Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Prohibit right turns across bike lanes?

This question is based on the somewhat unique situation in Portland Oregon, and may have no application anywhere else.

If the law demands that cyclists use the bike lane when one is available, and they don't allow motor vehicles to merge prior to making a right turn, ought they prohibit right turns when bike lanes are present also?

In Portland, cyclists must use the bike lanes. Motor vehicles are prohibited from being in them, except to cross them if turning right into a street or driveway.

The law "protects cyclists" from being right hooked by giving the cyclist the ROW while in the bike lane. This hasn't worked out so well in practice.

Furthermore, while the law allows cyclists to leave the bike lane to avoid hazards and to make left turns, the police have been ticketing these lawful maneuvers.:eek:

So my proposal: In this circumstance, should right turns by motor vehicles be prohibited in the presence of a bike lane?

A south-bound truck who needed to go west would have to turn first to the east, then the north in order to lawfully turn west. (Presuming bike lanes were present at each junction.)

Similarly, all driveways and entrances to alleys and businesses would be accessible only by a left turn.

One benefit of such a law would be a greater sensitivity by the highway engineers to right turning conflicts when designing a bike lane. They would have to weigh the benefit of needing right turns at any particular entrance with the desirability of a protected bike lane at that spot. If right turns into it are preferred, then there could be no bike lane drawn on that portion of the road, giving the cyclist the freedom he needs to protect himself from right hooks.

While this would likely cause the removal of some bike lanes or portions of them, it will completely eliminate the present monstrosity of bike lanes becoming a mandatory "suicide slot". It would also return the creation of bike lanes back to first principals of the vehicle codes standards of ROW. (These principals are understood by the public through implementation and consistent application.) Inconsistent application of ROW for special situations -as Portland has done with it's bike lanes- is confusing in the short term and harms the publics overall understanding of ROW.

On roads here in California that are popular with riders, there's always a situation where a driver stops out in the lane instead of merging into the bike lane to turn into a parking lot, and cyclists just keep riding by on the right in the bike lane. I pull out centered behind the vehicle and wait, sometimes with others, while people ride by on the right, and invariably hear someone mutter that "Someone is going to get killed like this".

All those left turns would keep a vehicle driver from having to use their right mirror, but hopefully they will remember to look for oncoming cyclists when they turn left off the road.

@ the OP
Who are you and what is someone from Dallas, TX doing meddling in Portland, OR business?

FWIW, it is impossible for a car to make a right angle turn adjacent to the curb. Physics don't allow it because the rear wheels track inside the front wheels. Where it is useful for cars to make turns from the curbs, such as at heavily traveled intersections where cars stop, then turn, and it is useful to form two lines of traffic, we typically use a right turn only lane (RTOL) with the bike lane running to the left of it to make such a maneuver explicit. At other times when a full RTOL is not warranted, we will drop the bike lane prior to the intersection by turning the solid bike lane line into a dotted line and allowing cars to merge into the area, in-line with any cyclist.

@ the OP
Who are you and what is someone from Dallas Texas doing, meddling in Portland, OR business?

FWIW, it is impossible for a car to make a right angle turn adjacent to the curb. Physics don't allow it because the rear wheels track inside the front wheels. Where it is useful for cars to make turns from the curbs, such as at heavily traveled intersections where cars stop, then turn, and it is useful to form two lines of traffic, we typically use a right turn only lane (RTOL) with the bike lane running to the left of it to make such a maneuver explicit. At other times when a full RTOL is not warranted, we will drop the bike lane prior to the intersection by turning the solid bike lane line into a dotted line and allowing cars to merge into the area, in-line with any cyclist.

The situation in Portland seems to be rather unique. Thus my statement in post 2:


"In Portland, cyclists must use the bike lanes. Motor vehicles are prohibited from being in them, except to cross them if turning right into a street or driveway.

The law "protects cyclists" from being right hooked by giving the cyclist the ROW while in the bike lane. This hasn't worked out so well in practice.

Furthermore, while the law allows cyclists to leave the bike lane to avoid hazards and to make left turns, the police have been ticketing these lawful maneuvers."

There are bike lanes all over the country that are not subject to the mandatory use laws and have no explicit ROW ordinances like Portland does. Since Portland is not even entertaining the idea of modifying those two provisions, no right turns would have prevented many deaths and injuries to cyclists this past year.


"Calling the intersection, “inherently dangerous” City Commissioner of Transportation Sam Adams had PDOT crews close the right-turn section of N. Greeley Avenue that has claimed two victims in as many weeks." http://bikeportland.org/cats/news/page/7/

In at least this one hazardous intersection, right turns have been prohibited. I bet it works in preventing right hooks, don't you?

It is my opinion that the law and predictable motorist behavior are conspiring to kill and injure cyclists operating in a lawful manner in Portland. Since it has been stated by investigators that it is impossible for large vehicles to see cyclists in the bike lanes, aren't all right turns across bike lanes "inherently dangerous"?

No right turns would allow for the preservation of the life and limb of cyclists, the retention of the mandatory bike lane law, and the bike lane ROW.


@ the OP
Who are you and what is someone from Dallas Texas doing, meddling in Portland, OR business?
That would be Mr. ChipSeal to you!:p

I am fortunate that my fellow Texans had the good sense not to mandate bike lane use and then give the ROW to cyclists traveling to the right of other traffic lanes. It is a stretch to imagine that posting a possible solution to the carnage caused by such foolishness on an internet forum constitutes meddling in your business, Hoss. :p

@ the OP
Who are you and what is someone from Dallas, TX doing meddling in Portland, OR business?


You gotta love that northwest friendliness. :rolleyes:

Besides, since you only live NEAR Portland, OR, maybe you oughta keep your nose out of it too.

The people in other states (and you are very knowledgeable about the two letter PO abbreviations, if nothing else) really don't much care about what happens in (or near) Portland, OR. We just don't want this mandatory usage crap spreading out of there.

Or, as they say in NH: "Ride free or die!"

We just don't want this mandatory usage crap spreading out of there.

I]
Don't want it here either. If you must have your bike lanes fine, but don't try to make me use them.

Prohibiting motor vehicles from making right turns across bike lanes is increditably impractical, not to mention stupid as hell. You may need to get off that high horse, the altitude is affecting your brain too much.

Next they'll be talking about banning cyclists from roads where right turns are required.

You gotta love that northwest friendliness. :rolleyes:

Besides, since you only live NEAR Portland, OR, maybe you oughta keep your nose out of it too.

The people in other states (and you are very knowledgeable about the two letter PO abbreviations, if nothing else) really don't much care about what happens in (or near) Portland, OR. We just don't want this mandatory usage crap spreading out of there.

Or, as they say in NH: "Ride free or die!"

Just got to counter the famed Texas arrogance ;). But I don't meddle in Portland business. I merely learn from them and pay attention to what they do. Unlike some around here, I don't feel the need to butt in and try to tell one of the most livable cities how to run their business. I leave that for Portlander's to discuss amongst themselves. Besides. The particular subject matter of the OP applies to all of Oregon, as it is in State Law where it is written that cars turn across the bike lane. It is not a city or county law. That the OP decides that Portland should be the center of his/her comments shows his/her ignorance.

Now, if the OP would like to discuss the merits of turning across the bike lane or merging into it, he/she (sorry, I don't know your gender) is welcome. But let's keep it from being some sort of referendum on Portland. I've been to Dallas. Let's just say that I wouldn't enjoy living there, much less riding my bike there. Of course, the standard disclaimer to protect me against being accused of being a "childish" cyclist applies. I said that I wouldn't enjoy living and riding my bike there. Not that I couldn't do it or it couldn't be done.

You gotta love that northwest friendliness. :rolleyes:

Besides, since you only live NEAR Portland, OR, maybe you oughta keep your nose out of it too.

The people in other states (and you are very knowledgeable about the two letter PO abbreviations, if nothing else) really don't much care about what happens in (or near) Portland, OR. We just don't want this mandatory usage crap spreading out of there.

Or, as they say in NH: "Ride free or die!"

