PDX cycling report recommends removal of bike lanes
06-07-13, 11:05 AM
#51
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,725
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5793 Post(s)
Liked 2,584 Times
in
1,432 Posts
I'm not arguing that motorists should be allowed to use bike lanes. But following your argument, if traffic planners say that roads (other than bike lanes) are for motor vehicles only, you'd be fine with that, since you don't meet the requirements.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
06-07-13, 11:18 AM
#53
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
I am saying that mandatory use bike lanes force me to accept a separate but not equal position on the roads. This is a reduction of road rights that we all fought so hard to preserve decades ago, and therefore a step backward.
06-07-13, 11:24 AM
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 1,144
Bikes: Schwinn Tourist (2010), Trek 6000 (1999)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
And, I can't say I'm in favor of something as hypothetical. I mean, I would be fine with it, given a proper network of bicycle routes. If there isn't, then no, I wouldn't.
However, traffic segregation happens, and sometimes, it's best. Another example are roads restricted from use by large trucks (Such as in residential areas), and are restricted to truck routes.
Last edited by UberGeek; 06-07-13 at 12:05 PM.
06-07-13, 11:40 AM
#55
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,978
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,538 Times
in
1,047 Posts
I don't have any issues with continuing the ban (where alternatives exist) on freeway bicycling even on shoulders, because drivers on those roads expect free, unfettered lanes, and experience shows that even the shoulder isn't safe based on the large number of stranded cars and police officers that are hit while on the shoulder.
What "experience" indicates that there are "large numbers" of shoulder collisions that justify prohibition of bicycles on otherwise excellent freeway/limited highway shoulders for cycling?
My experience bike commuting in Oregon on I-80N shoulders (now designated I-84) in1979-80 was problem free, except for the dang wind.
Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 06-07-13 at 12:05 PM. Reason: clarification that riding on I-80N was on the shoulder
06-07-13, 11:59 AM
#56
----
In the early days of bike advocacy (40 years ago, not a century ago) this was a serious issue. We didn't have to lobby for equal road access because we already had that. OTOH we did fight for access at critical choke points, where there was no reasonable alternative, such as many bridges. It was an important issue because there were cases where previously accessible bridges were being converted to limited access freeway bridges.
I don't have any issues with continuing the ban (where alternatives exist) on freeway bicycling even on shoulders, because drivers on those roads expect free, unfettered lanes, and experience shows that even the shoulder isn't safe based on the large number of stranded cars and police officers that are hit while on the shoulder.
On the bike lane issue, I fear an unholy coalition of bike advocates and some city planners who want them, and motorists and traffic planners who are only too happy to have us off their roads.
I don't have any issues with continuing the ban (where alternatives exist) on freeway bicycling even on shoulders, because drivers on those roads expect free, unfettered lanes, and experience shows that even the shoulder isn't safe based on the large number of stranded cars and police officers that are hit while on the shoulder.
On the bike lane issue, I fear an unholy coalition of bike advocates and some city planners who want them, and motorists and traffic planners who are only too happy to have us off their roads.
Now, my tax dollars went to pay for that road and yet, every day I ride my bike in to work and I am prohibited from that road. Would it be fair for me to request that I be provided with an equally convenient and safe passage, "unfettered" by automobiles for my use? I mean, were I to drive downtown from my home I have a choice as a driver to get on the highway or take the local roads. The local roads almost certainly taking longer and being less convenient. As a bicyclist without separated facilities of some kind I am forced to take only one option and it is far from ideal. Why is this "fair" in your mind?
You spoke about advocating for our right to the roads 40 years ago. Did you see my post about what has changed in that 40 years? That's more than 150,000,000 more motor vehicles on the road than were on the road then. Now everyone is fighting for their right to the road. Urban areas around the world are considering or have added new "congestion fees" for road use. Parking is a catastrophe and incredibly costly. Driving a car in an urban center is becoming affordable only to the wealthy.
