If you want to talk about tired arguments, T Cox, you ought to seriously consider taking this "cyclists don't pay" crap out behind the barn and putting it out of its misery - it's simply not true.

Most cyclists in Portland also own cars and pay fees associated with ownership and licensing of these vehicles, even though they may not drive them as often as they bike.

Most cyclists have jobs and, like everyone else, are subject to income taxes from the federal and state governments, portions of which go towards paying for road infrastructure as well as government subsidies for industries that provide products or services related to roads, oil, and automobiles; these subsidies reduce what would otherwise be much, much larger expenses for owning and operating an automobile.

Most cyclists live some place - in most instances, this means they either a) own property and directly pay property taxes which also contribute to the above or b) pay rent to a landlord who uses some of the rent to pay these property taxes.

The only cyclists not contributing are those who do not work and either do not have to pay for a place to live or are homeless.

Before you bring it up, let me turn the "mutual secondary and tertiary benefits" argument around. At 26 years of age, I don't own a car and have never even driven one -I'm in the extreme minority here. However, I've never had a problem with some of the money I make winding up going towards things I don't use directly, such as the aforementioned subsidies, freeway infrastructure, etc., because ultimately it's beneficial to everyone in some way. The common "freight vehicles are important for all!" is very true, but it's not a direct benefit for me: it's a secondary benefit, very similar in nature to, say, public schools - I don't have any children, yet I'm more than happy to pay a part for other people's basic education because it means society stands a better chance of functioning, or at least a lower percentage chance of things crumbling due to a lack of literacy, comprehension, and basic reasoning. Similarly, you need to understand that bicycle infrastructure is mutually beneficial: even if you're not using it, it's helping to reduce the overall number of large vehicles that take up the entire lane - where you can't pass a car, you can pass a bicycle. It encourages those who might otherwise opt to drive a vehicle designed for four or more occupants solo to work, the store, or whatever other destination to choose a more efficient means of transportation where possible. There are other benefits to non-cyclists besides, but these are the most immediate and tangible.

Unless you're willing to give up subsidies that make life affordable, throw publicly-funded education in the toilet, and make all sorts of other similar sacrifices, the tired "user pays" rhetoric continually pushed by a certain vocal minority in Portland will remain an inane and extremely hypocritical stretching of truth logic for the sake of convenience thinly disguised as a complaint.

As for the closing of the right-turn onto Greeley, please examine this map: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=interstate+and+greeley+portland+oregon&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=41.139534,68.818359&ie=UTF8&ll=45.550722,-122.680893&spn=0.017821,0.033603&z=15&om=1
There is no precious little need for this right turn, as anyone traveling south on Interstate could easily reach the same destination by instead turning west onto Going. Suggesting that the scant few seconds possibly saved in an extremely low number of hypothetical scenarios is as loopy as the cyclists who run stop signs -placing a nearly-unmeasurable convenience before safety.

Regarding your implications about the responsibility among cyclists, it's a moot point: the fatal accident two weeks ago and the injury incurred in yesterday's were both the result of drivers failing to follow the law and yield the right of way. Had the drivers of these motor vehicles been following this law, your weight contest claptrap wouldn't even have to be brought up: one less person would be dead, and one less person would have sustained multiple broken bones.

Now, if you want to complain about those cyclists blowing stop signs, riding the wrong way, etc., go ahead. I'm in perfect agreement that such behavior should not be tolerated. But this is because I want to see laws designed to promote safe practices on the road enforced across the board, whether it's a cyclist thinking they have the ability to treat a stop sign as a yield because that's how they imagine the law should be, or a motorist thinking that they're allowed to perceive the speed limit as a recommendation, not a law, so long as they don't exceed it by more than ten miles per hour. Selective enforcement, selective obedience, it's all crap, and it's got to go.