some comments in another thread has left me seriously doubting the vc idealogues abilities and logic.

some of the idealogues have mentioned how wide shoulders on high speed arterials are ample for their road riding. Interesting to me that a vehicular cyclist would prefer a wide shoulder to a wide bike lane.

I think riding on shoulders, while safe if shoulders are wide and relatively clean, is NOT very 'vehicular' and does NOT suggest to other road users that bicyclists are supossed to be riding on the roads.

wide, clean bike lanes, integrated with the rest of the road striping, are much more 'vehicular' in concept, and suggests more strongly to other road users that bikes are supossed to be riding on the road.

Shoulders or bike lanes - which suggest more vehicular operation of bicycles to other road users?

some comments in another thread has left me seriously doubting the vc idealogues abilities and logic.

some of the idealogues have mentioned how wide shoulders on high speed arterials are ample for their road riding. Interesting to me that a vehicular cyclist would prefer a wide shoulder to a wide bike lane.

I think riding on shoulders, while safe if shoulders are wide and relatively clean, is NOT very 'vehicular' and does NOT suggest to other road users that bicyclists are supossed to be riding on the roads.

wide, clean bike lanes, integrated with the rest of the road striping, are much more 'vehicular' in concept, and suggests more strongly to other road users that bikes are supossed to be riding on the road.

Shoulders or bike lanes - which suggest more vehicular operation of bicycles to other road users?

More illogical thoughts that make sense only in the context of the cyclist-inferiority superstition. Cyclists have the right to ride on the roadway, and on a shoulder if they prefer to do so, and exercising neither option indicates anything that is contrary to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Where a good shoulder exists and the speed and movement of the cyclist so indicate, there is no problem about riding on the shoulder. The existence of the shoulder, save in the legal fiction of the transportation funding act, says nothing at all about whether or not a cyclist should use it. On the contrary, the existence of a bike-lane stripe indicates that cyclists should be using only that portion of the roadway, which provides both the appearance of a diminution of rights and contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Both of these effects are contrary to the interests of lawful, competent cyclists, otherwise known as vehicular cyclists.

On the contrary, the existence of a bike-lane stripe indicates that cyclists should be using only that portion of the roadway, which provides both the appearance of a diminution of rights and contradicts the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Both of these effects are contrary to the interests of lawful, competent cyclists, otherwise known as vehicular cyclists.

What a minute... a bike lane stripe does not mean "only" any more than a bus lane does not mean that a bus may only use that space or a taxi lane may only be in that space.

You are adding something to bike lanes that is NOT part and parcel to bike lanes. Nothing says a bike must remain in the BL.

The "only" associated with all those spaces I mentioned, is that autos are supposed to stay out, just like a solitary motorist is not supposed to use a car pool lane.

some comments in another thread has left me seriously doubting the "Bek" idealogues abilities and logic.
Look in the mirror Bek, outstanding description of yourself!:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

What a minute... a bike lane stripe does not mean "only" any more than a bus lane does not mean that a bus may only use that space or a taxi lane may only be in that space.

You are adding something to bike lanes that is NOT part and parcel to bike lanes. Nothing says a bike must remain in the BL.

The "only" associated with all those spaces I mentioned, is that autos are supposed to stay out, just like a solitary motorist is not supposed to use a car pool lane.
Not true in Hawaii and a few other states that have mandatory use of bike lane laws. Even mopeds are required to stay in the bike lane in Hawaii.

Stop the discrimination, remove the bike lane paint!

You bike lane folks say you oppose mandatory use laws, but none are stepping up to the plate at the legislature to help end this discrimination! Anyone see any activity from LAB trying to do away with these bike lane laws - they also ignore the problem. (Maybe they will for sidepath laws but not for bike lane BS)

How about those cops in Portland that ticket cyclist for leaving the bike lane, even when the cyclist want to make a left turn?

Not true in Hawaii and a few other states that have mandatory use of bike lane laws. Even mopeds are required to stay in the bike lane in Hawaii.

Stop the discrimination, remove the bike lane paint!

You bike lane folks say you oppose mandatory use laws, but none are stepping up to the plate at the legislature to help end this discrimination! Anyone see any activity from LAB trying to do away with these bike lane laws - they also ignore the problem. (Maybe they will for sidepath laws but not for bike lane BS)

How about those cops in Portland that ticket cyclist for leaving the bike lane, even when the cyclist want to make a left turn?

