Roger Geller explains PDOT’s position, plans for bike safety improvements“PDOT has strongly endorsed the design that enhances separation… similar designs are employed in the world-class cycling cities… whose ridership levels, policies and practices we hope to emulate.” Originally posted on BikePortland.org by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on November 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm In the light of two recent “right-hook” crashes resulting in fatalities, Commissioner Sam Adams and PDOT have recommended a pilot treatment at 14 targeted intersections to create safer conditions for bicycling. People following this issue — motorists and cyclists alike — legitimately have questions about the effectiveness of the proposed design and how we selected the 14 intersections. Following these crashes, there arose two leading and opposing options for treating intersections. One of these options eliminates the separation of cyclists and motorists as they approach intersections; the other maintains and enhances the separation. PDOT has strongly endorsed the design that enhances separation. Our approach is based on two guiding principles:
We are further encouraged in our decision by the fact that similar designs are employed in the world-class cycling cities throughout Europe whose ridership levels, policies and practices we hope to emulate.
Figure 1: Colored Bike Lane/Bike Box The design we propose consists of three main elements: a bicycle lane that is colored as it approaches the intersection, a bicycle box at the intersection, and a colored bicycle lane leading away through the intersection (see Figures 1 and 2). Other elements will include signing that alerts motorists to the presence of the bicycle lane and expected motor vehicle and bicycle movements through the intersection, a prohibition against turning right on a red signal, and, where feasible or considered necessary, flashing warning signing triggered by the presence of a cyclist approaching the intersection.
The primary intent of this design is to increase the visibility of cyclists at the intersections. We wish to heighten motorist’s awareness to the presence, or potential presence of cyclists. We want to remind motorists to look for cyclists who may be crossing their paths as they proceed through the intersection. The blue lanes approaching and leading away from the intersections are intended to be the primary trigger for this awareness. By coloring blue the approach, and especially the trailing lanes through the intersection, we will send motorists a clear message to expect cyclists moving through the intersection. “Separation without safety doesn’t serve anybody well.” This practice of using color to define a cyclist’s path through an intersection is a common design feature in the bicycle-friendly cities of Denmark, The Netherlands, and Germany. It is also common in those countries to keep cyclists to the right of the roadway — in their own designated space-and to the right of right-turning motorists. Why? Because, those countries have determined, through the repeated feedback from their citizens and following decades of experimenting and refining their designs, policies, and approaches to managing traffic, that people riding bicycles want to stay separated from motor vehicles.
It is this separation that creates comfortable conditions for bicycling. It is this feeling of comfort that serves to encourage more people to bicycle. Creating more cyclists, and having fewer people driving cars, makes bicycling safer.
Of course, separation without safety doesn’t serve anybody well. In this case, safer conditions will be achieved, in part, by clearly and unavoidably making known the presence of cyclists at the approach to and through the intersection. We believe the colored bicycle lanes in Portland, as in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Muenster, and in bicycle-friendly cities throughout Europe, will encourage motorists to stay out of the bicycle lane when approaching an intersection, and look for cyclists before executing their turn through an intersection. The bicycle box is a separate but related part of the design and is intended to do two things:
Additional signing and flashing lights would reinforce to motorists the idea to expect cyclists. We feel comfortable testing these designs in Portland because of their successful use in Europe. However, there is another approach that encourages mixing motor vehicle and bicycle traffic when approaching and going through the intersection. This second approach encourages cyclists and motorists to share either the travel lane by dropping the bicycle lane before the intersection, or to share the bicycle lane, by allowing motor vehicles into the bicycle lane in advance of their making a right turn (Figures 3 and 4).
This is an approach based on a “vehicular cycling” model, which suggests that bicycles, as vehicles operating on the roadway, should behave the same as the primary vehicles for which the roadways were designed: automobiles. The benefit of this approach is that it takes cyclists who are going straight through an intersection away from the path of a right-turning motorist. It conforms to standard automobile operating rules, in which a vehicle going straight is always to the left of a vehicle turning right. We believe there are a few problems with this approach. The main problem is that vehicular cycling is generally best used by those cyclists who are already the most fit and confident. While knowledge of vehicular cycling and the skills it encourages are beneficial to all cyclists, requiring such behavior at each intersection would not feel comfortable to the vast majority of Portlanders — the very people we are working to attract to bicycling.
