StanSeven

We just deleted a couple posts with name calling of other members. Let’s keep the discussions insult free. Thanks.

Leisesturm

That's the fail right there. You and anyone else who didn't "feel" it was safe could simply ignore it ... why bother then?? Indeed. So the U.S. has the fewest number of non-recreational cyclists in the developed world. And that's fine. What doesn't make sense is that those few that do throw a leg over expect infrastructure. Seriously? What city is going to pony up millions of dollars to implement cyclist accessible crossing signals, sharrows, bike boxes, traffic calming ... who for? 2,000 people in ?? million? Portland, OR that's who. You're welcome.

Leisesturm

I was taking the bus home yesterday and watched in disbelief as a cyclist sat at a red light for which there is no cross-traffic whatsoever. I don't mean there wasn't any traffic at the moment, I mean there was literally no cross street. It is a red signal meant only to allow safe pedestrian crossing through Lloyd Center Mall. There were no pedestrians either that late in the evening. If this is what "cyclist training" would inculcate, I want no part of it. I've commuted daily in Portland, OR for 15 years and would not need both hands to count the number of times I've seen Salmon.

It is extremely rare. Two things irk the VC crowd. Cyclists that "hug the curb" and "cyclists that run red lights". I guess we can add "cyclists that ride the wrong way". You don't need training classes for cyclists to get rid of that. I'm not paying to have some "expert cyclist" tell me to "take the lane". I know when to take the lane and when not to. Cyclists are NOT being killed because of anything they did wrong. Thousands of cyclists are injured because of stuff they did wrong, but usually those that are killed were operating per accepted conventions. Better infrastructure period. Not just for cyclists. Better infrastructure overall in the U.S. would go a long way to making everything that moves on a road or street safer. Bike boxes? If I was running things in Portland there would be no need for bike boxes because there would not be ANY non-essential vehicle traffic east of Sunset or West of Gateway! It makes zero sense to have millions of cars and trucks blasting through urban corridors all day long, with just one driver, on streets designed for 1/5 the density.

Even though I think bike boxes are an answer to a question no one really asked, I do not understand why the o.p. is in such a wad over them. They aren't that new. I saw a couple as far back as when I first moved here. They were much smaller than the ones that have been put in recently but everyone seems to be taking things in their stride. Why is someone clean over to the other side of the country getting so wound over some bike boxes in Portland, OR? Drivers here see all manner of things cyclist related. They've come to expect it. So have cyclists. I can't see that it much affects traffic but if it does ... GOOD. Traffic is no one's friend. Traffic and the proliferation of traffic through more efficient vehicle flow is encouraging the use of more vehicles. By the time most of you realize what an utterly disastrous plan of action that is it will be too late. It probably already is too late. But that is no reason to double down on stupid. At least in what time remains, people can cycle and walk around in relative safety if traffic is constrained by speed and access restrictions.

jack pot 

i agree........................................... but didn't this thread start 15yrs ago and since it seems to be an enduring issue i wonder why no one has brought it up in the interim so i guess it's because no-one really gives a **** about easing bicycle use and it is obvious that the law designers have no appreciation for how their implementation is without praise or merit

Leisesturm

Oh Good Lord, this is a zombie thread? Whhhhyyyyyy?

3alarmer 

.
...this thread actually predates Portlandia on TV. Cool.

I-Like-To-Bike

Just curious - were the deleted posts recent or were they posted back in the discussions of 2008?

Leisesturm

Recent. The thread was rebooted by I don't know who and it looks like just about all the new posts are gone.

genec

No doubt some training of riders who are not experienced dedicated cyclists can result in better statistics.

Even though I had been a commuter and long distance cyclist, I took the classes, just to see what was being taught, and who attended. Of the group of about a dozen riders, I was the only experienced cyclist in the group.

The experience of the others ranged from park rider to not quite knowing how to shift (and not being aware of cadence over grunting for effective riding).

I commend those folks for wanting to learn, and their desire to get active. I also commend the classes for offering decent instruction in street cycling without and "debate" RE vehicular cycling. The rights of cyclists were emphasized, as was co-operation with other road users.

I suspect that if statistics were taken reguarding traing, then yes, significant improvement could be shown... For such a group.

But, beyond novice riders... The issues cyclists fare are quite largely due to road designs that are auto- centric and are focused on throughput vice safety.

The reality is that most road and traffic engineering in America has largely ignored pedestrians and cyclists. This, in spite of the fact that we are ALL pedestrians at some point in our day.

genec

Does the situation still exist?

And yeah, I just noticed I responded to someone I have not seen here in years.

79pmooney

I've lived in Portland since '98. Commuting by bike and riding around the city a lot. Best area for biking I'd lived in by a lot. (Boston, Oakland, Ann Arbor, Seattle,) It's gotten better but I keep running into the Seattle traffic planner's favorite move. Making big changes to areas such that those who drove or rode those areas and knew them well but hadn't been there for a year or so are thrown for a loop. New separated lane across a small bridge on my original bike commute when I moved to Portland. Came around the bend; view blocked by a building that's stood there 50/100 years. And there's a post defining this new bike lane right in my path! Slammed the brakes and made into the path, but what the hey?

Now that I know, that post and the needed slow aren't a big deal but a needed slow at the start of a bridge? Does anybody a the planning level actually ride a bike?

The bike lane southbound on Broadway. Two lane one way street with parking as you pass PSU. Runs between the parallel parked cars and the sidewalk. Doors to the left, pedestrians to the right. If you ride it fast enough (slight uphill) you can make every light. If not, that last half dozen blocks is a slow process. I feel like I'm rolling the dice every time I ride that stretch. I felt considerably safer in the old days when I just took a lane far enough out that I was clear of all doors. I barely slowed traffic and it worked well. I also notice that nearly everyone riding that stretch now are riders like me. Good bikes, experienced and riding that stretch to get from downtown to the start of the sweet parkway and it's climbs. Very few slow commuters, college kids ... (Aren't those people what this lane was designed for? Seems they've found better routes.)

My huge issue isn't with green boxes or separated lanes. It's city planners and traffic engineers that are going out of their way to make cycling less safe and less convenient for those of us who've been riding forever.