Advocacy & Safety - Ragging on Portland

At a not so local bike meeting yesterday the revisions to the MUTCD by the NCUTCD-BTC (Bicycle Technical Committee) was presented along with how and why the processes works. Most notably the question needs to be answered does a new or experimental TCD actually perform as expected? Is the statement "It should work to improve things" more valid then "We studied all the variables and found that this TCD made the following difference..." I think mosts cyclists would agree that having our facilities verified that they do actually work is a good thing. But it seems that Portland is throwing the experimental and verification processes out the window. First they install bike lane stripes all the way up to intersections against design guidelines and have discovered problems (well no duh.) And in attempt to fix the problem of going against design guidelines they are going even further adrift by throwing more new experimental stuff at the problem by installing green bike boxes. This might be well and good if green bike boxes where actually shown to work and could eventually make it into the MUTCD but Portland has elected to not go through the experimental process by only changing one variable at a time (what's the effect of bike boxes and what is the effect of the color green) and is more or less doing whatever it thinks should work rather then relying on provable data by the scientific method.

Personally I think whether you are a bike lane advocate or a anti-bike lane advocate the processes (and the "think" behind the changes) going on in Portland needs to be corrected and I strongly encourage Portland to work with NCUTCD-BTC.

I always agree with you but on this issue I diverge.......
In my experience, and the reason I take issue with theorists
Forester, HH, et al is that scientific data and theorizing rarely
proves to be reality as they apply to bicycles due to too many
variables that cannot apply across the board to all areas.
I applaud Portland for jumping right in and taking active measures
right from the start and bypassing the usual unproductive, time consuming
laboriousness of the 'collect data' process. The measures taken by Portland
will show what needs to be tweaked through actual usage, not hypotheticals and theory.

I have empathy for £em in Pa's position but while the government process is extremely slow but it is not unproductive. But the fact remains most of the US will NOT implement experimental designs so if what Portland is doing is cool and makes a difference it is going to stay in Portland and that's a shame and very sad.

Keep in mind I think a compromise position is that Portland study some non-green bike boxes so I believe it can still have some green bike boxes as well, so I think there is a way to accommodate everyone here.

Locally we had a bit of a hard time trying to get sharrows into our bike master plan. While the selling point was trying bring some of the Portland bike excitement to Baltimore but what sunk the deal was the fact that sharrows are in the final stages of being adopted into the MUTCD. Without that point we would not have sharrows here. If the desire is for better engineered bike facilities for all cyclists we need to encourage the process.

I well also note that data "theorists" that are part of my discussion are not JF, HH et al but the typical government bureaucracy that is overly concerned about liability issues when doing anything bike related.

At a not so local bike meeting yesterday the revisions to the MUTCD by the NCUTCD-BTC (Bicycle Technical Committee) was presented along with how and why the processes works. Most notably the question needs to be answered does a new or experimental TCD actually perform as expected? Is the statement "It should work to improve things" more valid then "We studied all the variables and found that this TCD made the following difference..." I think mosts cyclists would agree that having our facilities verified that they do actually work is a good thing. But it seems that Portland is throwing the experimental and verification processes out the window. First they install bike lane stripes all the way up to intersections against design guidelines and have discovered problems (well no duh.) And in attempt to fix the problem of going against design guidelines they are going even further adrift by throwing more new experimental stuff at the problem by installing green bike boxes. This might be well and good if green bike boxes where actually shown to work and could eventually make it into the MUTCD but Portland has elected to not go through the experimental process by only changing one variable at a time (what's the effect of bike boxes and what is the effect of the color green) and is more or less doing whatever it thinks should work rather then relying on provable data by the scientific method.

Personally I think whether you are a bike lane advocate or a anti-bike lane advocate the processes (and the "think" behind the changes) going on in Portland needs to be corrected and I strongly encourage Portland to work with NCUTCD-BTC.

Is it possible that what is being tried in Portland is that which is not sourced from the MUTCD, but from Eurepean cities? I believe the bike boxes are mentioned specifically somewhere (it might be in this video (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=401615)... ) as being "something from Europe" and are being tried here for the "first time."