The US economy is inextricably linked to the automobile industry. The number of jobs that are tied to manufacturing, sales, maintenance, oil, gas etc is phenomenal. We have depended for 100 years on selling more cars than we did the year before but we are reaching the saturation point. We cannot keep clogging our cites with more cars. Something has to give. Hopefully, when I was involved in bike advocacy in the 1970's I wasn't basing my arguments on what it was like in the 1930's. Yeah, you're right in the 70's there were only certain situations which required fighting for access. Well, now its different. And it would be a mistake to argue for what we need now because by the time it gets implemented it will be too late. We have to advocate for 10, 20 years from now.
The bike infrastructure we have now is stuff that was being fought for 30 and 40 years ago so when we get complaints about its inadequacy it's because it barely serves us to day.
So, thinking ahead- how do propose solving these problems? Just fight for our right to be on the crowded highways and streets as they grow ever more congested? Don't separate bike traffic from motor vehicle traffic as the snarl gets worse and worse? Status quo?
What do you offer as solutions and alternatives?
06-07-13, 12:21 PM
#57
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
So, thinking ahead- how do propose solving these problems? Just fight for our right to be on the crowded highways and streets as they grow ever more congested? Don't separate bike traffic from motor vehicle traffic as the snarl gets worse and worse? Status quo?
Well-designed bike lanes that either fade out at intersections or involve some form of signalling should be a preferred alternative to physical separation. Moreover, they are a form of infrastructure that, absent a mandatory sidepath law, even more experienced cyclists would support.
Last edited by spare_wheel; 06-07-13 at 12:37 PM.
06-07-13, 12:32 PM
#58
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
One of the reasons that Germany repealed the mandatory sidepath law was due to evidence that it promoted conflict at intersections. Moreover, the use of contiguous markings at intersections has contributed to fatality accidents in PDX. No amount of green paint is going to protect a cyclist from being flattened by an oblivious motorist.
So, you're for a more robust network of separated facilities then. but against mandatory use laws. Welcome to the club.
Originally Posted by spare wheel
Not according to many advocates for physical-separation wherever possible (e.g. Mia Birk). You should take a hard look at the people you are so stridently defending.
My position on mandatory use in Washington.
Originally Posted by bekologist
Bicyclists have long enjoyed the rights and responsibilities of vehicle operators in Washington state, the right to travel the roads and highways of Washington. In Washington state, the roadway is the portion of the right of way improved for vehicular travel.
A bill proposing cyclists be required to vacate the improved roadway for other traffic anytime cyclists aren't traveling at a roads' legal maximum speed is an abrogation of cyclists rights and burdens cyclists with greatly weakened legal standing in the event of a collision. This is an affront to cyclists rights in Washington state and an endangerment to our legal status as road users.
The Bicycle Alliance of Washington must tirelessly seek to protect, preserve and promote bicyclists right to the roads of Washington, unimpeded by any mandatory use laws.
Laws mandating use of 'reasonable' shoulders or bikelanes are still mandatory use laws and will seriously degrade public perceptions and the legal protections of bicyclists. The reasonableness of shoulders or bikelanes should never require their use. If a shoulder is safe a cyclist will ride there. Building safer rural roads with wider shoulders is a boon to safe cycling in Washington, but mandatory use laws would be gravely detrimental to cyclists safety in Washington.
Mandatory use laws affect cyclists legal rights as road users and public perception of cycling. Mandatory shoulder and bikelane laws degrade cyclists legal standing in the event of a collision with a motorist and the cyclist was operating outside of a shoulder or bikelane. Mandatory use laws make it more difficult to support a cyclists choice of safe road position in a courtroom, and reduce motorists comparative negligence when a cyclist is outside of a bikelane or shoulder unless the cyclist can prove they were justified in riding where they did.
Mandatory use laws are an erosion of cyclists rights in Washington. Any future legislative efforts to improve cyclists rights in Washington should seek to reframe the public perception of bicyclists right to the road, to a full lane of traffic of even a wide lane if needed for their safety. Bicyclists must be free to choose a safe road position for their safety unimpeded by legal requirements to vacate the road for faster traffic if the bicyclist is not doing the speed limit.
Bicyclists by and large do not avoid safe bikelanes or shoulders. Give a bicyclist a safe wide shoulder or safe bikelane conditions and bicyclists will ride there. However, bicyclists need the mutual cooperation of their fellow road users the most when they need to take the lane for their safety. Shaping public perception that cyclists must use bikelanes and shoulders degrades acceptance of cyclists on the roadway when they need motorist cooperation the most.