Keep in mind that Dutch cyclists (and motorists) are perhaps the best trained in the world. They are taught throughout elementary school how to ride a bicycle. They generally begin riding a bicycle very young and continue to ride well into old age. Despite this intensity of training, the Dutch have firmly decided that maintaining separation between cyclists and motorists is what creates the most comfortable conditions for bicycling. The other main problem with this approach is that cyclists and motorists will still cross paths at some point. Either motorists will merge into the bicycle lane (under the California law approach) or cyclists will have to weave across the path of cars (under the dropped bicycle lane approach). In either case, there will still be multiple conflict points. Instead of having one conflict point at the intersection, it is now moved some indeterminate and varied distance back from the intersection. Cyclists can still be in a motorist’s blind spot when the motorist merges to the right. We believe that inviting motorists into bicycle lanes creates three conditions that will be uncomfortable to most cyclists. First is the merge itself. It is not clear where this merge will occur and it still allows cyclists to be in a motorist’s blind spot when the motorist moves to the right. Second is the blocking of the bicycle lane. One of the advantages of having a bicycle lane-the uninterrupted flow for the bicycle-would be eliminated at almost every intersection where there is a line of motorists waiting to turn right. “We believe that inviting motorists into bicycle lanes creates… conditions that will be uncomfortable to most cyclists.” Third is the weaving behavior this will encourage of cyclists, who will understandably not be content to stop in a bicycle lane, near the intersection, when the signal is green, and who will instead move left into the travel lane around the right-turning automobiles. There are places in Portland where we have dropped bicycle lanes before an intersection. We hear many complaints from cyclists where that occurs. We don’t do it to create safe conditions for cyclists. Instead, we drop bicycle lanes in order to better serve motorists at the intersection. Typically dropping the bicycle lane in order to add an additional turn lane. If Portland is to be successful in attracting the general public to bicycling as a main means of transportation, then we need to create conditions where cyclists both feel comfortable and are safe when operating their bicycles. Dropping bicycle lanes shy of an intersection and encouraging or requiring cyclists to merge left into the travel lane, is not the ticket. We developed the list of 14 targeted intersections from three primary sources:
We have chosen a design approach that we believe will create comfortable conditions for cyclists, improve safety by clarifying what we expect of motorists and cyclists, and continue to encourage increased bicycle use among more of the general public. We recognize that intersection design alone does not create safe conditions. Appropriate user behavior is crucial to an individual’s safety. Being aware, looking out for others, yielding to others, and operating at slower speeds all help promote safety for all. This is true no less for cyclists than it is for motorists. Roger Geller Posted Tue, 11/06/2007 - 12:02pm.
You should lose that CDL...Submitted by peejay on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 11:38pm.
...if you don't understand the law. The cyclists have a legal right of way to go straight. Motorists must yield to all cycle traffic in that lane when they cross the bike lane. That's the law. If you were crossing into another lane of motor vehicles, would you expect the cars in that lane to yield to you, even when they have right of way? I know you might be concerned about the speed that bike pick up going down that hill, but can you tell me they are going above the speed limit? Yet, cars and trucks regularly do speed on that part of the road. Does that bother you? No, because you just don't understand bikes and bike riders. You don't have to understand us, or be one of us, just don't kill us by ignoring the law. » reply
Closing turn lane on Interstate/GreeleySubmitted by T Cox on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 1:22pm.
Once again the lack of leadership raises its ugly head in Portland and again the special interest group gets its way. Isn't it time for the bicycle riders to take resposibilities for their own actions and to watch out for themselves. » reply
Closing turn lane on Interstate/GreeleySubmitted by T Cox on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 1:22pm.
Once again the lack of leadership raises its ugly head in Portland and again the special interest group gets its way. Isn't it time for the bicycle riders to take resposibilities for their own actions and to watch out for themselves. » reply
If you want to talk aboutSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 3:36pm.
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 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. » reply
Nick's cycling commentsSubmitted by Nancy Reppert on Mon, 11/19/2007 - 7:37am.
Bravo! to your acute, articulate and accurate responses to the angry and inaccurate accusations made by Cox and other pitiful people with venomous viewpoints on cycling and cyclists. May you reign! » reply
To T. CoxSubmitted by T Jones on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 2:58pm.
T. Cox, According to the following article only 40% of the road budget comes from gas taxes: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=32957 This means that 60% of the budget comes from elsewhere - places where cyclists DO pay taxes. It is estimated that 5% of trips in Portland are by bike. 5% of that 60% is 3% of the total budget. Other numbers say that 2% of the road budget goes to cycling specific projects. 2% is less than the 3%. Bicyclists pay more than their share of the road. » reply
Automobiles heavily tax subsidizedSubmitted by K Griffith on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 3:13pm.
The truth is when add in the cost of our military maintaining a stable oil supply and the cost to our health and environment the automobile is heavily subsidized. I own a car, when I choose to ride my bike that means less wear and tear on the roads, less gas being consumed (meaining it is cheaper for you T. Cox) and less pollution. Frankly I'm sick of subsidizing the likes of you so you can poison me in the best case and mow me over in the worst. » reply
Closing turn lane on Interstate/GreeleySubmitted by Michael R on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 3:24pm.
Hey T. Cox, Have you ever been cut off? The recent cases on Interstate weren't the result of the cyclists following too closely. They were the result of drivers making a turn and cutting off legally operated vehicles in their assigned lanes. It doesn't matter how quickly you can stop if someone turns in front of you. » reply
Bike Safety ImprovementsSubmitted by Lee on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 7:16pm.
I have been driving for over 40 years and I have been a cyclist also. » reply
Education for drivers is neededSubmitted by Dennis on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 10:28pm.
Lee, There is something that you have forgotten. Roads are for pedestrians, and bicycles by default. The state "lends" you the roads, through a contract. That contract is signed by you, stating that you will abide by the guidelines provided. However, there is no contract to operate shoes, nor bikes for that matter. Drivers of automobiles, and commercial vehicles have signed that they will be responsible for maintaining control of their vehicles, and drive within the rules of the road. In the case of Tracey Sperling, Brett, and this latest incident, there was clear evidence that the motor vehicle operators failed to maintain control of their vehicles, and abide by the laws that they agreed to. EDUCATION is needed: Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, Not a right. When someone signs their drivers license, they are agreeing to a CONTRACT. Bicycles, and pedestrians do not have to sign a contract to move about the city. Bicycles and pedestrians do have the right to the roads. When someone takes possession of a motor vehicle, they are responsible for what that vehicle does. Regardless of who made the mistake, there was a serious violation of the driver's contract. Let's make this really, really simple: Samual Adams, I'd like to see legislation for the city of Portland as follows: Hit a pedestrian/bicycle, lose your license, forever I have to drive everyday, for my job. Because of this, I am liable for EVERYTHING that my motor vehicle does. There is no excuse for hitting someone. When I am on the road, by default, I yield my right of way to pedestrians, and bicycles. It is my responsibility to my community. It is the oath that I took, when I signed my drivers contract. I am willing to sign that contract, even with the legislation that I mentioned. » reply
EntitlementSubmitted by bikewonder on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 4:06pm.
As a cyclists I am tired of people (specifically drivers) lumping us cyclists all together. I follow the laws as do most cyclists. But what the drivers tend to remember are the cyclists that don't - yes we know they are out there. But can you honestly tell me that ALL or a MAJORITY of drivers also follow the ALL the laws? Do you go 5 miles over the posted speed? Do you yield for pedestrians at a corner whether there is a marked crosswalk or not? Do you stop at the corner of the street instead of the actual stop sign? Most people speed (because you won't get a ticket if you are going 5-10 miles above the limit). Some won't stop for pedestrians at a corner - most don't even know it is the law. And I can't tell you how many times I come to an intersection where the other person has a stop sign and I am not sure they are even going to stop. Why do I bring these things up? Because it has become the social norm and accepted by society that these behaviors are okay. But drivers don't notice because they aren't looking, as cyclists we have to notice because our lives depend on it. So why is it okay for the majority (drivers) to be mad at the minority (cyclists) when we actually ask the laws to be upheld? Instead we are told to give up our right to the road so we can be safer. How about if the drivers follow the laws which would then make the roads safer. Education is the key. No matter what we do to the roads people need education. » reply
Ah, but you're quick toSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 7:52pm.
Ah, but you're quick to forget that most cyclists are, or were at some point, also motorists, and yet there's a sizable cross-section of cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road. If anything, this speaks volumes about the lack of material regarding vehicles that aren't automobiles included in driver training courses. As has been discussed previously, there needs to be a push to transition the driver's exam away from being a mere "memorize this info temporarily and we reward you with license to drive a car" and more towards a real evaluation of one's competency and understanding of laws relevant to all road users. As it stands presently, the driver's license exam in this state is a joke. Any call to push a similar licensing program with similar requirements on to cyclists is a call to replicate a nearly-meaningless process which states nothing about competency, skill in operating a vehicle of one's choice, or comprehension of why the majority of our traffic laws exist. Serious revision of the entire process must occur before anything such as what you're suggesting here is put under even remote consideration. There are also other avenues to educate all road users on how to share infrastructure. Driver, cyclist, pedestrian - ALL could stand to do much better in terms of safe practices, good habits, and following the letter of the law. And it need not simply be held off as some arbitrary requirement for operating a vehicle once one hits a government-selected age - these practices can be instilled into people from an early age. Pedestrian and bicycle safety offerings in our public schools would go a long way towards putting the right ideas into the heads of younger citizens from an early age, and ebb away at the long-standing notion that our public streets are a disorderly, chaotic mess which are only subject to law in order under the watchful eye of a police officer. » reply
Bicycle boxes not the way to goSubmitted by Terry Parker on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 8:48pm.
Bicycle boxes like proposed in Figure 1 where bicyclists can cut in front of motorists will only create more friction and conflict between motorists and bicyclists, and only adds to the arrogance of bicyclists who think they own the streets but are freeloading pedal pushers when it comes to paying for the infrastructure. There are already too many obsessive over protections, special privileges and immunities, including the lack of financial responsibility, given to bicyclists. Providing specialized bicycle infrastructure on city streets is a privilege given to the bicyclists exclusively – it should be directly paid for by bicyclists exclusively. Figure 2 makes sense for some locations with Figure 3 and 4 the norm, if bike lanes remain, There also should be some locations where “YIELD” (to other traffic) signs need to be painted in the middle of bike lanes. Slower bike only speeds need to be posted and enforced on the Interstate Avenue hill. Additionally, there needs to be much greater enforcement including stings when it comes to bicyclists obeying the rules of the road. As an example of need, KGW TV did a piece on bike safety (filmed before the latest round of crashes) where they let their camera roll for five minutes at a STOP sign intersection in Ladd’s Edition. 36 bicyclists rode right past the stop sigh while about five cars did rolling (California) stops. The real story however was not stated. It is highly likely that 36 out of 36 bicyclists blew through the STOP sign while the five cars were but a percentage of the total number. » reply
Fine job of putting yourSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 9:09pm.
Fine job of putting your fingers in the ears and blindfold over the eyes, Terry, as per usual. The day you get to legitimately call cyclists freeloaders is the day you call for across-the-board "user pays" policy for *all* state and federally run programs, down to and including government subsidies for big business that keeps so much affordable for you. Something tells me you won't, though. Maybe it's because you're well aware that most won't take it seriously, because they know it'd result in a sharp collapse of our society. Or maybe it's because you're afraid that it might actually happen, and you'd suddenly have to pay the real cost for everything yourself. Probably a combination of the two. Concentrated stings and enforcement actions? Oh yeah, they work wonders -that's why the cyclists and cars in that news clip all stopped at the stop sign, right? Because of what a tremendous success that previous enforcement action was? Oh, wait... If you honestly gave two squirts about safety, you'd be calling for better education and enforcement across the board. Time and time again, though, you continue to prove that your only concern is your obsession - spouting untruths and outright lies about anything that isn't a car. » reply
Bicyclist AnarchySubmitted by Terry Parker on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 7:01pm.