Consider that the US is not exactly known as "bike friendly;" so perhaps, better bike friendly ideas might occur out of the US... Someone has to test those ideas here, before the MUTCD group will even consider them.

Now you do mention the NCUTCD-BTC. Are you saying that MUTCD is NOT working with any sort of bike group/committe to test and evaluate changes to bike infrastructure? Or that Portland is going ahead with untested stuff?

I think the bike people in portland should be the subject to a few lawsuits.

If a traffic engineer made two traffic lanes and put a possible right turn lane to the left side of a possible straight thru lane and my family member was killed I would sue.

Personally I think whether you are a bike lane advocate or a anti-bike lane advocate the processes (and the "think" behind the changes) going on in Portland needs to be corrected and I strongly encourage Portland to work with NCUTCD-BTC.
So when you wrote the traffic engineers in Portland about their attempts to work with NUTCD-BTC, what did they tell you about their experience?

I happen to be acronym free. When throwing around lots of acronyms, please explain them. Including but not limited to:

MUTCD
NCUTCD
NCUTCD-BTC
TCD

I do hope I am reporting this correctly but my impression is that traffic engineers in Portland are not working with NCUTCD-BTC on the green bike box issue and that concerns me a great deal.

We have procedures to try European designs here and while the procedures may not be the easiest to follow but if followed the designs that work can be adopted for application elsewhere. If the procedures are not followed I have no idea what kind of Pandora's box gets opened with that but its not something I would like to see encouraged.

I happen to be acronym free. When throwing around lots of acronyms, please explain them. Including but not limited to:
MUTCD - Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NCUTCD - National Committee Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NCUTCD-BTC - National Committee Uniform Traffic Control Devices Bicycle Technical Committee
TCD - Traffic Control Device

So when you wrote the traffic engineers in Portland about their attempts to work with NUTCD-BTC, what did they tell you about their experience?

I am curious to know if any of the NUTCD-BTC rides a bike regularly... Beyond being a "park rider."

I wonder who these folks are.

Edit, actually that info was quite easy to find... http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/members.html

I do hope I am reporting this correctly but my impression is that traffic engineers in Portland are not working with NCUTCD-BTC on the green bike box issue and that concerns me a great deal.
And the traffic engineers in Portland personally told you this?

And the traffic engineers in Portland personally told you this?

No a member of NCUTCD-BTC did.

No a member of NCUTCD-BTC did.
I see. Are they a family member or close friend of yours that you believed them without reservation?

I am curious to know if any of the NUTCD-BTC rides a bike regularly... Beyond being a "park rider."

I wonder who these folks are.

Edit, actually that info was quite easy to find... http://members.cox.net/ncutcdbtc/members.html
Oh, this is interesting (http://www.richardcmoeur.com/docs/bikespectrfctrl.pdf). It seems the Chair of the NUTCD-BTC is pretty dead set against bike boxes or even bike-specific traffic signals. So traffic engineers in Portland want to try something the Chair of the NUTCD-BTC opposes and someone on that committee subsequently expresses the opinion that Portland isn't "working with" them? My goodness, that sure sounds like typical Federal Government behavior to me.

I see. Are they a family member or close friend of yours that you believed them without reservation?

What are you implying? Is the VC crowd trying to assert an unduly influence into the process? That could make for an interesting conversation. The link you provided is certainly fodder for a conspiracy of some sort. If the problem of cars not stopping for bike boxes is a "known" problem by US standards then a green bike bike box is a reasonable solution to study.

What are you implying? Is the VC crowd trying to assert an unduly influence into the process? That could make for an interesting conversation. The link you provided is certainly fodder for a conspiracy of some sort. If the problem of cars not stopping for bike boxes is a "known" problem by US standards then a green bike bike box is a reasonable solution to study.
You seem to be just taking one person's word for it without even asking for the other perspective. I generally don't make assumptions about a situation until I hear both sides of a story. I look forward to hearing both sides of this story.

Conspiracy is a pretty strong word and not one I would use in this situation. I'm more of the opinion that federal bureaucratic agencies are simply resistant to most kinds of change.

I'm more of the opinion that federal bureaucratic agencies are simply resistant to most kinds of change.