Mandatory use laws should never be endorsed by any bicycling advocacy group.
Bicyclists in Washington are already required to share the road with faster traffic present by riding as far to the right as is safe. Eroding that mutual responsibility into mandatory shoulder and bikelane use anytime a bicyclist isn't doing the speed limit is an abrogation of cyclists rights in Washington, an erosion of our legal protections and public perceptions of bicycles as legally allowed vehicles on the roadways of this state.
A bill proposing cyclists be required to vacate the improved roadway for other traffic anytime cyclists aren't traveling at a roads' legal maximum speed is an abrogation of cyclists rights and burdens cyclists with greatly weakened legal standing in the event of a collision. This is an affront to cyclists rights in Washington state and an endangerment to our legal status as road users.
The Bicycle Alliance of Washington must tirelessly seek to protect, preserve and promote bicyclists right to the roads of Washington, unimpeded by any mandatory use laws.
Laws mandating use of 'reasonable' shoulders or bikelanes are still mandatory use laws and will seriously degrade public perceptions and the legal protections of bicyclists. The reasonableness of shoulders or bikelanes should never require their use. If a shoulder is safe a cyclist will ride there. Building safer rural roads with wider shoulders is a boon to safe cycling in Washington, but mandatory use laws would be gravely detrimental to cyclists safety in Washington.
Mandatory use laws affect cyclists legal rights as road users and public perception of cycling. Mandatory shoulder and bikelane laws degrade cyclists legal standing in the event of a collision with a motorist and the cyclist was operating outside of a shoulder or bikelane. Mandatory use laws make it more difficult to support a cyclists choice of safe road position in a courtroom, and reduce motorists comparative negligence when a cyclist is outside of a bikelane or shoulder unless the cyclist can prove they were justified in riding where they did.
Mandatory use laws are an erosion of cyclists rights in Washington. Any future legislative efforts to improve cyclists rights in Washington should seek to reframe the public perception of bicyclists right to the road, to a full lane of traffic of even a wide lane if needed for their safety. Bicyclists must be free to choose a safe road position for their safety unimpeded by legal requirements to vacate the road for faster traffic if the bicyclist is not doing the speed limit.
Bicyclists by and large do not avoid safe bikelanes or shoulders. Give a bicyclist a safe wide shoulder or safe bikelane conditions and bicyclists will ride there. However, bicyclists need the mutual cooperation of their fellow road users the most when they need to take the lane for their safety. Shaping public perception that cyclists must use bikelanes and shoulders degrades acceptance of cyclists on the roadway when they need motorist cooperation the most.
Mandatory use laws should never be endorsed by any bicycling advocacy group.
Bicyclists in Washington are already required to share the road with faster traffic present by riding as far to the right as is safe. Eroding that mutual responsibility into mandatory shoulder and bikelane use anytime a bicyclist isn't doing the speed limit is an abrogation of cyclists rights in Washington, an erosion of our legal protections and public perceptions of bicycles as legally allowed vehicles on the roadways of this state.
The state's largest bike advocacy organization helped craft and get the bill sponsored, i was a prime mover in getting them to retract their support and kill the bill. It was pretty touch and go for a couple of months as the bill progressed thru the legislative process, until enough heads were reached and sense prevailed.
Oh, since germany supposedly repealed the mandatory laws- which i'm not so sure about, what makes you think they can't do it in Oregon? seems like the natural progression, if that's truly the case.
06-07-13, 01:23 PM
#59
----
Talk about a strawman. First of all, there is no need for physical separation if traffic is calmed. Secondly, the whole premise of physical separation reinforces the primacy of motoring in our society. The only way we are going to get motorists to switch to bikes is if we start making motoring more inconvenient than cycling. Building a few bike sidewalks while we continue to expand highways, subsidize motoring, and prioritize motorist right of way is pointless.
Well-designed bike lanes that either fade out at intersections or involve some form of signalling should be a preferred alternative to physical separation. Moreover, they are a form of infrastructure that, absent a mandatory sidepath law, even more experienced cyclists would support.