Here they go again – accusing others of putting their fingers in their ears etc. Just more bicycle babble from the self righteous pedal pusher rebels that advocate they can do no wrong and egotistically want to play God by taking the law into their own hands. The bicyclist killed at Interstate and Greeley was violating the basic rule of the road – traveling too fast for the conditions - possibly even attempting to race the garbage truck down the hill to the intersection. The bike skid marks prove that. Sharing the road also means sharing the responsibility, including the financial responsibility whereby bicyclists are directly taxed to pay for the privilege (not a right) of being provided the specialized bicycle infrastructure they use. Yet bicyclists continue their animated chorus of reciting a long worn out and recycled list of excuses for not owning up to and accepting any responsibility along with opposing being licensed and directly taxed. Just where do bicyclists think the federal dollars for bicycle infrastructure that is spent in Portland and elsewhere comes from? Any knowledgeable person would know those dollars come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund paid into by motorists through the federal gas tax. Riding a bicycle contributes ZERO dollars to this fund. Therefore, without a local bike tax, bicyclists receive a 100 percent subsidy for bike infrastructure. Coupled with continuing attitude to willfully ignore traffic control devices, the bicycle babble hardcore bicyclists spew simply lacks any credibility. When suggesting that other taxpayers pay for bicycle infrastructure such as bike boxes and the excessive costs (as presented at Sam’s town halls) for bicycle boulevards where stop signs are aligned so bicyclists can be immune from ignoring traffic laws, Commissioner Adams himself indirectly admits his acceptance for elite bike privileges, legal immunities and lawless bicycle mayhem while bordering on discrimination towards other road user groups who are taxed and for the most part abide by rules of the road. Objectiveness is totally lost and must be questioned when a politician possesses such an obvious bias towards the motoring public (the majority of taxpaying of users) and wants to increase taxes on non-bicyclists to help bolster bicyclist anarchy. Furthermore, if anyone else viewed the KGW TV story, it was the people and families walking in the Ladd’s Edition Neighborhood that had fears of being struck down by bicyclists blowing stop signs. » reply
People are saying they canSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 9:50pm.
People are saying they can do no wrong? People are saying they want to play God? Where? Where, Terry? Cite it, right now. Every strawman you set up further hammers any scant trace of credibility you have left. It's not enough to just lie, it's not enough to come up with ill-conceived concepts for regulations that are vehemently anti-bike, but you've gotta put words in people's mouths too. Your constant call for direct and exclusive taxation on those who use given facilities doesn't work because that's not how our society's built. Time and time again, you call for this, and whenever anyone calls you out on everything else that people don't directly pay for, you ignore it. If you want "user pays", it's time for you to start ponying up for everything somebody else is funding for you. Which means kissing all the advantages of mutual secondary and tertiary benefits goodbye. This ranges wide, from public education to public recreation to freeways to bike infrastructure to subsidies for various industries that make stuff go, be it agriculture or manufacturing or energy concerns. The "everybody needs freight vehicles!" tirade we've heard from you at numerous meetings is the same thing. The subsidies the oil and auto industry receive that make America one of the cheapest places to own and use an automobile are the same thing. And yet you remain inconsistent. You seem to want to pick and choose. It's almost as though what's good for you specifically is what's right and what's good for others...well, maybe it's okay, just so long as it's still good for you in a very direct and immediate way, and whatever isn't should be done away with. But this is still not quite true, because we still never hear you advocate for the removal of other tax-payer-funded services (i.e. public education). Unless of course it's transportation related. You call for hikes in Tri-Met fares. You call for bicycle taxes. The burden goes on everyone else -these people you continue to call "freeloaders", no matter how many times you are taken to task for spouting this lie- but you're still happy to take advantage of oil and auto industry subsidies that everyone chips in on and allow you to pay as little as you do for your car, you're still happy to pay in to keep roads you seldom drive on going so the trucks can bring you consumables, you're still glad to pay in to make sure the kids down the street can get a basic education. What is it, Terry? What is it that so tremendously incenses you against everyone who uses some form of transportation that isn't an automobile --incenses you so much that you have to jump in and spout your standard lines in a discussion about *safety issues*? And yeah, go back before the break and read that again: uses. Not "uses exclusively." Not "doesn't drive a car". Just plain uses. A lot of these folks are using multiple forms of transportation, and it's for a number of reasons. You constantly ignore that one, too. "Freeloading pedalpushers," you say. Sorry pal, most of 'em -somewhere around 80%, last I checked- own CARS! If there was any ring of truth to what you're always crying at the moon for -this business of how these people don't pay in for gas taxes and automobile registration fees- your beef would be with the incredibly tiny percentage of folks in Portland who don't drive cars at all. And yet even that doesn't hold up. As we all continue to point out, we all still pay in if we work and/or live somewhere where we either pay property taxes as owners or pay landlords who use some of the rent to cover the property taxes, and this money goes to a large number of places, and we don't all use all the services that these taxes pay for in a direct way. Just as you may not personally use the bikelanes some of your tax dollars go towards, I don't personally use the freeway my tax dollars go towards. This is no different from how I don't have any children of school age, and yet I pay in so my neighbors' kids who are of school age. This is no different from your freight vehicle example. This is no different from the auto/oil subsidy example. There are mutual benefits to all of this stuff (outlined time and time again by others, ignored by you time and time again still) and that's why the taxes are in place: they make our society workable and livable for us all. Your refusal to acknowledge any of the above, time and time again, is a clear indication of your own lack of objectivity. You are as much a raving and drooling fanatic as the post-adolescent weekend anarchists who clamber aboard their bicycles and ignore traffic laws they disagree with while taking no part in pushing for change in legislature. You are the biased man with a personal mission whom you constantly accuse Sam Adams of being - in so many ways, his mirror image, from your lack of well-reasoned arguments, to your inability to make consistent statements, to your complete and utter lack of authority in terms of office, title, or expertise. You are, in scale rhetoric of, so similar to those whom you rail against in such inaccurate and even perverse caricature, that all it takes to dismiss the majority of your statements is in fact quite simple: a cursory examination of reality. » reply
How many collisions,Submitted by David Dean on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 10:31pm.
