MUST READ - Portland's Vicious Cycle

[vincentpaul]

Portland's preeminent alternative weekly newspaper, Willamette Week, has devoted their cover story this week to the many, many ways that America's "most bike friendly city" comes up short when it comes to creating a truly bike friendly city. It's an extremely well written and well reasoned essay. A MUST READ FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN CYCLISTS AND CYCLING SAFETY. http://wweek.com/editorial/3351/9896/

[M_S]

Bike tracks? What exactly happens at intersections? How do cyclists make left turns? How do drivers make right turns without crushing bikes? It seems like yet another solution devised by people who do not actually ride their bikes in traffic. The other points are decent, but I'm still of the opinion that infrastructure is very much secondary to respect and awareness on the part of cyclists and drivers.

[Helmet Head]

For those of you who scoff at the anti-BL argument (Genec, Brian R, ILTB, sbhikes, Patc, etc.,) that bike lanes lead to calls for more and more segregation, read no further than their first (of 14) suggestions for how "Portland could really live the dream of bike equality"

1. SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Portland claims a “bikeway network” of nearly 300 miles—bigger than Copenhagen’s. That may be true, but our network is decidedly not better. Well over half of Portland’s bike network consists of those striped bike lanes you see along the shoulder of the road. These lanes are a legacy of limited thinking about what makes for a bike-friendly city.

Alan Durning of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based sustainability think tank, dismisses Portland’s bike lanes as “white lines on the pavement.”

That’s a fair description (see photo, bottom right).

What’s better than white stripes? Durning points to Copenhagen’s “bike tracks,” which are elevated from the street but lower than the sidewalk, and protected from car traffic by a buffer.

“Bicycle tracks don’t have to be that expensive—it’s just raised asphalt,” says Mark Lear, who’s directing the city’s Safe, Sound and Green Streets program.

The problem, engineers say, is that Portland has more intersections and driveways than European cities that employ bike tracks.

While creating separated lanes like Copenhagen’s may be difficult and costly, it shouldn’t be ruled out where it’s physically possible—especially on busier streets and intersections, where most accidents occur.

[JeffS]

Sounds like a post right out of BikeForums A&S.

I'm glad this guy isn't "helping" the cyclists of my town.

[squegeeboo]

OK, I have issues with a few of these:

Bike Box: So this is a spot, in front of all the cars that bikes are supposed to thread through to sit at a light? We're in traffic, shouldn't we wait in traffic?

Requiring Helmets: I say let Darwin sort them out.

[vincentpaul]

Bike tracks? What exactly happens at intersections? How do cyclists make left turns? How do drivers make right turns without crushing bikes? It seems like yet another solution devised by people who do not actually ride their bikes in traffic. The other points are decent, but I'm still of the opinion that infrastructure is very much secondary to respect and awareness on the part of cyclists and drivers.

I agree the opinion piece is not perfect, but it's nice to see any form of media point out that cyclist safety has a long way to go. Personally, I'm disappointed that they put intersection safety down at number four of their recommendations. As the piece itself points out, 80% of cyclist accidents occur at intersections. Obviously, the bulk of the efforts to improve cyclist safety have to be devoted to improving the interaction between motorists and non-motorists at intersections.

[duppie]

Bike tracks? What exactly happens at intersections? How do cyclists make left turns? How do drivers make right turns without crushing bikes? It seems like yet another solution devised by people who do not actually ride their bikes in traffic. The other points are decent, but I'm still of the opinion that infrastructure is very much secondary to respect and awareness on the part of cyclists and drivers.

I don't think you have ever seen a bike track the author is referring to. (admittedly that is somewhat of a misleading term, making it sound as if it similar to light-rail tracks adjacent to a road)
Closest I have seen was the recently installed separate bike lane in NYC. To increase the effect, the asphalt could be raised.
Once you come to intersections, of course the raised part would have to stop there. Combine this with separate lights for bicyclists and you have a viable solution

I agree with your statement that respect and awareness between various road users will go a long way to create a safer bicycling environment
Duppie

[DXchulo]

Let me get this straight. 6 people have died in 2007, so for that reason Portland isn't really bike-friendly like everyone says? Nevermind this:

It’s been a bad year for Portland cyclists. Six have died in 2007. And while this is not necessarily a trend (over the past 15 years, bike fatalities have remained flat while ridership has increased)...