Well-designed bike lanes that either fade out at intersections or involve some form of signalling should be a preferred alternative to physical separation. Moreover, they are a form of infrastructure that, absent a mandatory sidepath law, even more experienced cyclists would support.
1. Like it or not motoring currently is the primary means of conveyance in this country. I fail to see how providing accommodations for bicyclists reinforces that primacy. Seems to me a step away from making the automobile primary by actually acknowledging the needs of those who choose an alternative means of transportation. Would the bolstering of our commuter rail system be a way of reinforcing the primacy of motor vehicles? The rail system is, after all, a separated, independent system.
2 I am all for traffic calming and bike lanes and separated bike lanes are usually a consideration in designs for traffic calming. When appropriate makes sense to use them. If not, don't. But certainly, IMO, worth having in the toolbox.
3 I am really unsure about the objective to "start making motoring more inconvenient than cycling". Is that really what you mean? That we should purposefully make it even worse to drive an automobile? It would make more sense to me to look at the times and places where it is inconvenient, dangerous, unhealthy and less economical to keep trying to accommodate automobiles and create alternatives. In those places where it is convenient, economical and safe for automobiles then more power to them, fine by me.. Personally, I'm not interested in seeing my tax dollars spent making it deliberately worse for anyone. It smacks of a kind of shove it down their throats totalitarian way of thinking I cannot abide.
4 "Building a few bike sidewalks while we continue to expand highways, subsidize motoring, and prioritize motorist right of way is pointless." I totally agree. I have no idea where in my post you inferred that i support such a notion but, let me be clear, I don't.
5 "Well-designed bike lanes that either fade out at intersections or involve some form of signalling should be a preferred alternative to physical separation. Moreover, they are a form of infrastructure that, absent a mandatory sidepath law, even more experienced cyclists would support." I don't take issue with much of what you say here either. Whether it is the "preferred" alternative I am uncertain as to whether I would categorize it in that way. What is preferred to me is whatever is best for a specific location.
6 And just for the sake of argument I find the whole "experienced cyclists" thing pretentious. I mean aren't we all self-anointed "experienced cyclists". I can't tell you how many times I hear the, " I've been commuting by bike for over 6 months now and as an 'experienced cyclists' I have to tell you..." I'll match my cycling experience to just about anyone's but I'm willing to give as much credence to the person who just got on a bike for the first time in 20 years to some old curmudgeon who hasn't had a new idea in 30.
06-07-13, 04:07 PM
#60
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
That we should purposefully make it even worse to drive an automobile?
Whether it is the "preferred" alternative I am uncertain as to whether I would categorize it in that way. What is preferred to me is whatever is best for a specific location.
And just for the sake of argument I find the whole "experienced cyclists" thing pretentious.
Last edited by spare_wheel; 06-07-13 at 04:19 PM.
06-07-13, 04:33 PM
#61
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Since a sparse separated network is not competitive with motoring, I think finding ways to give cyclists the same kind of access that cars have should be our goal.
much ado about nothing....
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-07-13 at 04:37 PM.
06-07-13, 04:35 PM
#62
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,978
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,538 Times
in
1,047 Posts
06-07-13, 07:06 PM
#64
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
sounds like a call for a more robust network, and making it easier for people to choose to go by bike. Oh, wait- that's how things are going to roll in Portland.
much ado about nothing....
much ado about nothing....
06-07-13, 07:37 PM
#65
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
70,000 kilometers of cycle paths, in the countryside alone. who knows how many million of kilometers of bikelane and track they've got in the cities.
here's an example of facilities, german style....courtesy of wiki....
Berliners have access to 620 km (390 mi) of bike paths including around 150 km (93 mi) mandatory bicycle paths, 190 km (120 mi) off-road bicycle routes, 60 km (37 mi) of bike lanes on the roads, 70 km (43 mi) of shared bus lanes open to cyclists, 100 km (62 mi) of combined pedestrian/bike paths and 50 km (31 mi) of marked bike lanes on the sidewalks.[3]
Dont worry, spare wheel. if portland is truly going to 'rip out' some bikelanes, they're going to ensure bicycle access, and likely improve whichever traffic corridor , despite the quixotic fears. Maybe portland will have some community scoping on this, develop a bike master plan or something.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-07-13 at 07:41 PM.
