Portland: Police Enforcement Downtown this Morning
08-04-06, 03:04 PM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
How can you even begin to think that it's not harassment when the police were handing out tickets for something as obviously legal as using a left turn to make a left turn?
08-04-06, 03:05 PM
#77
Senior Member
What circumstances would there be that would make it illegal for a cyclist to leave a bike lane to make a left turn?
08-04-06, 03:12 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
What circumstances would there be that would make it illegal for a cyclist to leave a bike lane to make a left turn?
08-04-06, 03:15 PM
#79
Senior Member
If that was the case, then the ticket wouldn't be for using a left turn lane, it would be for leaving a bike lane. Based on what I read, cyclists were ticketed for using the left turn lane explicitly.
08-04-06, 03:23 PM
#80
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by joejack951
If that was the case, then the ticket wouldn't be for using a left turn lane, it would be for leaving a bike lane. Based on what I read, cyclists were ticketed for using the left turn lane explicitly.
08-04-06, 03:47 PM
#81
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
1) focusing enforcement efforts on cyclists instead of on traffic.
I know you probably meant "on cyclist traffic instead of on motor traffic", but that's not what you wrote. Any time we are excluded from "traffic", we usually get screwed.
08-04-06, 03:52 PM
#82
Senior Member
Originally Posted by joejack951
How can you even begin to think that it's not harassment when the police were handing out tickets for something as obviously legal as using a left turn to make a left turn? When's the last time you heard of a motorist getting a ticket for using a left turn lane? It's BS and you should be outraged by it. If the advocacy efforts in Portland were really working, the police would know the laws.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there probably were only 23 tickets given and of those, a majority were for equipment violations and red light violations. Yea, there were probably some erroneous tickets given since the specific laws for cyclists are not well know, but that, the court will unravel.
I'm beginning to think that many of the tickets, most perhaps, were deserving. I've not even heard one first hand account of a ticket being given erroneously. Anyone? Randy, you said some of your coworkers were ticketed. Were those legit?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
08-04-06, 03:55 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Just a friendly reminder... cyclists are (part of) traffic, not separate from traffic.
I know you probably meant "on cyclist traffic instead of on motor traffic", but that's not what you wrote. Any time we are excluded from "traffic", we usually get screwed.
I know you probably meant "on cyclist traffic instead of on motor traffic", but that's not what you wrote. Any time we are excluded from "traffic", we usually get screwed.
What I meant was "on cyclist traffic instead of on all traffic." And that's what I think I wrote-- that it would be harassment if the PPB was focusing on cyclists instead of on traffic. If the PPB focuses on traffic enforcement, cyclists will be included in that enforcement effort, without being targeted by that enforcement effiort.
08-04-06, 04:01 PM
#84
Senior Member
Originally Posted by joejack951
If that was the case, then the ticket wouldn't be for using a left turn lane, it would be for leaving a bike lane. Based on what I read, cyclists were ticketed for using the left turn lane explicitly.
No, you remember wrong. It is impossible to get a ticket for using the left turn lane because the procedure is codified into law and the bike lane law makes a specific exemption for this practice. The ticket was for leaving a bike lane. A third party mentioned off hand in the comments following the BikePortland.org article that a cyclist was cited for a bike lane violation wrongly because he was making a left turn. If so, it will be overturned without effort as the exception is explicit. Otherwise, it is all heresay. Perhaps the cyclist needed to make two left turns in a row a couple blocks apart and merely stayed in the left lane between those two turns instead of crossing the street to get to the bike lane. If this was the case, then a successful fight against the ticket would establish the correctness of the cyclist's approach. If not, then the lobbying arm of the BTA has something to do.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
08-04-06, 04:09 PM
#85
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
I've not even heard one first hand account of a ticket being given erroneously. Anyone? Randy, you said some of your coworkers were ticketed. Were those legit?
Westbound at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge, the solid striped bike lane ends at SW 1st, but continues on SW Main to SW 2nd w/ a dashed line. I usually leave the bike lane at the west end of the bridge and move to the left lane (of a 2 lane one-way) at or before SW 1st, for four reasons:
1. RTOL for traffic turning right on SW 2nd. These motorists have to cross the bike lane to get into the RTOL, and many don’t look for bicyclists. (Road widens from two lanes + BL to two lanes + BL + RTOL)
2. Busses cross the bike lane to access a bus stop in the RTOL between SW 1st and SW 2nd. (one poster on bikeportland.org said he had been clipped twice here by busses)
3. Traffic in the right lane backs up at SW 4th and Main due to high level of pedestrian activity by the County Courthouse at SW 4th, another bus stop between SW 4th and SW 5th, and many right turning motorists at SW 4th.
4. I am preparing to make a left turn at SW 5th.
In other words, the last block of the bike lane on westbound SW Main (between SW 1st and SW 2nd) is unsafe due to traffic conditions, because of which cyclists should legally be allowed to leave the lane (814.420(3)(c)); and west of SW 2nd, there is no bike lane and cyclists should be legally allowed to use the left lane on the one way street (814.430(2)(d)).
I do this everyday, I'm lucky I didn't receive a ticket; when I went by they already had someone else pulled over.
This is a first hand account (posted to bikeportland.org) from one of my other coworkers:
"I left the bike lane some 200′ before it ends (coming off the sidewalk at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge I moved to the left lane because there was an opportunity to do so, thereby avoiding all the right turners at 2nd Ave.) and was cited for failure to use a bike lane. What I did was in no way unsafe, nor did I impede traffic, & for all the cop knows I could have been preparing to make a left turn on 3rd."
That's what two of the three tickets were for. Basically merging left out of the bike lane into a travel lane less than 200' from where the bike lane ends, to avoid hazardous conditions.
My third coworker's ticket was for running the light at SW Main and First. He said his view of the light was blocked by a bus due to the position of the bike lane relative to the bus, but that he entered the light on yellow and the cop gave him a ticket for failing to clear the intersection before the light went red.
08-04-06, 04:19 PM
#86
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It sounds like what the cyclists did (and what you do) was technically against the law.
Some argue the police and their strict interpetation is the problem here.
Others says it's the law that's the problem.
I say the above are inevitable with bike lanes, and the only solution is to eliminate the bike lanes, which cause more problems than they solve for bicyclists.
I know, I know. Same old song. But one these days you'll hear the tune and start humming it yourself. In the mean time, good luck with the police and the law.
Some argue the police and their strict interpetation is the problem here.
Others says it's the law that's the problem.
I say the above are inevitable with bike lanes, and the only solution is to eliminate the bike lanes, which cause more problems than they solve for bicyclists.
I know, I know. Same old song. But one these days you'll hear the tune and start humming it yourself. In the mean time, good luck with the police and the law.
08-04-06, 04:26 PM
#87
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
It sounds like what the cyclists did (and what you do) was technically against the law.
Some argue the police and their strict interpetation is the problem here.
Others says it's the law that's the problem.
I say the above are inevitable with bike lanes, and the only solution is to eliminate the bike lanes, which cause more problems than they solve for bicyclists.
I know, I know. Same old song. But one these days you'll hear the tune and start humming it yourself. In the mean time, good luck with the police and the law.
Some argue the police and their strict interpetation is the problem here.
Others says it's the law that's the problem.
I say the above are inevitable with bike lanes, and the only solution is to eliminate the bike lanes, which cause more problems than they solve for bicyclists.
I know, I know. Same old song. But one these days you'll hear the tune and start humming it yourself. In the mean time, good luck with the police and the law.
Right now a BL is no different than any other lane on the road... and as motorists are not restricted from any other lane or BL, neither should cyclists. All BL are at this point is a navigational "aid."
08-04-06, 04:55 PM
#88
Senior Member
Originally Posted by randya
This is my own understanding of what two of my three coworkers were erroneously ticketed for:
Westbound at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge, the solid striped bike lane ends at SW 1st, but continues on SW Main to SW 2nd w/ a dashed line. I usually leave the bike lane at the west end of the bridge and move to the left lane (of a 2 lane one-way) at or before SW 1st, for four reasons:
1. RTOL for traffic turning right on SW 2nd. These motorists have to cross the bike lane to get into the RTOL, and many don’t look for bicyclists. (Road widens from two lanes + BL to two lanes + BL + RTOL)
2. Busses cross the bike lane to access a bus stop in the RTOL between SW 1st and SW 2nd. (one poster on bikeportland.org said he had been clipped twice here by busses)
3. Traffic in the right lane backs up at SW 4th and Main due to high level of pedestrian activity by the County Courthouse at SW 4th, another bus stop between SW 4th and SW 5th, and many right turning motorists at SW 4th.
4. I am preparing to make a left turn at SW 5th.
In other words, the last block of the bike lane on westbound SW Main (between SW 1st and SW 2nd) is unsafe due to traffic conditions, because of which cyclists should legally be allowed to leave the lane (814.420(3)(c)); and west of SW 2nd, there is no bike lane and cyclists should be legally allowed to use the left lane on the one way street (814.430(2)(d)).
I do this everyday, I'm lucky I didn't receive a ticket; when I went by they already had someone else pulled over.
This is a first hand account (posted to bikeportland.org) from one of my other coworkers:
"I left the bike lane some 200′ before it ends (coming off the sidewalk at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge I moved to the left lane because there was an opportunity to do so, thereby avoiding all the right turners at 2nd Ave.) and was cited for failure to use a bike lane. What I did was in no way unsafe, nor did I impede traffic, & for all the cop knows I could have been preparing to make a left turn on 3rd."
That's what two of the three tickets were for. Basically merging left out of the bike lane into a travel lane less than 200' from where the bike lane ends, to avoid hazardous conditions.
My third coworker's ticket was for running the light at SW Main and First. He said his view of the light was blocked by a bus due to the position of the bike lane relative to the bus, but that he entered the light on yellow and the cop gave him a ticket for failing to clear the intersection before the light went red.
Westbound at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge, the solid striped bike lane ends at SW 1st, but continues on SW Main to SW 2nd w/ a dashed line. I usually leave the bike lane at the west end of the bridge and move to the left lane (of a 2 lane one-way) at or before SW 1st, for four reasons:
1. RTOL for traffic turning right on SW 2nd. These motorists have to cross the bike lane to get into the RTOL, and many don’t look for bicyclists. (Road widens from two lanes + BL to two lanes + BL + RTOL)
2. Busses cross the bike lane to access a bus stop in the RTOL between SW 1st and SW 2nd. (one poster on bikeportland.org said he had been clipped twice here by busses)
3. Traffic in the right lane backs up at SW 4th and Main due to high level of pedestrian activity by the County Courthouse at SW 4th, another bus stop between SW 4th and SW 5th, and many right turning motorists at SW 4th.
4. I am preparing to make a left turn at SW 5th.
In other words, the last block of the bike lane on westbound SW Main (between SW 1st and SW 2nd) is unsafe due to traffic conditions, because of which cyclists should legally be allowed to leave the lane (814.420(3)(c)); and west of SW 2nd, there is no bike lane and cyclists should be legally allowed to use the left lane on the one way street (814.430(2)(d)).
I do this everyday, I'm lucky I didn't receive a ticket; when I went by they already had someone else pulled over.
This is a first hand account (posted to bikeportland.org) from one of my other coworkers:
"I left the bike lane some 200′ before it ends (coming off the sidewalk at the west end of the Hawthorne Bridge I moved to the left lane because there was an opportunity to do so, thereby avoiding all the right turners at 2nd Ave.) and was cited for failure to use a bike lane. What I did was in no way unsafe, nor did I impede traffic, & for all the cop knows I could have been preparing to make a left turn on 3rd."
