Advocacy & Safety - MUST READ - Portland's Vicious Cycle

Bike lanes work great in Europe--the biggest problem is people who don't know what they are or what the rules are using them for unintended purposes. Like tourists rolling their oversized luggage down a smooth bike path instead of the bumpy sidewalk. That usually only lasts until their first encounter with a cyclist... Here in the States it will be an incredible uphill battle because of cost of infrastructure upgrade, implementing new rules, etc. I don't see it happening easily...

Regarding "bike boxes"--are we talking a box that takes up the whole lane in front of all cars at an intersection, or something off to the right, basically just taking up space where a bike lane might? I ask because "filtering" (i.e. lanesplitting) is legal for motorcyclists and even encouraged. The full-lane bike-boxes I saw in the UK are shared with motorized traffic--motorcycles.

There will have to be an incredible shift in thinking to get to the point that bike lanes would be feasible from a political standpoint. And once you get there, would they be necessary anymore? What I mean is, if you increase awareness and support to the point that a majority of any community is willing to spend the resources needed to make bike lanes a reality, then don't you already have community support to the point that people are aware and supportive of existing bicycle rights of way laws?

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.

Emphasis mine. Was the author even listening to the engineers?

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"?

No merging of traffic streams is necessary. Overtaking by motorists is generally not a problem; isn't that the concensus around here?

If you are comparing major intersections vs. minor intersections (here, I am imagining a residential 4 way stop), the skill set necessary for each is extremely different in magnitude, if not in form. Vehicular destination lane positioning is generally not necessary at minor, stopsign controlled intersections, though it makes things smoother if you do it. The first-come-first-served rules at stopsign controlled intersections make destintation lane positioning largely irrelevent, as all parties will tend to sort their way through it. Forcing the bike lane to end and merge into the traffic stream near the intersection is also not as intimidating experience for a cyclist, as cars are nearly stopped by the time the merge happens.

It comes down to helping a cyclist navigate the road system by not forcing the cyclist to merge into traffic going twice or 3 times as fast as him or her. The bike box allows destination lane positioning at the intersection without the need to merge into a traffic stream.

Regarding "bike boxes"--are we talking a box that takes up the whole lane in front of all cars at an intersection, or something off to the right, basically just taking up space where a bike lane might? I ask because "filtering" (i.e. lanesplitting) is legal for motorcyclists and even encouraged. The full-lane bike-boxes I saw in the UK are shared with motorized traffic--motorcycles.
Filtering to the right is legal for bicycles in Oregon. Here are some examples of bike boxes.

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/images/germanboxsmall.jpg

http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/wp-content/images/bikebox39th.jpg

http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/wp-content/images/netherlandsbikebox.jpg

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06_18/W9th_bikebox.jpg

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06_18/bike_box5.jpg

http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06_18/bike_box_london.jpg

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"?
the bike boxes are not installed by themselves, they are installed where there is already a bike lane. minor street=no bike lane or bike box, cyclist takes the lane +/- filters at the intersection; major street w/ bike lane + bike box = safer interactions at intersections. or so the theory goes.

So if there's a bike box and you're pedalling past the stopped cars to your left in your bike lane, then the light changes to green and the cars start to move before you've reached the bike box, what then? Especially if you want to turn left? What should you do?

the Portland Mercury (http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=457242&category=34029) (the other free weekly) weighs in...

So if there's a bike box and you're pedalling past the stopped cars to your left in your bike lane, then the light changes to green and the cars start to move before you've reached the bike box, what then? Especially if you want to turn left? What should you do?

oil your chain. :)

So if there's a bike box and you're pedalling past the stopped cars to your left in your bike lane, then the light changes to green and the cars start to move before you've reached the bike box, what then? Especially if you want to turn left? What should you do?
Good question. Ask this guy (http://bikeportland.org/2007/11/01/roger-geller-explains-pdots-position-plans-for-bike-safety-improvements/).

Thanks for the link, Donna. I'm still not sure I feel good about any of the answers given, but there was certainly some good discussion from both viewpoints.

Thanks for the link, Donna. I'm still not sure I feel good about any of the answers given, but there was certainly some good discussion from both viewpoints.
<sigh> Join the club...

A reader weighs in on the need for Science:

Desegregate the Roads (http://wweek.com/editorial/3352/9922/)

I was disappointed to read your Oct. 31 cover story, “Vicious Cycle.” There is little evidence to support the idea that separated bike lanes reduce the rate of automobile-bicycle collisions. The arguments in favor of such lanes confuse correlation with causation: Amsterdam and Copenhagen may have lower bike accident rates, but this doesn’t mean that copying those cities’ separated bike lanes in Portland will have similar effects here.

The article mentions “Portland has more intersections and driveways than European cities that employ bike tracks”—indeed, and as separated bike paths do nothing to prevent accidents that occur at intersections, why are you advocating them as a solution to such accidents? According to a 1976 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study, 89 percent of car-bike collisions occur when a car and/or bike is turning or crossing, yet separated bike paths are touted as a way of preventing accidents that occur when a car is overtaking a bike (only 7 percent of collisions, according to said study).

As is well-documented by John Forester in his book Effective Cycling , cyclists are safest when they follow the same rules of the road that apply to all vehicle operators. Separated bike paths hinder this goal rather than helping it. Cyclists, don’t be fooled by cargo-cult science: Bike path advocates may claim to have your safety at heart, but in reality their only concern is to keep you from slowing down some SUV driver on the way to their manicurist appointment.

A reader weighs in on the need for Science:

Desegregate the Roads (http://wweek.com/editorial/3352/9922/)

I was disappointed to read your Oct. 31 cover story, “Vicious Cycle.” There is little evidence to support the idea that separated bike lanes reduce the rate of automobile-bicycle collisions. The arguments in favor of such lanes confuse correlation with causation: Amsterdam and Copenhagen may have lower bike accident rates, but this doesn’t mean that copying those cities’ separated bike lanes in Portland will have similar effects here.

The article mentions “Portland has more intersections and driveways than European cities that employ bike tracks”—indeed, and as separated bike paths do nothing to prevent accidents that occur at intersections, why are you advocating them as a solution to such accidents? According to a 1976 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study, 89 percent of car-bike collisions occur when a car and/or bike is turning or crossing, yet separated bike paths are touted as a way of preventing accidents that occur when a car is overtaking a bike (only 7 percent of collisions, according to said study).

As is well-documented by John Forester in his book Effective Cycling , cyclists are safest when they follow the same rules of the road that apply to all vehicle operators. Separated bike paths hinder this goal rather than helping it. Cyclists, don’t be fooled by cargo-cult science: Bike path advocates may claim to have your safety at heart, but in reality their only concern is to keep you from slowing down some SUV driver on the way to their manicurist appointment.

All true enough, but I think he's confusing bike lanes (on the road) with bike paths (separate from the road). The terms are not interchangeable, but I've seen people try to all too often.

Isn't Portland talking about extending and improving the bike lane network, rather than a separate system?

The confusion isn't surprising, coming from somebody who cites Forester's book. Particularly amusing was the way he used the term "Cargo cult science." :lol: