Responding to Bicycle Safety Needs, PUBLIC FORUM ON WEDNESDAY

The bikes on N.Greely and Interstate come down that hill to fast and have no control. You need to slow them down by putting a bike signal there. Like you have at the end of the steele bridge.

I cannot agree with you, the reason a citation was not issued in that last two incidents was because the driver did not break any laws! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? I drove a truck for almost a year on the streets of Portland, and I have seen some pretty bad drivers. I have seen equally bad and even stupid bicyclists. These people run red lights, and stop signs, (some stop, but run the light when its clear, but still breaking a law), they often do not check behind them changing lanes, they are completely unpredictable. Some even have such a chip on their shoulder they ride on the wrong side of the street, they ride in the traffic lane on busy heavy traffic streets like, Sandy Blvd, and Grand Ave. I have seen them ride two abreast one in the bike lane, and one in the street lane. This forces motorists to change lanes to pass them and in heavy traffic that increases the risk of an accident. Recently reported was the traffic sting in SE Portland on bicyclists running a stop sign on Clinton Street. The blogs and Podcasts went out warning all the bicyclists of this sting, so they could avoid the citation. As far as I am concerned, until you morons learn to obey the law, and be responsible for your own safety first, then sell the bicycle and take the bus. I will look up the right of way in the bike lane, but let me tell you man! There are laws on the Oregon DOT website "Rules Of The Road For Drivers" that govern bicyclists too. Get educated!

Keith, you are absolutely right. People need to educate themselves. People are ignorant of, and often times, dismissive of the current laws. Those people ride bikes and drive cars.

In light of our agreement to educate each other, please read the following with is pulled directly from the Oregon Vehicle Code Book:

ORS 811.050 states:

811.050 Failure to yield to rider on bicycle
lane; penalty. (1) A person commits
the offense of failure of a motor vehicle operator
to yield to a rider on a bicycle lane if
the person is operating a motor vehicle and
the person does not yield the right of way to
a person operating a bicycle, electric assisted
bicycle, electric personal assistive mobility
device, moped, motor assisted scooter or motorized
wheelchair upon a bicycle lane.
(2) This section does not require a person
operating a moped to yield the right of way
to a bicycle or a motor assisted scooter if the
moped is operated on a bicycle lane in the
manner permitted under ORS 811.440.
(3) The offense described in this section,
failure of a motor vehicle operator to yield
to a rider on a bicycle lane, is a Class B
traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §698; 1985 c.16 §336;
1991 c.417 §4; 1997 c.400 §8; 2001 c.749 §23; 2003 c.341 §7

As you can clearly see, by the rules of the state, the drivers were in violation of the law in each of the three collisions. So, you are incorrect in saying no citations were given because the drivers didn't break any laws. Why do you think no citations were issued?

Also, please refrain from puerile name calling during this discussion. Thanks!

Nice rant. What was your point?

Ranting..I could rant about cylcists myself and I even own a bike that I enjoy riding on city streets too. I completely understand the pleasure of riding, and desire to make a contribution to lessening the effect of exhaust emmisons...BUT....
>>>The point here, since you asked is that bike riders need to obey the laws of the traffic the same as automobile drivers, and think more about their own safety and not about how quickly they can dart in and out of traffic and slip in between cars when they are stopped for a light. Also, riding at night is very dangerous and you CANNOT assume just because you have one little head light and your arm out that a motorist can actually SEE you. I think it's the responsibility of the bike rider to watch out for their own safety, and that includes following the laws. Enough said.

Cyclists obeying the law and riding responsibly are still being killed and maimed in broad daylight.

BICYCLES

814.400 Application of vehicle laws to bicycles

814.405 Status of electric assisted bicycle

814.410 Unsafe operation of bicycle on sidewalk; penalty

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty

814.430 Improper use of lanes; exceptions; penalty

814.440 Failure to signal turn; exceptions; penalty

814.450 Unlawful load on bicycle; penalty

814.460 Unlawful passengers on bicycle; penalty

814.470 Failure to use bicycle seat; penalty

814.480 Nonmotorized vehicle clinging to another vehicle; penalty

814.484 Meaning of “bicycle” and “operating or riding on a highway”

814.485 Failure to wear protective headgear; penalty

814.486 Endangering bicycle operator or passenger; penalty

814.487 Exemptions from protective headgear requirements

814.488 Citations; exemption from requirement to pay fine

814.489 Use of evidence of lack of protective headgear on bicyclist

MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIRS

814.500 Rights and duties of person riding motorized wheelchair on bicycle lane or path

These are not the actual laws, but looks like a summary of the section that it represents. Look people bicyclists have got to be responsible for their own safety first! Quicksilver is over man! They tables are turning and you all must be held responsible for your anarchy. Time for bicycle commuter registration and permits? I think so.

