Advocacy & Safety - Portland:Red Light Camera Nabs 226 vehicles in First Day of Operation

everybody just needs to slow down, pay attention, be patient, lighten up a bit, stop trying to blame everyone else, and take a little more personal responsibilityWe are in total agreement on these points, randya.

I agree that cyclists that break the law should be ticketed, as should motorists. However, this is not reality, and I suspect that if it were reality then we would see more lax traffic laws across the board. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that even if law enforcement were 100%, there would still be a higher percentage of cyclists breaking the law than motorists because motorists are subject to more penalties than cyclists, as they should be.

It's a step, but I don't think enforcement is an appropriate final solution. By far, I think the number one reason people are most likely to stop for signs and lights is immediate personal danger of violence via other road users. By comparison, law enforcement is a nuisance, and nothing more. The penalties enforced by hordes of drivers are immediately violent. If police took over this function, the only real difference we would have would be in the paperwork.

I do think that increased control by law enforcement would be productive, however, but not without some effort to blunt the atmosphere of default control by immediate violence. All we have to do is to convince all the world's population affluent enough to drive to give up some of the mortal power they have over all who cross their path. No problem! :D

In Idaho cyclists can legally treat stop signs as yield signs.

If that is how they do it I think it's right.

That is only is the cyclist waits their turn behind the cars in front of them.
Many will pass the cars on the right side and go right up to the intersection.
That's asking for it.

Many will pass the cars on the right side and go right up to the intersection.
That's asking for it.
So when you wrote your state rep. & state senator about introducing legislation repealing the line in ORS 814 that makes it legal for bicycles to do that, what was the response?

Ever spit in the wind?

Yes, but I think you'll find politicians' ears quite open to bike matters these days. It's a "hot topic" at present. As for myself, I like the freedom of the law. I use it conservatively and cautiously, and my usage generally results in reducing congestion for the motor vehicles around me.

If that is how they do it I think it's right.

That is only is the cyclist waits their turn behind the cars in front of them.
Many will pass the cars on the right side and go right up to the intersection.
That's asking for it.
Being able to filter is one of the privleges of being on a bicycle. If you think I'm going to wait a half hour in gridlock to move a few blocks (eastbound SW Madison between SW Park and the Hawthorne Bridge anyday during PM rush hour) just because the road is clogged with cars, you're crazy.

Being able to filter is one of the privleges of being on a bicycle. If you think I'm going to wait a half hour in gridlock to move a few blocks (eastbound SW Madison between SW Park and the Hawthorne Bridge anyday during PM rush hour) just because the road is clogged with cars, you're crazy.
This is exactly where I do it. I'm uber-cautious and wait until there's a red and no one can move anywhere. I can't help it if idiots take the law and do dumb things with it.

Being able to filter is one of the privleges of being on a bicycle. If you think I'm going to wait a half hour in gridlock to move a few blocks (eastbound SW Madison between SW Park and the Hawthorne Bridge anyday during PM rush hour) just because the road is clogged with cars, you're crazy.

Just tell your family to plese not sue the concrete truck driver if/when you learn what 15 tons of pressure feels like on your skull.

Thats what irritates me the most. A few months ago a girl was filtering and was killed. Now the truck driver has to go to court to try to keep what he has worked for his entire life.

Lets save the lawsuits for a cyclists getting hit from behind by typical distracted guy with 15 previous tickets.

Just tell your family to plese not sue the concrete truck driver if/when you learn what 15 tons of pressure feels like on your skull.

Thats what irritates me the most. A few months ago a girl was filtering and was killed. Now the truck driver has to go to court to try to keep what he has worked for his entire life.

Lets save the lawsuits for a cyclists getting hit from behind by typical distracted guy with 15 previous tickets.

I've been following your posts here for a bit, and you're a real piece of work. Do you even ride a bike or are you just here trolling?

The woman wasn't filtering, she was riding legally in the bike lane. The cement truck driver failed to yield. could there have been better signage or a different/safer lane configuration? You bet, but it doesn't abbrogate the truck driver's responsibility and duty to exercise due care as a motorist given the existing conditions.