While the above is a given there is still a process for change that we should support and should be under our scrutiny. There is a major problem it seems with too many things in regards to bicycling and the (Federal) Government that the processes is not transparent. I understand your comment but it is not my failing that the processes is not transparent so I can only report one side. This is an open forum and anyone with better information is free to chime in and I wish they would and no I am not making a long distance call to Portland to get the full story that is a bit much to ask of me IMHO.

While I support your desire to hear both sides of the story attributing the lack of not presenting the other side to my personal failings is a bit much.

Barry,

I don't know much about Portland moving forward with bicycling accomodations in excess of federal guidelines, I live 200 miles further north. However, anecdotally,

40 years ago, no one even knew what a bike lane was.

I watched a presentation from some Danish transportation engineers. their official approach was to just build it, and watch and measure the results IN PROCESS. I think it has led to well accomodated communities with very high bicycling modal shares.

Portland is likely approaching in the same way- faced with no official mandate on design, and an interest in change and progression of accomodation R&D, it's a work in process.

That paper Donna referenced was a thinly veiled VC propaganda piece - sounds like the NCUTCD is loaded with fanatic forosterites- Really,the audacity of the chair of the NCUTCD to proclaim 80 percent reductions in accidents thru cylist training? Wonder where he got THAT rotten, unverified goose egg from....

I watched a presentation from some Danish transportation engineers. their official approach was to just build it, and watch and measure the results IN PROCESS. I think it has led to well accomodated communities with very high bicycling modal shares.

It is this process of watching and measuring results results that I want to support. Unfortunately I have observed two major errors in the states:

Bikeway advocates that support a design that should work even though it has been shown that it does not (or they don't care to do any sort of proof.)
VC advocates that oppose a design that should not work even though it has been shown that it does work (or they don't care to do any sort of proof.)


Right now my suspicions are that one of these errors (or a slight variant) are in play right now in Portland.

I am curious to know if any of the NUTCD-BTC rides a bike regularly... Beyond being a "park rider."

I know the chair has been cycling regularly for decades.

Al

I think the bike people in portland should be the subject to a few lawsuits.

If a traffic engineer made two traffic lanes and put a possible right turn lane to the left side of a possible straight thru lane and my family member was killed I would sue.

Bingo! The only through traffic to the right of a right-turn-optional lane is pedestrians, and, trust me, this is a bad enough situation. Putting a through bike lane to the right of a right-turn-optional lane treats cyclists as pedestrians, rather than as vehicle drivers.

I am not rabidly VC (e.g., I am never too ashamed to execute a two-part left turn or to ride contraflow for one block on a sidewalk to avoid making two successive left turns), but let's at least be logical in how we organize traffic flow on our streets. I am convinced the safest way to handle right turn conflicts is to slow and calm right-turning traffic and to integrate it with bicycle traffic, permitting all parties involved to execute a proper "weave," in which the traffic formerly on the right, i.e., the cyclist, becomes the traffic on the left.

Portland will likely be the first large American city to breach the %5 modal share and it will have gotten there by reaching beyond conserative traffic engineers with a 'cars first' mentality.

attempting to ensure %100 vehicularilty in bike accomodation is perhaps the wrong way to go about increasing bicyclist numbers and safety- European countries that adopt a 'facilties heavy' model have both more cyclists across age, sex & socioeconomic spectrums AS WELL AS lower accident rates for bicyclists than the USA-

why SHOULDN'T Portland look to increase safety and numbers of bicyclists thru a series of innovative engineering designs PROVEN TO WORK in other industralized western countries? is it because american bicyclists need to think of motorists first and foremost when seeking design of more bikeable communities?

I know the chair has been cycling regularly for decades.

Al

The author of the linked paper has the following biography:


Richard C. Moeur, P.E.
Traffic Engineer I
Arizona Department of Transportation, Traffic Group
* * *
Richard is a member of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and
the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, and is a certified Effective
Cycling Instructor with the League of American Bicyclists. Richard is an Associate
Member of ITE.

that guy is a VC tool, a forestorite anti-facilities plant. He proclaims something overlooked in facilities design is cyclist training :eek: ???????, and "cyclist training leads to 80 percent reduction in bike accidents" a highly dubious, unverified forestorism. What an effin TOOL! (and these people are entrusted with design of public road space?)

