes? If not, why the hell did they spend all that money on segregated lanes for cyclists?
And once you have a system that is built on that idea that cyclists should not be traveling in vehicular lanes, then you should not be suprised when you have people trying to "teach a lesson" to any cyclists who still seems to have not gotten the message.
Dogbait
He probably believes,......... blahblahblah etc.
Maybe you should do a poll to find out what Portlanders believe. BTW, is your first name Richard?
Dogbait
WalterMitty
It may be futile to apply *any* normal logic to the situation one way or the other. In my opinion a certain number of folks from the shallow end of the gene pool exhibit this "chase/challenge" response any time they percieve someone they think is weaker or more vunerable is crossing their paths. It happens in streets with bicycles and motorcycles, on lakes and rivers with kayaks and canoes, at Sporting events, in Malls, at The Fair, you name it.
Most are like the barking dog that just wants to chase you to the end of the block, if you turn and face them they break off and go on, but some will see if they can humiliate you or even hurt you and get away with it. It gives them something to brag about back at their hangouts with their MENSA brothers and their beautiful trophy wives.
They may or may not care one way or the other about bike lanes or traffic laws; in my view, if someone in a two-ton vehicle/boat/construction implement is making Stupid next to me it doesn't matter. They will not understand any attempt at a rational argument anyway, so why attempt to appear rational? Tell them to "Get the F*ck away from me or I'll call the Cops". If they persist, call the Cops. If they then attempt to approach you and make contact, inform them that you must assume they are armed and intend to do you serious harm or injury, and then prepare to escalate to deadly force.
What these scum do understand is fear, force, and the consequences of poor choices in victim selection. If you are *Ready* and look them in the eye when you give them their last rites, chances are they'll turn and slink away and you'll never see them again. If it gets worse, well, it's your choice and you're in control right up until you make your final decision.
If you arrive at that point having tried your best to avoid confrontation and de-escalate the event, you will be fine. Then, the social engineers can debate whether the presence or absence of bike lanes, or the quality and extent of drivers education contributed to the event.
For right-thinking people, there's never a good reason to threaten, intimidate or harrass a fellow human being whether they're where you think they ought to be or taking a snooze in the crosswalk at rush hour. The feelings that Sinfield endured during the event and probably even now are not his fault and do not have to be accepted or condoned. They are not legally imposed by one person on another.
This is an issue of a Bully, plain and ugly, and all Bullies must be dealt with the same way. It's just more dangerous when the bullies make it all the way to adult status before they get sorted out.
ZachS
I am beginning to like this guy.
brokenrobot
Thank God Serge is finally in this thread! I find his posts sadly unreadable, as are most ideologically-driven screeds - so will somebody who can read them please tell me if he's figured out why it's sinfeld's own fault he was chased yet?
Helmet Head
if he's figured out why it's sinfeld's own fault he was chased yet?
Huh?
randya
Similar to his recent comments regarding College Ave in Fort Collins, Colorado, Serge knows absolutely zero about bicycling conditions or what it's actually like to bicycle in Portland. The presence of bike lanes on a few roads in town has absolutely nothing to do with motorists' behavior towards cyclists on the rest of the local roads, the vast majority of which don't have bike lanes. If anything, I agree with Gene, this is primarily about motorist education, or more properly, lack thereof. The City is very willing to promote bicycling, but also avoids doing much of anything to educate motorists like the plague, beyond mouthing an occassional vague 'share the road' message. Politically, behind the scenes, there is also a tug of war going on between bicycle advocates and traditional car-oriented business interests regarding the growth of bicycling in the city. Also, whereas inner city residents are switching to bicycles in large numbers, the number of motorized suburban commuters is also growing, and there is bound to be friction.
Helmet Head
You facilities defenders always want to have your cake and eat it too.
Either Portland has great segregated cycle facilities, or it doesn't.
I don't have to be there to assume that it does, based on what all you facilities fanatics say.