Are the laws in Hawaii such that the exceptions allow you to leave the BL at almost any whim? That is hardly mandatory in my book.

What a minute... a bike lane stripe does not mean "only" any more than a bus lane does not mean that a bus may only use that space or a taxi lane may only be in that space.


Indeed. Maybe we should investigate to confirm or refute that "bus driver inferiority complex" comes from them having the option of using bus-only lanes.

Bek, you just don't get it. The serious cyclists in the Forester camp all ride bicycles than can scarcely handle the conditions of the average road. Pine needles send them into spasms of fear. A single leaf drives them to cries of "debris! debris!" Nevermind potholes or other conditions likely to break their fragile bicycles. Being so fragile, they just find it much easier to ride in the breakdown lane, ever ready for the inevitable breakdown. They know darn well if they break down in a bike lane they'll be mowed down by all the incompetent cyclists who can't be bothered to stop and fret with them about the sorry state of bike lanes because they're all on their way to work or some kind of important business.

Bek, you just don't get it. The serious cyclists in the Forester camp all ride bicycles than can scarcely handle the conditions of the average road. Pine needles send them into spasms of fear. A single leaf drives them to cries of "debris! debris!" Nevermind potholes or other conditions likely to break their fragile bicycles. Being so fragile, they just find it much easier to ride in the breakdown lane, ever ready for the inevitable breakdown. They know darn well if they break down in a bike lane they'll be mowed down by all the incompetent cyclists who can't be bothered to stop and fret with them about the sorry state of bike lanes because they're all on their way to work or some kind of important business.


That's quite to the contrary, I'm the one who's usually stopping to offer my help to a stranded cyclist, you included Diane if you were in need of help and requested it. When the weather get's nasty and there is road debis galore, it get's rather lonely out on the roads in my area, so I have no need to worry about being over run by hoards of fretless cyclists on my trusty and sturdy ride.

Are the laws in Hawaii such that the exceptions allow you to leave the BL at almost any whim? That is hardly mandatory in my book.
When the burden of proof is switched to the cyclist to show cause for leaving the bike lane, then that is MANDATORY.

The Portland cyclist have just reason to leave the bike lane to make a left turn; they still got ticketed.

Bek, you just don't get it. The serious cyclists in the Forester camp all ride bicycles than can scarcely handle the conditions of the average road. Pine needles send them into spasms of fear. A single leaf drives them to cries of "debris! debris!" Nevermind potholes or other conditions likely to break their fragile bicycles. Being so fragile, they just find it much easier to ride in the breakdown lane, ever ready for the inevitable breakdown. They know darn well if they break down in a bike lane they'll be mowed down by all the incompetent cyclists who can't be bothered to stop and fret with them about the sorry state of bike lanes because they're all on their way to work or some kind of important business.
A long time ago, your post were reasonable and made sense; more often, they just look like Bek's post.

What a minute... a bike lane stripe does not mean "only" any more than a bus lane does not mean that a bus may only use that space or a taxi lane may only be in that space.

You are adding something to bike lanes that is NOT part and parcel to bike lanes. Nothing says a bike must remain in the BL.

The "only" associated with all those spaces I mentioned, is that autos are supposed to stay out, just like a solitary motorist is not supposed to use a car pool lane.

No? That is the view that motorists take about bike-lane stripes. And in some areas, that is the law as well. And, for that matter, that is the view that many cyclists take about bike-lane stripes, because they believe that the stripe protects them from danger and, also, legitimizes cycling. You can't have it both ways, that bike-lane stripes persuade people of benefits without also accepting the consequences of that false belief.

Not true in Hawaii and a few other states that have mandatory use of bike lane laws. Even mopeds are required to stay in the bike lane in Hawaii.


Looks like the issue is still very hot in some places.

Around here, cops don't even blink, no matter where I ride.

My best to you in Hawaii. Sounds like unfavorable discrimination to me! (Especially after that so-called "bike lane" you were expected to use, which looked about 1 1/2 feet wide--I dare them to expect a pedestrian to use a sidewalk that skinny!)

I don't care to ride the shoulder, crap its rough, loose rocks, junk car doors flying open.
I have to drive a truck on the job, I don't even like to let a wheel get off in that shoulder, it will vibrate everything out of the dashboard.

I want bike lanes dammit.