If you were on the highway in an empty HOV lane, would you pass the gridlocked traffic in the other lanes or not? :rolleyes:

No evidence or reason to believe they wouldn't drive like that. None at all.
There's no evidence to suggest or reason to believe that the people executing these real world maneuvers on their bikes will change their behavior and drive a motor vehicle safely and in observance of the law.
You're the one making the claim.

There is no evidence to suggest that people will drive in the same manner that they bicycle.

There is no evidence to suggest that people will drive in the same manner that they bicycle.
Cyclists are actually the people most acutely aware of the differences, and those cyclists who are also motorists are often much better versed in the rules of the road than motorists are. I would further venture an educated guess that cyclists who also drive are much safer motorists, by virtue of their having experience in traffic on a bicycle.

Most motorists are completely clueless and/or completely misinformed as to what the rules of the road for bicyclists are. Beyond the obvious issues with red lights and stop signs (which most if not all cyclists know they are supposed to stop for, but some chose not to), the majority of motorists don't have a clue as to when a cyclist is legally required to be in or allowed to leave a bike lane, or where a cyclist is legally allowed to ride on a road without bike lanes.

I think that conscientious riders make better drivers, and I think that some JABS become JAMS behind the wheel. And let's not forget that some people are on bikes because the state won't let them drive.

Then there are the JABS who've never driven, and who are inventing their own vehicle code.

Some excerpts from that code:

Never ride with lights at night.

Ride against the direction of traffic if it will save you time.

Never stop at stop signs or red lights, and never slow or look as you ride through.

To make a left turn, filter to the right of cars, and then cut across their direction of travel to make your left turn.

I've been following your posts here for a bit, and you're a real piece of work. Do you even ride a bike or are you just here trolling?

The woman wasn't filtering, she was riding legally in the bike lane. The cement truck driver failed to yield. could there have been better signage or a different/safer lane configuration? You bet, but it doesn't abbrogate the truck driver's responsibility and duty to exercise due care as a motorist given the existing conditions.

If you were on the highway in an empty HOV lane, would you pass the gridlocked traffic in the other lanes or not? :rolleyes:


Well thats an interesting point.

I have never been within 1000 miles of a HOV lane and I drive about 4-5 times per year so I dont know.

Filtering is filtering whether the bike lane mandates it or not. I did not say it was the girls fault but I would suggest that the city would never make a possible right turn auto lane to the left of a possible straight thru auto lane.

Crawl up in the drivers seat of a big truck and I will stand next to the passenger side door and you tell me if I'm there or not.

Its impossible.

Just because I do not reach for my hanging rope to string up the motorists everytime a cyclists is killed does not make me crazy.

Blue, is there any middle ground?

On one extreme, you can come to a complete stop at every stop sign and put a foot down.
On the other extreme, you can 'Never stop at stop signs or red lights, and never slow or look as you ride through.'

How about: Slow and observe traffic. (A) If there is traffic, stop and abide by right of way rules, (B) If there is not a car in sight, then roll the stop sign.

I think that conscientious riders make better drivers, and I think that some JABS become JAMS behind the wheel. And let's not forget that some people are on bikes because the state won't let them drive.

Then there are the JABS who've never driven, and who are inventing their own vehicle code.

Some excerpts from that code:

Never ride with lights at night.

Ride against the direction of traffic if it will save you time.

Never stop at stop signs or red lights, and never slow or look as you ride through.

To make a left turn, filter to the right of cars, and then cut across their direction of travel to make your left turn.
This just points to the need for more cyclist education, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

Still, cyclists don't kill 42K people a year on America's roads, motorists do, if safety is really our highest priority, motorist education should be our highest priority.

BTW, did you see today's Oregonian? Under the aegis of educating motorists as to the rules of the road for cyclists, Kruger is quoted providing an overly simplistic, disinformed interpretation of the law that caters to motorists' already existing misperceptions of the law:

What can a motorist do to prevent accidents involving cyclists?

Drivers should always look behind them and to the right when they turn or merge in that direction.

"Expect the presence of bicycles," Kruger says.

What can cyclists do to prevent accidents?

The basics, says Portland traffic Officer Michael Villanti, include obeying traffic laws, using the proper lights and wearing reflective or bright clothing so motorists can see cyclists better.