A bike permit? Haha. Good one!

Bicycle permits through trainings are a good idea because they legitimize cycling as form of transportation that needs to be taken seriously by cars, police, politicans etc. What is the downside?

A lot of extra costs to taxpayers to create a new DMV-like bureaucracy to administrate biker's licenses and biker testing, law enforcement overhead, judicial overhead, etc. I've voluntarily attended classes on bike law and bike safety, but creating a new bureaucracy to register, track, police and prosecute bicycle riders for riding bikes doesn't seem like the most effective use of tax dollars. I'd be in favor of a public education campaign on bike laws for motorists and cyclists, though.

I agree education is important, maybe the most important, but I also think we need a stick to get cyclist to ride safely--me too I am far from perfect! I imagine we could simply license cyclists as part of a City of Portland bicycle training course and give each rider license plate stickers to put on their bike and helmet(?). The sticker would identify offending cyclists or even track their stolen bike. I don't think we would need any special police or judicial overhead because I think licenses and education will encourage us to ride safer. I have to think registering cyclists would be much cheaper and far less bureaucratic than licensing a motor vehicle, and in my mind, it is a small price to pay. Thanks beforehand for a reply.

I second Ron's comment. The first fatality with the cement truck really didn't sound like a vehicle violation. But the subsequent crashes definitely were. However all that's heard from Police are excuses. We need to get Kruger out of his position and educate police officers on who they should be protecting. Cars already have 4-6000 pounds of metal. Cyclists/pedestrians need protection as well.

I have observed pedestrians getting more and more careless in the last few years. i have observed pedestrians getting off of the Max trains at the 122nd Ave and Burnside Street during rush hour and all it takes is for one person to cross against the light and boingo! All 40 of em' are on their way to blocking traffic, left turn light turns green right at this moment but now since we have 40 or so safety hazards crossing the street the motorists have to wait against a green light. Many times the vehicles will back up across the MAX tracks and block the intersection. This happens frequently at any MAX stop that is in the middle of the road.
Also I have observed pedestrians who will cross the street in heavy traffic, less than 20 feet from a controlled crosswalk. I have observed some walk into the path of an oncoming vehicle with the attitude that they do not care what speed the vehicle is travelling or how close they are. These are careless behaviors exhibited by careless pedestrians.

I second your comment. It is extremely common for cars turning right to completely ignore pedestrians. I don't believe that walking should be subject to the death penalty. Everyone has the right to travel safely on the street. However everyone doesn't have the right to get there AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.
Let's all be very aware of other users.

Some drivers don't watch I am sure, but the simple truth is Bicyclists are careless! I drove a delivery truck for nearly a year, and I observed some bicyclists taking pretty stupid chances just to prove a point. Most drivers are aware of 100 % of everything on the road. If you are where your supposed to be, and visible, and being respectful of the motorist as well, and aware of what they are doing. They will see you, and there will be a respectful exchange of right of way where apporpriate.

I disagree. I cant tell you how many times I have not seen a bicylist while driving because they were dressed in all dark colors. It seems like the biggest traffic offenders are those bicyclists wearing all dark and no helmet. Bright vest law would be easy for cops to ticket AND get the careless bikers off the roads. It would be much more simple than tryoing to right up every infraction. Keep it simple.

"Bright vest law would be easy for cops to ticket AND get the careless bikers off the roads."

Only some of them. There are plenty of careless bikers who wear helmets, have lights, and wear reflective clothing. There are also plenty of responsible safe bikers who are helmetless, obey all the traffic laws, and wear dark clothing. Sometimes their invisibility makes them more careful, because they are aware they can't be seen easily.

A bright vest law won't change irresponsible behavior, and it only gets careless cyclists off the road if it's enforced. Since careless bikers don't generally kill people in a crash (other than possibly themselves), and the police are already stretched thin, any such law would have a low enforcement priority. It may make a larger number of cyclists more visible to cars, but as we've seen in 2 recent bike-car/truck crashes, a cyclist can be riding within the law with all the proper safety and visibility equipment and still get hit by inattentive drivers. (Sparling was likely in the truck's blind spot, so I'm not counting that fatality - it was due to substandard / inadequate safety equipment, not an inattentive driver)

Most drivers are 100% aware? That is a completely ridiculous statement. In the US, 40,000 people die in car collisions per year.

How do you know they were trying to prove a point? Did you ask them? There are a lot of crazy cyclists on the road, sure - and there are also a lot of crazy drivers. I think very few drivers are 100% aware. (I think few cyclists are 100% aware also, but the average cyclist is more aware than the average driver)

As for a "respectful exchange of right-of-way", that can be very difficult even when the cyclist is respectful, because many drivers don't know the laws regarding right-of-way. For example, if you are in a car, and you're approaching an 4-way unsigned intersection and a bike is approaching from the right. You get to the intersection first. Who has the right-of-way? (Answer: the cyclist. It doesn't matter who gets to an unsigned intersection first - the traffic on the right has the right-of-way if it is a 4-way intersection) How many motorists actually know that? How many motorists properly negotiate a busy 4-way stop? I know when I drive, many motorists at 4-way stops ignore the proper order and cut me off.

I think your greater point is that all road users need to be more responsible, and if so I agree completely.

Ok, let's say we mandate that all cyclists wear neon orange or yellow. Why should we stop there? Pedestrians are small. Motorcycles are small. Let's have everyone not in a semi-tractor/trailer wear neon. Heck, let's paint all the cars neon orange or yellow, so people can see them coming.

Every road user has a responsibility to control their vehicle and avoid hitting people or property. Mandating that certain road users are more visible would certainly help that, but it shifts the responsiblity onto the potential victim. It also engenders a false sense of safety. This is a bad thing. There are plenty of dangers that don't come wrapped in reflective paint that every road user has to watch out for - sharp objects, black ice, large holes or cracks in the pavement, etc. In limited visibility or at night, we're all supposed to be slowing down and being more careful. In my experience, few road users do, whether they have 2 wheels or 4 (or more).

My point is, we all need to slow down, be more careful and more aware. We all have a right to the road, but we also have a responsibility to be safe - we don't have the right to always travel the speed limit, and many of us forget that there is such a thing as "too fast for conditions". There are things in the night that are small, dangerous, and non-reflective. If you can't stop before hitting them, then you're driving (or riding) too fast for conditions.

Let's all come back alive, whatever we drive.

There is no bias, and if there is there it is biased towards these morons on bicycles who feel that they do not need to follow basic traffic safety laws. I ride a bicycle and believe me man! I am responsible for my own safety first! I know when I am taking chances, and i take measures to make sure that I am safe all the time!

You can do everything right and still get hit. Defensive riding only goes so far. You still have to rely on the awareness and competence of other road users.

Recently Siobhan Doyle is an example. She was riding defensively and was still plowed into by a right turning motorist and sent to the hospital.

Keith;
your comments are insulting to yourself and Portland in general. If you are indeed a regular cyclist (which I doubt given your fervor), than you would do better to help educate people in safe roadway use rather than sending insults and alienating yourself.

Hi Terry,

Why no reference to 'pedal pushing freeloaders' this time?

Anyway, as per your call for enforcement, just the other day another cyclist was hit by a driver illegally failing to yield at the corner of Interstate and Greeley. Luckily, she lived. Ironically, at that very moment, the PPB was performing a 'sting' operation to catch cyclists running the stop sign at Ladd's circle. Enforcement is happening, but some might argue it's not being applied properly.

And to address your anecdotes about cyclists breaking the law: good eyes. Those people deserved tickets. Also, just today I saw a car on southbound Interstate blow through a red light at Overlook. When it turned yellow, she sped up, and it was red before she ever entered the intersection. Also, at the corner of NW 16th and Couch I saw a truck disregard the 'right turn only' sign and proceed straight through to Burnside. My window looks down onto a stop sign at which I watch probably fewer than 1 in 20 cars actually bothering coming to a full stop. I should film it sometime. Also, my street has a 25mph limit. Cars regularly go 26-35mph on my street, sometimes faster. And you know what? It really bothers me that the city is turning a blind eye to all of that.

I could keep going with all sorts of anecdotes, but maybe we should give up our sanctimonious attitudes and do what we can to make every road user safer. What do you think, Terry?

