John Forester

Wsbob, I do not know who you are, but you are obviously no more than a propagandist for the disgraceful way that Oregon treats cyclists. Not that Oregon's laws are much different from most American traffic laws about cyclists. The laws that you now advance are extremely similar to the laws in the rest of the nation (with the exception that few states have the mandatory sidepath law), and have been discussed extensively. It does no good to proclaim, as you have done, that the basic law for cyclists gives them the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles (universal, that is) when more powerful laws, the mandatory as-far-right-as-practicable law, the mandatory-bike-lane law, and the mandatory-sidepath law simply remove the right to use most of the roadway, and prohibit any use of the roadway for significant portions of the road system. You need to learn much more about the subjects on which you choose to pontificate.

John Forester

I repeat, Wsbob, whomever he is, has just repeated his foolish argument about the rights of cyclists in Oregon without answering the issues raised by my first reply. I repeat, Oregon's laws for bicycle traffic are quite typical of the laws across the nation and have been discussed endlessly. That Wsbob seems to have discovered these issues for his first time doesn't make his discussion become news to anyone. If Wsbob chooses to attempt to demonstrate that Oregon's laws do not have the legal effect that we have already concluded from knowledge of the nation's typical bicycle traffic laws, he is welcome to try, but I suspect that it would require some very strong legal knowledge and understanding to come up with anything new in this discussion.

John Forester

If you will note, Wsbob admits that it is safer at bike-box interections and bike-lane intersections, for the cyclist to move into the main through traffic lane than to use the bike lane, even when it leads to a bike box. This he says, is a movement that is allowed by Oregonian traffic law. Well, yes, and no, both. Wsbob uses this argument to demonstrate the legality of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, when, in truth, the laws state, and the public believes, that cyclists do not have that right. This is all the standard American absurdity about traffic law for cyclists. First, cyclists have to be given the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles. If they did not have that, they would be trespassers on the roadways and limited to walking on sidewalks, and would not have the right to recovery from those who cause them injury. Then the specific laws for cyclists alone deny them the rights to use most of the roadway, sometimes prohibiting all use when there is a bike path alongside. Oh yes, these are the laws that the public remembers, because most of the public are motorists and these laws that discriminate against cyclists please motorists. Then, tagging along behind the big second set of laws is a third set of laws that attempt to give back to cyclists the rights to obey the normal traffic laws that have just been taken from them. That had to be done, because denying cyclists the right to obey the normal traffic laws, the laws for all drivers of vehicles, had turned out to be dangerous. The result is a confused mass of legal contradictions that nobody understands. The proper thing to do is to retain the law giving cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, in the case where the state does not define bicycles as vehicles (which Oregon does, but then goes back on its word), and to repeal the confusing rest.

hagen2456

Very interesting facts about cycling in Holland

wsbob

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.

John Forester

Wsbob now had provided another demonstration of his propagandistic belief in superstitions, by asserting that those who criticize Oregon's traffic laws for cyclists (which, as I have been careful to repeat, are quite typical of those in most states) are "The wiseacres and cranks bitter about more bikes on the road." That's the standard claim made by bicycle advocates and bikeway advocates about opposition to their cyclist-inferiority policy. Those of us who form that group of cyclists have spent much time and effort in teaching people to cycle properly so that they will enjoy cycling more and use it better.

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.

wsbob

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.

John Forester

America's laws concerning bicycle traffic are very similar across all states. There are the old versions of the side-of-the-road law and the mandatory-side-path law that were introduced into the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944. These have largely been superseded by the new versions of the side-of-the-road law and the mandatory-bike-lane law that were developed in California in the early 1970s. I was the only cyclist permitted on the 9-member committee charged by the legislature to recommend changes to California's traffic laws for cyclists, a committee whose other 8 members were all motoring officials of one kind or another. I was frequently on the losing end of 8:1 votes. The purpose of the committee was to do what motorists wanted, to write a mandatory-bike-lane law to limit cyclists to bike lanes wherever built and to introduce the older mandatory-side-path law from the UVC, to prohibit cyclists from using the roadway at all wherever a side path existed. We cyclists managed to prevent the enactment of the dangerous mandatory-side-path law, but we had to accept a mandatory bike-lane law and a strengthened side-of-the-road law. The wording developed in that committee for California was then largely adopted into the UVC, from which it served as the model for all the states that chose to update their older laws. Sure, there is some variation from state to state, depending on the process of adoption and enactment, but not a great deal. These are the facts. I was there, as a principal participant. I know what was done, why it was done, and who did it, and this was all published thirty-five years ago and repeated since.

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.

B. Carfree

While technically true, there's not much to this. According to the American Community Survey, the percentage of commuters in the state of Oregon is remaining quite flat at around 2% (2.1% in 2008, 2.3% in 2011) and even in the Portland Metro area things have stagnated at a similar value (2.0% in 2008, 2.3% in 2011). Still, that's better than I'm seeing in Eugene, OR where we have lost one-third of our bike commuters over the past couple of years. And remember, this stagnation (and decline for my area) is happening in the face of what my car-bound friends assure me is a staggering run-up in gasoline prices.

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.

agent pombero

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!

hagen2456

Both of you are probably on the motor lobby payroll.

Or wait... perhaps you're both anti-motoring?

wsbob

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.

hagen2456

Same here

John Forester

Don't make such silly assertions. For years I rode 25 mile time trials at between 22 and 23 mph, and I regularly rode the mountain route for the double centuries, finishing in about 12.5 hours.

genec

But today, as an older gent, having to deal with motor traffic, do you still ride? Or has your decreasing speed brought on by advancing years made it more difficult for you to maintain the speed which you feel is somewhat important in Effective Cycling?

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.

John Forester

I did not write that Oregon had copied California directly. I wrote that the Californian laws became adopted into the Uniform Vehicle Code, which served as the model for individual states to adopt. Indeed, since Oregon chose to combine the mandatory-bike-lane law and the mandatory-sidepath law into one, different wording had to be used. However, the basic structure of the Oregon law follows the UVC model, 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. The lists of exceptions are the same, with their wordings very similar. That's no coincidence.

John Forester

You wrote: "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."

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.

Bekologist

Don't you recall - the original discussion involved a public criticism of forester methods of traffic integration (while braking the law about hand signals for fear of losing control, but i digress) in the context of dutch and danish cycling - with pictures!




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....

John Forester

I have repeatedly stated that speed is not a requirement for obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. My present lower speed does mean that I require a longer gap in traffic to make lane changes, but it does not mean that I don't do such changes.

John Forester

So here's Bek bringing up the signalling discussion, accusing me of breaking the law by signalling only when other vehicles are affected. Here's part of the legal history. Up to 1962, the Uniform Vehicle Code required signalling only when other vehicles were affected. In 1962 the NCUTLO removed that qualification, obviously feeling that almost all motor vehicles then on the road had been equipped with self-cancelling turn signals. However, the UVC is not the law, but a recommendation for states to follow. But not all states removed the qualification of signalling whenever another vehicle would be affected. California, not a backward state about traffic law but rather a leader, still retains the former wording "in the event that any other vehicle may be affected by the movement". I have not checked to see how many states use each form of this law. But in any case, Bek is incorrect when he argues that failure to signal when no other vehicle will be affected is violating the law. In California, and presumably many other states, this is perfectly legal.

Bekologist

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.

wsbob

"...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: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420

agent pombero

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.

John Forester

I have never instructed cyclists to not use hand signals.

John Forester

You haven't read my response. Go back to read it. I can have just as much enjoyment cycling on the roads in my area as I can on most bike paths, and maybe more in the case of bike paths infested with chaotic traffic.