Plus, he says: "Even when you have the right of way, be prepared to forfeit it."

What are the most common conditions when bicyclists have the right of way?

Bikes have exclusive right of way when they're in a bike lane -- even when a car is turning right, Kruger says.

"In most every other situation, a bicyclist must obey all the same traffic laws and movements as a motor vehicle," he says.

But even if they have the right of way, Kruger says, cyclists must pay close attention to motorists in case the driver doesn't see them and turns in front of them.

What are the responsibilities of a cyclist when the bike lane they're in ends?

Cyclists are required to ride as close as practical to the right shoulder unless they're turning left, Kruger says. They can ride as close as practical to the left shoulder on a one-way street within a city.

Who has the right of way when a motorist is making a right turn and a cyclist is traveling beside the vehicle?

"The bicycle traveling on the right has the right of way," even when it's not in a bike lane, Kruger says.

But if there's no cyclist and no bike lane, he says, the motorist can move to the right before making the turn.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1193466354179340.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

What is wrong with Kruger's oversimplification?]

No explanation of when a cyclist is allowed to leave a bike lane or take the lane when a bike lane is not present. Safe interaction between cyclists and motorists on the road depends on motorists being able to properly understand these nuances of the law, and the quote from Kruger is more harmful than helpful, given the already existing level of misinformation among motorists. Dumbing the message down for motorists is not the right approach.

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) 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) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:
(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.
(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.
(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.
(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.
(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:
(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.
(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.
(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.
(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.
(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.
(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.16 §339]
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html

The exceptions to these two sections of the ORS are the real key to cyclist safety, and Kruger total abrogates his responsibility in this regard. Kruger needs to go and the City of Portland needs to change the message to motorists.

ha ha

How would a 500 dollar ticket and a 2 month campaign work? It would be good for cyling and the city could probably build a new school or something!!!

"good for cycling"? Howz dat? Speaking of "good for cycling" how many graduates have you had for your cycling classes? Are any, or all of them 1%'er dorks stopping at empty intersections like yourself?

Crawl up in the drivers seat of a big truck and I will stand next to the passenger side door and you tell me if I'm there or not.

Its impossible.


Actually it's not. You can see everything in the multiple side mirrors. Of course a bike isn't going to stand out like a car, but if you just passed a bike you should be keeping an eye on it before you turn right in front of it.

How about: Slow and observe traffic. (A) If there is traffic, stop and abide by right of way rules, (B) If there is not a car in sight, then roll the stop sign.

That would require something we used to call "common sense." You don't see much of that these days.

This just points to the need for more cyclist education, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.The problem is there is no such thing as cyclist education.

Still, cyclists don't kill 42K people a year on America's roads, motorists do, if safety is really our highest priority, motorist education should be our highest priority.Cyclists don't kill 42k people a year for a variety of reasons, including that there just aren't as many cyclists out there on the roads as there are cars, and that cyclists have less mass than cars. However, what they lack in mass, they make up for in sheer stupidity deeply rooted in their own hubris.

BTW, did you see today's Oregonian? Under the aegis of educating motorists as to the rules of the road for cyclists, Kruger is quoted providing an overly simplistic, disinformed interpretation of the law that caters to motorists' already existing misperceptions of the lawYes, I saw it. First he got the failure to yield law wrong, now he's got the lane use law wrong.

Still, we probably shouldn't expect a TRAFFIC DIVISION LIEUTENANT to understand the laws he's enforcing, should we?

Kruger needs to goNot going to happen if he's a union member (I'm not sure how high up the chain of command is union), so your energies would be better spent on things that CAN happen.

and the City of Portland needs to change the message to motorists.That is something we CAN do something about.

The problem is there is no such thing as cyclist education.
Well, there sure isn't much of it. I'm certainly not saying that the LAB courses are the end-all, be-all of educational models, but it's the only one we've got at present. This whole thing had me thinking about taking Road 1. It certainly couldn't hurt. So I go to the LAB site to see what's available for classes in my area. Of the 4 LCIs in the Portland metro area, only one of them is offering classes, and it's far enough out of the central city to make it fairly difficult for me to attend, as I do not own a car. The 3 who live in Portland proper aren't teaching. Then I hear that someone I'm acquainted with has passed everything she needs to get an LCI, but is just waiting for the official word to come in the mail. She's not even thinking about holding classes until next summer. Well, then.