Now, that's all my statements assume - that Portland has great segregated cycle facilities.
It doesn't take a genius, or someone who has actually been to Portland, to realize that the very existence of cycle facilities amount to an official sanction of the notion that cyclists do not belong in traffic lanes.
Couple those two concepts together, and you should not be surprised to find Portland yahoos with a need to teach others lessons trying to reach cyclists in traffic lanes that they shouldn't be there.
All I'm saying is that incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities.
genec
How do you then explain the yahoos that yell "get on the sidewalk..."
Brian Ratliff
You facilities defenders always want to have your cake and eat it too.
Either Portland has great segregated cycle facilities, or it doesn't.
I don't have to be there to assume that it does, based on what all you facilities fanatics say.
Now, that's all my statements assume - that Portland has great segregated cycle facilities.
It doesn't take a genius, or someone who has actually been to Portland, to realize that the very existence of cycle facilities amount to an official sanction of the notion that cyclists do not belong in traffic lanes.
Couple those two concepts together, and you should not be surprised to find Portland yahoos with a need to teach others lessons trying to reach cyclists in traffic lanes that they shouldn't be there.
All I'm saying is that incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities.
I love this... ROFLMAO!!!
To Serge, all roads lead through bike lanes. Like magic...if only the uninitiated would understand...if we only do away with this one thing, all other problems with cycling up and disappear. Why; oh, why...if we only thought of it sooner, before the conspiracy had time to set in....
The great thing about a single data point is that any line or curve can be fit to it.
Brian Ratliff
How do you then explain the yahoos that yell "get on the sidewalk..."
You havn't heard of the "vehicular walking" movement, started by Serge to eliminate sidewalks and give back to pedestrians their former right to taking a lane in traffic? No crosswalks for me, gracie, I prefer to walk through a left turn in the left turn lane.
After all, if speed is of no consideration... and segregated facilities cause so many problems....
flipped4bikes
You facilities defenders always want to have your cake and eat it too.
Either Portland has great segregated cycle facilities, or it doesn't.
I don't have to be there to assume that it does, based on what all you facilities fanatics say.
Now, that's all my statements assume - that Portland has great segregated cycle facilities.
It doesn't take a genius, or someone who has actually been to Portland, to realize that the very existence of cycle facilities amount to an official sanction of the notion that cyclists do not belong in traffic lanes.
Couple those two concepts together, and you should not be surprised to find Portland yahoos with a need to teach others lessons trying to reach cyclists in traffic lanes that they shouldn't be there.
All I'm saying is that incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities.
You're an idiot. :rolleyes:
genec
You havn't heard of the "vehicular walking" movement, started by Serge to eliminate sidewalks and give back to pedestrians their former right to taking a lane in traffic? No crosswalks for me, gracie, I prefer to walk through a left turn in the left turn lane.
After all, if speed is of no consideration... and segregated facilities cause so many problems....
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
randya
Effective Walking by Bill Treeroot.
Blue Order
Gene, you're hallucinating if you think it's possible to train away common sense and logical notions such as, bike lanes are necessary because cyclists don't belong in vehicular lanes. I mean, if cyclists do belong in vehicular lanes, then why do we need bike lanes? You can't have it both ways. Either there is a need for bike lanes, or there isn't.
And if there is a need for bike lanes, then what can it be other than cyclists should not be traveling in the vehicular lanes?
All the training in the world isn't going to eliminate this huge logical contradiction: We need bike lanes but it's not because we shouldn't be in the vehicular lanes.
Portland, with all its segregated facilities, stands as a monument to the notion that bicyclists should not be in the vehicular traffic lanes. You might as well put a Rick Roberts clone with a P.A. system announcing his beliefs about cyclists rights on every corner.
How can you blame any Portlander for believing that cyclists should not travel in vehicular lanes? If not, why the hell did they spend all that money on segregated lanes for cyclists?
