Not "...we...", ...'YOU'. There doesn't seem to be comments from anybody else to this thread taking your view of Oregon bike specific law, that those laws deprive people that bike, of their legally acknowledged right to use the road.
It appears to have been common for some years, for numbers of people in Oregon to not read or gain a correct understanding of Oregon bike specific law...instead, accepting various superficially determined assumptions about what the law says, from unreliable sources. Word of mouth, incorrect, rather than actually reading the law and understanding it appears to be how certain people have come to arbitrary conclusions that their state has abolished their right to ride the road on their bicycle. Oregon has some people that are convinced Oregon's bike lane specific laws represent a taking of people's right to ride bikes on the road. They could consider working with their legislators to either correct or rescind the law. We may soon see whether they do or not. Oregon's biennial session starts up this coming January.
I did not offer my opinion about relative safety of bike lanes compared to main lanes or bike boxes. What I said was, (excerpting from 2nd from bottom paragraph of my quote above.): "...the boxes are just something the city has been experimenting with at certain intersections. They're not that great to use, because, for example, it's awkward to actually get into a box ahead of a motor vehicle that's already at an intersection waiting for a light to change. Bike boxes themselves or cyclists actions either influenced by them or not, don't seem to have contributed to or caused collisions or close calls between motor vehicles and bikes.
By the way...Hagen and Yama...thanks for the mention about reports of police in the countries you mentioned, citing people for not riding on bike specific infrastructure, where it exists. That may eventually happen in Oregon, but so far, as I said before, it rarely has. Read ORS 814.420 (2) for the glitch partly responsible for cyclists not being cited under the law. Adjustment in Oregon, to people biking on roads, is an evolving thing. Increasing numbers of people do ride. Reactions to more people on the road vary, but my impression is that, ongoing questions of paying for the infrastructure aside...it's generally and widely recognized that more people using bikes to commute and have fun, is a good thing for Oregon. The wiseacres and cranks bitter about more bikes on the road seem definitely to be the minority, though a loud minority.
Last edited by wsbob; 12-04-12 at 06:46 PM.
Furthermore, Wsbob claims that a better knowledge of bicycle-specific traffic laws (he writes about Oregon's, but, I repeat, Oregon's laws are practically word-word for word typical of those in nearly all states) would persuade people that, indeed, these laws do not take away much of the right to use the roadway. He uses the standard exception argument, that the exceptions written into the laws prohibiting the use of much of the roadway do indeed, in many cases, restore the original right to use the roadway according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. But that is precisely what I have been arguing is the great defect in such laws. That is, that the public has come to the conclusion that those laws deny cyclists the right to use most of the roadway, which is a correct understanding of the purpose of such laws, while it is only the specialists in traffic law who can come to the understanding that the rights just denied are now restored, although only partially and for those who know the words of the laws.
The deliberately confusing state of American bicycle-specific traffic law is designed to persuade the public that cyclists do not have the right to use most of the roadway while providing legalistic exceptions to protect that law from being invalidated by being held to be an inappropriate discriminatory use of the police power. Wsbob understands nothing of this; he thinks, as does Bek, that the present cyclist-inferiority policy and practice is just fine.
John...I'm not saying people criticizing Oregon's bike specific laws are the wiseacres and cranks bitter about more bikes on the road. People driving motor vehicles that basically don't want bikes on the road at all, are the are the people I'm referring to by those terms.
I couldn't readily accept your word that Oregon's bike lane use laws are "...word-word for word typical of those in nearly all states...". Perhaps there are other readers to this thread that can. I've seen New York's, or maybe it's NYC's bike lane use law. Its language is fairly similar to Oregon's. I've read California's law, which I recall as being quite a lot different. I've posted a link to web pages offering the text to Oregon's laws. If readers here would like to post links the text of bike specific laws in their own states for a comparison, or for a reliable summary, I'd probably read them.
