Daily Commute

Why would you support a mandatory bike lane law? Bostontrevor pointed to the most frequent justification--it's rarely enforced. Now there's a brilliant justification for a law.

The laws in Portland (actually all of Oregon) do suck for cyclists. Mandatory bike lane, sidewalk and sidepath laws are about as anti-cyclist as it gets. On the positive side, the blue segregated lanes do look really pretty.

A little bit ago, we did a poll about mandatory bike lane laws. The vote was roughly 70-30 opposed to the laws. It seems that I'm not alone in my opinion.

Edit: Corrected the link

gew0419

Here is the actual Oregon law on the books.
I can see where someone might not like this, but I'm not one of those people.
You all must think there is something wrong with me, but I dont' see the big deal here. We have bike lanes. The way I see it, they're for our use and our safety. I don't mind staying in them. (See the exceptions in 814.420 sub (2) and 814.430 sub (2))
OK...so now everyone tell me why I should be bothered by this. (This is one time I'm not being sarcastic...I really want to hear your opinion.)

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

(2) A person is not required to comply with this section unless the state or local authority with jurisdiction over the roadway finds, after public hearing, that the bicycle lane or bicycle path is suitable for safe bicycle use at reasonable rates of speed.

(3) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338]



814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(2) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is not operating a bicycle as close as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway under any of the following circumstances:

(a) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle that is proceeding in the same direction.

(b) When preparing to execute a left turn.

(c) When reasonably necessary to avoid hazardous conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards or other conditions that make continued operation along the right curb or edge unsafe or to avoid unsafe operation in a lane on the roadway that is too narrow for a bicycle and vehicle to travel safely side by side. Nothing in this paragraph excuses the operator of a bicycle from the requirements under ORS 811.425 or from the penalties for failure to comply with those requirements.

(d) When operating within a city as near as practicable to the left curb or edge of a roadway that is designated to allow traffic to move in only one direction along the roadway. A bicycle that is operated under this paragraph is subject to the same requirements and exceptions when operating along the left curb or edge as are applicable when a bicycle is operating along the right curb or edge of the roadway.

(e) When operating a bicycle alongside not more than one other bicycle as long as the bicycles are both being operated within a single lane and in a manner that does not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(f) When operating on a bicycle lane or bicycle path.

(3) The offense described in this section, improper use of lanes by a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §701; 1985 c.16 §339]

811.425 Failure of slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle if the person is driving a vehicle and the person fails to move the person’s vehicle off the main traveled portion of the highway into an area sufficient for safe turnout when:

(a) The driver of the overtaken vehicle is proceeding at a speed less than a speed established in ORS 811.105 as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule;

(b) The driver of the overtaking vehicle is proceeding at a speed in conformity with ORS 811.105;

(c) The highway is a two directional, two-lane highway; and

(d) There is no clear lane for passing available to the driver of the overtaking vehicle.

(2) This section does not apply to the driver of a vehicle in a funeral procession.

(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a slower driver to yield to overtaking vehicle, is a Class B traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §640; 1991 c.482 §16; 1995 c.383 §68; 2001 c.104 §307; 2003 c.819 §15]

duane041

Ow, my brain. That's way too confusing, and I'm only partly stupid.

gew0419

Si, duane...I agree. If I have to think too much about it I might as well start driving again.
I just ride and enjoy it.

tokolosh

here's the only part that makes sense to me. loophole!!!!

Daily Commute

The law doesn't provide exceptions for some reasons to leave the lanes. For example, if the lane is too narrow or if it you should move left to be more visible at intersections. If you want more reasons to leave a bike lane, look at the bike lane thread.

What good does the law do? If using the lane makes you safer, you can use them without the law. If a lane makes you less safe, then you have to hope that there's a code section that lets you leave.

Toasted

And then there's the highways that don't have bike lanes. My commute is mostly on hwy 80 where, past the bike path, and even then drivers would simply use it as a quick and easy passing lane. Either way, a bicycle is rarely viewed as a vehicle except in the books. I went around an accident once at 4am in the left lane so as to stay out of the way and was threatened with being arrested even though the law requires ALL vehicles to move left whenever a law enforcement officer/emergency crew is on the side of the road and has lights flashing. If I hadn't moved left my tire probably would have exploded from a flare!

I think the problem is about a lack of respect and public stupidity. Note I say stupidity and not ignorance since there is plenty of proof pointing to the fact that riding in bike lanes and on sidewalks is highly fatal. The drivers scream out their windows for us to "Get on the sidewalk where you belong" or to "learn to drive", many of them being law enforcement! Every cop I've met, with the sole exception of a friend of mine who used to work at a bike shop before becoming a sheriff's deputy, has called me stupid for commuting. Wonder what they'll say when I get the cute little orange flags for my seat stays, huh?

But then again I think, even when we are visible and we get buzzed or whatever, I think there's an issue of driver's not quite realizing we are not encased in a ton of steal/aluminum/fiber glass with airbags and seat belts.

Solution? Not bike lanes...we all simply need to make a "VRMMM" noise as loud as we can while riding down the street so people will respect us more like they do our motorcycle brethren.

gew0419

OK...so it occured to me last night after I signed off...we have totally high-jacked this thread, which was origonally about bike friendly towns.
So I think maybe we should take this to our own thread or just let it go for now. Or maybe we should move to the afore mentioned bike lane thread.
I apologize to the OP and I will now go my way and thank those of you who responded to me. I respect your opinion, but I'm still not convenced.

Daily Commute

The point of the thread is what places are "bike friendly" (bikes are inanimate objects, so I prefer to speak of a town being "cyclist-friendly"). That opens up the question of what makes a town friendly to cyclists (or bikes). Some say painted stripes make a town bike friendly, others say that painted stripes make a town cyclist-unfriendly. Some say that the law is irrelevant to the question, others say that the law is critical.

Toasted

Points well made. In essence, my town is relatively bike friendly, though not quite cyclist friendly and my state had a bike/cyclist friendly law, stating we are to use bike lanes when they are safe, though I think the law should require BOTH a headlight and taillight, and not merely a dinky little headlight that doesn't do any good.

I'd really like to move to Boston. That seems like a very bike friendly place. There seems to be lots of cyclists there and they don't seem to haggard by anything. Anyone from Boston give a yay or nay?

gew0419

How about a town that has almost as many bike paths, where cars can't go, as roads. Would you call that cyclists friendly? If so, you would love Eugene, Oregon. You can get around that town and almost never have to go on a road where the cars might kill you.

bostontrevor

I like Boston. The city administration has historically wished that cyclists would just go away, though there's some evidence that's changing, but I think it's a great place to get around on bicycle.

On the other hand, we had some folks ride up from Philly and they felt the opposite. Of course they were staying in East Boston and as they say, you can't get there from here.

Drivers here tend to be quite aggressive. There's a reason that the Mass driver's manual makes the point that right-of-way is something that is ceded, not taken.