I think there's valid debate about bike boxes, but in response to your "think they own the road" comment, we all own the road. Or as the cycling community's new slogan goes, "We are all traffic." Cyclists are not beneath motorists. Cyclists indeed owned the road before motorists ever came along, leading some of the original paving efforts. Now we share.

They need to ramp up enforcement on ALL road users, Keith, and they need to find a way that doesn't simply result in "oh, let's avoid this intersection, there's a sting there today!" behavior. For all those who fail or refuse to recognize that traffic laws exist to require safe behavior, it is imperative that the threat of a ticket or citation not be a minor inconvenience - if staying alive and not hurting or killing others is not a good enough incentive, then the threat of penalty must (sadly) become a deterrent. This goes for everyone from cyclists running stop signs to the ubiquitous over-the-speed- limit-but-it's-okay-because-it's-less-than-fifteen-over driver (a case of lawbreaking which, Mr. I Drove A Delivery Truck for A Year, is indeed more often than not ignored by our police bureau).

You are right. Sporadic traffic enforcement is not effective. We need more red light and speed cameras.

I didn't recommend red light and speed cameras as a solution because, in my mind, these are scarcely different from sting-style enforcement actions -it's only a question of knowing where such cameras are located, and scofflaw motorists know to go slow through such-and-such an intersection or stretch of road.

As another point, as Terry rightly points out below (and here in hell, I shiver!), expenditure on such cameras does nothing to address the problem of cyclists running lights and stop signs. This may not immediately concern you much if you're not also a driver, but as a life-long non-driver myself, I bristle at the idea of any enforcement techniques or strategies targeting cyclists alone, and would not wish it on any particular class of road user --the problem is NOT one category of vehicle or the other, it's INDIVIDUALS who believe that they are allowed to selectively obey traffic laws and shirk safety at their convenience.

Furthermore, it's clear from the number of violations we can all observe on a daily basis that the people choosing to break the law don't consider their own lives, the lives of others, and the conscience of others important enough, and neither do they consider the outlay of $200+ or so damaging enough to at least avoid the risk of a citation. Even if such cameras could identify each and every law-breaker, regardless of their means of transport, we'd see them shrug it off. "Oh," they say, "well, I'm used to it...I expect a ticket every three months or so. It sucks, but it ultimately means a few less nights out or a few less restaurant dinners this month." The penalties for these idiots need to be more financially damaging, to the point where it stops being a minor inconvenience and starts being the sort of thing that might actually affect their ability to survive. It's imperative that these dangerous behaviors be viewed as such an undesirable option that a extremely large majority of Portland will consider it a risk that just isn't worth it.

I have to disagree. I think there is a moral difference between putting yourself at risk and putting other people at risk.

Except there's no case where disobedience of a traffic control device presents a risk to only the individual disobeying said device. Careening through an signed/lighted intersection without stopping where required presents a huge risk to anyone expecting their right-of-way to be assured. This could be a bicycle or a motor vehicle from either end. Car on bike, car on car, bike on bike, car on pedestrian, bike on pedestrian. This is not limited only to collision between the vehicle running the sign/light and one other, but also a collision resulting from anyone trying to avoid the vehicle running the sign/light. Even a near-miss with one vehicle can result in a subsequent collision with another.

While it is true that speed and weight differentials do make motor vehicles more dangerous in collisions with vulnerable road users, but let's not forget that it's never just a bike and a car dancing in a vaccuum. There are other people out there, and they may be in cars or on bikes or walking in the crosswalk. There is no such thing as exclusive risk.

Certainly your point about road users not existing in a vacuum is correct. But let's not pretend that a pedestrian disobeying a traffic signal and a car disobeying a traffic signal are useful in comparison.

keith is either beyond help or is just trolling. please don't feed the trolls.

An even larger concern would be that this is indicative of a major failing in an expensive one-shot "solution" to a problem which could be much more readily addressed through proper enforcement and more severe fines for all scofflaws, regardless of their vehicle of choice. I'm all for real-live engineering, but saying, "Ah, technology, our savior!" isn't engineering, it's lazy, shut-them-up-for-now behavior that accomplishes little more than a way to sink a whole lot of money and get less-than-optimal results.

The real key, as many of us continue to stress, is better education. Emphasize WHY traffic laws are important (promoting safer, more sensible interaction between everyone on the road!), and then provide heftier fines for those who are either too dense or self-centered to realize that endangering oneself and/or others is not an option that should be considered for even a moment. Safety should always trump convenience. It's high-time that that point be driven home, and to all.