Since these applications have been PROVEN to work in other countries, Barry, why shouldn't Portland move past the conservative, antifacilites slant of the NCUTCD, design and implement infrastructure in excess of minimum NCUTCD standards?

I do not think anyone can logically accuse me of being a VC tool. I support bicycle-specific facilities where traffic speeds and potential for movement conflicts are high (the ultimate scenario being the access ramps of limited-access freeways -- I support freeway shoulder access for cyclists but acknowledge the need to loop up off and back on at each ramp set), but I support full integration of all traffic modes at residential and business district speeds of 25 mph / 40 kph. I generally support traffic calming and speed limit reductions.

As for the effect of cyclist training on the rate of cycling-related incidents, one has to look only at the at-fault statistics compiled by various cities. I would argue that proper cycling technique would have eliminated almost all of the incidents in which the cyclist was at fault, plus a significant fraction of those in which the motorist was officially at fault, but which the cyclist could have prevented through proper defensive driving.

___

***** 1 April 2008: 135th anniversary of the birth of Sergei Rachmaninoff *****

I've been calling Richard Moeur, chair of the NCUTCD, a vc tool. his proclamation that cyclist training should have some bearing on facilities design is particularily odious.

do you sit on the NCUTCD, john?

Hmm... Sounds like Portland's bike boxes are causing quite the stir. The CG list is humming. THC has his panties up in a wad because he can't have any influence over what Portland does - like he wants to start a turf war or something. gosmsgo want to sue on some sort of standing or another. It's like Christmas in... what is it now... April!

I'm proud of my sister city. Good for you Portland. Way to have some balls on the issue. You would think that true bicycle/ist advocates would allow room in their thinking for the possibility that they don't have all the answers and might be happy that a city with some balls is willing to produce data for them about a new type of bicycle facility, free of charge. But no. I mean, it's like in a bicycle race when the guys at the back of the pack are yell at the guy pulling. *****, if you want the pack to go faster, get up front and do some work yourself! (Sorry, got bicycle racing on my mind. Just completed my first race as a Cat4. Sixth place.)

Maybe next week sometime I'll head on up and try these new bike boxes out. Sounds fun.

Since these applications have been PROVEN to work in other countries, Barry, why shouldn't Portland move past the conservative, antifacilites slant of the NCUTCD, design and implement infrastructure in excess of minimum NCUTCD standards?

First off I am not sure who is against Portland building Bike Boxes but it's not me and my impression it is not the NCUTCD-BTC ether. What is under fire is Portland's methodologies of studying effectiveness of Bike Boxes.

If you guys want to install what has been proven to work in other countries great but where is the separate cyclists signal and the lead timing for the cyclists signal that goes with bike boxes in other countries? If you guys are stopping short of fully implementing what has been proven to work in other countries you are in uncharted territory.

Remember, Barry- Danish traffic engineers, faced with no clear design mandates on yet unimagined bike infrastructure, took the PROACTIVE approach of building and adapting facities as they went- if they would have waited to study every reiteration of public space use, nothing, or very little, would have gotten done.

Perhaps america faces a serious obstruction in the process?

I have faith that even american motorists can begin to understand variations in road striping, Barry.
European motorists driving on 'facilites heavy' public road space seem to have gotten the idea. The dubious notion anything other than strict 'vehicularity' being impossible for motorists or bicyclists to grasp falls flat.

Bike boxes work in other countries, Barry. Portland painting them green has got the chair of the NCUTCD all obstinate?

where are the advanced traffic signals? Seem a bit hung up by the chair of the NCUTCD ....

As for the effect of cyclist training on the rate of cycling-related incidents, one has to look only at the at-fault statistics compiled by various cities. I would argue that proper cycling technique would have eliminated almost all of the incidents in which the cyclist was at fault, plus a significant fraction of those in which the motorist was officially at fault, but which the cyclist could have prevented through proper defensive driving.