It's doubtful to me that here in Oregon, members of the public are widely under an impression that the law generally prohibits people from riding main lanes of the road where bike lanes, etc are adjacent or nearby. My impression is that people commonly seem to tend to be oblivious to actual reading of many of their state laws. Understanding of the law may far more commonly come by way of word of mouth rather than study of the actual law. Information from various books having a certain trendy appeal, of which your book may be one, may have fueled some of the word of mouth that's been going around some time. Ultimately, people are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe. If Oregon citizens feel discriminated against by provisions in Oregon's bike specific laws to the extent they feel the need to work to get those laws rescinded, that's fine with me. More power to them. I'll be somewhat interested to follow the progress of their efforts in the news or wherever. Meanwhile, I'm going to enjoy my right, acknowledged by Oregon law, to ride the road as needed.
Not to hijack this threads' topic about 'The facts about Cycling in Holland', in speaking of biking conditions in Oregon, city of Portland and the metro area.
Last edited by wsbob; 12-04-12 at 08:02 PM.
You, Wsbob, are the second contributor who has remarked that this is not about cycling in Holland. What you forget is that this discussion was created to bash vehicular cycling, and specifically my own views, on the premise that things were done better in Holland. You can't ignore that the initial purpose was to bash vehicular cycling and my own views; I am simply responding to the actions taken in accordance with that fact.
So, in spite of a massive P.R. blitz and a tremendous amount of effort, the Portland area is stuck in the gutter with respect to attracting people onto bikes. Or maybe the problem is that they have actually had some success in persuading people to give cycling a try, but the infrastructure they have built is so screwed up that the newbies inevitably have a horrific experience and retreat to their padded cages.
Also, that loud minority of cranks and wiseacres, whom I suspect are actually the majority, can be pretty aggressive towards any cyclist who dares to take the lane rather than ride in a door-zone bike lane. Try it some time and see what happens.
What an exciting read! I'm on page 3 now and I've come to the conclusion that John Forester is out of touch with reality. I spent about 2 1/2 hours reading several articles about VC, including from JF's website, and have concluded it is pretty elitist. John Forester, are you able to ride a bike? There is no way you're able to push those pedals beyond 15mph for any sustained amount of time. And any system that advocates that I follow the rules that cars do when it comes to stop signs and red lights...yikes! No thanks!
hey, B. Carfree... . You bold faced my statement "...Increasing numbers of people do ride. ...". concluding, based on a survey and statistics that there's not much to the to the observation that increasing numbers of people ride. I didn't say it was my personal observation that more people ride, which I should have done. I tend to regard statistics skeptically. I'd say your own personal observation, and those of other individuals about whether more people in your area are riding, despite whether or not surveys and statistics appear to contradict your personal observations, are as important and possibly as valid as conclusions drawn from statistics in surveys. In my area, Beaverton, my observation is that more people seem to be riding than they were, say...2-3 years ago. For sure, still a very small percentage of all road users, the vast majority driving or traveling by motor vehicle.
About Portland's infrastructure for cyclists being 'screwed up': You don't offer any particular examples. It's being added to in a kind of retrofit manner...not as good as from ground up I suppose as Holland and Denmark may have produced theirs in some situations, but what's been done with bike lanes on streets and on bridges seems to be received quite well and works decently. Addition of streetcar tracks is one development that's creating some havoc. No great ideas so far about how to deal with making track crossings safer.
re; on whether motor vehicle driving cranks and wiseacres disliking bikes on the road are the majority or the minority: It may be your experience they're the majority, but it's not mine. They're out there, but most of the people driving motor vehicles I'm amongst on the road, appear to be making efforts to work with me, watch out for me and signals I'm giving them with regard to where I'm going. Conditions aren't perfect by any means. They're better off the main thoroughfares where traffic conditions are less intense.
"...You, Wsbob, are the second contributor who has remarked that this is not about cycling in Holland. ..." John Forester #308
I don't recall saying that. Doesn't really matter, because the more important subject is about what transportation infrastructure used around the world offers potential for improvements to opportunity to travel by a wider range of travel mode than motor vehicles. Holland and Denmark are two countries with prime examples of such infrastructure.