That's what two of the three tickets were for. Basically merging left out of the bike lane into a travel lane less than 200' from where the bike lane ends, to avoid hazardous conditions.
My third coworker's ticket was for running the light at SW Main and First. He said his view of the light was blocked by a bus due to the position of the bike lane relative to the bus, but that he entered the light on yellow and the cop gave him a ticket for failing to clear the intersection before the light went red.
I agree that these two were cited wrongly. The law leaves a lot up to the judgement of cyclists and we need to make sure that the way the law is enforced is in congruence to common practice amongst cyclists.
We also need to discern exactly what problem is being solved by having a mandatory bike lane law and decide whether we need to rewrite the law wholesale. My position up to this point was that it didn't matter because enforcement practices were in congruence with best practice cycling technique. This still may be the case, and it may be that the law as it is written needs to be clarified.
However, if the police bureau insist in enforcing a practice which runs counter to best practice cycling techniques, then the law must be changed. If so, we need to be careful to understand why the law was written the way it is; i.e. what motorist's concerns are regarding having the law such worded. If we propose a wholesale rewrite to the law, then we must make it bulletproof, yet at the same time, be sensitive to those concerns to ensure it's passage.
The Portland Police Bureau must understand that the practice of leaving the bike lane is not about who is inconveniencing who. It is not a game of "put the ticket to the cyclist to annoy them." It's about bicycling in the safest way possible to prevent serious injury and harm.
I urge the ticketed cyclists to play their part in the process by fighting the erroneous tickets wholeheartedly and making use of the large network of cyclists, advocates, lawyers, and lobbyists in the effort to make cycling safe in the city. Portland seems committed to making cycling a primary means of transportation. It is time to put some action to those words.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
08-04-06, 05:13 PM
#89
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
There is no law against using a left turn - hence there would be no law to cite on the violation. Both the driver's manual and the cyclist's manual includes left turns from the left turn lane as a method for cyclists to make a legitimate left turn.
No, you remember wrong. It is impossible to get a ticket for using the left turn lane because the procedure is codified into law and the bike lane law makes a specific exemption for this practice. The ticket was for leaving a bike lane. A third party mentioned off hand in the comments following the BikePortland.org article that a cyclist was cited for a bike lane violation wrongly because he was making a left turn. If so, it will be overturned without effort as the exception is explicit. Otherwise, it is all heresay. Perhaps the cyclist needed to make two left turns in a row a couple blocks apart and merely stayed in the left lane between those two turns instead of crossing the street to get to the bike lane. If this was the case, then a successful fight against the ticket would establish the correctness of the cyclist's approach. If not, then the lobbying arm of the BTA has something to do.
No, you remember wrong. It is impossible to get a ticket for using the left turn lane because the procedure is codified into law and the bike lane law makes a specific exemption for this practice. The ticket was for leaving a bike lane. A third party mentioned off hand in the comments following the BikePortland.org article that a cyclist was cited for a bike lane violation wrongly because he was making a left turn. If so, it will be overturned without effort as the exception is explicit. Otherwise, it is all heresay. Perhaps the cyclist needed to make two left turns in a row a couple blocks apart and merely stayed in the left lane between those two turns instead of crossing the street to get to the bike lane. If this was the case, then a successful fight against the ticket would establish the correctness of the cyclist's approach. If not, then the lobbying arm of the BTA has something to do.
08-04-06, 05:21 PM
#90
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Leave the bike lanes and change the law... that works too.
Originally Posted by trackhub
...
This is one area where the anti-facilities group does have a point. Myself, and several Boston area cyclists have been yelled at from passing cars, when we have used Mass Ave instead of the minuteman bikeway. It's simply the way shopping mall nation thinks.
At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise.