Junk car doors flying open? I'm totally laughing my ass off here envisioning those junked cars on the shoulder, the multitudes of them, rusted and burned out, with their doors just flying open all by themselves willy-nilly! It's dangerous! A death-zone I tell ya! Hilarious!

Bek, you just don't get it. The serious cyclists in the Forester camp all ride bicycles than can scarcely handle the conditions of the average road. Pine needles send them into spasms of fear. A single leaf drives them to cries of "debris! debris!" Nevermind potholes or other conditions likely to break their fragile bicycles. Being so fragile, they just find it much easier to ride in the breakdown lane, ever ready for the inevitable breakdown. They know darn well if they break down in a bike lane they'll be mowed down by all the incompetent cyclists who can't be bothered to stop and fret with them about the sorry state of bike lanes because they're all on their way to work or some kind of important business.
:lol: well done :lol:

How about those cops in Portland that ticket cyclist for leaving the bike lane, even when the cyclist want to make a left turn?

I missed that CB. What was the outcome?

Maryland, I believe, also has a mandatory bike lane law. Although I have never seen nor heard it being enforced; nor does it require the use of side paths.

http://www.waba.org/areabiking/bikelaws.php

.....

Regarding the question, neither seems particularly "vehicular" since both seem to serve the same function in this case; i.e., shift the cyclist over out of the way of motorized traffic.

.....

Personally, I don't think that the issue of debris is trivial. More often than not, there are clear differences in the amount of debris when comparing the shoulder or bike lane to the adjacent road.

No? That is the view that motorists take about bike-lane stripes. And in some areas, that is the law as well. And, for that matter, that is the view that many cyclists take about bike-lane stripes, because they believe that the stripe protects them from danger and, also, legitimizes cycling. You can't have it both ways, that bike-lane stripes persuade people of benefits without also accepting the consequences of that false belief.

I agree that there are motorists that take the presence of a bike lane as a signal of where cyclists are supposed to ride. Moreover, I guess that this effect is stronger than on an identical road with SHARROWs or a WOL with "Bike Route" signs.

But I believe that most motorists understand and would agree that there are conditions for which a cyclist should ride outside the bike lane. Although I doubt that motorists are able to recognize some cycling-hazards as quickly as a person on a bicycle.

EDIT: Just to complete a thought ... my guess is that the relative change in motorists' perceptions of cyclists' rights--in a practical sense--is that bike lanes improve conditions for cyclists relative to nothing at all.

invisible hand, which scenario is MORE vehicular?

Bikes riding on the shoulder, or bikes in a velotransit lane, integrated with the rest of the road striping? bike lanes away from the shoulder, off from the sides of the road, integrated with the turn patterns at major intersections?

which scenario is more vehicular, shoulder riding or riding in a travel lane (striped for bikes)?

seems disarmingly skewed if foresterism declares shoulders more vehicular than striped travel lanes....

invisible hand, which scenario is MORE vehicular?

Bikes riding on the shoulder, or bikes in a velotransit lane, integrated with the rest of the road striping? bike lanes away from the shoulder, off from the sides of the road, integrated with the turn patterns at major intersections?

which scenario is more vehicular, shoulder riding or riding in a travel lane (striped for bikes)?

seems disarmingly skewed if foresterism declares shoulders more vehicular than striped travel lanes....

Hmmmm, sorry Bek ... I am not trying to avoid fully answering the question. I just thought that I would have a few more minutes to think about it before anyone else responded.

Using the vernacular of "vehicular" with my understanding that ordinary vehicles do not travel on the shoulder of major roads, I would say that your bike lanes are more vehicular.

-G

In my state, shoulders are to be used by drivers to let faster moving traffic pass when there is not an available passing lane. I use them as such and use bike lanes the same way. I consider shoulders more vehicular as shoulders are not intended to be a travel lane and thus do not direct cyclists to travel straight from a lane to the right of another lane where right turns are allowed. Shoulders can also be used by any vehicle that is going slower than the speed of traffic to allow traffic to pass. Additionally, shoulders can be used when a vehicle has mechanical trouble, for parking, by pedestrians, rollerbladers, and skateboarders, or for a bus stop (to name a few of the uses I often see).

the skew that shoulders are more vehicular seems vacous, rote repetition in the anti-accomdationalists...

why are shoulders more vehicular, joe? there is sometimes a bike lane, to the left of shoulders, with striping that moves bikes towards the center of the road, away from the curb, and are accomodated at major intersections by striping the bike lanes to the left of right hand turn lanes.