BTW, I put the OR in there because I recognize that there is more than one Portland in the US. I wouldn't want to be so arrogant to suggest that Portland, Maine is not a place worthy of recognition.

Seriously. Let's have this discussion. Just drop all the regional swashbuckling. Jeez...

...
I am fortunate that my fellow Texans had the good sense not to mandate bike lane use and then give the ROW to cyclists traveling to the right of other traffic lanes. It is a stretch to imagine that posting a possible solution to the carnage caused by such foolishness on an internet forum constitutes meddling in your business, Hoss. :p

The problem with what you suggest is that motorists would never allow your proposal to happen, so this ends up being an end run around bike lanes. But that's what you want, now, isn't it? I think I am right to suggest that you merely want to meddle in Oregon business.

Eliminating right turns is ludicrous and very much overkill. You know it of course, and are using this as a poison pill to bring up the bike lane discussion through a back alley. How about you be up front about it? Start with some forum research over the discussions we've been having over the last 2 or 3 years. Then you'd be up to date on the current state of the discussion and you will be in a position to make a contribution.

It is unfortunate that a statistical blip (sorry to all those affected by these recent events) creates an opening for all those enemies of Portland (they are enemies not because I see them as such, but because they purposefully set themselves up as such, witness Roody's comments above) to rain down criticism. Now, if this year was like last year where we had zero fatalities, would you still take this tact to start a bike lane discussion? Our fatality rate has remained steady over the last decade while the cycling population has increased three or four fold. Surely Portland is doing something right. We have our problems, but trust me, these are recognized and are being handled competently by our local advocacy groups, both of the formal and the grassroot variety.

I visited Dallas (EDIT: I was in Houston, actually) during the summer and saw, gasp, zero cyclists. And no wonder. I've never seen such an inhospitable place for cycling... Perhaps it had to do with cars running at 50 mph on surface streets with no shoulders, bike lanes, or even WOLs. Or maybe it was that unrestrained growth and a certain catering to the automobile above all other forms of transportation (there weren't even sidewalks in many places) has placed all locations a minimum of 5 miles apart. It took an hour on the freeway to just cross the urban center (in a car); the city is probably 50 miles across. Commutes must be 20 miles minimum!

EDIT: I made a mistake. I was in Houston during the summer, not Dallas. From what I've heard, there's not a significant difference in terms of bicycling culture or environment. You tell me. Is Houston much different than Dallas?

BTW, I put the OR in there because I recognize that there is more than one Portland in the US. I wouldn't want to be so arrogant to suggest that Portland, Maine is not a place worthy of recognition.

Seriously. Let's have this discussion. Just drop all the regional swashbuckling. Jeez...

And let's not forget about Portland, MI, which happens to have a lovely new bike path. I really have nothing against any of the Portlands--that name somehow seems to go with livable cities. I'm sure I could happily live and ride in any Portland, if I wasn't happy enough living and riding where I am now. (But I've got to say that the smug factor seems to be a lot higher in the Oregon version than in the others, at least on this forum.) So on with the discussion....

I just don't like mandatory bike lane laws, wherever they crop up, and I'm sorry if that message was too deeply buried in my regional swashbuckling. I especially don't like them to the right of right-turning motor traffic. Most cities (even those which are much less enlightened than Portland, OR) don't allow this to happen. Like you say in the next post, ChipSeal's proposal seems unrealistic, but what will work?

From what I've read elsewhere, Portland is trying to correct this problem, and I hope they do it quickly. Do you have an update for us on what's happening on this front?

The problem with what you suggest is that motorists would never allow your proposal to happen, so this ends up being an end run around bike lanes. But that's what you want, now, isn't it? I think I am right to suggest that you merely want to meddle in Oregon business.

Eliminating right turns is ludicrous and very much overkill. You know it of course, and are using this as a poison pill to bring up the bike lane discussion through a back alley. How about you be up front about it? Start with some forum research over the discussions we've been having over the last 2 or 3 years. Then you'd be up to date on the current state of the discussion and you will be in a position to make a contribution.
Bike lanes through the back alley? He mentioned bike lanes in the thread title, for gosh sakes. That's the front door, not the back alley. Research the last 2 or 3 years of hot air before you post? And don't dare to post about Oregon, because that would be meddling? Man these forum guidelines are getting tough!



It is unfortunate that a statistical blip (sorry to all those affected by these recent events) creates an opening for all those enemies of Portland (they are enemies not because I see them as such, but because they purposefully set themselves up as such, witness Roody's comments above) to rain down criticism. Now, if this year was like last year where we had zero fatalities, would you still take this tact to start a bike lane discussion? Our fatality rate has remained steady over the last decade while the cycling population has increased three or four fold. Surely Portland is doing something right. We have our problems, but trust me, these are recognized and are being handled competently by our local advocacy groups, both of the formal and the grassroot variety. It would be so nice if you would explain how Portland is competently handling the problem. Then you would be making a contribution!Are they holding a Chavezian referendum? Or is it meddling to even ask what's being done?


I visited Dallas (EDIT: I was in Houston, actually) during the summer and saw, gasp, zero cyclists. And no wonder. I've never seen such an inhospitable place for cycling... Perhaps it had to do with cars running at 50 mph on surface streets with no shoulders, bike lanes, or even WOLs. Or maybe it was that unrestrained growth and a certain catering to the automobile above all other forms of transportation (there weren't even sidewalks in many places) has placed all locations a minimum of 5 miles apart. It took an hour on the freeway to just cross the urban center (in a car); the city is probably 50 miles across. Commutes must be 20 miles minimum!

EDIT: I made a mistake. I was in Houston during the summer, not Dallas. From what I've heard, there's not a significant difference in terms of bicycling culture or environment. You tell me. Is Houston much different than Dallas[/size]?Who are you? Why are you meddling in the affairs of Dallas? I mean Houston. I mean Dallas. I mean Houston. Oh screw it! All those cities are the same. Except Portland, which is perfect in every way. :rolleyes:

the law should prevent motorists from cutting off bicyclists, bike lane or not. oh, that's right, the law already requires that duty of care from motorists.

bicyclists get right hooked in Dallas, Michigan, Portland, San Diego.

bicyclists get hooked not by the presence or absence of stripes on the road but, rather, by motorists' failure to follow the letter of the law.

additionally, there are road striping/bike lane designs that increase safety of bikes at intersections.

the law should prevent motorists from cutting off bicyclists, bike lane or not. oh, that's right, the law already requires that duty of care from motorists.

bicyclists get right hooked in Dallas, Michigan, Portland, San Diego.

bicyclists get hooked not by the presence or absence of stripes on the road but, rather, by motorists' failure to follow the letter of the law.

additionally, there are road striping/bike lane designs that increase safety of bikes at intersections.

In my experience, which is backed up by numerous posts on this forum, the best defense against right hooks is to avoid positioning yourself to the right of potential right-turners. That's pretty simple to do UNLESS you lack the liberty to do it. It's my understanding that Portland riders believe that they lack this liberty because some cops have been ticketing riders who do position themselves outside of badly designed bike lanes in order to avoid right hooks.

I certainly agree that some road striping/ bike lane designs increase safety at intersection. However, we all know of intersections that are not safely striped. It seems inevitable that human designed systems will sometimes be flawed, especially when some designers have little knowledge of cycling. As cyclists, if we are experienced enough, we cope with poorly designed intersections by ignoring the paint stripes. It seems a shame that some of our fellow cyclists run the risk of getting a ticket for doing just that.

There's a reason why UPS and FedEx drivers try to avoid making a lot of left turns - they're inefficient. Banning right turns because there happens to be a bike lane? No. People should be expected to merge - that means motorists and cyclists alike. Motorists should yeild to cyclists, and cyclists shouldn't be attempting to filter up on the right of motorists who are clearly going to be turning right.

Or, and here's a brilliant idea, we could ban right turns to contribute to even more congested streets, more wasted fuel, etc. And banning rights at certain intersections would probably just make others nearby worse.

speaking from PDX, my impression is that PDOT needs some remedial lessons in bike lane design, destination positioning should be incorporated into bike way design, and it's not.