The fatality rate is going down! What a stupid intro.

Don't get me wrong. Deaths should not be ignored, and just because Portland is considered bike-friendly doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement. But no matter how bike-friendly you make a place, people are still going to die.

Anyway, I agree with some of the points and disagree with others. First, I don't see how elevating bike lanes is going to make a difference. Unless you raise them about 3 feet drivers can still drift into them when they aren't paying attention. Seems like a waste of money to me. I do like the idea of painting bike lanes a different color. Again, drivers can still drift when not paying attention, but there seems to be good evidence that painting the lanes helps. I'm guessing paint costs a lot more than the article would leave us to believe, but it seems like a cheaper alternative than a lot of the other things that were mentioned.

I agree wholeheartedly with the last three points (busting bad bikers, driver ed, and rider licenses). I think they are all good ways to get the general public to take cyclists more seriously. Busting bad bikers is a must. It seems like I waste a lot of time at intersections around here because cars seem to expect me to run stop signs and they'll sit there and stare at me until I wave them through. Driver education is big. You'd be surprised how many people think that bikes aren't allowed on the road. I don't know how many times I've been yelled at to get on the sidewalk when doing so would be illegal. Rider licenses seem like a great way to raise money and to help bikes get a reputation as serious means of transportation, not just toys. I say it all the time: If we want the rights of cars, we need to play by the same rules that cars do.

[vincentpaul]

[QUOTE=Helmet Head;5552748]For those of you who scoff at the anti-BL argument (Genec, Brian R, ILTB, sbhikes, Patc, etc.,) that bike lanes lead to calls for more and more segregation, read no further than their first (of 14) suggestions for how "Portland could really live the dream of bike equality"
[INDENT][COLOR=darkgreen]
1. SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Personally, I don't like sucking down diesel fumes, nor do I like cycling in the presence of overpowered 2 ton objects operated by inattentive drivers. Inattention happens. To both cyclists and motorists. I'm much happier cycling in the absence of vehicles when possible. The outcomes necessitated by Newtonian physics are much more favorable when motor vehicles are eliminated from the equation. It may be more expensive, but its worth the investment.

[reddeno]

We don't need more nanny laws. No right on red? 20mph speed limits? I wouldn't wish those on anyone, bike or car. Usual Willy Week crap.

[duppie]

Bike Box: So this is a spot, in front of all the cars that bikes are supposed to thread through to sit at a light? We're in traffic, shouldn't we wait in traffic?

This is a common solution in the Netherlands. It is usually aided by separate lights for bicycles. It allows bicyclists to move ahead of cars and navigate safely thru the intersection. Talking to non-bicyclists navigating busy intersections seems to be one of the main concerns.
Duppie

[Helmet Head]

For those of you who scoff at the anti-BL argument (Genec, Brian R, ILTB, sbhikes, Patc, etc.,) that bike lanes lead to calls for more and more segregation, read no further than their first (of 14) suggestions for how "Portland could really live the dream of bike equality"[indent][color=darkgreen]
1. SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Personally, I don't like sucking down diesel fumes, nor do I like cycling in the presence of overpowered 2 ton objects operated by inattentive drivers. Inattention happens. To both cyclists and motorists. I'm much happier cycling in the absence of vehicles when possible. The outcomes necessitated by Newtonian physics are much more favorable when motor vehicles are eliminated from the equation. It may be more expensive, but its worth the investment.
Yet another example of how bike lanes lead to calls for more and more segregation.

Never mind that the traffic world, for all intents and purposes, is two dimensional, and so compromised segregation, not total segregation (total segregation could be achieved by, say, undergrounding all motor traffic) is all that we could hope to achieve, and that compromised segregation is much worse than integration. Why? Intersections.