Still, we probably shouldn't expect a TRAFFIC DIVISION LIEUTENANT to understand the laws he's enforcing, should we?
Oh, I think he understands the law just fine. He doesn't like the law, and so he's decided to become a legislative and judicial activist despite the fact he works as a public servant in the executive branch. He's also willing to spin and twist the truth to serve his own agenda. Given his past history in the PPB, none of this surprises me. What does shock and dismay me is how he's obviously been given the ok to run his mouth whenever and however he pleases. It goes to show you what the new Traffic Commander, the Police Chief, and the Mayor think about cyclist/motorist interactions in this city.

Well, there sure isn't much of it.Not only that, but it's completely voluntary. If the answer to hazardous and illegal riding practices is more education, but that education is not mandatory, and is as difficult to find as you've described, then the people who really need the education simply aren't going to get it. In that context, saying "education" will solve the problem of hazardous and illegal riding practices is meaningless. Now, if education becomes available, and if the people who need it the most will actually show up, then it be comes a viable solution.

Not only that, but it's completely voluntary. If the answer to hazardous and illegal riding practices is more education, but that education is not mandatory, and is as difficult to find as you've described, then the people who really need the education simply aren't going to get it. In that context, saying "education" will solve the problem of hazardous and illegal riding practices is meaningless. Now, if education becomes available, and if the people who need it the most will actually show up, then it be comes a viable solution.

Not to mention that the people most in need of any cyclist education are the ones least likely to seek it simply because they are least aware of any sort of cyclist "network."

Here in San Diego cycling education is free... sponsored by the city and the local advocacy group... but if you don't know to look up the advocacy group or look up cycling education... you're not likely to find out about this... the bike shops and xmarts don't promote it.

The consequences of bad driving is the potential to injure or kill another person. The consequences of bad cycling is the potential to get yourself injured or killed. If you as a driver are ok with the consequences of your bad driving, then sure, point the finger at scofflaw cyclists.

The consequences of bad driving is the potential to get yourself injured or killed, or to injure or kill another person. The consequences of bad cycling is the potential to get yourself injured or killed , or to injure or kill another person. If you as a driver are ok with the consequences of your bad driving, then sure, point the finger at scofflaw cyclists.There, fixed it.

so far, the city of Portland's best idea for education is to send a bunch of traffic cops out, give a bunch of bogus tickets to cyclists for bike lane or other violations at the cops discretion, then offering cyclists "share the road traffic classes", the major focus of the class being yielding to peds in xwalks and getting cyclists to wear helmets, plus some more disinformation from the cops regarding bike lane laws.

:eek:

:rolleyes:

:o

Sounds like you've had an opportunity to attend class. :D

But seriously, imagine a cyclist education program, funded by the city, implemented by a non-profit organization, and taught by qualified instructors (read: NOT the PPB), that empowers cyclists by educating them about their legal rights, their legal duties, and cyclist safety.

That is something that should be on the table.

My point all along is that it's not the cyclists that are most in need of education, it's the motorists. Every bit of misinformation Kruger gives to motorists now makes it harder to reeducate them, and makes cyclists less safe on the streets, because the misinformed motorists most likely to act out are going to be encouraged to by Krugers misstatements.

Every bit of misinformation Kruger gives to motorists now makes it harder to reeducate them, and makes cyclists less safe on the streets, because the misinformed motorists most likely to act out are going to be encouraged to by Krugers misstatements.
Amen to that.

But seriously, imagine a cyclist education program, funded by the city, implemented by a non-profit organization, and taught by qualified instructors (read: NOT the PPB), that empowers cyclists by educating them about their legal rights, their legal duties, and cyclist safety.

That is something that should be on the table.
Actually, the BTA has had a monthly class like this taught by Ray Thomas for many years now.