shoulders are not as 'vehicular' as a bike lane, sorry. shoulders do nothing to emphasise bikes are legitimate road users. bike riders on the shoulders indicate more strongly that bikes are not bonafide road users, versus bike infrastructure that integrates bikes on the road to the left of the fog line.

steve goodridge's comments in another thread about how he's perfectly content using shoulders of high speed roads, versus bike infrastructure, shows how far off base the anti-accomodationalist camp is in their 'message' that leaves bikes riding the shoulders of high speed roads, versus accomodations that provide on road lanes for bikes.

but hey, give me a wide shoulder and i'm riding in it. but recognize they are not as vehicular as a lane for bicycles.

I consider shoulders more vehicular as shoulders are not intended to be a travel lane and thus do not direct cyclists to travel straight from a lane to the right of another lane where right turns are allowed.

Interesting observation... I wonder if bike lanes should end with some sort of "bulb" forcing cyclists to move out at the intersections.

We don't have much in the way of good shoulders here in CA... one can really see this difference when traveling down 101 in Oregon, where the wide shoulder is designated as very wide bike lane with very regular signs... then one enters California, where the shoulder disappears completely... along with the regular bike lane signs.

A couple miles south past the CA/OR border, there is a hogepoge of different very small bike lane signs scattered at irregular intervals... then after Fort Dick, 101 becomes "the Redwood Hiway" and is closed to cyclists. Oddly enough, as a hiway, it gets shoulders again. Go figure.

The alternative road to the "Redwood Hiway" is hiway 1... which is not closed to cyclists, but is a narrow (read "no shoulders") winding road (albeit quite beautiful, being right along the coast) that is marked at 50MPH. Based on the driving patterns of motorists observed in the area, they like to push that 50MPH and probably have given little thought to the possibility of a cyclist moving slowly on the road ahead... :eek:

Most people think of bike lanes and shoulders quite interchangeably. And this is to be expected. Most people wouldn't dream of riding their bikes right smack in the middle of a lane if there is any kind of space off to the side, and most roads delineate that space with some kind of line.

This does not mean that bike lanes are not better-designed than shoulders, because they very well are in many places. This also does not mean that cyclists are "prisoners" behind the line. I think most intelligent people understand they can cross the line when necessary.

I think most intelligent people understand they can cross the line when necessary.

On the contrary, the existence of a bike-lane stripe indicates that cyclists should be using only that portion of the roadway...

The rest is back about message 2 if you care to read the whole thing...

Interesting observation... I wonder if bike lanes should end with some sort of "bulb" forcing cyclists to move out at the intersections.

If they did, most bike lanes would be reduced to nothing. Not a completely bad idea as such ;)

the skew that shoulders are more vehicular seems vacous, rote repetition in the anti-accomdationalists...

why are shoulders more vehicular, joe? there is sometimes a bike lane, to the left of shoulders, with striping that moves bikes towards the center of the road, away from the curb, and are accomodated at major intersections by striping the bike lanes to the left of right hand turn lanes.

So what? I'd wager that most streets that have bike lanes do not have right turn only lanes. Even where bike lanes are striped to the left of a right turn only lane, there is still an area where cyclists are going straight and traffic is moving across the bike lane to turn right without any merge area. That is not vehicular.

shoulders are not as 'vehicular' as a bike lane, sorry. shoulders do nothing to emphasise bikes are legitimate road users. bike riders on the shoulders indicate more strongly that bikes are not bonafide road users, versus bike infrastructure that integrates bikes on the road to the left of the fog line.

Bike lanes legitimize cyclists' use of bike lanes which has nothing to do with whether or not a shoulder or a bike lane is vehicular (even if bike lanes did legitimize cyclists' use of the road). Shoulders do not suggest any special place for cyclists on the road that is supposed to be used as a default. Shoulders (paved ones, note that I've been assuming the shoulders we're discussing here are paved) give a slow moving cyclist an area to move over into to allow faster traffic to pass when the cyclist chooses to move over (at the discretion of the cyclist).

steve goodridge's comments in another thread about how he's perfectly content using shoulders of high speed roads, versus bike infrastructure, shows how far off base the anti-accomodationalist camp is in their 'message' that leaves bikes riding the shoulders of high speed roads, versus accomodations that provide on road lanes for bikes.

but hey, give me a wide shoulder and i'm riding in it. but recognize they are not as vehicular as a lane for bicycles.