[DXchulo]

OK, I have issues with a few of these:

Bike Box: So this is a spot, in front of all the cars that bikes are supposed to thread through to sit at a light? We're in traffic, shouldn't we wait in traffic?

Requiring Helmets: I say let Darwin sort them out.


I don't get the bike box idea, either. Seems like a good way to piss off motorists. You think being seen equals safety? I would think that a pissed off motorist who is eager to pass you (again?) poses more of a threat than one in front of you who may or may not see you. If you're smart and ride safe you shouldn't collide with a car that's already ahead of you. And since when is a cost of $2,000 per intersection "negligible"?

[DXchulo]

This is a common solution in the Netherlands. It is usually aided by separate lights for bicycles. It allows bicyclists to move ahead of cars and navigate safely thru the intersection. Talking to non-bicyclists navigating busy intersections seems to be one of the main concerns.
Duppie

Why shouldn't the cyclists go through after the cars?

[Brian Ratliff]

I'll just say, HH, that you are forming a trend for a single data point. Not good enough. That painted bike lanes are still the preference in actuality to grade separated bike tracks is enough to refute your ticky tack point above. Apparently, "engineers" realize that there is a local optimum between fully vehicular and fully separated grade. And they are starting to learn that this point of local optimum changes at various points along the road, again, judging from areas of new construction and the bicycle accomodation solutions used.

Finally, I'll just say that, I'm glad that options aren't willy nilly taken off the table for philosophical or political reasons. Politicians do this; engineers don't. For a technical problem such as this, I'm glad that engineers are at the helm.

[genec]

[QUOTE=Helmet Head;5552748]For those of you who scoff at the anti-BL argument (Genec, Brian R, ILTB, sbhikes, Patc, etc.,) that bike lanes lead to calls for more and more segregation, read no further than their first (of 14) suggestions for how "Portland could really live the dream of bike equality"
[INDENT][COLOR=darkgreen]
1. SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Personally, I don't like sucking down diesel fumes, nor do I like cycling in the presence of overpowered 2 ton objects operated by inattentive drivers. Inattention happens. To both cyclists and motorists. I'm much happier cycling in the absence of vehicles when possible. The outcomes necessitated by Newtonian physics are much more favorable when motor vehicles are eliminated from the equation. It may be more expensive, but its worth the investment.

I tend to agree with this... Sure I can share the roads with smoke belching behemoths... but given a choice, I'd much prefer a quiet lane all to myself.

[Brian Ratliff]

Yet another example of how bike lanes lead to calls for more and more segregation.

Never mind that the traffic world, for all intents and purposes, is two dimensional, and so compromised segregation, not total segregation (total segregation could be achieved by, say, undergrounding all motor traffic) is all that we could hope to achieve, and that compromised segregation is much worse than integration. Why? Intersections.

Funny. How's this:

Integration is worse than partial segregation. Why? Stretches between intersections.

(see how cool that was, all the dramatic effects?)

I'll give you a hint. You are using the wrong model in your analysis. Still thinking like a Southern Californian, even when you talk about a very specific place which is very far away from So Cal.

[randya]

The Willamette Week is jumping on the bandwagon a little late and what they've got to say, as usual, is mostly crap.

Where they should have started was by explaining to motorists exactly how wrong Lt. Krugers oversimplifications of ORS 814.420 and 814.430 are. Because in reality it is the exceptions to these two rules that keep cyclists safe, not a statement of the general case.

Then they should have questioned why at the very least the two truck drivers weren't cited for vehicular manslaughter.

Finally, they are all over the paint and path 'solutions'. Paint stripes do not keep cyclists safe, as has clearly been demonstrated twice this month in Portland.

Most of their so-called improvements for cyclists are just more of the same - pandering to the terminally politically correct.

[JeffS]

If we want the rights of cars, we need to play by the same rules that cars do.

So you've installed brake lights and a windshield on your bike?

Of course not, so stop with the sweeping generalizations.

[duppie]

Why shouldn't the cyclists go through after the cars?

I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote?

"It allows bicyclists to move ahead of cars and navigate safely thru the intersection. Talking to non-bicyclists navigating busy intersections seems to be one of the main concerns."