One of the things that really bothers me about the proper cycling education argument is that wrong way cycling is very prominent in the crash stats and is fairly obviously not proper bike riding. I really have to wounder about the mechanisms that keep wrong way cycling as such a popular urban myth of safe cycling. I'll assert that the lack of cyclists comfort on todays roads is a major contributer to maintaining that myth.

Perhaps america faces a serious obstruction in the process?

All I know is what I know and granted even that is limited (to one side) on this topic. One of the reasons why I started this thread is to help facilitate getting information out there on this non-transparent processes. If anyone has any info on obstruction of the process I would welcome that but to date all we really have is wild speculation (which would not surprise me if it was true but without any facts there is not much we can do about it.)

THC has his panties up in a wad because he can't have any influence over what Portland does - like he wants to start a turf war or something.

I'm sorry if I come across that way but I don't think that summarizes my position well at all.

I really have to wounder about the mechanisms that keep wrong way cycling as such a popular urban myth of safe cycling. I'll assert that the lack of cyclists comfort on todays roads is a major contributer to maintaining that myth.

What makes you so sure that cycling mechanisms are adapted by cyclists for their own safety/myth because of a belief in safetymyths? Do you also believe that lack of comfort on certain types of roads is also a myth and that there is no objective reason for cyclists to seek alternative methods, not taught by VC-indoctrinated educators? - Even sidewalk cycling instead of parallel high speed/dense traffic roads with conditions considered by cyclists (with real time awareness of the situation) to be hostile to their cycling activity?

What makes you so sure that cycling mechanisms are adapted by cyclists for their own safety/myth because of a belief in safetymyths? Do you also believe that lack of comfort on certain types of roads is also a myth and that there is no objective reason for cyclists to seek alternative methods, not taught by VC-indoctrinated educators? - Even sidewalk cycling instead of parallel high speed/dense traffic roads with conditions considered by cyclists (with real time awareness of the situation) to be hostile to their cycling activity?

You are absolutely unbelievable. Are you advocating for cyclists to ride against traffic??? Are you arguing that sidewalk cycling is preferable to having on-road considerations for cyclists??? If not please read more carefully before you put words in my mouth. I thought I was clear that the lack of comfort on certain roads is real but how some cyclists deal with the lack of comfort in an unsafe manner, specifically the so called safety of riding against traffic, which is based on a myth, I made no mention of sidewalks. Go fight your imaginary VC windmills with someone else.

The real problem with Portland's experiments is that the state of Oregon has a mandatory bike lane law, so that you are required to use whatever facilities are provided, whether they work / are safe or not. I wouldn't have any problem with what Portland is doing if I was able to ignore it if I didn't think it was safe.

...I thought I was clear that the lack of comfort on certain roads is real but how some cyclists deal with the lack of comfort in an unsafe manner, specifically the so called safety of riding against traffic, which is based on a myth, I made no mention of sidewalks. Go fight your imaginary VC windmills with someone else.

It always strikes me as funny that the cylists I see blowing through red lights are usually also the ones that duck back onto the footpath immediately afterwards. Seems to me a kind of skewed sense of potential threats. The big pity is that the poeple that would most benefit from a bit of training are the least likely to seek it out.

Personally, I reckon that, given the person already has a drivers license, and knows how to operate a bike they could be taught everything they need to know about riding in traffic in about half an hour. Everything after that is just practice.

As for Portland, I'm with THC. Kudos to them for trying out something 'new', but shame on them for not putting anything in place to study their effectiveness.

The real problem with Portland's experiments is that the state of Oregon has a mandatory bike lane law, so that you are required to use whatever facilities are provided, whether they work / are safe or not. I wouldn't have any problem with what Portland is doing if I was able to ignore it if I didn't think it was safe.

I thought there was an 'unless impractacable to do so' clause in the Oregon law. ISTR it failed somewhat in trying to be too specific, though, and it's certainly apparent that the police don't really understand what constitues 'impracticable' from the cyclist's perspective and therefore apply the law blindly without even considering why the cyclist left the bikelane.

That said, it's probably more practicable to have the law modified to something a bit less dogmatic than to try and get it removed completely, so maybe that could be a fallback if advocacy efforts to have it removed fail. (Local advocates are fighting it, I presume). And, of course, educating the police wouldn't hurt either.