I'll use a shoulder on a high speed road too to allow faster moving traffic to pass in between intersections, assuming there is not a passing lane provided. I will use a shoulder even if there is a passing lane if the traffic volume is high enough. If there is so little space in between intersections that I'd be spending way too much effort merging back and forth, I default to the right lane. With a bike lane striped to my right, I can guarantee you I'd receive far greater amounts of harassment even though my lane positioning is fully allowable (could be argued that it's suggested even) by the traffic code. I'm sure you'd ride in the bike lane the whole time though even on a road with 2 lanes in each direction and 70 intersections in 3 miles.

I have never met a motorist who did not understand that if I was signaling a left or in the process of merging toward at a place to turn left that I was well-within my rights to leave the bike lane or shoulder.

If I'm not heading for a left turn or otherwise signaling a need to leave the bike lane and am just will-nilly riding around in the middle of the road like a jerk, then that is understandably interpreted as boneheaded behavior on my part. And of course, where there is a lack of facilities I experience being treated like a bonehead even though I'm not doing anything wrong at all.

So the question is, do we go with the VC world view where we build roads so that every interaction with motorists is an exercise in being treated undeservedly as a bonehead, or do we give the cyclist some room so motorists just leave their armchair traffic cop schtick at home and let us ride in peace? After all, even the VCers will seek refuge in the shoulder.

So what? I'd wager that most streets that have bike lanes do not have right turn only lanes. Even where bike lanes are striped to the left of a right turn only lane, there is still an area where cyclists are going straight and traffic is moving across the bike lane to turn right without any merge area. That is not vehicular.
.

Don't make that wager in San Diego.

The bike lanes here on arterial roads all have ROTL with the BL being to the left of the turn lane. Of course the arterial roads here also have speed limits of 45 and 50MPH. All bike lanes dash and end before street intersections, but not before driveways. However, not all bike lanes are 5 feet wide or even 6 feet wide... and they seem to count the gutter pan as part of the width, and yes, bike lanes ARE placed next to parked cars.

I have never met a motorist who did not understand that if I was signaling a left or in the process of merging toward at a place to turn left that I was well-within my rights to leave the bike lane or shoulder...
Go to Portland, the cops hand out tickets to cyclist for leaving the bike lane to make a left turn.

BTW speaking of 50MPH arterial roads... This road is not quite arterial at this location... but it is a 50MPH road.

This road is marked at 50MPH just back a touch from where this picture was taken:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070705/images/met-fourth280.jpg

This is a single lane going each way, with a bike lane running beside it, with angled parking for beach access... and motorists typically wait in the BL for parking to open up; motorists also merge on and off just about anywhere... for parking. Now tell me it makes sense to have this road marked with a 50MPH speed limit.

What "rocket scientist" traffic engineer thought that 50MPH was appropriate for this road??? AND WHY?

This is the kind of idiotic "auto-centric" thinking that leads to motorist/cyclist/pedestrian issues.

I missed that CB. What was the outcome?...
I have not seen any follow on post on the outcome. I am hopeful the Portland cyclist went to court and won, but do not know. Seems that would be the only way to get some education to the cops handing out these tickets. Assuming the judge is not as foolish as the cop. After all, Portland had an odd judge that declared a stick pressed against a bike wheel was more of a brake than a fixed rider using leg power to brake.

Go to Portland, the cops hand out tickets to cyclist for leaving the bike lane to make a left turn.

Better cycling and many more cyclists though. Man do you have a chip on your shoulder. How's Hawaii do'n?

Just so the rest of the folks on this forum know the story, Mr. CB HI has a hard-on for Portland because he cannot get involved enough with his own local bicycling advocacy efforts to stop them from blindly copying Portland's bicycle infrastructure. He doesn't like this, so instead of trying to change his little city, he's trying to smear Portland instead. Oddly enough, Portland's solutions seem to work for Portland. People like them, and cycling is on the rise in Portland. The rise in cycling correlates well with the advocacy efforts here to increase cycling infrastructure.