06-07-13, 11:16 PM
#66
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,978
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,538 Times
in
1,047 Posts
06-07-13, 11:29 PM
#67
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
70,000 kilometers of cycle paths, in the countryside alone. who knows how many million of kilometers of bikelane and track they've got in the cities.
here's an example of facilities, german style....courtesy of wiki....
Berliners have access to 620 km (390 mi) of bike paths including around 150 km (93 mi) mandatory bicycle paths, 190 km (120 mi) off-road bicycle routes, 60 km (37 mi) of bike lanes on the roads, 70 km (43 mi) of shared bus lanes open to cyclists, 100 km (62 mi) of combined pedestrian/bike paths and 50 km (31 mi) of marked bike lanes on the sidewalks.[3]
Dont worry, spare wheel. if portland is truly going to 'rip out' some bikelanes, they're going to ensure bicycle access, and likely improve whichever traffic corridor , despite the quixotic fears. Maybe portland will have some community scoping on this, develop a bike master plan or something.
06-07-13, 11:30 PM
#68
----
But people like me, who prefer infrastructures that provide mutual benefits and advantages for as many people as possible, are only interested in what we need? You've lost me on this one.
And I hate to be the one to inform you but advocating for transportation infrastructures that deliberately make things worse for one group of users, particularly when that group of users is the dominant share, not only sounds very pretentious but seems wildly counterproductive and a dead end I would not care to run down. If your intention is to win converts to this way of thinking or to boost any of the ideas you have fostered in this thread and others you've lost me.
06-07-13, 11:52 PM
#69
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
I guess you also did not have the time to click on any of the links in Heine's blog post or the embedded links I posted previously. It must be very taxing being the resident bike forum curmudgeon.
A report on Munich's removal of cycle tracks from a PBOT staffer who is, if anything, someone who would tend to favor segregation:
https://livablestreet.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/182/
Last edited by spare_wheel; 06-07-13 at 11:55 PM.
06-08-13, 12:00 AM
#70
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
So, you honestly feel comfortable purposefully making it harder for people to drive automobiles because you have decided its wrong for them to do so? And you're voicing concern over being forced to ride in bike lanes that you don't like? But you're actually advocating to make driving an even more miserable experience for others. Man, I'd hate to have you on my side at a town meeting.
But people like me, who prefer infrastructures that provide mutual benefits and advantages for as many people as possible, are only interested in what we need? You've lost me on this one.
Perhaps you think we are going to lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the corpulent folks in the suburbs if we dare to be both pro-bike and anti-car. Well, I think a lot of them, particularly the younger ones, have about had it with the subsidized car culture and are ready to move on. Certainly there has been some data this decade to indicate that we are very near to peak car, and certainly young folks are less inclined to even obtain drivers' licenses than older people. We're on the right side of history; this is no time to look for crumbs.
06-08-13, 12:06 AM
#71
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
I started this thread to complain about so-called advocates who are willing to remove bike lanes and now you accuse me of not wanting to ride in bike lanes. What do I have to do to convince you that I have absolutely no problem with door zone free bike lanes?
But people like me, who prefer infrastructures that provide mutual benefits and advantages for as many people as possible, are only interested in what we need? You've lost me on this one.
And I hate to be the one to inform you but advocating for transportation infrastructures that deliberately make things worse for one group of users, particularly when that group of users is the dominant share, not only sounds very pretentious but seems wildly counterproductive and a dead end I would not care to run down.
Well, as someone who is "already committed to cycling" or an "experienced cyclist" or whatever coded nomenclature you which to ascribe to those "in the know",
:snort:
Last edited by spare_wheel; 06-08-13 at 12:29 AM.
06-08-13, 12:18 AM
#72
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NA
Posts: 4,267
Bikes: NA
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
After massively subsidizing personal automobiles for the better part of seven decades, it's no surprise that the default mode of transportation is personal automobiles. In light of the extraordinary damage this has done to our nation, just the projected medical costs of sedentary transportation over the next two decades is frightening, it is high time we made it less easy (or more difficult, if you like to look at things that way) to drive everywhere one's heart desires. It's actually amazing that there are any people who aren't addicted to cars in light of all the efforts to create the perception that the only way a person can be mobile is to get into a car.
