Brian Ratliff

Honestly, I could care less what others think. I'm not sure why you are so bothered by this. People's perceptions can change. And they happen to change more quickly with the appropriate legal constructions in place.

randya

Roger's comments exemplify PDOT's position on bike lanes. Note that nowhere does Roger ever state that the city is concerned or interested enough to review the existing bike lanes, as constructed, for safety issues. He later cites flawed accident statistics to 'prove' how safe the SW Broadway bike lane is, yet I know of several unreported doorings that occurred in this bike lane. The police also systematically decline to file reports on bicycle accidents. The accident reporting system relies on crash victims to self-file a report with the state DMV. Motorists are theoretically required to do this by law, but cyclists are not. Roger also simply accepts as gospel that more miles of bike lanes = more cyclists. Earlier in that same bikeportland.org thread I challenged anyone to prove a cause and effect relationship. A simple correlation between increases in the number of miles of bike lanes and increases in cyclist numbers proves nothing.

genec

If cyclist ridership goes down in locations without BL but goes up in locations with BL is that correlation enough for you?

How do you want it proven? What specific data would it take to show a correlation between cyclists and BL?

There was a federal transportation study that showed this... but all the anti BL folks said that the report was flawed due to the funding.

Brian Ratliff

Randy,

You are right, there is no causation, only correlation. It is very difficult to figure out causation because of the shear number of variables involved. But there does seem to be a large correlation between bike lanes and number of cyclists on the road. Having more cyclist's on the road is probably the single most important thing to shoot for with regards of increasing safety of all cyclists. The more motorists encounter cyclists in their daily rounds, the easier it is for motorists to treat cyclists and cycling facilities correctly. Cyclists are only rendered irrelevent when there are few cyclists around to stake their claim to the road. All the common problems with bike lanes, with harrassment, with "knowing what to do around a cyclist" go away with familiarity. I've seen this in just the 5 years since the last time I seriously commuted in the Beaverton/Hillsboro area. Oddly enough, the "betterment" of cycling conditions I have seen has been proportional to the cycling facilities (mostly bike lanes) in place.

I understand that the suburbs and the city are different and let me reiterate that I am not behind a bike lane on intercity one-way streets. Too many problems. But this post I reposted here brought a new perspective. It is a valid one too. And it is one too often missed here on BF because of the lack of these type of riders frequenting this forum.

Brian Ratliff

But at the same time, it disproves nothing either.

A correlation, especially a relatively strong correlation such as this, puts "bike lanes" in the category of a possible "cause." You must have correlation before you can have causation. In this way, a correlation is not on the same plane as "nothing." I'd challenge you back to bring up some research showing an alternative possible "cause" that shows the level of correlation that bike lane miles has.

That is, if you accept the correlation. If not, you also have the task of showing exactly why the numbers showing a correlation are invalid; not in the hocus pocus way of throwing up dirt, but in the delving into details way of actually showing how their methods of data collection lead to erronious results. In the grand bike lane debate, it is all too common to simply dismiss numbers on their face with some half-a$$ed remark that "they didn't account for such and such and that makes the numbers worthless." No, to counter the numbers, you have to show that "such and such" would make a significant difference. Not by hand waving - by actually doing the study (or drawing from another study) showing how your "such and such" variables make a very large difference.

Now, to be clear, self reported numbers such as for none fatal accident reports, are unreliable. I'm not refering to those. I am refering specifically to your dismissal of data showing a strong correlation of bike lane miles to ridership.

withak

That's what you would do, but everyone will do it at a different distance from the intersection. People turning left will need more time to get across to the left lane so they will move earlier while those going straight may try to stay in the bike lane as long as they can, or they may move over early to make sure they don't suddenly cut of a car while getting out of the turn lane. Then afterwards they all try to move back over to the right back into the bike lane. You end up with a zone around every intersection with bicyclists changing lanes all over the place, which defeats the purpose of putting an extra lane in to keep bikes seperate from the rest of the traffic.

In stretches of road with few intersections this in't much of a problem, but in places with traffic controls every block or two you might as well just stay in the lanes with the rest of the traffic.

joejack951

Bike lanes are stripes of paint marking off space on the roadway that, in someone's opinion, cyclists should (and sometimes are forced) to use. More often then not, this space is not where a safe cyclist would be riding (up against cars doors, curbs, across drainage grates, on the dirtiest section of the road). The fact that they make some cyclist forget they are riding in traffic should not be viewed as a plus. If you are riding on the same roads as other vehicles, you are part of traffic and you should be paying attention to it.

randya

You could probably make a similar correlation between the number of bicyclists and the rise in Portland's under 30 year old population. It would probably be as valid if not more so than the correlation with the number of miles of bike lanes.

