Google sponsored links
Improving Bicycle Safety in Portland (http://www.commissionersam.com/files/Improving%20Bicycle%20Safety%20in%20Portland%20102607.pdf)
Transportation Commissioner Sam Adams' Blog on Bike Safety (http://www.commissionersam.com/node/2951)
BikePortland.org article on today's press conference (http://bikeportland.org/2007/10/26/report-from-the-bike-safety-meting-and-press-conference/)
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
It looks to me to be a bit more then blue bike lanes.
Also I would love to watch how they do a right hook sting, sounds risky but much needed.
Your right, they also included blue bike boxes.
Wasn't the last guy KILLED in a bike lane? So adding more of them will somehow make cyclists safer exactly how?
The challenge is to configure roadways in a fashion which minimizes the inevitable trajectory conflicts while encouraging destination-appropriate lateral positioning. Bike lanes to the left of right-turn-only lanes can do this, even though the anti-bikelane crowd lumps these with all other bike lanes as being somehow evil. Intersection squaring (elimination of high-speed sweeping freeway-style transition merges and diverges) and other traffic calming measures are helpful, as well.
Education of all road users is bigger than any of these, however. Bicyclists must learn never to ride to the right of a right-turning motor vehicle.
It's nice to read about such a big community/government turn out over two bicyclist deaths in two weeks. And that they even suggested DMV education as one of the solutions is absolutely amazing.
I was at the press conference. In fact, randya and I were both there thinking aloud how we wish some of you were at that press conference asking a few pointed questions. I hope they get somewhere with the DMV. What's become readily apparent through mainstream media is that the majority of motorists have no idea what is legal in relation to bikes and what is not. It seems like a good percentage of them believe we're legally obliged to yield the right of way simply because they're in a larger vehicle than us. That's the level of ignorance of the traffic laws we're talking about here. I'm sure that's one thing we can all agree on - motorists shouldn't be left to believe that might = right on the streets. I'm also heartened about the right hook sting idea, although I'll believe the Traffic Division will follow through when I see it. :rolleyes: What did make me feel hopeful was the announcment that big city trucks were going to try out convex mirroring and other truck safety features in order to get private industry to voluntarily see the benefit. It sickens me that those things aren't already required by law. The city really can't control what private industry does without federal regulations so I support this luring and seduction approach. ;)
As to the bike boxes and blue lanes. They released a list of problem intersections. Some of them I could see that working for. Our blue lanes are very effective in about 80% of the places they are in. I don't think it woluld work for many of the others unless you had a bike-specific portion of the light cycle. That's really expensive, and I highly doubt they're going to spend that kind of money on the problem. I don't believe this bike box/blue lane solution is going to work for the 2 intersections where Tracey and Brett died. In those places, I think Sharrows are what we need. I do not understand PDOT's reluctance to use them.
Of course, if they really wanted to reduce collisions at that intersection, they could put in No Turn on Red signs. That would have the added benefit of reducing pedestrian injury/fatality at those locations. I won't hold my breath on that one. :rolleyes:
I'd also like the Parks & Recreation Department to offer street riding skills along with their other community classes like yoga and gardening, and such. Give you a chance to really practice determining where the blind spot on a big rig is, taking the lane, etc. Something like Road 1 without the mechanical skill section. No one talked about that.
It might be in those links somewhere but I skimmed through so I might have missed it.
I saw on the news that a fellow who wants to run as Mayor of Portland wants higher property taxes and an added tax on gas that would add up to big ass money to pay for cycling improvements.
I think he also mentioned a program for cyclists at the DMV.What was that about???
To me something stinks here.It shouldn't cost millions of dollars to improve bicycle safety, and I don't really see the need to alert cyclists awareness of vehicles if that's the DMV side of it.
I only herd a quick bit about this so please provide a link or something if ya have one.
Millions of dollars Hummm.. Maybe they want to give each Portlander a free bike to make them more aware???
The tax hike would be primarily for much needed improvements to our streets that the county, state, and feds have told PDOT to go hang over. A small amount of it would be for pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements put in at the same time as the road work. The city has put on numerous town hall and public meetings where it's become clear that people want more safety features at intersections for all users of the roads and sidewalks. They also want road improvements and repairs. This money would be for all of that. Since this press conference was about bikes, of course he played up that angle.