OTOH, right turn on red is the ultimate motorist-first traffic rule. If motorists are allowed RTOR, surely cyclists should be allowed Idaho regs for stop lights and signs.

The problem with what you suggest is that motorists would never allow your proposal to happen, so this ends up being an end run around bike lanes. But that's what you want, now, isn't it? I think I am right to suggest that you merely want to meddle in Oregon business.

Eliminating right turns is ludicrous and very much overkill. You know it of course, and are using this as a poison pill to bring up the bike lane discussion through a back alley. How about you be up front about it? Start with some forum research over the discussions we've been having over the last 2 or 3 years. Then you'd be up to date on the current state of the discussion and you will be in a position to make a contribution.

It is unfortunate that a statistical blip (sorry to all those affected by these recent events) creates an opening for all those enemies of Portland (they are enemies not because I see them as such, but because they purposefully set themselves up as such, witness Roody's comments above) to rain down criticism. Now, if this year was like last year where we had zero fatalities...

Ouch! You smoked me out, Hoss! I am against bike lanes. However, that has little to do with my bringing up this discussion.

I understand that all of Oregon is subject to the "must use" law. What makes Portland's situation unique (Unique: Singular; Idiosyncratic; One of a kind; Peculiar; Without peer.) is that they also have legislated ROW to a travel lane to the right of other lanes. Motorists in Portland are NOT ALLOWED to merge into the bike lane prior to turning right. Please correct me if this is not true.

As you must be aware, the tragic death of Tracey Sparling was much discussed in A&S, as were the subsequent deaths and PoPo's response to them. I have followed the local discussions in Portland at http://bikeportland.org/ , among others. My initial hope that they would recognize that the combination of laws and how they are enforced would cause Portlanders to modify the law in the name of safety. Alas, they will not.

So I began to ponder what could be done in this circumstance to avoid the bike lane becoming a "suicide slot". (Not my term. That is a Portland term!)

One of the most frequent car/bike collisions is the right hook. (In the category of adult cyclists obeying the law.) Yet Portland is denying cyclists the the only real defense from this hazard by allowing them to move left and out of the way. So be it. But Portland cyclists are paying for it with their necks and their skin. It is a lethally dangerous and a predictable situation.

It can be prevented entirely by prohibiting right turns across bike lanes.

This is not an argument against bike lanes, as you suppose. I am not suggesting this law be applied where cyclists are allowed to ride outside of the bike lane. Nor am I advocating it be applied where bike lanes have no ROW bequeathed to them. It is an argument to make a present bike lane safer. If it were about bike lanes, I would have brought it up in one of many other threads. I privately messaged others who frequent A&S about this question. Each one I contacted suggested I post it in a separate thread rather than hijacking and derailing another.

"...The problem with what you suggest is that motorists would never allow your proposal to happen...Eliminating right turns is ludicrous and very much overkill..."

The fact that they now prohibit right turns at North Greeley Avenue undercuts your assertion. Yes, it does sound outrageous. I think that putting cyclists in a position that will kill some of them merely for the convenience of motorists is even more outrageous! How can you defend such a situation?

Traffic engineers would (if this idea really were enacted) have to take into account how a bike lane would affect traffic flows. Motorists would have to make three lefts to go right in some cases. Where three lefts are not possible, they will have to consider ending a bike lane sooner than it ends now.

I am sure there must be other ramifications of such a law, I was hoping to have some of the benefits and negatives brought out in this thread. Instead, motives are impugned, cities are trashed, territories that are imagined to be trespassed on are defended! :mad: Sheesh!

Lighten up! Let's talk pros and cons in light of Portland's situation, realizing a law like this won't happen in America.

speaking from PDX, my impression is that PDOT needs some remedial lessons in bike lane design, destination positioning should be incorporated into bike way design, and it's not.

OTOH, right turn on red is the ultimate motorist-first traffic rule. If motorists are allowed RTOR, surely cyclists should be allowed Idaho regs for stop lights and signs.

Brian Ratliff said the Portland authorities are competently dealing with the bike lane problems, and all will soon be put right. I'd like to know what they're doing, but I can't find this info anywhere. I also wonder how cyclist organizations are dealing with the police ticketing situation. Are they negotiating with police, or trying to educate them, or what? I also wonder why motorists aren't more bothered, since the current situation (if I understand it correctly) seems to put them in the position of endangering others in order to make a legal right turn.

I agree about RTOR being a bad deal for non-motorists, especially pedestrians. And I agree that the Idaho rules would be a good deal for cyclists everywhere. But I don't understand how you're connecting the two ideas to each other or to the topic here of allowing destinational positioning outside of bike lanes.

(For those who haven't heard, Idaho law permits cyclists basically to regard red lights as stop signs, and stop signs as yield signs.)

is repeal of the mandatory use law also an acceptable solution to the 'problem?' or allowing or requiring cars to merge before turns?

accept motorists will still hook bicyclists, bike infrastructure or not; accept that most bicyclists would ride up to intersections to the right without any infrastructure; accept that bike infrastructure CAN make some intersections safer.

is repeal of the mandatory use law also an acceptable solution to the 'problem?' or allowing or requiring cars to merge before turns?

accept motorists will still hook bicyclists, bike infrastructure or not; accept that most bicyclists would ride up to intersections to the right without any infrastructure; accept that bike infrastructure CAN make some intersections safer.

If bike lanes forcibly funnel riders to the right of right turners, and a new law that was designed to protect cyclists actually endangers them because it forces motorists to make abrupt right turns, these measures should not be accepted or acceptable. So yes, repeal of mandatory use probably is one solution, and allowing merges is probably another. Basically, put the laws back to the way they were before the cycling advocates got Portland to monkey around with them. The lesson here is that laws and practices regarding right of way and lane positioning have evolved over the last century for a reason, and you have to be very cautious before you monkey around with them.

But what about, along with returning to the old laws, making some concurrent design changes? How about designs that encourage cyclists to merge left if they're going through an intersection? We all know the drill on this one: for example, dashed bike lanes to the left of right turn only lanes, or ending the bike lane before the intersection if there is no right turn only lane.

Brian Ratliff said the Portland authorities are competently dealing with the bike lane problems, and all will soon be put right. I'd like to know what they're doing, but I can't find this info anywhere. I also wonder how cyclist organizations are dealing with the police ticketing situation. Are they negotiating with police, or trying to educate them, or what? I also wonder why motorists aren't more bothered, since the current situation (if I understand it correctly) seems to put them in the position of endangering others in order to make a legal right turn.

I agree about RTOR being a bad deal for non-motorists, especially pedestrians. And I agree that the Idaho rules would be a good deal for cyclists everywhere. But I don't understand how you're connecting the two ideas to each other or to the topic here of allowing destinational positioning outside of bike lanes.

(For those who haven't heard, Idaho law permits cyclists basically to regard red lights as stop signs, and stop signs as yield signs.)


We have our problems, but trust me, these are recognized and are being handled competently by our local advocacy groups, both of the formal and the grassroot variety.
(Emphasis added)

I don't get it...

(Emphasis added)

I don't get it...

See, you're saying that the problem is being handled--"trust me"--but you're not saying how it's being handled. Are they repealing the mandatory use law? Have they come up with such effective striping that no sane cyclist would ever even want to leave a bike lane? Or what?

Motorists in Portland are NOT ALLOWED to merge into the bike lane prior to turning right. Please correct me if this is not true.
It is true. It is also true that motorists in the entire state of Oregon are not allowed to merge into the bike lane prior to turning right. City governments don't have the authority to alter Oregon Revised Statutes to such a extent.


The fact that they now prohibit right turns at North Greeley Avenue undercuts your assertion.
The prohibition on right turns from Interstate to Greeley is an unusual situation. It's a pretty strange intersection of 2 roads and a set of light rail tracks - all at weird angles and at the bottom of a huge bluff. There was a time when no one could turn right onto Greeley from Interstate. For whatever reason, they began to allow it several years back. My coworkers who haven't ridden a bike since childhood expressed relief they blocked that right turn lane. They want to see it permanently eliminated, as they've been nearly hit many times by motor vehicles as they were driving their motor vehicles.