For that matter, you could probably correlate the number of bicyclists to the price of gas, the cost and availability of parking spaces, or the number of microbreweries in Portland.

Lots of things correlate, but demonstrating that the correlation has a cause and effect relationship is substantially more difficult and requires irrefutable proofs, not loose speculation.

steveknight

come on now. for once the police here in portland actualy don't turn a blind eye to cyclists and everyone is complaining acoud getting signled out. seldom are cyclists given tickets most go to motorists.

CommuterRun

Sounds to me like it's either harassment, or there's a lot of ignorant, incompetent cops in Portland.

Hopefully, every cyclist that was issued a citation contests it in court. If enough get thrown out, it could be the basis for a class action suit against the city.

The flip side to this is, the cyclists who got cited for doing something that was actually illegal deserve it.

Don't know about OR, but in FL there's no requirement to use a BL just because one is present. The confusion on the issue (people mistakenly thinking the presence of a BL requires it's use) is why FL, as a state, doesn't support BLs, but does require paved shoulders on all new construction and repaving projects. Less confusion in this regard with a paved shoulder.

I-Like-To-Bike

Are there shoulders on the CITY streets of Florida? I've never seen a shoulder on a city street before. Am I or you confused?

CommuterRun

No, I don't think you're confused.

To be honest, I'm not sure how this applies to urban areas where there is limited space to allow for road width. But I do know that in rural areas, such as where I live, these shoulders are required by state law.

An aside, I do remember hearing about a ritzy area, down in south Fl I believe, that fought the law and got an exemption because of the fear that paved shoulders would allow the "riff-raff" to use the road as a corridor. After the project was completed, the rich snobs started complaining about cyclists slowing them down by taking the whole lane. I think the state told them something along the lines of, "Tough beans, they have every bit as much right to the road as you do and you're the ones that wanted the exemption." <not an exact quote>

I also remember the director of state something getting fired and reassigned to another department over this.

I've contacted my source for more accurate and detailed information and will post it as soon as I get it.

genec

Well frankly in places with traffic control every block... such as a downtown area... which typically have 25MPH speed limits... I find Bike Lanes very useless. So on this we agree.

I prefer to see bike lanes on higher speed boulevards and arterials. I would prefer feeders, side streets and residential areas to be BL free.

CommuterRun

I think this might answer your question, ILTB, at least I hope it does.

335.065 Bicycle and pedestrian ways along state roads and transportation facilities.--

(1)(a) Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities, including the incorporation of such ways into state, regional, and local transportation plans and programs. Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any state transportation facility, and special emphasis shall be given to projects in or within 1 mile of an urban area.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), bicycle and pedestrian ways are not required to be established:

1. Where their establishment would be contrary to public safety;

2. When the cost would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use;

3. Where other available means or factors indicate an absence of need.

(2) The department shall establish construction standards and a uniform system of signing for bicycle and pedestrian ways.

(3) The department, in cooperation with the Department of Environmental Protection, shall establish a statewide integrated system of bicycle and pedestrian ways in such a manner as to take full advantage of any such ways which are maintained by any governmental entity. For the purposes of this section, bicycle facilities may be established as part of or separate from the actual roadway and may utilize existing road rights-of-way or other rights-of-way or easements acquired for public use.

Now, I'm not a Judge, but I think in urban areas (1)(b) applies.

The more I hear about bike lanes, the more steadfastly convinced I become that they are for the convenience of motorists, not the safety of cyclists.

randya

Signals are timed for 12 - 15 mph in downtown Portland (It doesn't mean a significant number of motorists don't drive faster, trying to make lights and such, but I never see any tickets being issued for this behavior).

ZachS

the nice thing is that they can't drive much faster unless they run reds. i love being able to ride from madison (or further south) to burnside on 3rd without stopping or being passed.

randya

Most of the speeders I see downtown are people making rights on red and then trying to catch the next light down the block on the cross street.

donnamb 

So some non-Oregonians were asking some questions about the traffic laws here:

1) Do bikes have ROW over cars when they are in the bike lane? Yes, but there are specific situations that allow a car to be in bike lane space.
2) Are bikes required to be in a bike lane if there is one present? Yes, but with exceptions.
3) It is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalks in downtown Portland.

donnamb 

I rode to and from work on Thursday and Friday, and decided not to change my route or routine despite people apparently getting tickets for making the same legal manuevers I make daily. I rode past several of the same police officers that I usually see every day, and that was that. Not a word except from a couple of the bike cops that regularly exchange friendly greetings with me in the mornings.