My father recently returned from a trip in Australia where he said the general populace largely obeyed the speed limit. The reason he gave is that speed cameras are very common Down Under. If we replaced speed bumps and conventional traffic calming devices with speed cameras, we would slow motorists down and wouldn't do it at the expense of emergency vehicles. If speed cameras were ubiquitous, we could eliminate this clear disconnect between the law and the status quo.

There is a large disparity in consequence between a cyclist and a motorist blowing a red light. There is very little risk to other road users when a cyclist disobeys a traffic signal. Similarly there is very little externalized consequence when a pedestrian walks against the light, the risks are almost entirely internalized. Motorized vehicles pose a greater risk to other users and therefor have a greater responsibility.

Don't neglect the fact that each type of road user is not a singular instance. I have no more desire to be struck by another cyclist than I do a car. Stop-sign and red light running cyclists put other cyclists moving at speed and bearing the right of way at just as much risk as they put themselves. Bike-on-bike collisions are ugly business.

Agreed. But the scofflaw cyclist who puts other people at risk is largely a bogeyman. Where are the victims of irresponsible cyclists? They are largely the irresponsible cyclists themselves.

Bogeyman nothing. This year I've racked up 11 bike-on-bike near-misses thanks to other cyclists doing stupid things. That averages to one every month. Six of these involved people who chose to disobey a traffic control device. Four of these six unleashed a stream of obscenities at me, seemingly shocked that I had somehow managed to get in *their* way when they were the ones behaving irresponsibly; these people were more apt to react with rage rather than avoiding the collision, so I'm lucky that I managed to maneuver away from them in time.

And yes, I've had many more near-misses with automobiles this year; the majority of these have involved motorists passing too close at high speed or making unexpected, unsignaled or late-signaled turns. Only three involved motorists running lights (although it is worth noting that in these instances it wasn't a case of taking of stale yellow - they truly ran the light after it had gone red).

And yes, I'm aware that anecdotes do not count as field research, but I strongly doubt that such incidents qualify as isolated behavior. Let's not pretend these problems don't exist; let's promote ways to alter behavior.

No, anecdotal will suffice, just show me the scars.

"until ... the red light trigger devices [activate] when bicyclists blow through photo enforced intersections, red light cameras are a form of discrimination"

Unfortunately, they can't be set that sensitive, or they'd constantly be going off, even for legal motorists - a similar issue occurs with loop detectors in the pavement which don't register bikes, which is a major reason why many cyclists run stoplights. (some lights don't activate without the sensor being tripped - period)

Terry, I agree in principle with a lot of what you say, but some of your ideas are not practical. There's no way we're going to have the level of enforcement necessary to ensure compliance without turning Portland into a police state.

Until people are willing to accept their responsibilities along with claiming their rights, we're going to have the twin problems of scofflaws and selective / sporadic / ineffective enforcement. Personal Responsiblity and Accountability are the watchwords here.

As for your constant contention that drivers are being discriminated against - cyclists and pedestrians are the minority. Without a favorable environment, the majority can trample on the minority unimpeded, whether by accident or design. Minorities require a certain level of protection for their basic rights. Vulnerable road users have a right to use public streets - and that right needs to be protected so that car-favorable policies and laws don't destroy the rights of non-car users. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have to pay for that infrastructure (and as has been pointed out repeatedly on this forum and others, they do - only a small portion of the infrastructure is supported by the gas tax or other "discriminatory" taxes), I'm just saying that without a structure to protect the rights of the transportation minorities, those rights will be abused, eroded, and ultimately eliminated.

Those of us in the majority in this republic have a RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that doesn't happen. It remains to be seen whether or not they will shoulder that responsibility.

Each of us pays for SOMETHING we don't want, don't care about, or don't use. That doesn't mean those items are pointless, useless, wasteful or wrong. Some costs cannot be bourne by those who use them, and have to be bourne be society-at-large. If you can't support that, then perhaps you should consider removing yourself from society - because you too benefit from programs and services which you couldn't pay for on your own.