How many collisions, injuries, and deaths have there been in the Ladd's Addition roundabout? » reply
And what are the consequences to the safety of others?Submitted by Matthew on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:14am.
I am sick of this argument: lets not forget the relative consequences of a bike not stopping vs a car not stopping: If a bike does the same the operator of the cycle may be hurt (or killed - I am not advocating that we be allowed to roll through stop-signs willy-nilly), but the damages to the other party will likely be pretty minimal. I think that this discussion too often ignores this fact. Wouldn't it make sense to have penalties for these sort of infractions be incremented based upon the gross weight of the offending vehicle? Perhaps with some minumum fine as well? » reply
Gross-weight determinedSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:21pm.
Gross-weight determined penalties won't mean a thing unless the person breaking the law actually hurts someone. Instead, why not just hike the fines for certain violations evenly so we've got a stronger deterrent in place (and get to avoid creating extraneous legislation and procedure)? Double the fines for things like running a stop and breaking the speed limit, and suddenly it feels less like an expensive inconvenience and a lot more like an insistence that breaking laws designed for safety is a serious no-no. No, it's not a catch-all solution, but I'd say it'd be a much stronger deterrent to unsafe and unlawful road behavior for all road users. » reply
Furthermore, if anyone elseSubmitted by David Dean on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:33pm.
Furthermore, if anyone else viewed the KGW TV story, it was the people and families walking in the Ladd’s Edition Neighborhood that had fears of being struck down by bicyclists blowing stop signs. Way to dodge the question. » reply
"Freeloading cyclists" AndSubmitted by Matthew on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:28am.
"Freeloading cyclists" And how many subsidies does it take to keep your car on the road? Not to mention military interventions. Oh; and also increases to insurance premiums and health care costs in general due to poor health of our populace. Cyclists in the know will continue to ride right up to the front of traffic at these intersections because IT KEEPS US SAFER! Regardless of the law or the presence or absence of a bike-box. » reply
I heard Terry rides a bikeSubmitted by Terry for Ayatollah on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 3:53pm.
Terry- I bet you don't even own a car. You wanna-be car driver. nice job poseur. Now our boys are fighting in some far off land to get OUR Oil out from underneath THIER sand and I bet you're not even doing your part by driving asbsolutely every place possible. You probably still WALK to the mailbox. You're making all of us who actually pay for the roads look like free loading unicycling gypsie trolls. I bet you ride a pogo stick and sleep with your teddy bear. » reply
transportation solutionsSubmitted by Aaron on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 9:37pm.
I agree that bike boxes will encourage more conflict and not less. Striped lines have obviously proven to be of no consequence to a 5000 lb car. And once again for the tired, so very tired drivers who have been constantly repeating the funding/lawlessness arguments. I have previously offered the opportunity for YOU to get out and be a part of the solution. I have one person who is interested in helping with education programs. If YOU want to participate, than email me at yourbodypower.org and if not, than please leave your comments for those who enjoy them (yourself only). » reply
Attn: motoristsSubmitted by Dennis on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 10:43pm.
Oil closed today at $95.32 a barrel. I know, that you're all a little sore from that last trip to the gas station. Please don't take it out on people that planned for this, and live accordingly. What's keeping you from joining us. We're generally we welcoming bunch. We'll help you find the way. Is it because you've gained so much weight? Did you buy a really big house, that is far, far away from any transit system? Has all of your equity been eaten up by lost property values because of failed suburban planning? How much will fuel cost, before you'll join us? will you wait until our economy is in ruins? Or will you help us save Portland from the end of the petroleum age. Maybe you'll learn to be thankful. Every time you find a good parking spot for your Excursion, it's because at least one of us didn't drive. When you see one of us, be careful, and make sure to say thanks, because we're leaving more petroleum to haul your enormous, out of shape butt around. » reply
LegitimacySubmitted by CharlieWicker on Wed, 11/07/2007 - 10:52pm.
Cyclists have a legitimate right to the road. End of story. The ideas regarding taxation have been accurately debunked by previous responses. On the other topic of safety and responsibility, there are dangerous drivers and dangerous cyclists. Any anecdote about a cyclist doing something unlawful can easily be matched by a motorist breaking the law. The engineering proposals out there are extremely well thought out and I, for one, cannot wait for their implementation. While certain design elements are not without controversy, on the whole we're looking to see increased safety and ridership. The comments that imply that a particular death or injury was based upon cyclist negligence because, "other cyclists ride recklessly therefore this cyclist must also have been doing the same" is in poor taste and hurtful for those impacted by these tragedies. Unless you are a witness, please refrain from such conjecture. » reply
Monolithic Oil?Submitted by Antonio Gramsci on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:16am.
