DX-MAN

Did you miss the OP's 2nd post, which is why I responded as I did?

TromboneAl

It has automatic "bicycle loop" sensors in both directions. The southbound one doesn't work, but there is a button right at the start of the bridge that works.





From street view, I can see that the bridge was built in 1940, and there are no nearby towns, so it's not surprising that there isn't much bike support.

genec

See post 20, I provide a link that shows the button. Plus I've seen this bridge in person, I know how it works. Have also seen bridges north of there with the same set up.

And yes since you can ride across it... technically it does support a cyclist... in a "patch work" manner. Better would have been to continue the wide shoulder... which would support peds, cyclists and SMV (such as tractors) far better.

PlanoFuji

No I didn't, in fact a few posts above yours I gave the OP basically the same advice you did. What I was doing was correcting your mistake in calling the curb a 'narrow sidewalk' implying that some designer somewhere thought that walking on it was a good idea.

PlanoFuji

And according to post #29 by the OP you were wrong in at least one direction across the bridge where it uses an automatic sensor loop.

As I said, depending upon how old it is and what the local area is like, better may well have been the original cheaper design as it is, which allows anyone but a pedestrian to safely cross.

njkayaker

You can take the lane (just like in any narrow lane).



The bridge was built in the 1940's. How do you propose getting the money to rebuild it?

B. Carfree

The depression-era bridges on hwy101 are no better, and often worse, for cyclists than the bridge in the OP (I ride from Eugene to Davis at least once per year and often three times, so I've been over these a time or two.) The shoulders on hwy101 in Oregon are NOT bike lanes. This has legal implications since ORS 811.065 mandates that motorists pass cyclists with "room to fall" in the overtaking vehicle's direction only when the speed limit is over 35 mph and there is no bike lane. Thus, we are supposed to get a greater passing distance when there isn't a designated bike lane. Same pavement, different width white line and stencils.

Oh, and about those horses: A fellow arrived in my neck of the woods last year on a horse-drawn wagon. He intended to head to eastern Oregon via hwy58. The state police showed up and warned him that they would arrest him if he tried. Under questioning, they admitted that the letter of the law allowed him to use the roadway, but they would consider him to be a danger to scofflaw motorists and would arrest him to prevent them from running into him.
Maybe from the same pot that has been used to rebuild many of these bridges over the past two decades. Consistent with Genec's observation, these rebuilds have not included making the bridges safer for cyclists. Criminy, ODOT just built six bridges to replace one bridge over the Willamette on I-5 in Eugene rather than simply put a forty ton weight limit in place (forty tons is the maximum GVW in almost every other state). (Two temporary bridges were built, followed by two staging bridges, followed by the final two bridges for the freeway, all to replace a single forty year old bridge that could still handle forty ton vehicles. Only part of the funds came from gas taxes; the bulk was from federal general funds)

njkayaker

That's for bridges that need to be rebuilt. If this bridge needs to be rebuilt, other uses should be taken into account.

B. Carfree

I always take that lane. As I recall, there is a slight downhill approach to the bridge that helps a cyclist keep his/her speed up. There is far less choice for me since I am almost always touring when I cross that bridge and there is most definitely not enough room for a motorist to share that lane with a pannier-laden cyclist.

Still, I would take the center of that lane even if I was on a naked bike. If a homicidal maniac chooses to run me over dead-center in cold blood, he would likely have chosen to kill me with an off-center hit anyway. At least he won't have far to go when all is said and done since a state prison is just south of that bridge.

B. Carfree

Tell that to ODOT. They have rebuilt many bridges from that era recently and have steadfastly refused to make any improvements for non-motorized traffic.

PlanoFuji

So a couple of cops threatened someone, even though they admitted the persons actions weren't against the law... So what does that have to do with the FACT that this bridge is passable by everyone but pedestrians, safely...


You are confusing bridge rehabilitation with bridge replacement. Rehabbing is much less costly, and needed on a regular basis to keep those structures from collapsing at really bad times. And because we, as a nation, have done such a poor job of doing that basic maintenance, over half the bridges in the country are considered dangerously in need of such work.

Designing and building a new bridge (with a different design to accommodate all those horses you and genec seem concerned with) costs a lot more time and money. As I said, we haven't been able to find the money to maintain the bridges we currently have, where do you propose to obtain this new money source?

gcottay

This to me is an easy one.