Nobody has argued that ticketing people saves lives. Ticketing people is what you do for the people who are too stupid to realize that certain laws exist to promote safe, predictable interaction between road users - you hope that the fact that they survived their display of irresponsible behavior is nullified through imposition of a penalty and gets them to think twice about doing it again. Safe behavior promoted in this way is what ultimately saves lives. As it stands, it is clear that the risk of these penalties is not enough for many road users; this is why I advocate increasing the fines associated with traffic citations.

Running red lights and stop signs does not save lives, but rather puts people at risk of injury or death because cross-traffic is expecting a particular sort of behavior in proceeding when they've got the right of way - namely, that their respective cross-traffic is obeying traffic control devices and no one winds up crashing in to anyone else.

I will agree that the current bike lane law needs serious revision - there's too much leeway in defining what can be considered a valid reason for leaving the bike lane, and this has been abused in the negative by several individuals within the PPB. However, most other traffic laws are perfectly valid; with VERY few exceptions, framing willful disobedience of these laws as anything other than a matter of convenience only promotes the idea that the rules of the road are optional and gives others license to behave as they choose, whether on a bike or in a motor vehicle.

"Studies show that Portland’s red light camera program has reduced red light running at existing camera intersections and the injuries and fatalities that red light running causes."

http://media.katu.com/documents/redlight.pdf

So that 7.5% of the motorists running the light at SW 4th at Jefferson on that first day alone got warning letters and now know that it's an intersection where they shouldn't run the light because there's a near-guarantee that they'll be ticketed. Camera-less intersections, meanwhile, remain fair game. And they got off scott-free, no less. Remarkable stuff.

Let me make it clearer:

Studies show that Portland’s red light camera program has reduced ... the injuries and fatalities that red light running causes.

Don't get me wrong, David...I'm not suggesting that these devices aren't doing some amount of good. Obviously the intersections at which they've been installed were problematic enough to warrant these locations being selected as points of installation, and it's good that they're there. The problem is that, since it takes a 100% assurance of a ticket to convince some people not to run red lights, there may be a temptation to think of the cameras as being a solution to the problem. We need to not find ourselves placing too much faith in these things and suddenly find we're spending huge chunks of the budget on cameras when part of that money could be used to fund educational efforts emphasizing that the reasons for not running lights and stops goes far beyond avoiding a fine.

Right now state law limits the number of intersections which can have cameras. That law obviously needs to be abolished. You seem to be under the impression that a solution is only valid if it instantly provides accountability across the board. In actuality, education and accountability will be achieved through a long series of incremental steps. Installing cameras at one dangerous intersection doesn't go far enough? I agree. But that doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile endeavor. I don't understand your objection.

Don't set up strawmen. My continued call for both increased education and enforcement efforts should be proof enough that I do not believe there is any fix-everything solution - clearly, there is no initiative which can provide 100% assurance of safety or even 100% compliance with the law.

My objection to the camera program is no more or less than the provision of false confidence in one possible solution. The cameras are little more than a person-less PPB enforcement action targeting one intersection repeatedly: it may reduce bad behavior in one given location for the duration of its presence, but it is imperative that no one pretend that it's any assurance of safe road use at any location other than the targeted intersection.

Sorry, I wrote that before I saw you had already elaborated above.

That's absurd. If you have a large cement truck on your left approaching an intersection, that's all the more of the intersection you can't see; you're also likely invisible to some cross-traffic -no one is going to expect a bike darting out from alongside a gigantic truck against a red. Blindly rushing into a intersection under such circumstances would be much, much more risky behavior than expecting the driver of a large vehicle to yield the right of way as is required by law.

Nonsense. Obeying the law would provide plenty of assurance of the elimination of the hazards presented by the dreaded right-hook. Any motor vehicle overtaking a cyclist when approaching an intersection is aware of the cyclist's presence and is perfectly capable of slowing and yielding the right of way -this makes sense as they're the ones turning crossing a lane of moving traffic; the responsibility is largely on them.

As for the idea of a "conditional bike lane speed limit", the bike lane in fact exists as a separate lane and should not be occupied by any vehicle but a bicycle. It is in the absence of a bike lane that a bike is not assured any sort of exclusive right of way over other vehicles, and the law regarding passing on the right being acceptable only "when safe" applies. It would be just as ridiculous to suggest that motor vehicles be required to follow a lower speed limit when adjacent to a bicycle - applying safe passing distance already addresses the issue. Were the posted speed limits observed as actual limits stipulating the fastest safe rate of travel under optimal conditions, as they are intended, there'd be no need to suggest that a roving "slow zone" forcefield surrounds any particular vehicle.