You are absolutely unbelievable. Are you advocating for cyclists to ride against traffic??? Are you arguing that sidewalk cycling is preferable to having on-road considerations for cyclists???
No, I am challenging your casual use of the cryptic concept of "popular urban myth of safe cycling" as a motivating factor for other cyclists, and the need for self appointed experts to dispel these superstitious cyclists of their belief in these "myths" through some sort of myth busting education scheme.

Who/what is your source of info about this "popular urban myth of safe cycling" and its affect on cyclists' behavior? Is it the same one sided source as your info about the Portland bicycling programs?

admittedly, I've only ridden about 250 miles in the greater Portland area in the last year, but was never bothered by notions of mandatory use. I rode as a vehicular cyclist in and out of bike facilities without censure.

I use a virtual 'bikebox' positioning when I approach long signals or lights I can still see the white man glowing solid on the cross walks. I know it is a bonifide vehicular cycling technique to move into 'bike box' position after filtering to the head of the line.....I move into or ahead of crosswalks sometimes, usually not.

Reading the chair of the NCTUCDs' opinions on advanced traffic signals or the use of bike boxes, its readily apparant he is against the use of treatments shown to work in other industralized countries with much higher modal shares as well as lower cyclist accident rates.

As for Portland, I'm with THC. Kudos to them for trying out something 'new', but shame on them for not putting anything in place to study their effectiveness.

I don't think it is that they are not doing anything to study the effectiveness of new stuff, they are not following the guidelines of the NCUTCD-BTC in studying the effectiveness of new stuff.

No, I am challenging your casual use of the cryptic concept of "popular urban myth of safe cycling" as a motivating factor for other cyclists, and the need for self appointed experts to dispel these superstitious cyclists of their belief in these "myths" through some sort of myth busting education scheme.

Who/what is your source of info about this "popular urban myth of safe cycling" and its affect on cyclists' behavior? Is it the same one sided source as your info about the Portland bicycling programs?

Ok I'll bite, what is your expert opinion on the motivation for cyclists to ride against traffic if it is not that they feel it is safer? What is your source of information that cycling against traffic is safer then cycling with traffic? Do you agree or disagree that cycling against traffic has a significant representation in bike/car crashes? What is your source for that information?

We need to clear up the basic non-cryptic assumptions here before we can delve into the cryptic urban myths of safe cycling.

I don't think it is that they are not doing anything to study the effectiveness of new stuff, they are not following the guidelines of the NCUTCD-BTC in studying the effectiveness of new stuff.


OK. Either way, SHAME!

its interesting, we were talking at the bike shop today about portland bike boxes and bike specific traffic signals.

Here in seattle there are two intersections that have 'all cross' ped&bike specific signal phases, and one with a bike advocate influenced but still bike&ped specific signal for crossing intersections with heavy daily traffic flows..

Nonmotorized signal phases can and do work in other cities; portland should go ahead and start placing bike and ped specific phase lights to complement the bike boxes as well. the obstructionist nature of a 'cars first' federal traffic control board shouldn't impede portlands facilities design.

Seattle is placing their first bike box at an intersection being redesigned for greater pedestrian and bicyclist safety later this year, i believe.

Ok I'll bite, what is your expert opinion on the motivation for cyclists to ride against traffic if it is not that they feel it is safer? What is your source of information that cycling against traffic is safer then cycling with traffic? Do you agree or disagree that cycling against traffic has a significant representation in bike/car crashes? What is your source for that information?

We need to clear up the basic non-cryptic assumptions here before we can delve into the cryptic urban myths of safe cycling.

Assumptions is what the issue is all about. Your assumptions, that is. I am not making any about why people do not ride "perfectly safe" 100% of the time or any other fraction of their cycling. I particularly don't assume their reason/motivation is some sort of psychobabble-derived belief in myths (nor taboos/superstitions). I also don't assume that a belief in "urban safety myths" motivates motor vehicle operators to be less than perfect and indifferent about the letter of the law in their driving habits

I didn't make any issue out of the relative safety of wrong way riding or any other non-approved techniques, only your fabricated assumptions about the reason, and presumably the myth busting fix. There is no reason for me to provide numbers or information supporting my doubt in your guesswork. You made the unsubstantiated claims (i.e. assumptions) about "urban safety myths" motivating cyclist behavior; I called you on it. End of story until you state what those myths are and what makes you think anybody is motivated by them.