If people are afraid to negotiate intersections by bicycle they are less likely to ride their bike.
You ride many miles a year, but the average cyclist doesn't, so don't compare your experience level to the average cyclist
Duppie

[joejack951]

Funny. How's this:

Integration is worse than partial segregation. Why? Stretches between intersections.

(see how cool that was, all the dramatic effects?)

I'll give you a hint. You are using the wrong model in your analysis. Still thinking like a Southern Californian, even when you talk about a very specific place which is very far away from So Cal.

So Cal is the place where they have room to put in 15 foot wide bike lanes/shoulders and where you can actually go 1/4 mile without encountering an intersection. I don't get your point.

What happens in between intersections that's so bad anyway?

[Allister]

Finally, I'll just say that, I'm glad that options aren't willy nilly taken off the table for philosophical or political reasons. Politicians do this; engineers don't. For a technical problem such as this, I'm glad that engineers are at the helm.

Exaclty. The 'Bike Lanes BAD' argument is no more rational than the 'Bike Lanes GOOD' argument. The fact that some bike lanes aren't applied very intelligently doesn't mean they can't be, nor does it mean that the ones that are designed well should be ripped out.

[Brian Ratliff]

@joejack
errrrnttt. Wrong. Try again.

You ever think that it's not the intersections that are the problem but, perhaps, the control of the intersections which is the problem? I was thinking about this off and on for a couple weeks. There is an extremely easy solution for intersections and bicycles which requires none of this left turn crap or merging crap. At large controlled intersections, just let bicycles go first. Run the bike lane all the way up to the intersection. Give bicycles in all directions the light at one time; they'll figure out how to clear each other on their own; let the bicycles clear the intersection, then release the cars. Simple, yea? Put it on a sensor if you are concerned about holding traffic up too much.

In Portland, specifically, we have a concentration of cyclists now which warrents the light cycle solution. And the city is dense enough to warrent this solution because the concentration of cyclists will only be getting higher being that the entire city is accessible by bike without any fancy cycling equipment.

This is not true in So Cal where the city is so dispersed that, to bicycle efficiently, there is a high barrier to entry with the equipment you must buy and so the concentration of cyclists as a traffic mode split will forever remain low and limited mostly to recreational cyclists. It is also not true in neighboring Beaverton where the city is also extremely dispersed.

[Brian Ratliff]

Oh yea. Eliminate the right turn on red for this to work well.

[DXchulo]

So you've installed brake lights and a windshield on your bike?

Of course not, so stop with the sweeping generalizations.

I have hands and sunglasses. You think I should install a motor, too?

Tell me, what privileges do you think cyclists deserve?

[DXchulo]

I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote?



If people are afraid to negotiate intersections by bicycle they are less likely to ride their bike.
You ride many miles a year, but the average cyclist doesn't, so don't compare your experience level to the average cyclist
Duppie

You're not being clear.

It allows bicyclists to move ahead of cars

You mean the cyclists move ahead of cars at the red light or they go through the intersection (get a green light) before the cars do?

Who goes through first, cars or cyclists?

[CommuterRun]

They get "14. Riders' Licenses" passed and they won't have to worry about bike lanes or paths. The cyclists should be right in the middle of any lane they want.

That whole article reads to me like it was written by a motorist who wants cyclists to be required to abide by as much legislation as do motorists, but would prefer to have cyclists off the road and out of the way, while giving the appearance of pandering to the cyclists.

[Helmet Head]

Brian, the problem with your creative idea (and kudos to you for thinking about it), which takes care of the cyclists queued up in the bike box while the light is red, does not account for the bicyclists reaching the intersection at or after the moment the motorists are released.

By the way, as you may know, this idea is not original. There are intersections in Germany and in other European countries that do exactly that.

[Helmet Head]

I'll just say, HH, that you are forming a trend for a single data point.
Brian, it's an ongoing discussion. There are many anti-BL arguments. One of them is that bike lanes lead to more calls for segegration. I'm just pointing out this is one example of what that argument is talking about. One example. Surely you realize I'm not suggesting this one example, or any one example, makes the entire argument?