And once you have a system that is built on that idea that cyclists should not be traveling in vehicular lanes, then you should not be suprised when you have people trying to "teach a lesson" to any cyclists who still seems to have not gotten the message.It's official. You have turned me against anything Forester has to say. Effective Cycling? You can't even advocate effectively.
Blue Order
For right-thinking people, there's never a good reason to threaten, intimidate or harrass a fellow human being whether they're where you think they ought to be or taking a snooze in the crosswalk at rush hour. The feelings that Sinfield endured during the event and probably even now are not his fault and do not have to be accepted or condoned. They are not legally imposed by one person on another.
This is an issue of a Bully, plain and ugly, and all Bullies must be dealt with the same way. It's just more dangerous when the bullies make it all the way to adult status before they get sorted out.Yes!
you should not be surprised to find Portland yahoos with a need to teach others lessons trying to reach cyclists in traffic lanes that they shouldn't be there.
All I'm saying is that incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities.No.
Blue Order
You havn't heard of the "vehicular walking" movement, started by Serge to eliminate sidewalks and give back to pedestrians their former right to taking a lane in traffic? No crosswalks for me, gracie, I prefer to walk through a left turn in the left turn lane.
After all, if speed is of no consideration... and segregated facilities cause so many problems....
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
Effective Walking by Bill Treeroot.
:roflmao:
Helmet Head
you should not be surprised to find Portland yahoos with a need to teach others lessons trying to reach cyclists in traffic lanes that they shouldn't be there.
All I'm saying is that incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities.
No.
You're right. It was wrong of me to make such a blanket statement. I should have clarified as follows: Incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected, by anyone with reasonable intelligence, in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities; idiots who keep their heads buried in the sand will undoubtedly continue to be surprised.
ZachS
You're right. It was wrong of me to make such a blanket statement. I should have clarified as follows: Incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected, by anyone with reasonable intelligence, in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities; idiots who keep their heads buried in the sand will undoubtedly continue to be surprised.
But they also happen all the time in places without segregated facilities. I grew up in Portland, and have NEVER had an experience like this. You're just blowing air out your ass on this one.
randya
You're right. It was wrong of me to make such a blanket statement. I should have clarified as follows: Incidents like the one described in the OP should be expected, by anyone with reasonable intelligence, in any "cyclist friendly" area so designated because of "great" segregated cycling facilities; idiots who keep their heads buried in the sand will undoubtedly continue to be surprised.
Serge, you really should have taken a walk around the block instead. Lighten up, dude!
Helmet Head
But they also happen all the time in places without segregated facilities. I grew up in Portland, and have NEVER had an experience like this. You're just blowing air out your ass on this one.
I don't how old you are, but from what I can tell, the facilities movement is not all that old in Portland. 10 years? 20 years?
But it's heating up, and, unfortunately, you're probably more and more likely to have your own incident sooner than later.
Of course, if you just stay out of their way, and ride around on the roads like a second class citizen, just like they want, you'll probably be fine. Some people might even call it a win-win. Not me. No way. Over my dead body.
Daily Commute
Maybe you should do a poll to find out what Portlanders believe. BTW, is your first name Richard?
Dogbait
They did, kind of. The nearly unanimous opinion as expressed in Portland papers and web sites was that cyclists should be barred from Portland's roads unless there's a usable bike lane. If the bike lane isn't usable, cyclists should walk on the sidewalk. See this story (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1137729340106480.xml&coll=7), this column (http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1137722115311930.xml&coll=7), or the comments (http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_publiceditor/archives/2006_01.html) to the Oregonian's public editor.
And note, I did not jump in to attribute this specific incident to the bike lanes. But I do think it's silly to argue that motorists would not be more inclined to expect cyclists to stay out of the traffic lanes when the city has built a big network of striped bicycle lanes.