This is one area where the anti-facilities group does have a point. Myself, and several Boston area cyclists have been yelled at from passing cars, when we have used Mass Ave instead of the minuteman bikeway. It's simply the way shopping mall nation thinks.
At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise.
Originally Posted by genec
In fact, make bike lanes a protected zone just like sidewalks, and make it illegal to drive in them (except for momentary crossings while yielding to cyclists) or park in them and give cyclists ROW when they ride in BL... then they really do have "inherent safety" built into them.
Right now a BL is no different than any other lane on the road...
and as motorists are not restricted from any other lane or BL, neither should cyclists. All BL are at this point is a navigational "aid."
Your suggested changes won't matter, because they're already in effect. What you see is as good as it gets. Oh sure, they could improve the surface here and there, and certainly make them wider, but in terms of changing the law... there is no way they could make them any more "protected zones" than they already are. It's as good as it gets, buddy, and it sucks. They're good for motorists, because they help keep cyclists out of their way so drivers feel (wrongly) like they don't have to think or even notice cyclists that are on the roadway (treat them like peds walking parallel to the street on sidewalks - irrelevant), but they only make matters worse for cyclists. When are you going to get it?
08-04-06, 05:28 PM
#91
Senior Member
Originally Posted by joejack951
I stand corrected. But will leave with: No bike lanes = no stupid laws.
Cycling/motorized vehicle interactions are still too laissez faire for lawmakers to know enough to restrict what I do out on the road beyond the basics of riding on the with traffic and stopping at lights. Bike lanes are strictly a tool, and a useful one at that. But I don't want to be restricted to using a hammer when what I really want to use is a drill just because some lawmaker doesn't know what a screw is and has only heard of nails.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
08-04-06, 05:38 PM
#92
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: in bed with your mom
Posts: 13,696
Bikes: who cares?
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Hopefully they are looking to fight it?
08-04-06, 05:44 PM
#93
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
I will, instead, put my energies into making sure I am not restricted to using them.
"At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise."
08-04-06, 06:02 PM
#94
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Your suggested changes won't matter, because they're already in effect. What you see is as good as it gets. Oh sure, they could improve the surface here and there, and certainly make them wider, but in terms of changing the law... there is no way they could make them any more "protected zones" than they already are. It's as good as it gets, buddy, and it sucks. They're good for motorists, because they help keep cyclists out of their way so drivers feel (wrongly) like they don't have to think or even notice cyclists that are on the roadway (treat them like peds walking parallel to the street on sidewalks - irrelevant), but they only make matters worse for cyclists. When are you going to get it?
If my suggested changes were in effect... including giving cyclists ROW in a BL, motorists hitting cyclists in BL would be automatically cited for failing to yield ROW... right now there is no implied ROW by the use of a BL. Period. Motorists would be required to stop and look before crossing BL.
As it is, motorists have no fear of crossing a BL stripe... none. They treat them the same as any other line on the street (which is my point) If motorists treated them at least like a double yellow, that alone would be an improvement.
What happens if a motorist hits a ped in a crosswalk... that motorist is cited for failing to yield.
Of course none of this means a thing if it is not enforced... such as the incidents of motorists not yielding to peds right now in crosswalks... clearly illegal, yet not enforced, so motorists feel carte blanche and get away with murder... literally.
How is that any different from the current situation in San Diego...
08-04-06, 06:07 PM
#95
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Leave the bike lanes and change the law... that works too. In fact, make bike lanes a protected zone just like sidewalks, and make it illegal to drive in them (except for momentary crossings while yielding to cyclists) or park in them and give cyclists ROW when they ride in BL... then they really do have "inherent safety" built into them.
Right now a BL is no different than any other lane on the road... and as motorists are not restricted from any other lane or BL, neither should cyclists. All BL are at this point is a navigational "aid."
Right now a BL is no different than any other lane on the road... and as motorists are not restricted from any other lane or BL, neither should cyclists. All BL are at this point is a navigational "aid."