Not good enough. That painted bike lanes are still the preference in actuality to grade separated bike tracks is enough to refute your ticky tack point above. Apparently, "engineers" realize that there is a local optimum between fully vehicular and fully separated grade. And they are starting to learn that this point of local optimum changes at various points along the road, again, judging from areas of new construction and the bicycle accomodation solutions used.

You give traffic "engineers" far too much credit.


Finally, I'll just say that, I'm glad that options aren't willy nilly taken off the table for philosophical or political reasons. Politicians do this; engineers don't. For a technical problem such as this, I'm glad that engineers are at the helm.
No one is suggesting taking anything off the table for philosophical or political reasons. At most, the political argument is but one of the anti-BL arguments, and hardly a primary one. It's main relevance in this discussion at all comes from the need to counteract the pro-BL political arguments. You know, the ones that claim that bike lanes get more butts on bikes. I hope you're familiar with the political arguments that you yourself promote.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, the problem with your creative idea (and kudos to you for thinking about it), which takes care of the cyclists queued up in the bike box while the light is red, does not account for the bicyclists reaching the intersection at or after the moment the motorists are released.

By the way, as you may know, this idea is not original. There are intersections in Germany and in other European countries that do exactly that.

I know it is not original, and bicycles as they come up after their light is red do what everyone else does when their light is red. They stop and wait.

This is how you orderly process traffic flow through an intersection. The more experienced cyclists, if they don't want to wait, can merge into the traffic flow, not trigger the bicycle light cycle, and pass through the intersection with the car traffic. That the cyclist doesn't trigger the bicycle light cycle is the reward that motorists get for letting the bicyclist have his place in line outside of the bike lane. Now, instead of blandly stating that "it's my right" when a motorist tries to direct the cyclist to the bike lane, you can say, "dude, I'm doing you a favor here".

[randya]

I personally don't trust the engineers any more than I do the politicians. I'd be dubious, particularly if your trust in the engineers is based on the bike lane designs used in Portland. I know from working with them that their first and foremost interest is in traffic capacity and avoiding traffic delays, even safety is typically secondary to that.

[chephy]

This is an AC topic, I think. Elevated bike lanes are a horrid idea. So are mandatory helmets.

[Brian Ratliff]

Brian, it's an ongoing discussion. There are many anti-BL arguments. One of them is that bike lanes lead to more calls for segegration. I'm just pointing out this is one example of what that argument is talking about. One example. Surely you realize I'm not suggesting this one example, or any one example, makes the entire argument?

You have a tendancy of grabbing whatever ammunition you can find and flinging it into the face of those who "oppose" you. You did this here too. Whatever. It's a slippery slope argument for which there are couple point in evidence and many points against. The slippery slope arguement is not the strongest one in the arsenal, and by offering some counter examples to your example, I have successfully refuted the version you put fourth here.

You give traffic "engineers" far too much credit.

Actually, I think you give them too little. The problem is that you are working with a utopia made up inside your head, and those engineers are out in the real world trying to find real world solutions to real world problems and having to make compromises to satisfy all the parties involved.

No one is suggesting taking anything off the table for philosophical or political reasons. At most, the political argument is but one of the anti-BL arguments, and hardly a primary one. It's main relevance in this discussion at all comes from the need to counteract the pro-BL political arguments. You know, the ones that claim that bike lanes get more butts on bikes. I hope you're familiar with the political arguments that you yourself promote.

Who has the postion described by yourself as anti-bike lane? I am not anti anything. I have not seen merit in the alternatives that you have proposed specifically put forward to avoid using bike lanes, but this is simply a matter of a difference in opinion. WOLs and sharrows are certainly not off the table; I simply require evidence that they are any better than the bike lanes which are already developed and installed which you want to replace for ideological reasons.

As for the increase in cyclists which bike lanes seem to correlate, this specifically relates to safety. It is also fairly well correlated that increasing the number of cyclists decreases the fatality and crash rate as motorists adjust to seeing cyclists everywhere. If WOLs, to choose an example, correlated the same way, I wouldn't have such a dim appreciation for them. But from what I've seen, WOLs do quite the opposite.