I have followed the local discussions in Portland at http://bikeportland.org/ , among others.
You really ought to present this idea on that forum. I'm certain you'll end up with a heavily posted thread.


Are they repealing the mandatory use law?
They could lobby to repeal the mandatory use law in 2009 when the Legislature is next in session. That way, they can be guaranteed they'll never meet with any success in lobbying for cycling advocacy issues again. I'm sure the Bicycle Transportation Alliance would save lots of money in their budget by being able to eliminate their lobbyist position.

They could lobby to repeal the mandatory use law in 2009 when the Legislature is next in session. That way, they can be guaranteed they'll never meet with any success in lobbying for cycling advocacy issues again. I'm sure the Bicycle Transportation Alliance would save lots of money in their budget by being able to eliminate their lobbyist position.

I don't understand this part. You mean the legislature would be do ticked off that they'd never even listen to cycling advocates again? Even so, this seems like such an onerous law for cyclists that it might be worth the risk of this happening.

Could they at least get a local option provision in the law. We have that here in Michigan with mandatory bike sidepath usage. A local government can opt to make usage mandatory, but there's no statewide law requiring it. Also don't you use referendums and propositions a lot in Oregon?

The right turn intersection that was closed was, as I understand, a dedicated right turn ramp that let cars turn right at speed. Randya can elaborate as he probably knows this intersection better than I do. In other words, it was a special case - not many intersections look like this one.

The first accident was not completely about the bike lane, much of it was about a truck with a driver situated up high and with no mirror to check the space right beside and under the passenger side window. Another special case. FWIW, I've been looking at truck mirror setups recently, and there is already a solution on the market in the form of a convex mirror situated near the grill of the truck.

Both of these raise issues with bike lanes, but the solution isn't to do something drastic like removing right turns by cars or removing bike lanes. The former would never be accepted by drivers (including myself), and the latter would only serve to remove bicyclists, leaving only the extremely dedicated cyclists who are willing to put themselves out there.

Most of the problem, in my opinion, is a lack of knowledge on the part of drivers. There are many instances where a so-called "flow regime", where cars are expected to flow like a fluid, are superseded by "taking turns" type rules, like at stoplights and stop signs where right of way is essentially arbitrary and are only enforced by written rule of law. Bike lanes have to be thought of in terms of "taking turns" where turning cars have to clear themselves before the turn is made. This is not difficult to do, and it is not difficult to enforce - if a collision occurs, it is fairly easy after a short investigation to determine the relative placement of the bicycle. Basically, it has to be impressed upon drivers that cyclists in the bike lane have the right of way and that it is very hazardous to turn in front of the cyclist because it is so easy to misjudge the speed of the cyclist, and before they make a right turn at an intersection, they must check the clearance of the bike lane before proceeding to cross it. Also, these rules must be enforced strongly, which was most the cause of the large outcry after the accidents that happened recently.

There is always going to be a conflict of sorts between cyclists and cars because of the speed difference between these two vehicles. Bicycles are always to the right of cars as the car is passing, thus, regardless of the accommodation method, whether bike lane, WOL, or no accommodation, there will always be a risk of right hooks. With a WOL, cyclists will always be riding up to the right of stopped traffic at controlled intersections, though it is at speed that the right hook risk is greatest. There is no way from a flow standpoint of accommodating cyclists. Even vehicular cycling will result in turbulence in the traffic flow from the slow cyclist forcing cars to change lanes. So the solution, to my thinking, must be in the form of rule-making and enforcing these rules.

Vehicular cycling is great. I use it extensively; I have to to get around on the roads around here. But it is not the long term answer. It cannot be, because it asks too much from cyclists and too little from drivers. It demands near perfect judgement from cyclists, and it absolves drivers from all responsibility. Isn't one of the more interesting complaints from primarily vehicular cyclists about drivers who are "too nice", those who stay behind them too long or who yield their right turn to avoid turning across the cyclist's path? Witness my signature on the bottom of each post. I, too, am a vehicular cyclist and I want each and every car to just allow me to direct them around me, me being the director and they being the cattle. I prefer it this way, because when I lack a sheltered area of the road, I, the vulnerable one, must be the one who directs those around me because I cannot trust that these drivers know what to do around me.

For the reason of this burden that vehicular cycling places on individual cyclists, vehicular cycling will never catch on as a standard, official way of cycling. The overall cyclist population must have sheltered areas on the road, and these sheltered areas must be protected by rules and by strong enforcement of these rules. There is no excuse to right hook a cyclist at speed. A grand majority of the time, the car must pass the cyclist first before the right hook - there is no question that the driver can see the cyclist. At stopped right hand turns, there is no excuse for a driver to not see a cyclist that is positioned next to it. A trucker who is driving in a dense city with pedestrians and cyclists around must not have blind areas which can hide a cyclist or pedestrian. On an official level, you know, the level of city or state law, the burden must not be placed solely on the cyclist's shoulders. The drivers must be given some official responsibility, and the best way of doing this is to place and enforce sheltered areas of the road and the road network in the form of bike lanes, bike paths, and bike boulevards.

This isn't an "either-or" situation. On a cyclist-to-cyclist level, vehicular cycling and other defensive cycling principles must be taught, and on an advocacy level related to this, the right to access to the full width of the roadway by cyclists must be upheld - as joejack's thread where he's complaining about a ticket for taking the lane indicates, it is more than Portland or Oregon in general that has a problem with full access to the roadway. But on an official level, sheltered areas of the road and the road system must be carved out and the protected status of these areas enforced, both by on-road law enforcement and by driver education. Having a protected area of the roadway does not negate efforts for full access to the road, again, witness joejack's thread; there is no reason why cyclists cannot have both. And there is no reason why the somewhat arbitrary rules for dealing with bike lanes cannot be successful, as we have many somewhat arbitrary rules of the road in current operation, and they work well enough.

Now then, sorry for the long post ;). That's what you get from me when you get me talking about this subject.

I don't understand this part. You mean the legislature would be do ticked off that they'd never even listen to cycling advocates again? Even so, this seems like such an onerous law for cyclists that it might be worth the risk of this happening.

Could they at least get a local option provision in the law. We have that here in Michigan with mandatory bike sidepath usage. A local government can opt to make usage mandatory, but there's no statewide law requiring it. Also don't you use referendums and propositions a lot in Oregon?
They could try for a local option provision. There are plenty of cities in Oregon who would be overjoyed to be able to ban cyclists from certain streets. In fact one of the whackjobs who has announced his candidacy for Portland mayor has promised to pursue such an agenda.

You've got to understand that with the exception of one Republican legislator out of Ashland who's a roadie, the state legislature is a pretty hostile body towards cyclists. The only exceptions are most of the representatives from Portland, Eugene, and Corvallis. Outside certain parts of the I-5 corridor, the state is quite rural, and just want bikes to disappear from the roads completely.

See, you're saying that the problem is being handled--"trust me"--but you're not saying how it's being handled. Are they repealing the mandatory use law? Have they come up with such effective striping that no sane cyclist would ever even want to leave a bike lane? Or what?

You, pardon my bluntness, have no choice but to "trust me" - you don't live in Portland or Oregon and thus do not get a say in how Portland or Oregon is run. Are we repealing the mandatory use law? Not yet. Political victories come in small chunks. We have, however, succeeded in making this mandatory use law more tractable and flexible by listing out a number of exceptions. To repeal such a law would require us to assuage the lawmakers that by doing away with the law, we won't have thousands of cyclists out in the middle of the lane tying up traffic. Is this a reality based concern? Probably not. But the perception is there and it takes time to change. The law has been loosened though for the time being, and as more cyclists hit the streets and more bike lanes and bike boulevards attract cyclists and allow both cyclists and motorists to relax a little around each other on the streets, then the law can be further loosened or done away with.