I have to wonder if the traffic cops that were issuing tickets for legal manuevers on Wednesday don't normally work downtown. Perhaps the traffic division borrowed officers from another division? Downtown really is an entirely different cycling environment from the rest of the city. If you never went downtown, you'd have a very different impression of what it's like to ride a bike in Portland.

randya

The traffic division works the entire city. Bicycle enforcement actions occur on Wednesdays. Cops are creatures of habit.

Brian Ratliff

To some people, a wrench is just a hunk of shiny metal. To others, it is something to turn a bolt. To the former, the shiny metal is heavy, has sharp edges, and, of course, doesn't make a very good hammer. To the latter, the wrench is used to turn bolts, and when something needs hammering, he lays down the wrench and picks up a hammer.

Wogster

The issue could also be, based on complaints, and this is where bike clubs and groups should concentrate their efforts. It's work, but it will help in the long run, see a car committing a traffic violation, then call the police NON emergency number, especially if you can get a plate number, have the plate number, date, time and exact location, call and complain. The police blotter will have so many complains about motorists, that a similar campaign going after motorists is sure to follow.

Are there people on bicycles committing infractions in Portland, well, most likely. If I had a dollar for everytime I saw someone riding on a sidewalk in the last year, I could buy a Trek Pilot 5.2 and have enough left over to buy the Pink WSD version for my significant other. Whether she would ever use it is a another question

If you think a law is stupid, then get it changed, and don't tell me you can't, you can, you just need to know the proper way to go about it. Start with your local representative for the proper level of government, write them a letter, telling them about why you think a specific law should be changed, include what law, which act, section, subsection, why you think it should be changed -- it's stupid doesn't get you very far -- ask them how to go about doing it. Trust me, they will know exactly how it's done, and many will be quite willing to help you, even if they disagree with you, there is a whole process, and you need to be able to follow it, exactly, the process of making laws, is by necessity very exact.

randya

It's not about stupid laws, it's about profiling and selective enforcement, and what constitutes appropriate policing for public safety.

Wogster

Bike lane laws are stupid, it's a special lane, similar to a HOV lane, you don't see laws that say buses must stay in the HOV lane do you?

Here is the key, cyclists need to make it impossible to write tickets, always have the proper safety equipment, including at least a front brake on a fixie, helmet, reflectors, lights, etc. Always ride as if you have a bicycle cop just off your rear tire, the police will give up on harassing cyclists, and start going after motorists, real fast, it gets boring watching law abiding riders all the time

donnamb 

Randy's right - it's not about the law needing to be changed. The law says a cyclist can travel in a left lane of a one way street, period. Good law. Yet people apparently received tickets for that behavior. I don't see what kind of changes you can make to the law if a police officer either doesn't know it or doesn't care.

Then there are the bike lane tickets. The law says you can leave the bike lane to execute a left turn, and there were tickets for that, too. Now I could see where this could be a matter of different judgement calls: cyclist leaves the bike lane when s/he judges it to be safe, but the officer thinks they left it too soon. That is so subjective. What I judge adequate time/distance in a neighborhood here is totally different from what I judge downtown. Downtown can differ greatly depending on traffic conditions. My judgement differs even more when I leave the bike lane on a higher speed suburban arterial to make a left turn. I give myself a lot more distance there. I'd consider myself an "intermediate" cyclist in terms of these kinds of lane manuevers. A cyclist with more experience might not need as much distance out of the bike lane, a cyclist just beginning to ride in traffic may need more. Some of our traffic cops are cyclists and/or have been or currently are on the bicycle patrol. Many haven't been on a bike since childhood, let alone tried to ride a bike downtown since joining the police force. How can they possibly be a good judge of legal manuevers under such a subjective law? Now, I'm personally no fan of laws that require one to remain in the bike lane, but I think Oregon has a decent list of exceptions. Unfortunately, this law is only as good as who is enforcing it. I've had the opportunity to encounter some really great, level-headed cops working in the Traffic Division who even have positive attitudes about cyclists, but obviously some of the least common denominators were out working on Wednesday.

This has not been a particularly placid summer for people riding a bicycle in Portland. After the radio DJ thing and some of the road rage that stemmed from that, plus the fixie ruling less than a week before, this feels like a slap in the face. I know the police have been having Wednesday cyclist actions for quite a while, but this last one was really over the top.

I would like to see the Portland Police Bureau release a breakdown of the kinds of tickets that were issued.