Finally, while there is most definitely an anti-bike lane single issue crowd here, there is no corresponding pro-bike lane single issue advocate.

[Brian Ratliff]

I personally don't thrust the engineers any more than I do the politicians. I'd be dubious, particularly if your trust in the engineers is based on the bike lane designs used in Portland. I know from working with them that their first and foremost interest is in traffic capacity and avoiding traffic delays, even safety is typically secondary to that.

I trust that they are doing their jobs as well as they can be expected to. I think the problem to which you are referring is that cyclists are not their first priority customers when it comes to the road system. We tend to see everything through the eyes of cyclists, but the traffic engineers need to make things work for all involved. I, for one, can hardly fault them for making traffic throughput their first priority. In theory, if traffic is orderly and controlled, then safety should flow directly from that.

The problem for them is when bicyclists, who aren't as fast as motorists, are mixed in, we have a bunch of half assed solutions. The solutions are half assed presently because there aren't enough cyclists to fully control the cyclist traffic stream. The cyclists are forced to piggy back on the motorized traffic stream, and then you get all the conflicts which we are all familiar with.

[joejack951]

@joejack
errrrnttt. Wrong. Try again.

You ever think that it's not the intersections that are the problem but, perhaps, the control of the intersections which is the problem? I was thinking about this off and on for a couple weeks. There is an extremely easy solution for intersections and bicycles which requires none of this left turn crap or merging crap. At large controlled intersections, just let bicycles go first. Run the bike lane all the way up to the intersection. Give bicycles in all directions the light at one time; they'll figure out how to clear each other on their own; let the bicycles clear the intersection, then release the cars. Simple, yea? Put it on a sensor if you are concerned about holding traffic up too much.

What about intersections with only stop signs or minor intersections without any traffic controls? Do you really expect cyclists to heed a command from a special bicycle traffic light when many don't even care about the current traffic lights?

[M_S]

The problem with separte infrastructure is that it is only going to happen in a few places. That may increase the chances of people not knowing what the heck to do around bikes (and cyclists not knowing what to do either). I know people that will rid eon the sidewalk if ther isn'ta bike lane simply because they don't know what to do. Or they'll put themselves in danger by hugging next to parked cars, darting between them, etc...

I don't have al the answers, but I love to criticize. :D

[Brian Ratliff]

There is no problem at minor intersections that I know of. When an intersection is large enough to require a light control, this is where cyclists have problems. Minor intersections tend to work themselves out.

[joejack951]

There is no problem at minor intersections that I know of. When an intersection is large enough to require a light control, this is where cyclists have problems. Minor intersections tend to work themselves out.

So is this (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=355851) not a problem?

[randya]

What about intersections with only stop signs or minor intersections without any traffic controls? Do you really expect cyclists to heed a command from a special bicycle traffic light when many don't even care about the current traffic lights?

they'll start small and only at problem intersections is my guess. Traffic signals aren't cheap

[Brian Ratliff]

So is this (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=355851) not a problem?

THAT, is not a cyclist problem. There are ways for cyclists to defend themselves against this and all cyclists should learn the defence, but this falls under the category of drivers breaking clearly defined traffic control laws.

[Allister]

I trust that they are doing their jobs as well as they can be expected to. I think the problem to which you are referring is that cyclists are not their first priority customers when it comes to the road system. We tend to see everything through the eyes of cyclists, but the traffic engineers need to make things work for all involved. I, for one, can hardly fault them for making traffic throughput their first priority. In theory, if traffic is orderly and controlled, then safety should flow directly from that.

From the experience bike advocates have had with traffic engineers here in Brisbane, I'm not entirely convinced that they are as objective and open-minded as we'd like.

Engineers, like anyone, can get set in their ways, especially when they've been doing the same thing for many years. This is certainly the case with government employed engineers. It's also true that very few of them have first hand traffic cycling experience, and thus don't really have a solid understanding of how their designs are actually used by cyclists, and where problems can occur. So, sure, they do their best with the knowledge they have, but that knowledge can sometimes be lacking.