Left turns will always be a sticking point with bike lanes. Right turns across the bike lane are easily handled by a combination of right turn only lanes at high traffic right turns, and rule based interactions at lesser traveled intersections. Left turns are un-addressable by bike lanes, for obvious reasons. But there is an explicit exception to the mandatory bike lane law for left turns, as there is also for obstructions in the bike lane. This is why we still need to teach vehicular cycling on a cyclist-to-cyclist basis, or at least to high speed cyclists. Those unwilling to use the left turn lane have the option of the two part left turn, which is the next best option.

In my experience, to give an example of how vehicular cycling and bike lanes can work together, I have found that bike lanes actually make my lane taking excursions more successful and more accepted. If there is a bike lane there, and if drivers are relatively accustomed to seeing cyclists on the road, if I leave the bike lane for a short period, for debris or for defense against a right hook or an up-coming disappearance of the bike lane, drivers accept my presence outside the bike lane readily. If I am mostly clearly out of their way, and have to get in their way for a short time, this is accepted more readily than if I were clearly or not so clearly in their way most of their time, and then I had to block their path further from time to time. The bike lane allows me to take the lane in a discrete maneuver, which increases my predictability to the drivers around me, which in turn increases the predictability of those drivers to me.

I don't have time to respond to Brian in the way he deserves after such long, well written posts. But the main points I'm coming away with are quite disturbing. The claim is that bike lanes put "more butts on bikes," but that's a mixed blessing. There seems to be a big backlash against bikes in Oregon, perhaps because the motoring public perceives all these butts on bikes as a threat to their unencumbered use of the roadways. So maybe one reason that a mandatory bike lane law was enacted is because some legislators saw it as a way to push cyclists to the side, although I'm not sure if this was the case.

Also, a lot of those new butts don't know how to ride in traffic, and they rely too much on bike lanes--which all (except maybe bekologist) agree are sometimes poorly designed--to keep them out of trouble. Even well-designed bike lanes don't take the place of knowledge, judgment and good reactions of cyclists. These are qualities that must be learned. It baffles me that we accept that motorists must have special training before using public roads, but we don't expect this of cyclists--even though the common perception is that cycling is riskier than driving.

I think bike lanes will inevitably result in more right hooks, unless additional measures are taken to prevent them. The prohibition of merging in Oregon was one such measure. It has failed, quite obviously, and the only surprise was that so many bike advocates were surprised by its failure. I don't think that anybody has yet come up with an improvement for the time tested system of right of way and traffic flow that has evolved almost organically over the past century. I hope somebody does improve on it, some day, and maybe ideas like "naked roads" will eventually prove to be superior. Meantime, half-arsed efforts to monkey around with right-of-way procedures are likely to fail, sometimes with disastrous results for cyclists.

The reason the Portland experiment fascinates me is that I think they are in some ways ahead of the curve when it comes to alternative transportation. What they're going through now, other cities and regions will be struggling with in just a few years, as even Americans will eventually have to put down their cars in favor of more sensible transportation. You Portlanders are our lab rats, and I hope your current clinical trials will make riding safer in the rest of the country.

Brian, all this talk of VC and sheltered space and such is kind of off topic- do we really want to make this another bike lane pro/con debate? Could we at least try to make this a No Right Turn (NRT) pro/con thread?

Now watch me violate the above appeal! :rolleyes:


The law should prevent motorists from cutting off bicyclists, bike lane or not. Oh, that's right, the law already requires that duty of care from motorists!

Bicyclists get right hooked in Dallas, Michigan, Portland and San Diego.

Bicyclists get hooked not by the presence or absence of stripes on the road but, rather, by motorists' failure to follow the letter of the law.

Additionally, there are road striping/bike lane designs that can increase safety of bikes at intersections.

Curiously, I have never been right hooked in more than 6,600 miles of riding in and around Dallas. :) I have had two close calls on left-hooks, and two actual left-hook collisions. :( Obviously, taking a lane can reduce many of the hazards cyclists face, but it can't eliminate any of them. It will always be a trade-off. Pick your poison.

The closure of the right turn at North Greeley Avenue was actually a shrewd move by the mayor. For vehicles that turn onto Interstate at North Greeley, they had to pass a road that intersects with Interstate. There are no homes or businesses served between the fatal intersection and that road. Closing the right turn there will inconvenience very few motorists.

"Basically, it has to be impressed upon drivers that cyclists in the bike lane have the right of way and that it is very hazardous to turn in front of the cyclist because it is so easy to misjudge the speed of the cyclist, and before they make a right turn at an intersection, they must check the clearance of the bike lane before proceeding to cross it. Also, these rules must be enforced strongly, which was most the cause of the large outcry after the accidents that happened recently. "

I am assuming you have driven in Portland (Oregon) and have performed this "clearance check" to the right before executing your turn across a bike lane, yes? Did you check over your shoulder?

Perhaps NRT could be a tool in the highway engineers tool box? To be used when necessary when re-designing the bike path is impractical to the situation- or even impossible. On curves and such where blind spots shift around on motorists. Sort of a case by case need. Same with driveways and commercial entrances.

...There seems to be a big backlash against bikes in Oregon, perhaps because the motoring public perceives all these butts on bikes as a threat to their unencumbered use of the roadways. So maybe one reason that a mandatory bike lane law was enacted is because some legislators saw it as a way to push cyclists to the side, although I'm not sure if this was the case.
...


This is where living here, not just reading the selective comments from a response column on a blog or sensationalistic newspaper article, is helpful. First, to set the record straight, the mandatory bike lane law is an artifact from long before this current boom in cycling. It probably came over from California which has a similarly written law and who, I think, put in the first bike lanes. If a legislator at the time had a different brain fart, we'd have a different law, and we'd be all *****ing about that one and have similar problems changing it.

Second, there is no real back-lash out on the roads from drivers seeing more cyclists. I started riding out here in the suburbs and the city back in 1999 with my first college internship. Since then, drivers have been calmer around me and I don't get yelled at on the road as much, even as the population and the traffic to go along with it has increased noticeably. Contrary to a back-lash, bicyclists are actually becoming more accepted on the road. Bike lanes help more than you believe to accomplish this, as it brings clarity to the road situation.

Consider this: Portland actually has a mayoral (I think, remember, I don't vote in Portland proper, though I live only about 10 miles away) candidate who is running on an anti-bike platform. Think about this for a second. Bicycles are important enough a topic that someone is running explicitly against bicycling. What an honor! :D

...
I am assuming you have driven in Portland (Oregon) and have performed this "clearance check" to the right before executing your turn across a bike lane, yes? Did you check over your shoulder?
...

I do, actually - well, not a glance over the shoulder, but a glance into the right side convex mirror anyway. Not because I am a bicycling advocate. Because my father is a smart fellow and taught me this back when I was 15 years old. It makes sense, just as it makes sense to look off over the left shoulder when in a car merging into a left turn lane. I didn't do that on my driver test, and got docked because of it. He also taught me to pass a cyclist with a full bike-plus-body-height distance, as if the cyclist just toppled over. Ahead of his time, he was, I guess.

Curiously, I have never been right hooked in more than 6,600 miles of riding in and around Dallas. :) I have had two close calls on left-hooks, and two actual left-hook collisions. :( Obviously, taking a lane can reduce many of the hazards cyclists face, but it can't eliminate any of them. It will always be a trade-off. Pick your poison.

The closure of the right turn at North Greeley Avenue was actually a shrewd move by the mayor. For vehicles that turn onto Interstate at North Greeley, they had to pass a road that intersects with Interstate. There are no homes or businesses served between the fatal intersection and that road. Closing the right turn there will inconvenience very few motorists.

"Basically, it has to be impressed upon drivers that cyclists in the bike lane have the right of way and that it is very hazardous to turn in front of the cyclist because it is so easy to misjudge the speed of the cyclist, and before they make a right turn at an intersection, they must check the clearance of the bike lane before proceeding to cross it. Also, these rules must be enforced strongly, which was most the cause of the large outcry after the accidents that happened recently. "

I am assuming you have driven in Portland (Oregon) and have performed this "clearance check" to the right before executing your turn across a bike lane, yes? Did you check over your shoulder?