And with regards to your work in California, helping to draft that states' bike lane use law...that's all well and good, but Oregon is not California. Oregon doesn't necessarily do things the way the state south of us does. I'd have to dig it up and re-read California's text for bike specific laws to be sure, but as I said before, I recall it being different than Oregon's law.
Hagen #311...a job working for the motor lobby. What's that pay? Probably big bucks. I could use some. Not that they'd hire me.
Last edited by wsbob; 12-05-12 at 01:35 AM.
I ask this as I personally witnessed many older folks readily riding the various bike paths in Oulu.
Could it be that a bike path system encourages folks to ride bikes regardless of age and athletic ability? I notice older folks often seem to enjoy cycling on the few paths we have here in San Diego around Mission Bay.
This is cycling advocacy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1d1gaRQ2ZM
So is this: http://www.railstotrails.org/resourc...A_20081020.pdf
Perhaps you weren't reading then, but your reply is disingenuous, because this group was specifically set up to provide for bashing vehicular cycling and specifically the views of John Forester, rather than promoting the activities and conditions in Holland and Denmark.
When considering the subject of urban transportation, it certainly is important to study and understand such examples as the cities of Holland and Denmark. When those cities have, for about twenty years or so, been the models that American bicycle advocates have admired and advocated for use in America, this emphasis becomes particularly important. But it is even more important, for Americans, to understand their own system of urban transport, first because they have to live and operate within it, second because without that understanding it is impossible to work out the probable effects of trying to import bits and pieces of the European systems. I don't deny that their systems work in their societies and conditions; my criticism of their systems is directed at what would need to be done when trying to important parts of their systems into the American system of urban transport. I write only for American cyclists operating under American conditions.
the anti cyclist versus the facts about Holland
the following link is more representative of the drubbing franklin and forester got by the department of transport blogger over their methods of honk honk! behaving like a motor vehicle that spurred the discussion topic of the original post.
Franklin and Forester - two quacks in a pond full of Dutch cyclists
John might want to pay particular attention to the quote in the following pic from the department of transport criticisms of the furtive elitisms of vehikular cykling as a planning ideology for bicycle traffic....
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-05-12 at 11:23 AM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
california traffic laws requires hand signals anytime traffic might be affected - which means a legal requirement to actually use hand signals in traffic, john, not like your method of specifically calling to NOT use hand signals - is totally beside the point... and NOT what i'm talking about.
Last edited by Bekologist; 12-05-12 at 12:08 PM.
"Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."
"...with a first statement that cyclists are prohibited from using much of the roadway followed by a list of exceptions under which that prohibition does not apply. ..." John Forester
In other words, where exists on or at bike lanes, bike paths, etc, what could be any one of or number of situations or conditions from what would be a very long list of bike lane and bike path situations or conditions covered under the list of exceptions directly part of the law, people biking in Oregon Are Not Prohibited from riding main lanes of roadways where bike lanes, MUP's, cycle tracks are adjacent to the roadway.
For any readers that would like to study Oregon's bike specific laws for themselves, here again, is the link to a site providing the text for ORS 814.420, and by the way, on the sidebar to the left of the page, also links to other Oregon bike related laws: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420
Last edited by wsbob; 12-05-12 at 01:12 PM.
John F. hasn't gotten back to us on whether his advanced years make EC difficult for him to do, or if he even rides at all. I think that is really sad. Although older, he can still ride a bike on an enjoyable bike path. A few days ago I saw a couple on the waterfront riding very slowly (10mph) side by side talking and laughing. They were at least 70 years old! My hope is that John throws his old racing legs over the saddle and rides on a sweet bike path and has a great time doing so. John, have you ever been to Portland? If you are ever here we should ride together om the Springwater corridor, take photos, and drink some beers.