Even with the helpful caution lights, we are responsible for positioning ourselves to let other traffic know the lane is not wide enough for safe sharing. If we ride to the right we are providing inaccurate information and thus encouraging close passes.

If we are loafing along at 10 MPH it will take about 90 seconds to clear the quarter-mile narrow spot.

njkayaker

So, your idea to fix careless spending is different careless spending. (If a bridge is being rebuilt, other uses should be taken into account.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you really don't have any expertise in bridge building.

genec

While the loop is there, the button still also exists.

genec

It has been a number of years since I last rode 101 from one end of Oregon to the other... so your data is no doubt more recent. Back then 101 had bike lane stenciled on it as well as big signs that indicated it as a Coastal Bike Route, or something like that and the shoulder was more often wide. Memory may be playing tricks on me. One thing I do recall was how different the road was after crossing into California... as soon as I could I went to Highway 1 as 101 became a full freeway.

I don't even think I've been to Oregon for a year. Time to head back north, eh?

genec

What, peds can't "take a lane" too?

PlanoFuji

They can't safely. All of the other road users you mentioned CAN do so SAFELY.

B. Carfree

Inside the city limits along the coast there is usually a bike lane. It's very rare for that to be the case outside any city. Don't confuse a bike route sign or an Oregon Coast wayfaring sign with a bike lane designation.

Based on the pellet gun wielding nut-cases in SoCal, maybe it's time you moved on up here permanently. Safety in numbers and all that.

genec

You may have a point.

As far as the bike lane issue... I swore there were bike lane signs on most of that coastal route, alone with a some special coastal signage for something or other that encouraged cyclists...

I recall there were some less than perfect areas... such as around Depoe Bay where the BL is gone until you get out of town.... meaning you have to take a lane in town. I just took a "Google trip" on that road from Depoe Bay to the Otter Creek turn out, and you are right... not a single BL sign or stencil anywhere. I guess I just remember it as more bike friendly or something. I remember there wasn't much in the way of BL on PCH (1) in CA either, until I got to Golita and Santa Barbara and down to Malibu, but 1 is not designated the same as 101 in CA.

noisebeam

The triggering of light needs to be more fail safe and accommodate a range road position for cyclists.

There was such a system for a narrow underpass locally, but the sensor was put in the bike lane only a 20' or so from where the BL ended. That doesn't work as cyclist needs to be in lane well in advance of the lane narrowing so they are visible and communicate there can be no passing to rear coming motorists before the motorst gets to the narrow part. When using I'd never trigger the light as I would merge into traffic flow before the sensor. I suspect it was removed for the reason that a non warning when a warning is expected is worse that none at all.

Similarly push buttons require a cyclist to stop. That only hinders the ability to fit into flow of traffic and make the journey across take longer.

Anyway, I'd drive to in the left 3rd of lane and monitor rear traffic, if and as rear traffic approaches and slows I'd move a bit right to communicate I see them. If there is no other traffic behind them and none oncoming I may move far right to facilitate easier passing.

PlanoFuji

I don't disagree with you about the triggering being better; however, I don't know if that is technically (and financially) feasible yet. The push button option may be the best we can currently do.

volosong

About the need to re-build bridges . . . it never ceases to amaze me that Imperial Rome can make bridges and roads that are still being used over 2,000 years later and we can't, with our "modern technology" build infrastructure that can last even 100 years. Something's not right in the universe.

PlanoFuji

You are mistaken if you believe those structures the Roman's built don't require maintenance. If they are still functional, someone has been maintaining them.

genec

"overengineering."

Quite often stuff was built long ago that has been in use for a long time... Generally that was due to not fully understanding the materials and choosing to over engineer something such that it lives a very long time.

As engineers began to be more dictated by bean counters, "just good enough" has become the catchphrase of modern engineering... with the result that there are occasional failures where something was assumed to be build like the proverbial brick sh*thouse only to be found lacking.

Just good enough works fine for consumer products with a likely short life cycle... it is a bad idea for things like public road bridges that will often be pressed into longer use than originally expected. (and isn't that always the case)

PlanoFuji

You, like the person your responding to, are confusing ruins with functional infrastructure. If the roads/bridges/buildings are still useable (in their original context) after such a time period, it is because someone has been maintaining them.