Mr. T. Cox reminds me of one of those spoof ads that would appear occasionally on Saturday Night Live a long time ago for "Monolithic Oil." It went something like: "When you're driving, remember to keep a steady, even speed at all times. Don't speed up or slow down abruptly, for anything. The cost in property damage and human life will be more than made up for in improved fuel efficiency! This message has been brought to you by Monolithic Oil. Remember, at Monolithic Oil, we want YOU ... (pregnant pause) to PAY." Having said that, I'd still like to put a plug in for cyclists exercising the maximum caution and attention near right turns and exits. Ideally, avoid passing through the "suicide slot" altogether! (See http://tinyurl.com/32lj22 for more info). Merge carefully into the through traffic lane instead. » reply
interesting stuffSubmitted by Simon on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 9:45am.
Wish I had more time to read it all, and all the comments. I do worry that the no right turn on red lights is going to add significantly to car traffic congestion, causing anger. I've seen the city do things that add to traffic congestion. (allowing parking in intersections thereby blocking traffic lanes, curb extensions creating bottlenecks (look at the pending project at 12th avenue NB at Clay - it is creating a bottleneck, and narrowing Clay, making that interseciton more dangerous, in my opinion. A narrower street more backed up wtih traffic is not safer for bicyclists or drivers. Look also at how garbage trucks exiting the alley at that intersection will have to drive over the sidewalk to exit the alley and make a right turn on this one way street - real smart design guys). Congestion isn't just the worry of car drivers who are in a huff to get where they want conveniently. It is a quality of life/livability issue and it is a safety issue in some ways also. Further, it makes movement of freight and the economy in general slow down. If it takes me longer to get my work done due to traffic, the client pays. if it takes longer to move freight, the customer pays. And no, I am not saying that it is worth taking lives or hurting people to keep motor traffic moving. I just think it needs consideration, or this city will hamstring itself as to the vast majority of people and freight movement. My input on the tax thing is simply that it is a minor issue and bike improvements are clearly needed. Do we separately tax pedestrians for curb cuts and sidewalks? of course not. And a valid public policy argument can be made for encouraging bike use by investing in infrastructure. I just think careful thought needs to go into what is done at each intersection. Good luck figuring this stuff out. I hope nothing PDOT does makes things worse - as I have seen elsewhere - for all users. Simon » reply
Bikes vs Cars-Greeley/Interstate AveSubmitted by Diana on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 10:31am.
Let start by saying living downtown I do not own a car and take public transportation or Flexcar to get one more vehicle off the road. I love biking as much as the next person but would never consider commuting by bike in our congested city limits. It is my choice! Closing Interstae/Greeley turn lane will have a great impact on this bloodline of Portland. Why not just reduce the speed limit? » reply
"[G]reat impact on thisSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:13am.
"[G]reat impact on this bloodline of Portland" my eye. Being able to turn west on to Greeley from Interstate is hardly essential. Look at it on a map. The same vicinity can be reached by turning onto Going, which is a much easier and much less sharp right-turn for south-bound traffic to execute. Reduce the speed limit, you say? Why, so that the 10-15mph "no ticket" buffer gets rolled back in turn? Here's a better idea: enforce the actual speed limit, and stress that it's not arbitrary. A speed limit is the MAXIMUM speed determined for vehicles to safely travel under optimal conditions - not a suggestion, not a recommendation, not an old fogey rate, but the MAXIMUM. As for your tale of the red-light-running cyclist: yeah, of course he/she is a careless idiot for running the light. Nobody is defending that sort of behavior. The two recent deaths and yesterday's accident on interstate were caused by motorists who failed to yield the right of way as is *required by law*. Stop trying to use an unrelated incident to color or spin recent tragedy. It's absurd. » reply
One SidedSubmitted by diana on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 11:53am.
Nick, » reply
Diane - Greeniculous! NickSubmitted by QC on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 12:54pm.
Diane - Greeniculous! Nick made three valid points: 1) The right turn from southbound Interstate to Greeley is redundant. The same destination can be reached by turning right on Going about 3/4 of a mile up the hill. There are no business or residences on the east side of Greeley in between Interstate and Going that need to be accessed by that turn. Note that the left turn from northbound Interstate to Greeley remains open. Please, look at a map and verify to yourself that Nick's statement was correct. 2) The speed limit is currently being violated with great regularity by drivers, on Interstate and elsewhere. I can personally attest to this fact because I often drive. Moving at the prevailing speed of traffic, I'm often breaking the law. I do it because almost everyone else does. But why is that ok? It shouldn't be. 3) No one is attempting to defend law breaking cyclists. You say "Instead of arguing why not work together to come up with a solution for both sides?" I agree. But why is it that, in commenting on a blog post on the subject of potential solutions, you have to rant about some fool that you saw running a red light? I can give you countless anecdotes about drivers doing dumb things, including running red lights, but that doesn't help us find solutions. Please, follow your own advice and help to do something productive. So, back to the original topic of the post: Thank you Roger Geller and Sam Adams for working to implement these changes. I look forward to seeing how well they work in practice. It's a step in the right direction (but just a step, we have a long way to go.) » reply
Diana, if you'd bother toSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:06pm.
Diana, if you'd bother to read my other comments, you'd see that I am indeed calling for across-the-board consistent practices in enforcement. Your baseless accusations as well your inability to control yourself in the face of due criticism of your remarks is exactly the sort of behavior which gets in the way of any sort of cooperative or collaborative problem-solving. » reply
Nick, Thanks for taking theSubmitted by QC on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:30pm.