08-04-06, 06:08 PM
#96
Senior Member
Food for thought in this discussion, taken from a comment on the BikePortland.org site. In the US, what bicycle commuters there are, they are fast. The fast ones who love cycling are also typically the first adopters of bike commuting, with slower cyclists following their lead.
Both the cycling community and the law needs to recognize that cyclists bicycle for different reasons. We cannot kick slower cyclists who don't want to ride on a road without bike lanes off the street (or threaten their transportation choice with a "get educated or else..." type of advocacy), but we cannot ignore that some cyclists like to go fast and can take care of themselves in traffic. I try to straddle the line. I enjoy going fast. But I understand that not everyone likes to go fast. I can take care of myself in traffic because, in learning to bike commute, I had to. But I understand that many people don't want to deal with car traffic.
We keep having binary "either/or" discussions on this topic. But there is no black and white in this world. Only grays of various shades.
Originally Posted by comment #60 from BikePortland.org, RE: bike lanes
Roger Geller
August 4th, 2006 13:04 60
In my professional capacity I appreciate bike lanes (and all the facilities we’ve built) because I’ve seen the increase in ridership that correlates with having them.
On a personal level I appreicate them even more. Here’s a story about my first experience with a bicycle lane: In 1992 I moved here with my family from Somerville, MA (an urban burb of Boston). I rode my bike to work in Downtown Boston almost every day (not in winter). I was perfectly comfortable with this–I had my speedy road bike, I had my cleated shoes, I had my lycra. Life was good.
Soon after moving here I took a ride (same bike, lycra, shoes, etc.) up to Marine Drive and came back south via some street and ended up on Burnside where I entered a bike lane…and I relaxed. I noticed the feeling of relaxation because it was so unexpected and so foreign. I never realized I’d been tense riding a bicycle. I just rode. Everywhere. But, when I hit that bicycle lane I noted this distinctly unknown feeling I was having. I wasn’t totally relaxed; I was still on the street after all. But, I no longer worried about the cars behind me. I no longer worried about holding up those people stuck behind me. I no longer worried as much about somebody doing something rash. It was a revelation.
Here’s another story: once I started working in Downtown Portland I commuted from NE down NE Broadway. I put on the same lycra, shoes, same speedy road bike, and rode fast down Broadway–keeping up with traffic–running red lights to stay ahead of the queue. I made good time. I was also typically the only cyclist on the road or Broadway Bridge at the time. Of course, there were other cyclists, but we were so small in numbers and scattered across time that I saw them infrequently during the 14 minutes it took me to get to work. Then, the City striped Broadway with a bicycle lane. I started riding slower. I wore regular work clothing. I got a more comfortable hybrid and ditched the speedy road bike for commuting. I no longer needed a shower when I got to work. I no longer needed to change my clothes. The ride was much more pleasant for a number of reasons. Now, repeat this scenario several hundred more times (and then some) and you’ve got a pretty good explanation for why bicycling has increased so much. For, more importantly, I was no longer the only cyclist out there on my daily commute. Now, I’m never the only cyclist–even in the dead of winter. Is this attributable to the presence of bicycle lanes on Broadway and good facilities elsewhere. Yep.
Are bicycle lanes the end-all and be-all? No. Here’s my take on the SW Broadway bicycle lane (which I have ridden daily for years and have never had anything even close to a safety problem with it) and other bicycle lanes: an analogy to motoring is apt here, I think.
Automobiles are capable of going quite fast. People want to go as fast as conditions allow, and often faster. Hence, the source of much conflict between people driving cars and people in nhoods, etc. While it’s fine to go 60 mph on the freeway, we want autos to travel significantly slower on urban arterials and residential streets, even though the design of these streets would seem to allow for high speeds. Why do we want them to go slower? Because conditions merit slower speeds for safety. There are pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists and high speeds result in dangerous conditions.