It's not the cyclists that need that education, it's the motorists.You don't think cyclists who make left turns from the right hand curb, cutting off the cars they just filtered past, don't need education? You don't think cyclists who ride the wrong way on one-way streets, at night, without lights, running stop signs and red lights alike without slowing or looking, need education?

:eek:

But that completely contradicts what you said earlier:

This just points to the need for more cyclist education, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

Actually, the BTA has had a monthly class like this taught by Ray Thomas for many years now.His class is a much milder version of what I just proposed.

Not to knock his class, I'm just saying we can do so much more than a one hour presentation on Pedal Power: Multiple classes, teaching legal rights AND legal duties, cycling safety concepts, riding skills, emergency maneuvers, etc.

I still think it's motorists that are the most important to reach with accurate information

I still think it's motorists that are the most important to reach with accurate informationI disagree. EVERY user of the road needs accurate information, and cyclists need practical skills in addition to accurate information.

you can educate everyone you want, but the priority should be motorists, the misinformation Kruger is giving out to motorists today will be deadly to cyclists tomorrow.

Look, you two are never going to agree on what's most important. Personally, I'm torn between your positions. What I do know is that man needs to be shut up right quick, or riding around town is going to become a heck of a lot more unpleasant.

This just points to the need for more cyclist education, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.Er, you are:

My point all along is that it's not the cyclists that are most in need of education, it's the motorists.I still think it's motorists that are the most important to reach with accurate information
you can educate everyone you want, but the priority should be motorists

Look, you two are never going to agree on what's most important. Personally, I'm torn between your positions. What I do know is that man needs to be shut up right quick, or riding around town is going to become a heck of a lot more unpleasant.Donna, several people are working on it...

I never said cyclist education wasn't important, what I said is that motorist education is more important.

All I want motorists to do is understand the law as it is written for cyclists, with the exceptions emphasized.

what do you propose to teach cyclists, VC road cycling or cyclist-as-pedestrian-on-path cycling? not as easy as it seems to decide what exactly cyclists should be taught. if you think they need to be taught to stop at lights and stops signs I disagree, they already know that and some simply chose to disregard it, just like motorists and speed limits. If you think you're going to reach the tweekers and the homeless cyclists with your program, you're probably mistaken there as well.

If you think you're going to reach the tweekers and the homeless cyclists with your program, you're probably mistaken there as well.
That's for sure. They're going to do what they're going to do, same as when they're on foot.

There is something of an opportunity here, though. Enough cyclists are currently scared enough that they want to learn more about how to stay safe/evasive manuevers. If you can be un-preachy about it, you may well also have a chance to successfully make the point that riding legally usually works out better for everyone.

I never said cyclist education wasn't important, what I said is that motorist education is more important.

All I want motorists to do is understand the law as it is written for cyclists, with the exceptions emphasized.

what do you propose to teach cyclists, VC road cycling or cyclist-as-pedestrian-on-path cycling? not as easy as it seems to decide what exactly cyclists should be taught. if you think they need to be taught to stop at lights and stops signs I disagree, they already know that and some simply chose to disregard it, just like motorists and speed limits. If you think you're going to reach the tweekers and the homeless cyclists with your program, you're probably mistaken there as well.Then people in the Portland cycling community should just stop saying that the solution to cyclists violating everybody else's rights is "education," because they don't really mean what they're saying.

The correct answer would be "We don't have a solution."

And the inevitable response to the complete shirking of personal and collective responsibility is what has been mislabeled as "stings" (see ABSCAM if you're not sure of the difference).

That's for sure. They're going to do what they're going to do, same as when they're on foot.

There is something of an opportunity here, though. Enough cyclists are currently scared enough that they want to learn more about how to stay safe/evasive manuevers.I think there's a huge opportunity to teach cycling safety and evasive maneuvers, without having to choose a particular brand of gospel.

whose rights are cyclists violating again? the recent fatalities have been cyclists riding legally if I recall correctly through all the BS. And it's the motorists who are doing most of the killing and injuring on the roads. Right hooks are the leading cause of cyclist injury, followed by both cyclists and motorists disregarding traffic control devices, remember?

whose rights are cyclists violating again?Every time I get buzzed while I'm in the crosswalk, my rights are violated.