Nick, Thanks for taking the time to make fluent, educated arguments. Exposing long held but incorrect beliefs is a long, tedious process. I hope you have the fortitude to keep chipping away at the hard shell of ignorance that people like Terry Parker, T.Cox and Diana wear about them. Whether they ever admit it or not, they'll eventually realize they're wrong. Logic always wins. » reply
Nick, Not a huge point, butSubmitted by y on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 1:51pm.
Nick, Not a huge point, but if you've ever actually ridden a bicycle on going st, you would know that west of interstate it is a high speed four lane road with no shoulder. » reply
Perhaps I'm missing yourSubmitted by Nick Keiser on Thu, 11/08/2007 - 2:31pm.
Perhaps I'm missing your point here, y. My assertion is about the largely unnecessary right turn that a vehicle traveling south on Interstate could make on to Greeley, which would take said vehicle NW back up towards Going. As others have pointed out, there aren't any residences or businesses along this route, and so there are very few situations in which one would need to turn right onto Greeley and backtrack a fair ways. One of the few that comes to mind is someone who's headed south and has missed the turn onto Going in the first place, and that's unlikely because at that point, Going is, as you point out, a very wide, multi-laned road. You seem to be saying that the stretch of Going immediately west of Interstate is less than ideal for cycling purposes. I'm not exactly seeing where this runs counter to what I'm saying (or vice versa). I'm aware that Greeley does have a bike lane, but I can think of precious few instances where one could have ridden past Going, approach Greeley, and suddenly have to turn around and head back a long ways northwest to connect back to Going. Could you please clarify what you mean? » reply
bike/car realationshipSubmitted by Harry Tolen on Mon, 11/12/2007 - 4:57pm.
Hi Sam, I'm 75, used to ride a bike 2 1/2 miles to work in the San Diego area of California for maybe ten to fifteen years. Chula Vista, town of 200,000, was the name of the town, and the Aerospace Plant was my work place. Same problem then as now, and I am not surprised. Whoever made this stupid system up at the onset is the one who has caused all the problems, and the problems will not stop as it exists. Plan on the deaths and dismemberment!! OK, we have cars and trucks that weigh from 3500 to 125,000 pounds doing from 5 to 70 miles per hour, and we have people walking who weigh from 50 pounds to 350 pounds doing 1 to 3 miles and hour. Now we have a lot of bikes weighing 10 to 20 pounds carrying people weighing from 50 pounds moving from 5 to 20 miles and hour. Where will we put these bikes to ride, next to the cars and trucks, or next to the people who are using the sidewalks. OK, lets put them in the street with the cars and trucks. WRONG DECISION! Bikes do not belong on the street competing with that heavy stuff, they are too small, too light, etc., etc.. As a rider, I did not EVER compete with the cars and trucks unless I absolutely had to. Oh I know, it's illegal to ride on the sidewalks with a bike. You might bump into a pedestrian. Most of the time, I took routes that had sidewalks I could use and they rarely had anyone on them. I took the chance of some policeman writing me a ticket for that rather than taking a chance that someone not paying attention at the wheel would flatten me dead from behind. If I approached a person from behind on the sidewalk I simply checked the street for traffic, when clear I would go around the person on the sidewalk by passing next to the curb in the street. If I approached someone walking towards me I moved over to the right and passed at a slow speed making sure the saw me. I even had a little ah-ooo-gah horn for the bike. I NEVER rode my bike across an intersection. That's just asking for trouble, and even then I almost got done in walking across because some one in a truck made a left turn on me and other pedestrians , was blinded by the afternoon sun, and nearly flattened us anyway. My bike was destroyed, but I got away from it. There is no margin for error between bike and car or truck, for the cyclists anyway. Like the old saying, whether the rock hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the rock, it's going to be bad for the pitcher! People in cars already have their hands full watching out for things that can hurt them, bikes are not one of those things!! Now if a cyclist or pedestrian is "blinded by the sun" and they smack head on at 3 mph what's the worst that could happen? A broken bone or two, and yes i suppose even a death, but much more likely that both will come out with only bruised body and ego. So, if it's not too late, I'm for getting the bikes off the roads and up on the sidewalks or the slaughter will continue. You can draw a line down the middle of the sidewalk if you want, but the people and bikes will still run into each other, just like on the roads, but with much less traumatic results. No sidewalks, no bikes! Simple as that. There will be no more deaths if bikes share the sidewalks with pedestrians. Well, maybe a shooting here or there, but not from collisions I would guess. Harry Tolen, Lebanon » reply
Bikes on SidewalksSubmitted by Nick theoldurbanist on Tue, 11/13/2007 - 10:10am.
As a non-driver and pedestrian, my main gripe is aggressive bike riding on sidewalks, which makes things uncomfortable and somewhat dangerous for pedestrians. SO HOW ABOUT cracking down on this behavior, since the city presumably wants to encourgae walking, also? Or is the bike lobby just too strong or the city controlled by it? » reply
Bikes on sidewalks a "BIG" hazardSubmitted by Lynn on Tue, 11/13/2007 - 3:32pm.
Having bikes on sidewalks is even more of a hazard than bikes on the road for the same reason: Irresponsible bicyclists. Ever tried to walk the Esplanade with the bikes zooming by at road speeds almost brushing against you? Yes, I can read the signs and know the bikes are supposed to yield to pedestrians however, most don't! » reply
Box Boxes don't solve the problemSubmitted by peter rosenfeld on Mon, 11/19/2007 - 6:48am.