Similarly, some bikeways allow for cyclists to go as fast as they can. Some don’t. SW Broadway is one of those situations where cyclists cannot go as fast as they’d like. The travel lanes are narrow. The bicycle lane is narrow. There is a lot of parking activity. There are a lot of turning movements. It’s a dense, heavily-used urban environment with a lot of activity. These are all cues that cyclists should adapt their speed to the conditions on the roadway. That’s what we want motorists to do, right?
Almost every morning I see cyclists on NW and SW Broadway doing just the stupidest things–just like I see motorists doing the stupidest things. Things that are unsafe, inconsiderate, illegal, etc. These things are generally done in the name of speed–saving time, which is ironic because I usually catch up with these cyclists (and motorists) at the next red light down the road.
While I recognize that the presence of bicycle lanes are going to offer some disadvantage to the strong and skilled cyclists among us, they also allow more of us to use a bicycle for transportation. The bicycle lanes on SW Broadway are not dangerous. Behavior poorly adapted to the conditions on the roadway is what is dangerous.
Go slow on Broadway and you won’t have a problem. If you want to go fast, then perhaps the state law needs to be changed so you can legally take the lane even in the presence of a bicycle lane. That way, those who want to safely go fast, and who are capable of it, can be in the travel lane, while those who benefit from the bicycle lane can go slowly.
Whaddaya think?
August 4th, 2006 13:04 60
In my professional capacity I appreciate bike lanes (and all the facilities we’ve built) because I’ve seen the increase in ridership that correlates with having them.
On a personal level I appreicate them even more. Here’s a story about my first experience with a bicycle lane: In 1992 I moved here with my family from Somerville, MA (an urban burb of Boston). I rode my bike to work in Downtown Boston almost every day (not in winter). I was perfectly comfortable with this–I had my speedy road bike, I had my cleated shoes, I had my lycra. Life was good.
Soon after moving here I took a ride (same bike, lycra, shoes, etc.) up to Marine Drive and came back south via some street and ended up on Burnside where I entered a bike lane…and I relaxed. I noticed the feeling of relaxation because it was so unexpected and so foreign. I never realized I’d been tense riding a bicycle. I just rode. Everywhere. But, when I hit that bicycle lane I noted this distinctly unknown feeling I was having. I wasn’t totally relaxed; I was still on the street after all. But, I no longer worried about the cars behind me. I no longer worried about holding up those people stuck behind me. I no longer worried as much about somebody doing something rash. It was a revelation.
Here’s another story: once I started working in Downtown Portland I commuted from NE down NE Broadway. I put on the same lycra, shoes, same speedy road bike, and rode fast down Broadway–keeping up with traffic–running red lights to stay ahead of the queue. I made good time. I was also typically the only cyclist on the road or Broadway Bridge at the time. Of course, there were other cyclists, but we were so small in numbers and scattered across time that I saw them infrequently during the 14 minutes it took me to get to work. Then, the City striped Broadway with a bicycle lane. I started riding slower. I wore regular work clothing. I got a more comfortable hybrid and ditched the speedy road bike for commuting. I no longer needed a shower when I got to work. I no longer needed to change my clothes. The ride was much more pleasant for a number of reasons. Now, repeat this scenario several hundred more times (and then some) and you’ve got a pretty good explanation for why bicycling has increased so much. For, more importantly, I was no longer the only cyclist out there on my daily commute. Now, I’m never the only cyclist–even in the dead of winter. Is this attributable to the presence of bicycle lanes on Broadway and good facilities elsewhere. Yep.
Are bicycle lanes the end-all and be-all? No. Here’s my take on the SW Broadway bicycle lane (which I have ridden daily for years and have never had anything even close to a safety problem with it) and other bicycle lanes: an analogy to motoring is apt here, I think.
Automobiles are capable of going quite fast. People want to go as fast as conditions allow, and often faster. Hence, the source of much conflict between people driving cars and people in nhoods, etc. While it’s fine to go 60 mph on the freeway, we want autos to travel significantly slower on urban arterials and residential streets, even though the design of these streets would seem to allow for high speeds. Why do we want them to go slower? Because conditions merit slower speeds for safety. There are pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists and high speeds result in dangerous conditions.