Oh, I know, cyclists are SO much more important than pedestrians, so I should probably get down on my knees and thank them for buzzing me.

And every time some cyclist runs a red light and cuts off a motorist, or cuts off the Max train trying to beat it across the tracks, every time some cyclist cuts off another cyclist's right of way, they should all get down on their knees and thank the cyclist for violating their rights. Because, you know, the cyclist who is violating everybody else's rights is SO much more important than everybody else.

:rolleyes:

I think your perception is biased, but I haven't had your personal experiences. are you a magnet for bad cyclist behavior; do you really have more problems with cyclists than motorists? how often do you actually ride in traffic and in what parts of town?

I think your perception is biased, but I haven't had your personal experiences. are you a magnet for bad cyclist behavior, or have you really have more problems with cyclists than motorists?I've had problems with both. However, my observation is that the percentage of cyclists in the cycling population behaving badly on the roads is much higher than the percentage of motorists behaving badly. And if you've noticed, I take both groups to task.

I think your perception of the ratio of bad behaviour among motorists is biased low then. can you also respond to my question regarding how often you actually ride in traffic and in what parts of town? Most of your observations seem to be as a pedestrian observing traffic, not as a cyclist.

If the goal is to reduce the 800 cyclists deaths per year, then educate cyclists on safe practices and equipment. If the goal is to reduce the 42k motorists killed per year, then educate the motorists.

Do both, and do the second as a safe driving advocate, not a cycling advocate.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, but as a cycling advocate one has the greater potential to reach cyclists and educate them.

Al

I think your perception of the ratio of bad behaviour among motorists is biased low then.Sorry, I had to run for the bus after I posted. On my way home, I thought about my observations of bikes, and my observations of cars, and my encounters with bikes, and my encounters with cars. I think I understand the differences in observed behavior a little bit better now.

Here's how it works. My observations of cyclist and motorist behavior are affected by my mode of transport. The world moves by fastest when driving (I don't have a car, but we all know that you miss things in a car because it's moving so fast). The world moves by slower on a bike. And the world moves by slowest on foot. The slower your mode of transport, the more opportunity you have to take things in, to observe the world around you.

I'm on foot a lot. And I spend a lot of time waiting on street corners for the bus, and that gives me lots of time to observe the traffic around me. When I'm on a bike, I'm moving along with traffic, so my observation of a particular street corner is going to be very fleeting. When I'm on foot, my observation of a particular street corner is going to quite often on the order of 15 minutes, 30 minutes, sometimes 1 hour. I see a lot more at that intersection in 30 minutes than I do in the 5 seconds it takes me to pass through on a bike.

And what I see, consistently, is the majority of cyclists disregarding traffic signals, and the majority of motorists obeying traffic signals. Now, that observation will also be colored by the location of the traffic signal. What I mean by that is I've discovered one stop sign in particular that the vast majority of motorists ignore. I'm sure there must be others like that. But my general observations are that, regardless of where I am *downtown,* the vast majority of motorists obey the traffic signals, and the majority of cyclists don't. Another observation: The fact is that "cyclists" is a generic term encompassing a variety of cyclist subcultures, and the percentage of cyclists observed respecting the rights of others will depend on which cyclist subculture is out and about. Morning commuters tend to respect others on the road; hipsters tend not to. So the time of day, and location, will also be factors in who's doing what. One more observation: Disregard of right of way varies between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists will quite intentionally ride into an intersection in complete disregard of the traffic signal. However, most of these ride throughs are not occurring in complete disregard of others' right of way. Most occur when no other vehicle is in the intersection, although that is often by luck rather than by design (you can tell the difference by whether the cyclist looks for approaching traffic, or just barrels through). An ugly minority of cyclists, however, will quite intentionally disregard right of way of vehicles in the intersection.

Motorists are a different matter. I've seen exactly one motorist sort of start to roll through a red light, before stopping in utter confusion. She was on a cell phone. More often, the type of right of way violation I observe committed by motorists is a car stopped too far into the crosswalk, but even that is rare. Most motorists observe the traffic signals, although again, that will be dependent upon which traffic signals we're talking about. Where motorists more often fail to respect right of way is with the infamous right hook, and when otherwise interacting with the bike lane (merging into to park, which I've observed, merging out of to leave parking, and dooring, which I haven't observed).