But Mr. CB doesn't like this, so he makes like we're some sort of cycling Nazi's here. In reality, a few tickets were given out several months ago, and all's been quiet before and since. He doesn't mention that most of the cyclists here ride at least partially vehicularly (as opposed to AZ's sidewalk cyclists), and there are thousands a day riding into the city center. See here for some sources. (http://bikeportland.org/resources/bikesafety)

I believe this was the outcome (http://bikeportland.org/2006/11/07/expert-witness-backfires-on-da-in-bike-lane-case/), or at least one of the outcomes, of the tickets for leaving the bike lane. There were only a handful of tickets written and it was a one time deal. I haven't heard of anyone getting a ticket for leaving the bike lane since last November.

EDIT: Digging around more, apparently there was another enforcement sting (http://bikeportland.org/2007/03/22/construction-zone-becomes-ticket-zone-for-cyclists/) that went on about 4 months ago around some construction downtown. There were some tickets given out there for not using the bike lane. I don't know the outcome of this though. It was in response to complaints from the construction contractors.

Thanks for the links Brian. Quite interesting.

-G

Better cycling and many more cyclists though. Man do you have a chip on your shoulder. How's Hawaii do'n?

Just so the rest of the folks on this forum know the story, Mr. CB HI has a hard-on for Portland...
I think bike lane hysteria is the apt description for Mr. CB HI's affliction. It's not just Portland that gets his motor running. He's still ranting this week on BF about something former NYC Mayor Ed Koch said about bike lanes over 20 years ago.

Edit: CB HI has not ranted about former NYC Mayor Koch's 20 year old comment about bike lanes. My error. It was somebody else with a burr up his rear ranting about bike lanes in cities that he knows nothing about.

Better cycling and many more cyclists though. Man do you have a chip on your shoulder. How's Hawaii do'n?

Just so the rest of the folks on this forum know the story, Mr. CB HI has a hard-on for Portland...
A hard-on, like, for this?

http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/USHI0026?month=-1

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USHI0026?from=month_bottomnav_undeclared

Oh yes Brian, when you cannot counter my points on the Portland data and other issues, just resort to the standard false characterizations.

Did you even notice my comment “I am hopeful the Portland cyclist went to court and won”?


I also note that at first you claimed that the tickets were a one time thing, but then had to promptly retract that because you found another link on a single blog showing your first statement to be false. Keep searching, there were at least 3 ticket sweeps that covered both bike lane BS and the brakes on fixed gear bike issue.

Note how even though the judge did find the cyclist not guilty, he made it very clear that he wanted to preserve the bike lane mandatory use law.

I have never claimed Portland is a bad place to ride. Stop claiming Portland is bike heaven with bad or manipulated data and I will stop commenting on that bad or manipulated data.

The only other issue I have had with a few of the folks from the northwest, has been how several of them have this attitude against cyclist who wear cycling specific shorts and jerseys.

Better cycling and many more cyclists though. Man do you have a chip on your shoulder. How's Hawaii do'n?

Just so the rest of the folks on this forum know the story, Mr. CB HI has a hard-on for Portland because he cannot get involved enough with his own local bicycling advocacy efforts to stop them from blindly copying Portland's bicycle infrastructure. He doesn't like this, so instead of trying to change his little city, he's trying to smear Portland instead. Oddly enough, Portland's solutions seem to work for Portland. People like them, and cycling is on the rise in Portland. The rise in cycling correlates well with the advocacy efforts here to increase cycling infrastructure.

But Mr. CB doesn't like this, so he makes like we're some sort of cycling Nazi's here. In reality, a few tickets were given out several months ago, and all's been quiet before and since. He doesn't mention that most of the cyclists here ride at least partially vehicularly (as opposed to AZ's sidewalk cyclists), and there are thousands a day riding into the city center. See here for some sources. (http://bikeportland.org/resources/bikesafety)

This whole subthread makes me think that City of Atlanta's probably the cycling-friendly center of the universe. I've been cycling here since the late 1950's, have been cycling in a selfconciously vehicular fashion since the early 1970s, and police officers have never even paid much attention to me, much less ticketed me (inside or outside the hideous bike lanes which have been cropping up recently).

I think bike lane hysteria is the apt description for Mr. CB HI's affliction. It's not just Portland that gets his motor running. He's still ranting this week on BF about something former NYC Mayor Ed Koch said about bike lanes over 20 years ago.
I challenge you to prove this false statement by providing a link to any of my post which even mention NYC Mayor Ed Koch or his statement. :p

There never has been any such post from me.