All this wouldn't be a problem if they'd take on board design suggestions from those that do have cycling experience and can see from their designs where the problems are. Trouble is, since the advice is coming from non-engineerss, they have a tendency to ignore it, thinking they know better.

For instance, the city recently built a ped/cyclist bridge here. The local advocacy group strongly advised them that the design they had wasn't wide enough, and that keeping peds and cyclists to separate parts of the path would enhance everyone's safety. This advice was ignored by council engineers, mainly on a cost basis. Surprise, surprise, we get a bridge that is causing problems due mainly to people not sharing safely. There's also a 20km/h speed limit on cyclists, which in the early days was 'enforced' by a tinpot private security thug, who thought he had more authority than he did, sometimes applying it violently. Not ideal. Thankfully that's no longer the case. I used to ride it regularly when my route took me that way. It's not too bad really, but it could've been so much better if they'd only listened to BQ's advice.

[nashcommguy]

Sounds like a post right out of BikeForums A&S.

I'm glad this guy isn't "helping" the cyclists of my town.

+1 Jeffs. This article, though well intended is a complete crock...trying to regulate what is essentially a subversive sub-culture is like putting the X-games on NBC. Suddenly, there's real money being thrown around and a bunch of self-important politicos and 'know what's best for the rest of us' do-gooders are the arbitors of what does and doesn't get done in the name of 'green' and 'environmentally safe'. Hogwash, bunk, bulldukey. Suddenly, we all have to take tests and get licenses for what we've been doing for years, very well I might add, with no help from elected officials or quasi-liberal, politically correct 'advocates'.

Cycle-commuting is, always has been and always will be an extreme sport for people w/real cojones. One needs to be alert, assertive, rested, smart, skilled and ambitious in the auto-centric world. It's real fun, but not a kid's game either. Some of the most talented, inventive, intelligent, courageous and funny people I've had the pleasure to meet have been either cycle-commuters or bike messengers. Relentlessly individual each has found their own way to survive in traffic and life w/o an ounce of help from the govt or an organized support group. They just do what they do and don't make alot of noise about it.

[governorgeneral]

Some of the Vancouver bike infrastructure (http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=2197) and traffic rules follow the points in the article and work fairly well, esp compared to my hometown (Regina (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com//showpost.php?p=3068341&postcount=3090)). I actually like the bike box, it makes it easy to move from the bike lane (along the curb) to the left lane when you want to make a left turn at a stop light, without having to dodge pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Cycle-commuting is, always has been and always will be an extreme sport for people w/real cojones. One needs to be alert, assertive, rested, smart, skilled and ambitious in the auto-centric world. It's real fun, but not a kid's game either. Some of the most talented, inventive, intelligent, courageous and funny people I've had the pleasure to meet have been either cycle-commuters or bike messengers. Relentlessly individual each has found their own way to survive in traffic and life w/o an ounce of help from the govt or an organized support group. They just do what they do and don't make alot of noise about it.

I guess the priority over here vs you guys was to make cycle-commuting less of an "extreme sport for people w/real cojones", and more of something, well, mundane and normal and easy for non-cojoned people like me. Different strokes for different folks, eh?

[M_S]

Cycle-commuting is, always has been and always will be an extreme sport for people w/real cojones. One needs to be alert, assertive, rested, smart, skilled and ambitious in the auto-centric world. It's real fun, but not a kid's game either. Some of the most talented, inventive, intelligent, courageous and funny people I've had the pleasure to meet have been either cycle-commuters or bike messengers. Relentlessly individual each has found their own way to survive in traffic and life w/o an ounce of help from the govt or an organized support group. They just do what they do and don't make alot of noise about it.

Oh don't flatter yourself. And wwhat do you mean "not a kid's game?!" Kids ride their bikes to school all the time.

[tcs]

Combine this with separate lights for bicyclists and you have a viable solution

Uh, wouldn't a separate set of signal lights at every intersection, like, double the time it takes to cross town?