Assumptions is what the issue is all about. Your assumptions, that is. I am not making any about why people do not ride "perfectly safe" 100% of the time or any other fraction of their cycling. I particularly don't assume their reason/motivation is some sort of psychobabble-derived belief in myths (nor taboos/superstitions). I also don't assume that a belief in "urban safety myths" motivates motor vehicle operators to be less than perfect and indifferent about the letter of the law in their driving habits

I didn't make any issue out of the relative safety of wrong way riding or any other non-approved techniques, only your fabricated assumptions about the reason, and presumably the myth busting fix. There is no reason for me to provide numbers or information supporting my doubt in your guesswork. You made the unsubstantiated claims (i.e. assumptions) about "urban safety myths" motivating cyclist behavior; I called you on it.

Your argument #1:
No assumptions!
Nothing can be determined on what motivates people and nothing can be done to change their behavior so nothing should change.

Your argument #2:
If I say the tooth-fairy is a myth
And since JF's myths are all bogus
Therefore the tooth-fairy myth is also bogus.

Your argument #3:
It does not matter if the tooth-fairy is real or not it is calling the tooth-fairy a myth, that is the problem.

Your Argument #4:
Since some bike facilities have been shown to reduce wrong-way riding by as much as 80%, the reason why the bike facility worked must be because that the cyclists were uncomfortable without bike facilities, which is an assumption so therefore bike facilities are a bogus myth busting fix and we should make every effort to call people on that error that bike facilities cannot possibly work because we found an assumption in there somewhere.


End of story until you state what those myths are and what makes you think anybody is motivated by them.

All wrong way cyclists I have talked to ride that way for a perceived increase in safety. If you have information that contradicts my observation then please share. You have offered no facts here but are highly offended by the word myth which is basically a belief in the lack of facts, and you seem to have an over abundance of a lack of facts.

A myth is fictional, not based on fact. Without a agreed upon common ground about the facts about wrong way riding and whether it is safe or not there is no way for me to prove that the belief that riding against traffic increases safety is a myth. If you are unaware of the numbers and facts about wrong-way riding I am at a total loss on how to respond.

I'm sorry but there are so many errors here I cannot possibly continue any semblance of a reasonable discussion with you.

the obstructionist nature of a 'cars first' federal traffic control board shouldn't impede portlands facilities design.

If you get more information on this assertion please let us know. And congrats on more bike/ped friendly signal timing.

Remember, Barry- Danish traffic engineers, faced with no clear design mandates on yet unimagined bike infrastructure, took the PROACTIVE approach of building and adapting facities as they went- if they would have waited to study every reiteration of public space use, nothing, or very little, would have gotten done.

Isn't this how many of the first US highways were built too?

I agree at some point that experimentation is warranted. However, no one here has really given any evidence -- other than a conversation -- that Portland authorities have failed to collect and evaluate the situation. Of course, no one has given any evidence that they have done so either.

But as a person who sees how things work politically -- at least at the federal level -- it is a much more complicated process than I ever thought prior to working here. Moreover, reversing a decision is typically much more difficult than executing it in the first place. That is, once you get these bike boxes -- perhaps much like the bike lanes that go up to the intersection -- Portland cyclists might find it pretty difficult to get rid or them.

If bike boxes are executed as a trial -- that is, we build a few, collect data, and then decide whether to pursue -- and government is well-functioning, then personally speaking, I would go along with it. Particularly if you believe that Portland cyclists have more political clout than the average US cyclist.

Let Portland try these out and see if they work. I haven't yet heard of the bike lane law in Oregon being actively enforced and I've lived in the Northwest for thirty years. Last night I was riding in the road alongside a particularly unusable bike lane (SW Terwillegar Blvd. near Tryon Creek,) a cop drove right by me, didn't notice my "violation".

believe me, the mandatory bike lane laws are enforced in Portland. Certainly not by every cop in town; but rather, selectively by specific members of the traffic division motorcycle squad.