Perhaps NRT could be a tool in the highway engineers tool box? To be used when necessary when re-designing the bike path is impractical to the situation- or even impossible. On curves and such where blind spots shift around on motorists. Sort of a case by case need. Same with driveways and commercial entrances.

You have a point here.

FWIW, I, too, have never been right hooked, though I have almost been left crossed (that, my friend, was scary, and it came down to the last few feet before I avoided the collision) once or twice. I've been in a pull out accident once as well; gotta watch those left side on-street parked cars, even when you are taking the lane. That was in Seattle though. My father has been right hooked, however. The driver who did it admitted to being very drowsy and probably had that whole tunnel vision/eye drooping thing going on.

Closing the N. Greeley Ave. was a shrewd move politically. The bicycling population was crying bloody murder after the two accidents in such quick succession, and as donnamb pointed out, this turn didn't use to exist and is not really necessary for access to anything. Something had to be done, and closing the right turn was an immediate and inexpensive way to solve the problem.

I'm not sure, off the top of my head, how it is possible to eliminate right turns as a general rule at more than a couple select intersections. What would such a road network look like?

This is where living here, not just reading the selective comments from a response column on a blog or sensationalistic newspaper article, is helpful. First, to set the record straight, the mandatory bike lane law is an artifact from long before this current boom in cycling. It probably came over from California which has a similarly written law and who, I think, put in the first bike lanes. If a legislator at the time had a different brain fart, we'd have a different law, and we'd be all *****ing about that one and have similar problems changing it.

Second, there is no real back-lash out on the roads from drivers seeing more cyclists. I started riding out here in the suburbs and the city back in 1999 with my first college internship. Since then, drivers have been calmer around me and I don't get yelled at on the road as much, even as the population and the traffic to go along with it has increased noticeably. Contrary to a back-lash, bicyclists are actually becoming more accepted on the road. Bike lanes help more than you believe to accomplish this, as it brings clarity to the road situation.

Consider this: Portland actually has a mayoral (I think, remember, I don't vote in Portland proper, though I live only about 10 miles away) candidate who is running on an anti-bike platform. Think about this for a second. Bicycles are important enough a topic that someone is running explicitly against bicycling. What an honor! :D

You say the mandatory bike lane law is an artifact of olden times, presumably another microbe from California. Possibly. But my understanding is that this law has only recently been enforced, and for many years it was not enforced. Is this true? Is California somehow forcing the Portland authorities to enforce the law that they somehow passed in Oregon years ago? If not, why is the law being enforced now? Does it have anything to do with some voters wanting to expedite motor traffic by pushing bikes to the side of the road?

You say there's no backlash against cyclists in Portland, but there is a candidate running for mayor on an anti-bike platform. Do you not see the contradiction in your own statements? Come on, Brian.

You say cyclists are more accepted on the Portland (OR) streets because of bike lanes. Another illogical conclusion. I'm accepted on the roads of Lansing (MI) even though we have virtually no bike lanes. But I don't feel that I can draw the conclusion that lack of bike lanes causes driver acceptance. There are probably many factors involved in driver attitudes toward cyclists, and bike lanes may or may not be one of those factors. You don't know and neither do I, so that issue should be left out of the discussion.

Unfortunately, you don't talk here about the actual topic of right turns in the presence of mandatory usage and no merge laws. Should cyclists break the law by leaving the bike lane, in order to avoid hooks by cagers who are legally and abruptly turning right? Or should they trust that drivers will always use caution when turning right?

I'm not sure, off the top of my head, how it is possible to eliminate right turns as a general rule at more than a couple select intersections. What would such a road network look like?

We'll never know because it isn't going to happen. Not for more than a few selected intersections, anyway. One reason is that we (society) accept a tremendous number of casualties as the price to pay for expeditious motor travel. Another reason is that banning right turns is probably not even the most effective way to prevent right hooks, or at least not the most practical way. Some measures that might be more sensible:


Teach (and allow) cyclists to merge left of potential right-turners at intersections.
Teach (and allow) motorists to signal, head-check and merge into the bike lane before making right turns.
Design stripes and signs that help all road users to enter intersections more safely.

We'll never know because it isn't going to happen. Not for more than a few selected intersections, anyway. One reason is that we (society) accept a tremendous number of casualties as the price to pay for expeditious motor travel. Another reason is that banning right turns is probably not even the most effective way to prevent right hooks, or at least not the most practical way. Some measures that might be more sensible:


Teach (and allow) cyclists to merge left of potential right-turners at intersections.
Teach (and allow) motorists to signal, head-check and merge into the bike lane before making right turns.
Design stripes and signs that help all road users to enter intersections more safely.


NRT would be effective for stopping right hooks! Right hooks would be avoided every time NRT was obeyed! ;)

NRT would also inconvenience motorists. It would likely cause further delays for motorists from left turn lane backups, causing some to be forced to wait through extra light cycles.

I would bet that traffic flows would change rather quickly though: Motorists would change their routes to avoid left turn delays. In some cases the local traffic would be improved, and in others it wouldn't. But it would be different! Could some intersections be re-designed to alleviate such delays?

NRT would require some extra planning on motorists part until they got used to the new dynamics. Turning into local businesses in NRT areas for example. Approaching your destination from the wrong direction would make for some irritating delays. Business owners would be very opposed to NRT.

The potential for left hooks would increase as more left turns naturally produces more left turn opportunities for conflict, especially mid-block if NRT were imposed for all bike lanes. (Turning into business entrances, for example.) One result of NRT would be more left hook collisions.

It will be easier for motorists to gauge cyclists speed in a left turn situation as the mechanics are familiar, and the bike lane has equal ROW as any other oncoming lane on the street. Overall then, I would expect fewer net car/bike collisions, with right hooks nearly disappearing in NRT intersections, but more in the left hook category.

You say the mandatory bike lane law is an artifact of olden times, presumably another microbe from California. Possibly. But my understanding is that this law has only recently been enforced, and for many years it was not enforced. Is this true? Is California somehow forcing the Portland authorities to enforce the law that they somehow passed in Oregon years ago? If not, why is the law being enforced now? Does it have anything to do with some voters wanting to expedite motor traffic by pushing bikes to the side of the road?

You say there's no backlash against cyclists in Portland, but there is a candidate running for mayor on an anti-bike platform. Do you not see the contradiction in your own statements? Come on, Brian.

You say cyclists are more accepted on the Portland (OR) streets because of bike lanes. Another illogical conclusion. I'm accepted on the roads of Lansing (MI) even though we have virtually no bike lanes. But I don't feel that I can draw the conclusion that lack of bike lanes causes driver acceptance. There are probably many factors involved in driver attitudes toward cyclists, and bike lanes may or may not be one of those factors. You don't know and neither do I, so that issue should be left out of the discussion.

Unfortunately, you don't talk here about the actual topic of right turns in the presence of mandatory usage and no merge laws. Should cyclists break the law by leaving the bike lane, in order to avoid hooks by cagers who are legally and abruptly turning right? Or should they trust that drivers will always use caution when turning right?

Backlash politically or backlash on the streets? You are mixing the two. There will always be a political fight - there always is for anything. But on the street? I've not detected a backlash.

The mandatory bike lane laws have been enforced sportatically through history. It is certainly not a recent thing. And you can be sure that these tickets are being fought by a couple lawyers who specialize on cyclist's rights.

And I not sure why you are saying a cyclist must "break the law" to leave the bike lane. You realize there are exceptions, right? Obviously this law is not ideal. But like I said, it is there and it is difficult to change it. It's been loosened, and in time, something will probably replace it. I should say, again, that you are taking a couple newspaper articles that you've read on the internets and are trying to apply them broadly. I've been riding here for almost 10 years now, taking the lane in front of police officers and making left turns, guarding against right hooks and avoiding debris for all this time and I haven't been pulled over for it. It is, again, useful to have lived and ridden here extensively before you start taking the conversation on this tact.