JRA
Serge, you've outdone yourself. I'm sure this thread hijack, complete with Serge-patented anti-BL rantings, has convinced people of the reasonablness of your position. Keep up the good work! You've convinced me. You don't come across as a crackpot at all.
brokenrobot
You're an idiot. :rolleyes:
Close, but not quite. He's a zealot, which is like an idiot but LOUDER.
ItsJustMe
If the cop pulled up behind him, they should have his plate number, since AFAIK all cop cars are equipped with video these days. If you talked to that particular officer, that piece of video should have gone into the archive as soon as he hit the computer to file a report.
WalterMitty
Serge, you've outdone yourself. I'm sure this thread hijack, complete with Serge-patented anti-BL rantings, has convinced people of the reasonablness of your position. Keep up the good work! You've convinced me. You don't come across as a crackpot at all.
I know as a new user here, it certainly opened my eyes. Now, the next time Bubba rolls out of his pickup truck to beat me with a tire iron because I didn't use the crosswalk to go through an intersection, it'll be because there's a MUP over by the municipal airport 2 miles away. Or, in certain older residential parts of town, there are 50 year old broken sidewalks passing through people's front yards.
Now I just need help explaining why the same kind of neanderthal threatens the same thing when I take up a "whole parking space" with my motorcycle, or when on foot I push the crosswalk button and stop "the whole flow of traffic" so I can cross the street, or when driving in my car the guy behind me goes stark raving mad because I've stopped to let a college student cross in a marked crosswalk as required by law.
Like I read somewhere, "you can't have it both ways". :rolleyes:
Brian Ratliff
I don't how old you are, but from what I can tell, the facilities movement is not all that old in Portland. 10 years? 20 years?
But it's heating up, and, unfortunately, you're probably more and more likely to have your own incident sooner than later.
Of course, if you just stay out of their way, and ride around on the roads like a second class citizen, just like they want, you'll probably be fine. Some people might even call it a win-win. Not me. No way. Over my dead body.
The bicycle bill, requiring monies set aside for the sake of cyclists and pedestrians in road construction, is a product of the early 70's. See here (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/bike_bill.shtml). Let's see; that's 35 years. We've been doing this for a while. Things have only gotten better.
You're in a bad mood; what with all the doom and gloom and prophesying and attributing a single incident as a indictment against all things bike lane. Go out and take a bike ride away from traffic and remind yourself why you got into cycling in the first place.
I actually live here; compared to 5 years ago, this place has only gotten better; both the road construction and the attitude of the drivers. You can take you prophesy and shov.........on't shine. The fact that there are so few of these creeps out on the road that we can single one out and warn people about an individual is a testiment to our progress. The fact that the police chased him away is a testiment to our city's goal to make cycling a normal, everyday activity.
Brian Ratliff
They did, kind of. The nearly unanimous opinion as expressed in Portland papers and web sites was that cyclists should be barred from Portland's roads unless there's a usable bike lane. If the bike lane isn't usable, cyclists should walk on the sidewalk. See this story (http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1137729340106480.xml&coll=7), this column (http://www.oregonlive.com/commentary/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1137722115311930.xml&coll=7), or the comments (http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/publiceditor/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_publiceditor/archives/2006_01.html) to the Oregonian's public editor.
And note, I did not jump in to attribute this specific incident to the bike lanes. But I do think it's silly to argue that motorists would not be more inclined to expect cyclists to stay out of the traffic lanes when the city has built a big network of striped bicycle lanes.
I do believe you have work to do in your own back yard. Fix that (NW Ohio, I believe), then you can comment on what other communities are doing.
Sinfield
Wow,
Looks like I touched off a bit of a powderkeg here. A thousand pardons.