The DMV proposal was for a Portland-specific pamphlet for people seeking a drivers' license or renewal that goes into greater detail regarding the traffic laws as they pertain to cyclists, since it seems most drivers haven't a clue about what's legal and what is not. Also, the proposal includes asking some bike-specific questions on the written test for Portland area testees. This would be easy to implement because the written test is on a computer.
They also want road improvements and repairs. This money would be for all of that. Since this press conference was about bikes, of course he played up that angle.
What a friggin joke.God I hate politicians.
Thank you donnamb
What a friggin joke.God I hate politicians.
Thank you donnamb
You're welcome. You know, the media could have fleshed that out, too. It's not like they didn't know this. :rolleyes:
reading through all the comments on Sam Adams' blog, it's very obvious that most motorists don't know squat about what the actual rules of the road for bicycles are. Beyond the obvious complaints about cyclists running red lights and stop signs, they are totally clueless about such things about when cyclists can leave a bike lane and where cyclists are allowed to be on the road in the absence of a bike lane. I largely fault the Portland Police for perpetuating these motorist's misperceptions with disinformation.
This points to a tremendous need to reeducate the general motoring population, which is one of the areas in which PDOT has failed miserably. Bringing the DMV in is a step in the right direction, but I don't think DMV is going to be in a huge rush to change the way they do business, I remember a 'Share the Road' poster DMV produced a few years back, there was a motorcycle in the poster but no pedal cycle, and Portland has a whole lot more pedal cyclists than motorcyclists.
PDOT has a tremendous opportunity right now to to fund and produce PSAs, spread the message via Radio, TV, billboards and other media, but some of us have been encouraging them to do this for years, with very little success, so I'm not all that hopeful.
I think they need to do public awareness TV Commercials like they did with the whole don't sped at construction sites and the Buckle up to save lives deal.
Running commercials like that for a few years would help.
I think so, too, but they can't be timid and air watered-down tripe. I fear that's what they would do.
I think so, too, but they can't be timid and air watered-down tripe. I fear that's what they would do.
Don't we know it.
Don't want to scare people with reality and such ya know.
Might cause a lawsuit or force the commercial to be pulled.
What's become readily apparent through mainstream media is that the majority of motorists have no idea what is legal in relation to bikes and what is not. It seems like a good percentage of them believe we're legally obliged to yield the right of way simply because they're in a larger vehicle than us. That's the level of ignorance of the traffic laws we're talking about here. I'm sure that's one thing we can all agree on - motorists shouldn't be left to believe that might = right on the streets.
Guess that they would agree that trucks have right of way among cars too.
I'm also heartened about the right hook sting idea, although I'll believe the Traffic Division will follow through when I see it. :rolleyes: What did make me feel hopeful was the announcment that big city trucks were going to try out convex mirroring and other truck safety features in order to get private industry to voluntarily see the benefit. It sickens me that those things aren't already required by law. The city really can't control what private industry does without federal regulations so I support this luring and seduction approach. ;)
I will believe it when I see it. I agree it is a good idea; but even with good intentions, these programs often get pushed aside when it comes time to allocate resources.
As to the bike boxes and blue lanes. They released a list of problem intersections. Some of them I could see that working for. Our blue lanes are very effective in about 80% of the places they are in. I don't think it woluld work for many of the others unless you had a bike-specific portion of the light cycle. That's really expensive, and I highly doubt they're going to spend that kind of money on the problem. I don't believe this bike box/blue lane solution is going to work for the 2 intersections where Tracey and Brett died. In those places, I think Sharrows are what we need. I do not understand PDOT's reluctance to use them.
Is the 80% figure scientific in nature? If so, what measures did you use? Or is it just an anecdotal observation/guess? No sin in making an off-the-cuff comment by the way. But I would like to put it in the right context.
I like the concept of SHARROWs. However, to date, my anecdotal observation is that the few instances of their use in the DC area are done poorly. The few in Del Rey, VA are the only ones appropriately designed. Otherwise, they are quite narrow and too far to the right in tricky traffic situations.
sharrows need to be centered in the lane to be effective
Portland cyclist should consider working with the truck drivers union and their insurance company on a revised truck driver training program. The insurance companies have a great deal to gain from such a program and can assert alot of influence (demand) for it to happen. If the union gets behind it, then it becomes trucker law to protect cyclist.
The insurance companies forced a huge change in trucker attitudes towards cyclist in Honolulu back in 1998. Since then, I have only had 3 minor issues with truckers, and all looked liked young (new) drivers.
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.