Now, back to my observation that most cyclists disregard signals. I see it consistently with cyclists, and never with motorists. "Never" doesn't mean it doesn't happen-- it just means I haven't seen it. It's relatively rare. 7.5% of motorists ran red lights, according to the original post in this thread, and yet I haven't seen it once. I see cyclists run red lights every single day, and the number of cyclists on the road is a very small fraction of the number of motorists on the road.

Ok, so those are my observations on foot. Now to my close calls. When I'm on foot, I have more close calls with cyclists than with motorists. Here's the breakdown:

1) Intentional disregard of traffic signals, leading to close passes in the crosswalk: Every single time, it's a cyclist. Not once a motorist.

2) Intentionally aiming for me with intent to hit me if I didn't get out of her way (I had the right of way in the crosswalk): One time, a motorist.

3) Intentionally aiming for me, with intent to make me get out of his way (again, I had the right of way in the crosswalk), but chickening out at the last second and braking: One time, a motorist.

4) Intentionally aiming for me, intent unclear, but made a close pass (again, I had the right of way in the crosswalk): One time, a motorist.

5) Illegal disregard of my right of way in the crosswalk (nearly a buzz): Cyclists and motorists alike.

Those are my observations on foot. Now for my observations on bike. As I've noted above, being on a bike means I'm not observing any particular intersection for more than a few seconds, so my perception changes. On a bike, my encounters are entirely limited to encounters with motorists. As you've probably gathered, I ride legally, so I don't have negative interactions with pedestrians. Nor do I have negative interactions with *most* motorists. I have had some negative interactions with *some* motorists. Some of these have been the result of unintended near-collisions because the motorist didn't look before changing lanes. Some have been unclear-- did the motorist right hook me because she didn't see me, or because she didn't care? Some have been intentional, but resulting from motorist stupidity, rather than intent to injure me (trying to pass me as we're both approaching a stop). And once intentional, because I was taking the lane.

So here's my observation about perception: when I'm on foot, the world looks diferent to me than when I'm on a bike. When I'm on foot, I see more, and I come into conflict with both cyclists and motorists. When I'm on a bike, I see less, and I come into conflict with motorists.

can you also respond to my question regarding how often you actually ride in traffic and in what parts of town? Most of your observations seem to be as a pedestrian observing traffic, not as a cyclist.Exactly, as noted above. And as noted above, I think my observations of traffic are less biased than they would be if I were making my observations on a bike.

Every time I ride, I ride in traffic. I don't ride on trails, I don't load the bike up onto my (nonexistent) car and go out of town, I ride in downtown. Mostly downtown, the Pearl, and Northeast. How often? Not often lately. I don't have lights or panniers (or alternately, a pack), so I can't commute to school, and that's where I will be spending all of my time until the end of the month. And because I'm not commuting, I took my bike apart and frame-savered it, and now I don't have time to put it back together, because I'm trying to graduate. So lately, I'm only riding when I borrow a bike. After the 1st, I'll be back on the road, and if I can buy a light sometime soon, I'll be riding daily again.

Thanks for the insight.

Now consider this: most cyclists, at least the ones I know, understand the law very well as it applies to themselves, and every stop sign they run is a decision made consciously based on the absence of other traffic at the intersection. I can't comment on the cyclists you see, but again, most cyclists I know also know they are supposed to stop and wait for traffic signals, and they do.

Contrast this with motorists operating in the vicinity of cyclists on the road. Every indication is that they are either completely clueless, misinformed or only partially informed as to where cyclists are legally allowed to operate in the right of way. Most of them simply understand the very basic concept, as Kruger was quoted in the Sunday Oregonian: cyclists must stay as far to the right as practical/possible (or on the left if the street is one way). Most motorists think that means two feet from the curb or the parked cars, and they have absolutely no understanding of when cyclists are allowed to take the lane based on conditions. In my opinion, this is the critical education component that is missing, and if the police refuse to provide complete and correct information, who are the motorists supposed to get the information from?