Anyways, I shook the incident off like I shake most of my close calls off. I learn what I can from them, ride smarter and safer as a result and try to be as prepared as possible the next time. The things I learned from this are 1. It's a great idea to keep your cell phone handy at all times while riding and 2. Unfortunatley I need to get back into my "All cars are out to kill me" mindset while riding. Living in portland which is such a bike friendly city at most times tends to kind of lull you into a false sense of security when riding around, especially since there are so many people driving around who are polite and considerate to bikes sharing the road. Unfortunatley, there are always going to be those bad apples or even simple accidents (drove past a messenger that looked to have gotten off second place in a run in with a miata downtown yesterday afternoon) and when you're on 20lbs. of bike vs. 4000lbs. of car, you can't afford that level of optimism. So be it. At least I'll be pleasantley suprised when a driver makes sure to give me room while pedaling, etc.
Anyways, thanks for the support and the validation of what I expected regarding the one way to a one way left turn issue (btw. I stayed in the same lane when I performed my turn so it sounds like I was legal at least)
If the cop pulled up behind him, they should have his plate number, since AFAIK all cop cars are equipped with video these days. If you talked to that particular officer, that piece of video should have gone into the archive as soon as he hit the computer to file a report.
I was on the non-emergency line at the time, waiting to be connected. The cop just happened to be driving by on Front. Ave. at the same time and didn't really stop behind the guy. Of course the guy in the truck probably didn't know that ;). Happy coincidence.
Daily Commute
I do believe you have work to do in your own back yard. Fix that (NW Ohio, I believe), then you can comment on what other communities are doing.
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?
But to your point. I am very active locally in bike planning. And as I pointed out previously, the Ohio Bike Federation and a leader of LAB Reform have been pushing a bill to eliminate the right of local governments to restrict cycling. The bill just passed the Ohio House and is on the way to the Senate.
Unfortunately, there's one "bicycle advocate" in Columbus who wants to dump us into the Portland morass. He claims over and over and over again that someone in the mayor's office wants a Portland-style bicycle system here. That means that assessing what works and what doesn't work in Portland is important here. (This week, I praised an Oregon law in this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=187843).)
But I'll make you a deal. As long as no one (including you) in this forum says anything good about cycling in Portland, I won't say anything bad. But as long as people want to point out what they think is good about Portland, I'll point out what I think is both good and bad.
You can't have it both ways--praise but no criticism.
Serge, you've outdone yourself. I'm sure this thread hijack, complete with Serge-patented anti-BL rantings, has convinced people of the reasonablness of your position. Keep up the good work! You've convinced me. You don't come across as a crackpot at all.
You're an idiot.
As usual, Serge was outdone only by the anti-anti-bike lane rantings of certifable non-crackpots like you, JRA and you're-an-idiot-flipped4bikes.
Brian Ratliff
DC: ummm... I will say what I wish about Portland, being as I live here and am here first hand to see it. But perhaps you are on equal authority to comment because... um... you're in Ohio?
I don't get it.
Feel free to expand on that which you know something about. I would like to hear more of the work you are doing in Ohio. I am only asking that you talk about that which you know, and quit talking about that which you don't.
Perhaps instead of badmouthing Portland's system from a postition of ignorance and simply assuming that it doesn't work (a false assumption indeed), you can argue that, what works for Portland will not for Ohio. It effectively counters the "we'll do it like Portland" argument while at the same time adding to your credibility and not allowing a counterargument from people who live in Portland to be used by your "bicycle advocate." You would make a wonderful opponent if I were that "bicycle advocate," handing me a counterargument I can make use of with such ease.
I can see it now:
BR: We'll do it like Portland. Seems good.
DC: [Bike lane diatribe] That's why Portland sucks and we shouldn't do it.
BR: Well the cyclists in Portland don't seem to agree with your accessment. Moreover, it seems good to me and it is perfectly reasonable...
City Board: Well, DC seems to ramble on about how Portland sucks, yet it was given a good rating by LAB, and, as BR pointed out, the cyclists in Portland seem to like their system. We'll do it....