Similarly, some bikeways allow for cyclists to go as fast as they can. Some don’t. SW Broadway is one of those situations where cyclists cannot go as fast as they’d like. The travel lanes are narrow. The bicycle lane is narrow. There is a lot of parking activity. There are a lot of turning movements. It’s a dense, heavily-used urban environment with a lot of activity. These are all cues that cyclists should adapt their speed to the conditions on the roadway. That’s what we want motorists to do, right?
Almost every morning I see cyclists on NW and SW Broadway doing just the stupidest things–just like I see motorists doing the stupidest things. Things that are unsafe, inconsiderate, illegal, etc. These things are generally done in the name of speed–saving time, which is ironic because I usually catch up with these cyclists (and motorists) at the next red light down the road.
While I recognize that the presence of bicycle lanes are going to offer some disadvantage to the strong and skilled cyclists among us, they also allow more of us to use a bicycle for transportation. The bicycle lanes on SW Broadway are not dangerous. Behavior poorly adapted to the conditions on the roadway is what is dangerous.
Go slow on Broadway and you won’t have a problem. If you want to go fast, then perhaps the state law needs to be changed so you can legally take the lane even in the presence of a bicycle lane. That way, those who want to safely go fast, and who are capable of it, can be in the travel lane, while those who benefit from the bicycle lane can go slowly.
Whaddaya think?
Both the cycling community and the law needs to recognize that cyclists bicycle for different reasons. We cannot kick slower cyclists who don't want to ride on a road without bike lanes off the street (or threaten their transportation choice with a "get educated or else..." type of advocacy), but we cannot ignore that some cyclists like to go fast and can take care of themselves in traffic. I try to straddle the line. I enjoy going fast. But I understand that not everyone likes to go fast. I can take care of myself in traffic because, in learning to bike commute, I had to. But I understand that many people don't want to deal with car traffic.
We keep having binary "either/or" discussions on this topic. But there is no black and white in this world. Only grays of various shades.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
08-04-06, 06:08 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Good luck. Even if you succeed at making sure the law is written correctly, you still have trackhub's problem:
"At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise."
"At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise."
08-04-06, 06:11 PM
#98
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Good luck. Even if you succeed at making sure the law is written correctly, you still have trackhub's problem:
"At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise."
"At present, there is no law in Massachusetts that says you are required to use a bike lane, or MUP if one is available. But, many citizens, and some police officers, seem to think otherwise."
Have you ever talked to a motorist that did not know you were a cyclist... ask them point blank what they think of bicycles on the road (don't say "cyclist" that is a giveaway). Ask them if it is legal for "all those bicycles to be on the road."
Simple as that.
I urge all of you, if you get a chance in a public venue, to ask drivers if they know if bikers or bicycles are allowed on the streets and what the situation is.
You will get an earful... and most of it will be wrong. Could that possibly explain why drivers (motorists) tend to treat us the way they do?
If even the police do not know the laws regarding cyclists on the road... that should be an indicator that there is a problem. That problem forms the basis for the "attitudes" you face daily. It certainly forms the basis for the ideas swewed out by some radio shock jocks.
08-04-06, 06:12 PM
#99
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Blue Order
And if there's no bikelane, but there's a sidewalk, they think you belong on the sidewalk. Unless they're walking there.
08-04-06, 06:14 PM
#100
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by withak
You still often have to leave the bike lane at an intersection, either to go straight around right-turning cars or to turn left, and it's that point where you rejoin traffic that makes the lanes bad. If someone can come up with a safe way for a bike lane all the way on the right to cross over right-turners and merge back into regular traffic (unlikely) then it would be fine, otherwise every intersection involving a bike lane is just a big, unpredictable mess for bikes and cars. Unpredictable is bad.