I do, actually - well, not a glance over the shoulder, but a glance into the right side convex mirror anyway. Not because I am a bicycling advocate. Because my father is a smart fellow and taught me this back when I was 15 years old. It makes sense, just as it makes sense to look off over the left shoulder when in a car merging into a left turn lane. I didn't do that on my driver test, and got docked because of it. He also taught me to pass a cyclist with a full bike-plus-body-height distance, as if the cyclist just toppled over. Ahead of his time, he was, I guess.

Thanks for being so candid! :)

It is unnatural to check for overtaking traffic when turning, because roads are designed to separate turning traffic from through traffic. We don't turn left from the right-most through lane. In some vehicles, looking over the shoulder to scan for through traffic on the right is pointless- utility style vans and such that have no view. Can you determine closing distance accurately from a convex mirror?

Part of the problem is that cyclists are lulled into a false sense of security by the whole idea of a "sheltered space" or "safe zone" being provided by the presence of a bike lane. What do bike lanes make you safe from? Overtaking traffic. (The least likely car/bike collision for law abiding adult cyclists. And nearly every case of struck from behind collisions, the motorist was impaired or homicidal, of which the bike lane offers scant protection.) To make bike lanes true sheltered space, not only NRT needs to be imposed, but no left turn also. All at grade crossings needs to be avoided! :eek:

Please. We cyclists need to abandon this notion of "sheltered space" for the fantasy it is and get a grip on reality: Bike lanes must be traveled upon in a VC manner! One must ride centered in the bike lane, watching out for right hooks, left hooks, right turners from driveways and alleys and every other danger that vehicular cycling is exposed to!

You see Brian, the "VC burden" is hardly relieved by bike lanes. Bike lanes could, however, become vastly more safe for cyclists with a NRT paradigm. ;)

Should cyclists break the law by leaving the bike lane, in order to avoid hooks by cagers who are legally and abruptly turning right? Or should they trust that drivers will always use caution when turning right?

Here we see a fundamental misunderstanding of the 'mandatory' bike lane law. It is not illegal to leave the bike lane if it is impracticable to remain in it. All the law says is that if there's a bike lane there, use it, but it's ok to leave it if you need to. If it's not being enforced that way, it's not a problem with the law, but with the people enforcing it. Educate the public and the police to follow it properly before writing it off.

And all road users should use caution no matter what they're doing.

NRT would be effective for stopping right hooks! Right hooks would be avoided every time NRT was obeyed! ;)

NRT would also inconvenience motorists. It would likely cause further delays for motorists from left turn lane backups, causing some to be forced to wait through extra light cycles.

I would bet that traffic flows would change rather quickly though: Motorists would change their routes to avoid left turn delays. In some cases the local traffic would be improved, and in others it wouldn't. But it would be different! Could some intersections be re-designed to alleviate such delays?

NRT would require some extra planning on motorists part until they got used to the new dynamics. Turning into local businesses in NRT areas for example. Approaching your destination from the wrong direction would make for some irritating delays. Business owners would be very opposed to NRT.

The potential for left hooks would increase as more left turns naturally produces more left turn opportunities for conflict, especially mid-block if NRT were imposed for all bike lanes. (Turning into business entrances, for example.) One result of NRT would be more left hook collisions.

It will be easier for motorists to gauge cyclists speed in a left turn situation as the mechanics are familiar, and the bike lane has equal ROW as any other oncoming lane on the street. Overall then, I would expect fewer net car/bike collisions, with right hooks nearly disappearing in NRT intersections, but more in the left hook category.

You're right, banning right turns would be Highly effective. I actually said, "banning right turns is probably not even the most effective way to prevent right hooks, or at least not the most practical way." It might actually be the most effective, but clearly not the most practical measure. If it comes to banning right turns by cars, or banning bikes from streets, which side do you think will win? Obviously the cars will win, even in Portland, America's self-described "bike city."

I think your proposal to ban bikes is similar to Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal" (1729) to end Irish poverty by having the Irish eat their children. Not a very practical proposal, but a great way to start a conversation about a serious issue.

Backlash politically or backlash on the streets? You are mixing the two. There will always be a political fight - there always is for anything. But on the street? I've not detected a backlash.

The mandatory bike lane laws have been enforced sportatically through history. It is certainly not a recent thing. And you can be sure that these tickets are being fought by a couple lawyers who specialize on cyclist's rights.

And I not sure why you are saying a cyclist must "break the law" to leave the bike lane. You realize there are exceptions, right? Obviously this law is not ideal. But like I said, it is there and it is difficult to change it. It's been loosened, and in time, something will probably replace it. I should say, again, that you are taking a couple newspaper articles that you've read on the internets and are trying to apply them broadly. I've been riding here for almost 10 years now, taking the lane in front of police officers and making left turns, guarding against right hooks and avoiding debris for all this time and I haven't been pulled over for it. It is, again, useful to have lived and ridden here extensively before you start taking the conversation on this tact.

Again with the contradictions. You say the cops are citing riders for leaving the bike lanes (but it's OK because they have special bicycle lawyers). Then you say again that actually the law is not being enforced, and you know that to be true because you never got a ticket. And I'm supposed to believe you rather than the Portland newspapers, blogs and forums because you live "near Portland" and I'm just a meddler. Well, in fact, if people are getting tickets for leaving bike lanes, then the law is being enforced. Period. Even if you're a fortunate scofflaw.

And all the time, you're trying to steer the discussion away from the OP's topic, which is how to deal with right turns when motorists aren't allowed to merge into bike lanes, and cyclists aren't allowed to leave bike lanes to make themselves more conspicuous to the abrupt (but law-abiding) right turners. Do you think there's any solution other than the OP's modest proposal to ban right turns?

You see Brian, the "VC burden" is hardly relieved by bike lanes. Bike lanes could, however, become vastly more safe for cyclists with a NRT paradigm. ;)

Of course it isn't. What is missing from your paradigm is the laws that come with the bike lanes. It is ludicrous to think that a strip of paint will protect you from a car. But it is hardly ludicrous to think that a system of legal responsibilities can't. Obviously cyclists have to be aware of what is going on around them. But so does every other driver.

To illustrate some of the arbitrary conventions that we have in place that are upheld on mere legal wordings written on a piece of paper:

1) four way stops. How do you know when to go? Why is it the person on the right who gets the right of way? Why not the person on the left? How do you trust that the other person is going to go through the procedure correctly?

2) the median line. The median line is simply a line on the pavement. That's hardly going to stop a car from crossing it; in fact, sometimes crossing it is allowed. But how do we manage to trust that a car stays to the right or left (another arbitrary convention) of this line?

3) left turns from the middle of the road. A left turn is made from a stopped position. You can just as easily make this left turn from the right side of the road - you just have to clear yourself in both traffic directions, as if you were crossing the street. Some countries use this as a convention to keep the road from being backed up by mid-block, left turning traffic. Here, we tend to use special shared median spaces, aka (in California, at least), suicide lanes. This shared median space is arbitrary. How do you trust that a car coming in the opposite direction won't run headlong into you?

4) stoplight lane positioning. Since all directions of traffic are stopped except for the direction that is allowed to go, what's the harm in turning left from the right hand side of the road or vice verse? The only reason why we do it is so that we can combine light cycles. But this is not a necessity, it is just done for convenience. On the point, how to you trust that a car will stop at the red light and how do you trust that the car will turn the direction the lane is stated to go?

The commonality of all these instances I've listed above is that all of these traffic conventions are either done for mere convenience or are simply arbitrary. In all cases, traffic flows according to rules drawn up by legislators and taught to the masses by the driving test and driver's ed. In all cases, these conventions work despite their arbitrariness. In all cases, the answer to the last question of "How do you trust..." is answered by "being aware and being defensive".

So bike lanes are another arbitrary convention. Big deal. Teach the rules widely, enforce these rules, and teach cyclists how to be defensive riders and it is hardly a problem. The much bigger problem is how to make the streets more hospitable to modes of travel other than by car without sacrificing efficiency of traffic flow.