You bike lane folks say you oppose mandatory use laws, but none are stepping up to the plate at the legislature to help end this discrimination! Anyone see any activity from LAB trying to do away with these bike lane laws - they also ignore the problem. (Maybe they will for sidepath laws but not for bike lane BS)
FWIW LAB provided written testimony when MD was trying to remove its mandatory use law.

FWIW LAB provided written testimony when MD was trying to remove its mandatory use law.
Was that a mandatory side path or bike lane law?

I know they have submitted letters when some areas have considered mandatory side path laws. If it was for a bike line law, I would like to get a copy of it if you have a local link.

... In reality, a few tickets were given out several months ago, and all's been quiet before and since...
Really?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4697736&highlight=portland+ticket#post4697736

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=4116473&highlight=portland+ticket#post4116473

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3745866#post3745866

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3746105&highlight=portland+ticket#post3746105

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3559492&highlight=portland+ticket#post3559492

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3022093&highlight=portland+ticket#post3022093

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=215975&highlight=portland+ticket

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=2839553&highlight=portland+ticket#post2839553

http://bikeportland.org/2006/07/28/judge-finds-fault-with-fixies/

http://bikeportland.org/2007/03/22/construction-zone-becomes-ticket-zone-for-cyclists/

http://bikeportland.org/2006/11/07/one-cyclists-perspective-on-bike-day-in-court/

I challenge you to prove this false statement by providing a link to any of my post which even mention NYC Mayor Ed Koch or his statement. :p

There never has been any such post from me.
You are right. I confused Daily Commute's endless rants on several lists about bike lane incidents in cities that he has no experience, with your endless rants about isolated bike lane incidents in cities that you have no experience. They sound the same note of hysteria and I was in error pinning this specific rant on you. Sorry for the mix up.

Look at that folks! We actually have a critical mass of cyclists on the streets! It's better than I thought. You know when the cops start paying attention, you have a goodly number of cyclists. At some point, the pendulum swings from cops looking the other way because it's not worth it to cops trying to enforce the laws on the books.

And Larry, yes, cops tend not to pay attention to all 12 of you bike commuters in Atlanta.

I know, I know, VC isn't about making cycling popular. But I kind of like it. And I gotta tell you, it really cuts down on the abuse from motorists. I can go weeks now without harrassment from drivers. Back a few years ago, it was a daily occurance.

Here's what I'm gonna do now. I'm going to ignore all the swipes at Portland from you all. You've pretty much proven its just envy.

Really?
...

...


11 tickets? Out of 10,000 commuters daily? Pretty good ratio if you ask me.

I mean, if HI or Atlanta's commuter cyclist population got 11 tickets in one month, that'd be, like, everyone.

Was that a mandatory side path or bike lane law?

I know they have submitted letters when some areas have considered mandatory side path laws. If it was for a bike line law, I would like to get a copy of it if you have a local link.

This isn't quite the specific law ... but it is a summary as understood by the local advocacy.

http://waba.org/areabiking/bikelaws.php

-G

Was that a mandatory side path or bike lane law?

I know they have submitted letters when some areas have considered mandatory side path laws. If it was for a bike line law, I would like to get a copy of it if you have a local link.
MD has a mandatory bike lane and shoulder use law that we tried to repeal. Thanks to LAB’s help and testimony our bill passed the Senate with very few Senators opposing the bill despite MDOT’s opposition to the bill. But when we tried to get it to pass the house things got extremely hectic and crazy as it was getting near the end of our legislative season.

I probably should apologies as I did want to go back and get an electronic copy of LAB’s testimony to put up on Baltimore Spokes but that sort of fell through the cracks so I don’t have a link to the testimony, sorry.

You are right. I confused Daily Commute's endless rants on several lists about bike lane incidents in cities that he has no experience, with your endless rants about isolated bike lane incidents in cities that you have no experience. They sound the same note of hysteria and I was in error pinning this specific rant on you. Sorry for the mix up.
Actually I lived up in the Pacific Northwest for awhile. So you still remain offbase.:rolleyes:

11 tickets? Out of 10,000 commuters daily? Pretty good ratio if you ask me.

I mean, if HI or Atlanta's commuter cyclist population got 11 tickets in one month, that'd be, like, everyone.
But you said it was a one time thing. The links are just a sample that show it has been going on for some time. Interesting that you wish to ignore the cops being jerks towards cyclist, just to support some sort of Portland bike heaven image. Portland is a very nice place to ride, but it is not the bike heaven that many of you wish to convey.