How's this for a deal: I'll talk about Portland, and you'll talk about Columbus. I can certainly have it both ways about Portland because I live here and you do not. Notice that I restrict my comments when it is cyclists from Portland who criticize our system. Funny how there are not many of those around, though Portland is well represented in this forum. However; if it is you who are badmouthing Portland without actually being here and cycling here and living here, you can bet your sweet ***** that I will defend our system from your unfounded attacks. Just as I have no authority to comment on Columbus, OH specifically, you have no authority to comment on Portland, OR.
Daily Commute
So, I can't draw conclusions when Portland motorists nearly universally say that cyclists don't belong on roads that don't have bike lanes or if bike lanes are not passable? Doesn't that counter the argument that a bike lane network will solve the problem of motorist hostility (which some in Columbus claim)? I can't look at a bike lane design and say, "that looks stupid because. . . ." Or "that looks like it will work because. . . ?" Are you saying that you can't comment on an accident or a design unless you have ridden through an intersection? That's just silly.
Go ahead and point out where I'm wrong. If not having ridden a specific street means I've missed something in my criticism, point out what I've missed. But you want the lazy way out.
One thing I've never contested is that a segregated lane system makes people feel safer and feel special. That really doesn't tell us if the design is safer. That's why so many segregated-system advocates rely on polls rather than on arguments about safety. (And I do not argue for a ban on bike lanes, just that they should generally be limited to high-speed-low-intersection roads with cyclists having the right to use the traffic lanes at any time the cyclists' discretion.)
Now, based on your own criteria, I'm glad to hear that you will not comment on any topic other than Portland and specifically on Portland roads you have ridden on. After all, if you haven't been there in person, by your standard, you must remain silent.
Brian Ratliff
DC: First, you don't find me making direct, blanket comments about other cities I know nothing about. The comments from NW Ohio were repetitions of statements from people who do live, work, and ride there; from a different thread. Go ahead. Look. Nowhere do I attack another city's way of doing things. I leave that for the people who live there. In this forum, I comment about philosophy and sociology based on what I experience and what I have read. Nowhere do I extrapolate that to make a direct comment about a specific location.
Second: I doubt you have polled motorists in the Portland area about the rights of cyclists on the road. You get your information from the comments section of a newspaper article where the cyclist was doing an obviously inflammatory thing. People who feel strongly enough about a subject tend to write in; meaning your sample is skewed in the direction of the extremes. In any case, you write off good comments about a cycling system because what people feel is not always how things are; you can make the same statement about polls from motorists regarding cyclist's rights.
I can, however, speak within my experiences regarding how motorists treat me; so on this subject at least, I have some feel for how things are, as opposed to how people feel. You, however, do not have this luxury regarding motorists in Portland.
Third: You can look at an individual bike lane design and make your comments. It's when you extrapolate to make broader conclusions where you run into difficulties. Because I live and ride here, I can extrapolate better than you can. Also, because you are looking at things from afar, your analysis of an accident or a bike lane design is, yes, going to be less reliable and less trustworthy than the analysis from a person who has has ridden through the area.
Fourth: You can discount polls due to "reality vs. perception"; you can discount analysis due to want of facts. However, experience many time tells all. I have my own experiences and other Portlander's experiences (when the write about it) to draw from. You have nothing.
So, since I already don't comment on specific cities (and have been doing this from the start), does this mean that you will stop badmouthing Portland from a postion of ignorance?
HoustonB
... you have no authority to comment on Portland, OR.Lets see I live on SE 59th and have for nearly 3 years, prior to that I lived in the Sellwood neighborhood (very close to SE Tacoma and the notorious Sellwood Bridge (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22sellwood+bridge%22&btnG=Search)), prior to that i lived very near the Lloyd Center in NE Irvington. And for the whole 5+ years I've been working in downtown Portland. By your reckoning that would make me a super authority over you since you are only "Near Portland". And where does it say one needs to be an authority in order to have or air an opinion?