Again with the contradictions. You say the cops are citing riders for leaving the bike lanes (but it's OK because they have special bicycle lawyers). Then you say again that actually the law is not being enforced, and you know that to be true because you never got a ticket. And I'm supposed to believe you rather than the Portland newspapers, blogs and forums because you live "near Portland" and I'm just a meddler. Well, in fact, if people are getting tickets for leaving bike lanes, then the law is being enforced. Period. Even if you're a fortunate scofflaw.

Well... you are the one nit picking. Like any other traffic law, it is enforced based on individual officers. This law, if you haven't heard it already from those other times that I've said it, applies to all of Oregon, so it matters not that I live simply "near Portland". Has Portland started enforcing this more closely? Outside a few tickets given earlier this year, I don't think so. Let me guess. You heard a big uproar over about four tickets given out around July, right? What can I say, it must be a crackdown. A few tickets out of several 10's of thousands of bike trips daily, many of them vehicular cyclists. Yes, it must be a crackdown :rolleyes:.

FWIW, I did commute into Portland regularly for a summer when I had a job there, and I make it into the city every once in a while too. You put an awful lot of trust in those newspapers though. That's another problem with criticising a place where you don't live. Your sources of information tend to be a bit narrow, don't you think?


And all the time, you're trying to steer the discussion away from the OP's topic, which is how to deal with right turns when motorists aren't allowed to merge into bike lanes, and cyclists aren't allowed to leave bike lanes to make themselves more conspicuous to the abrupt (but law-abiding) right turners. Do you think there's any solution other than the OP's modest proposal to ban right turns?

Read on, my friend. You are tending to cherry pick through my comments to come up with contentious quibblings. Read through my several posts and you will see that I address the issues revolving around bike lanes and driving around them quite a few times. Now, on the specific issue of removing all right turns? Well, I've already stated my opinion on that one - that it was overkill. I cannot even imagine what a street grid would look like if you banned all right turns.

I cannot even imagine what a street grid would look like if you banned all right turns.

I thought this banning right turns thing was a reductio ad absurdum argument actually. Imagine my surprise when it turned out the OP was actually serious.

^^^
I kinda did too. But it is an interesting exercise in it's own right. One of the ways of getting outside of the box and starting the creative process is to start with an absurd solution with would definitively solve the problem, and work your way back from that toward reality.

Of course it isn't. What is missing from your paradigm is the laws that come with the bike lanes. It is ludicrous to think that a strip of paint will protect you from a car. But it is hardly ludicrous to think that a system of legal responsibilities can't. Obviously cyclists have to be aware of what is going on around them. But so does every other driver.

To illustrate some of the arbitrary conventions that we have in place that are upheld on mere legal wordings written on a piece of paper:

1) four way stops. How do you know when to go? Why is it the person on the right who gets the right of way? Why not the person on the left? How do you trust that the other person is going to go through the procedure correctly?

2) the median line. The median line is simply a line on the pavement. That's hardly going to stop a car from crossing it; in fact, sometimes crossing it is allowed. But how do we manage to trust that a car stays to the right or left (another arbitrary convention) of this line?

3) left turns from the middle of the road. A left turn is made from a stopped position. You can just as easily make this left turn from the right side of the road - you just have to clear yourself in both traffic directions, as if you were crossing the street. Some countries use this as a convention to keep the road from being backed up by mid-block, left turning traffic. Here, we tend to use special shared median spaces, aka (in California, at least), suicide lanes. This shared median space is arbitrary. How do you trust that a car coming in the opposite direction won't run headlong into you?

4) stoplight lane positioning. Since all directions of traffic are stopped except for the direction that is allowed to go, what's the harm in turning left from the right hand side of the road or vice verse? The only reason why we do it is so that we can combine light cycles. But this is not a necessity, it is just done for convenience. On the point, how to you trust that a car will stop at the red light and how do you trust that the car will turn the direction the lane is stated to go?

The commonality of all these instances I've listed above is that all of these traffic conventions are either done for mere convenience or are simply arbitrary. In all cases, traffic flows according to rules drawn up by legislators and taught to the masses by the driving test and driver's ed. In all cases, these conventions work despite their arbitrariness. In all cases, the answer to the last question of "How do you trust..." is answered by "being aware and being defensive".

So bike lanes are another arbitrary convention. Big deal. Teach the rules widely, enforce these rules, and teach cyclists how to be defensive riders and it is hardly a problem. The much bigger problem is how to make the streets more hospitable to modes of travel other than by car without sacrificing efficiency of traffic flow.
All the laws and practices related to right of way have evolved in a rather organic fashion over the last hundred years or more. They are nearly universal, with only a few modifications across many countries and cultures. Within the US they are nearly universal, other than a few exceptions (such as the two being discussed here). These laws are not arbitrary or capricious. They have survived because they work quite well, as long as people follow them. And by and large, people do follow them, even when enforcement is lax, because it's in everyone's interest to have traffic that flows smoothly and safely.

You mentioned four examples of right-of-way laws and practices, but none are relevant to this discussion. The two laws/principles which are relevant are:
Turning traffic should not cross lanes of through traffic, and
Vehicles should not unnecessarily impede or obstruct turning traffic.


However, Oregon has violated both of these principles. They violated the first principle by requiring motorists to make right turns from a lane other than the right hand lane, whenever the right hand lane is a bike lane. They violated the second principle by requiring cyclists to remain in the right hand lane (i.e., the bike lane) even into the intersection, and even when they're not turning right. By doing so, cyclists are more or less required to block or impede turning traffic.

This situation makes no sense. The two laws, although passed separately and years apart, combine to make a deadly risk for cyclists in Oregon. It does seem that the only way to make this right is either to repeal the laws and restore traditional right-of-way practices, or follow Chip Seal's modest proposal to ban right turns when there's a bike lane.

Unless you have a better idea?

You mentioned four examples of right-of-way laws and practices, but none are relevant to this discussion. The two laws/principles which are relevant are:
Turning traffic should not cross lanes of through traffic, and
Vehicles should not unnecessarily impede or obstruct turning traffic.



That second 'principle' is a strawman. No road rule about giving way I have ever seen follows that principle.

The rules are pretty cut and dried - turning traffic gives way to through traffic. It applies equally to bikelanes. Just because it's on the other side than is normally given way to, doesn't mean it's not a valid principle. If you think a rule is invalid just because people have to take the time to learn it and practice applying it, you might as well throw them all out.

@Roody
Midblock left turns violate both of these principles. Turning traffic turns across straight moving traffic, and the straight through traffic is, in turn, obstructing the left turning traffic. Incidently, I regard left crosses as at least an equal threat, and perhaps the greater threat to bicyclists, compared to right hooks. Primarily because they are so difficult to defend against. Midblock left turns are so disruptive that recently, many cities are prohibiting left turning traffic off of certain roads. That said, to eliminate all mid-block left turns from all roads is just as ludicrous as eliminating all right turns as the OP originally suggested.

Tradition does not equal principle. You have to examine each "principle" you claim and ask what, exactly, is it that make it a principle, where this principle is violated and what about the rule is arbitrary or done simply for convenience and not any other sake.

^^^
I kinda did too. But it is an interesting exercise in it's own right. One of the ways of getting outside of the box and starting the creative process is to start with an absurd solution with would definitively solve the problem, and work your way back from that toward reality.

I agree, and that's why I made the comparison to Swift's proposal, which eventually rocked the British Empire and is still widely studied today. I do feel that you have trouble talking about the basic issue, which as I see it is the monkeying with right-of-way principles by Oregon, possibly with serious consequences already.

No matter how much drivers and riders are educated about the no-merge law and the mandatory use law, you're still going to have dangerous traffic conflicts as drivers turn right from the left lane, and cyclists go straight in the right turn lane.

You do realize that the only way to NOT think of a bike lane as a right turn lane at an intersection is to NOT think of bikes as vehicles? And you do know that when you talk about "exceptions" that allow a cyclist to leave the bike lane, you're saying that bikes are vehicles only part of the time, that is, when the "exceptions" apply? After all, if they must inhabit a special lane, then they are special creatures, not in the same class as the other creatures. Does it bother you that "America's Bicycle City" does not consider bikes unequivocally to be vehicles?