I am not a resident of Portland so have hesitated in commenting on Portland's bike lanes. But the situation in Portland could impact us bicyclists elsewhere if Portland's designs somehow get accepted as reasonable traffic engineering and get imposed on us. Bike boxes only work if bicycles have a separate signal phase at the light. This is what is done in many of the European systems that use the boxes. This, of course, dramatically slows down everybody. But this is acceptable in most of the very compact and congested cities where they are used. Typical bicycle travel distances in urban Dutch cities are on the order of only a mile or two so speed is not essential. The Dutch call bicycling in the urban areas "accelerated walking". Without a separate phase to force bicycles to stop before the intersections, the right and left hook potential caused by the bike lanes is just as high. No amount of blue paint can fix these lanes. The design of Portland's bike lanes increases the likelihood of a collision at the intersections over a street with no bike lane. And since the large majority of bike/car collisions in urban areas happen in intersections, I suspect the lanes are increasing the overall car/bike collision rate. The lanes should be designed to normal traffic engineering principals - where cars making right turns merge to the right well before the intersection. And bikes going straight merge into the right-most straight going lane. Anything else violates the basic flow pattern of traffic and will make intersection collisions more likely no matter how careful automobile drivers and bicyclists try to be. The idea is to design facilities that make collisions LESS likely. Not MORE likely as in the current designs. People will always make errors. Any facility designs should reduce the likelihood that a simple error will lead to a collision. The current design increases the likelihood that a simple error on the part of the road users will lead to a serious accident. I'm surprised that the city is willing to accept the liability caused by these designs. The design of these bicycle lanes has directly contributed to several deaths in recent weeks and I suspect more in the past. And many injuries. These lane design flaws have been pointed out repeatedly in the past by many people to both the bicycle advocates supporting these very flawed designs and to the city. » reply
Good pointsSubmitted by Rick on Wed, 01/09/2008 - 12:36am.
I am also a biker and find myself agreeing with you. Regardless of the good intentions, I think many of the solutions are unworkable and create false illusions of safety as well as generate unnecessary conflicts. I try to avoid bike lanes because painted stripes don't and can't protect me. Cars are big, heavy and sharing the road with them is inherently dangerous. This is not a capitulation to the inevitability of cars but only an acceptance of reality, unrestrained from BTA ideology. Another reality is that not using bike lanes doesn't prevent me from getting where I want to go. I feel far safer on sidewalks or on small side streets (even if they have more stop signs, which everyone should observe, regardless of their mode of transportation). I've been riding to work since 1992, when I lived in southern CA, and have been lucky enough to be able to get to work by bike ever since (except for the last few months, when my work location changed). I don't like driving - it's an instant recipe for stress and distress. Biking is the opposite. That said, I think most of this money on bike improvements is being wasted. We need education and awareness, which are the only tools that will really protect bikers. » reply
Lane ChangesSubmitted by Peter Rosenfeld on Mon, 11/19/2007 - 7:09am.
The contention that if bicycles and cars have to merge/change lanes away from the intersection ( in the so-called vehicular manner) is just as difficult as doing it at intersections is obviously false. There is more than one point of conflict at the intersection, but only one point of conflict away from the intersection. Away from the intersection, a bicycle moving into the straight-going lane or a car merging into the bicycle lane has to worry ONLY about that merge. The bicycle, for instance, only has to make sure there is a gap to his/her left to move into the lane. Even if the bike has to move over all the way to the left ( to make a left turn) he/she does this one lane at a time. At each merge, there is only one direction of traffic he/she has to worry about. At the intersection. unless there is a separate phase for each type of turn, a right-turning car has to worry about cars turning left from the opposite direction, straight-going bicycles, and possibly cars traveling from the left. If is easy to get distracted in this situation and miss the bike. The same for bikes. A straight-going bike, at the intersection, will have to be alert for right-turning cars, left-turning cars, and possibly cars traveling from the left. It is MUCH easier and safer to do this directional sorting out before the intersection. Intersections are busy and complex places. Things should be kept as simple and consistent at the intersection as possible to reduce risks. » reply
bicycle accommodationsSubmitted by John E on Mon, 11/19/2007 - 9:24pm.
Portland is on the wrong track here. Typical augmented intersections in California include a bike lane to the LEFT of a right-turn-only lane, which encourages destination-appropriate lateral positioning. You write about cyclist "comfort," but for the educated cyclist, few things are more uncomfortable than cycling to the right of a right-turning motor vehicle, hoping that the operator will see you and stop for you. It is far better to encourage the motor vehicle operator to merge over to the curb and for the cyclist to weave away from the curb. The only place this gets uncomfortable is at a high-speed freeway-style free merge or diverse, and my solution is to control and to traffic-calm these intersections, typically by squaring the ramp entrances to force lower speeds. » reply
Post new comment |
NavigationGet Our UpdatesRecent blog postsSam's Snapshots
Recent comments
 Popular contentToday's:  Syndicate |
Home |
Sam's Calendar |
Sam's Priorities |
Sam's Portfolio |
I Want To... |
Your Neighborhood |
Archives
PRINT
cycling accidents.
i dont thing these changes will effect the interstate/ greely interchange. I invite you to sit there for an hour and watch the bike riders come down the hill so fast they can not stop or adjust speed to prevent an accident when a motor vehicle is makeing a right turn; even with its turn signal on; and even when the rider knows that/ or dosent care if the driver can see them. I have commercial drivers license and fear that intersection for the riders safety. My best opinion is to make the bike riders stop, by means of a guard rail like at max stops and force a pause to look out in the means of safety. a bike can avoid a semi truck easier than a semi truck can avoid a bike.
The hill is killing these riders with their speed, not the motor vehicles.