Perhaps you think we are going to lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the corpulent folks in the suburbs if we dare to be both pro-bike and anti-car. Well, I think a lot of them, particularly the younger ones, have about had it with the subsidized car culture and are ready to move on. Certainly there has been some data this decade to indicate that we are very near to peak car, and certainly young folks are less inclined to even obtain drivers' licenses than older people. We're on the right side of history; this is no time to look for crumbs.
Perhaps you think we are going to lose the battle for the hearts and minds of the corpulent folks in the suburbs if we dare to be both pro-bike and anti-car. Well, I think a lot of them, particularly the younger ones, have about had it with the subsidized car culture and are ready to move on. Certainly there has been some data this decade to indicate that we are very near to peak car, and certainly young folks are less inclined to even obtain drivers' licenses than older people. We're on the right side of history; this is no time to look for crumbs.
And, IMO, the trend towards a car-free lifestyle is just beginning.
I also believe that driverless vehicles will transform the relationship between motorvehicles and vulnerable road users in the coming few decades. Taking the distracted and oblivious driver out of the equation will make cycling and walking in the road so much safer.
06-08-13, 12:30 AM
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times
in
8 Posts
I mean for crying out loud, the Dutch cycling embassy has taken to posting tit for tat rebuttals to AFDC (German cycling federation) criticism of Dutch segregated infrastructure. If you are not aware that the AFDC has staked out an anti-cycle track and pro "right to the road position" you have simply not been paying attention.
I guess you also did not have the time to click on any of the links in Heine's blog post or the embedded links I posted previously. It must be very taxing being the resident bike forum curmudgeon.
A report on Munich's removal of cycle tracks from a PBOT staffer who is, if anything, someone who would tend to favor segregation:
https://livablestreet.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/182/
I guess you also did not have the time to click on any of the links in Heine's blog post or the embedded links I posted previously. It must be very taxing being the resident bike forum curmudgeon.
A report on Munich's removal of cycle tracks from a PBOT staffer who is, if anything, someone who would tend to favor segregation:
https://livablestreet.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/182/
06-08-13, 03:51 AM
#74
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
Some cities in Germany are moving some of their bikeways closer to the roadway, but two meter bikelanes on a main road in munich are still designed to separate traffic by speed and class, and presents intersection design issues that need to be mitigated for, especially if the city fosters 17% rider share. I'd even have a sneaking suspicion that ridership on those traffic corridors in Munich declined.
Who knows, spare wheel - maybe Portland will rip out a few bikelanes and put in a few cycletracks, and then in a decade, once bike traffic doubles, take them out again. Seems like the pattern, doesn't it?
Oh, and by the way- instead of complaining in here about Oregons' onerous mandatory bike laws, why don't you start fighting to get them repealed - our fellow riders of the wheel were able to remove a few local sidepath laws in Germany, it can happen in Oregon too.
don't give up hope. despite how the city club wants to increase transportation equity for all in Portland.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-08-13 at 05:33 AM.
06-08-13, 04:02 AM
#75
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
What in the world gave you the idea Portland's city club is a group of "so-called advocates?"
-you realize they are a social/civic club, affiliated by business interests? Dues about two hundred dollars a year.
Originally Posted by cityclub
City Club of Portland is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and research based civic organization dedicated to community service, public affairs and leadership development.
Originally Posted by spare wheel
so-called advocates
And the city club hasn't even taken an official position on their white paper that encourages a build up of cycletracks and bike boulevards to increase cycling in Portland - an approach that seems to be working with admirable success in New York City.
I mean, it's great, spare wheel - Portland's answer to the city booster club has come out with a white paper that suggests ways to increase cycling in portland - they're just not the ways you think it should get done. Great, take it to the streets, maybe Portland will have some bike master plan meetings you can add input to. Or, join the city club and start wielding that influence.
Last edited by Bekologist; 06-08-13 at 05:37 AM.