TCS

[abrinton]

Bike Box: So this is a spot, in front of all the cars that bikes are supposed to thread through to sit at a light? We're in traffic, shouldn't we wait in traffic?



When I was living in London, they were putting in a lot of bike boxes. They work very well. The fact is, bikes don't sit in traffic. Many (myself included) will ride up the right hand side next to the stopped cars, to the intersection. The bike box gives you a specific, visible space to stop in, makes the bikes feel like they belong there, and makes them a part of traffic.

[donnamb]

This article, though well intended is a complete crock...trying to regulate what is essentially a subversive sub-culture is like putting the X-games on NBC. Suddenly, there's real money being thrown around and a bunch of self-important politicos and 'know what's best for the rest of us' do-gooders are the arbitors of what does and doesn't get done in the name of 'green' and 'environmentally safe'. Hogwash, bunk, bulldukey. Suddenly, we all have to take tests and get licenses for what we've been doing for years, very well I might add, with no help from elected officials or quasi-liberal, politically correct 'advocates'.
Well, I certainly don't agree with everything in this article, but it's not a "complete crock". If you followed local politics in this city, you would know that transportation issues are huge here and that bicyclists are a sizeable and very loud constituency. It's entirely possible that cyclists may get a certain mayoral candidate elected here next year (http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2007/10/sam_adams_and_his_bicycling_ba.html). We have political influence locally, and our media outlets pay attention to us accordingly. They may report on dumb things, but we are very much in the spotlight.

Cycle-commuting is, always has been and always will be an extreme sport for people w/real cojones. One needs to be alert, assertive, rested, smart, skilled and ambitious in the auto-centric world. It's real fun, but not a kid's game either. Some of the most talented, inventive, intelligent, courageous and funny people I've had the pleasure to meet have been either cycle-commuters or bike messengers. Relentlessly individual each has found their own way to survive in traffic and life w/o an ounce of help from the govt or an organized support group. They just do what they do and don't make alot of noise about it.
I'm glad for you that cycling in your community is exactly what you want it to be. That's not how Portlanders wish to conduct their lives. Apart from the fact that 40% of our bike commuters were born without real cojones, rugged individualism as a transportation philosophy just isn't very popular here. People around here consider extreme sports to be activities like rock climbing, mountaineering, long distance cycling, etc. Getting to work is just getting to work.

Kids ride their bikes to school all the time.
I certainly defer to you as an authority on this subject, my friend. :)

[vincentpaul]

+1 Jeffs. "This article, though well intended is a complete crock...trying to regulate what is essentially a subversive sub-culture"

Damn, I hope this was said with utter and complete sarcasm, or this is perhaps the single dumbest thing I've ever read about the "culture" of cycling. The whole point of Portland's urban planning is to eliminate a cycling "culture," or an urban mass transit "culture," or a walking "culture" and make it part of normal city life. Anybody who thinks riding a bicycle is an expression of a subversive sub-culture needs to get a life. Sweet jesus, my four-year-old can ride a freaking bike. I don't think she's subverting the dominant paradigm in suburban-Portland.

[joejack951]

THAT, is not a cyclist problem. There are ways for cyclists to defend themselves against this and all cyclists should learn the defence, but this falls under the category of drivers breaking clearly defined traffic control laws.

So what does the installation of a bike box help with? If traffic is stopped at the light and cyclist rides up to this stopped traffic, what's the difference between moving into the correct lane for a turn behind motorists and riding up the side, then moving across the lanes in front of motorists? After the turn, a lot of those motorists who the cyclist just passed will catch up to the cyclist so it's not like any danger has been removed (it may have increased). Any minor intersection presents the cyclist with the same problems of destination positioning, and the skills needed to deal with that problem are the same skills needed for positioning at major intersections.

Why are minor intersections left to be sorted out by motorists obeying all traffic laws and/or cyclist education but major intersections need all of this "help"?

[donnamb]

Sweet jesus, my four-year-old can ride a freaking bike. I don't think she's subverting the dominant paradigm in suburban-Portland.
And I'll bet she doesn't have real cojones, either. ;)