We need to educate cyclists that often slowing down when passing cars, regardless of a bicycle lane, is simply self preservation and respectful of cars. No laws are needed.

Lenny obviously thinks it is OK for bicyclists to blow through red traffic signals, pay no heed to stop signs and otherwise disregard traffic laws he expects drivers in motor vehicles to follow. He also rants on to lower speeds for motor vehicles and change turning movement rules undoubtedly as a self interest so he can weave in and out cutting through more congested traffic while making it easier for bicyclists like him to continue to ignore traffic laws and never have to stop for anything or anybody. This is exactly the irresponsible behavioral problem inherent with an arrogant ego that many bicyclist activists portray. Lenny’s attitude problem is to blame all his safety related failures on the gas tax paying motorists whom currently pay for bicycle infrastructure that only bicyclists can use as a privilege when bicycling. This is why training/educating bicyclists along with licensing adult bicyclists and registering bicycles with the issuance of license plates is an important safety issue. At some point, bicyclists like Lenny must accept the responsibility for their actions when sharing the road. Additionally, sharing the road must also require sharing the financial responsibility whereby bicyclists are directly taxed to pay for exclusive and specialized bicycle infrastructure. It shouldn’t be harder to stop a bicyclist on the move than it is to stop a 100 car freight train. If any traffic laws are to be changed, it should be that bicyclists in some cases and at some intersections are required to stop and/or yield to the bigger vehicle as cars do with trains. Such laws would be for the bicyclists own safety.

Pay no heed? Are you sure those were his exact words?

"At some point, bicyclists like Lenny must accept the responsibility for their actions when sharing the road."

Absolutely Terry, you've hit the nail on this one. What is becoming increasingly clear is that bicyclists in this city cannot depend on vehicle drivers to obey traffic laws meant to ensure the safety of all roadway users. For example, in many situations, even when bicyclists obey all traffic laws, they are still at risk of being hit by unobservant drivers making right turns. Thus, the only prudent and safe option for bicyclists is to leave a designated bike lane and share the road with vehicles. As Terry has correctly observed, when vehicles and bicycles share the same lane of travel, only then can all forms of transportation share responsibility of the road. As it currently stands, I have decided to accept responsibility for the safety of ALL road users by leaving the bike lane under conditions that are inherently un-safe for bicyclists and situations that put vehicle drivers at risk for making poor (and illegal) driving decisions.

I expect you would find the majority of the so called bike lobby would support an initiative to get aggressive bicyclists off the sidewalks. Especially if its focus was more educational than punitive. Bear in mind however that current state law allows bicycles on sidewalks at pedestrian speeds (excepting parts of downtown.)

"Anti-motorist" Sam is a motorist.

Bicycle crashes have NOT increased, they've decreased.

What has increased is bicycle fatalities. They average 2 per year and this year we've had 7. Cyclists aren't any more likely to be involved in a crash, they're just a lot more likely this year to die from it.

I agree with your statement that cyclists need to be held accountable for obeying that law. Absolutely. So should motorists, especially regarding stopping for stop signs. The "rolling" stop is now almost ubiquitous, and a car at 3mph can still be deadly.

The public as a whole could be better served with expenditures going towards mandatory education for ALL road users, not just cyclists. Where is the education for currently licensed drivers regarding changes in the vehicle code? Can't we do better than a 10 question test for people coming into Oregon from another state? Why don't we have procedures to remove drivers from the road when their reaction time is to slow to drive safely, or when they are no longer skilled enough to stay in their lane?

Bike boxes ARE going to be a problem, because drivers won't be trained to recognize and obey them. Current DMV education and certification is a joke - a motor vehicle is a potentially lethal tool, and the pressure of a few pounds with one foot is enough to kill people and destroy property. We don't allow people to operate heavy industrial machinery without proper training - where are the OSHA rules regarding personal automobiles? Why doesn't the state ensure that people are properly trained?

A bike lane is a separate lane. When two car lanes approach an intersection, do you think no car should be able to pull alongside another car? Should all vehicles queue up behind each other and effectively be reduced to one lane? The bike lane not only allows bikes to pass you when you're stopped, but it also allows you to pass them once you're moving again.

Replying to David Dean

No, of course I don't think "no car should be able to pull alongside another car". I just think bicylists should yield to signaling right turning vehicles that are required to cross in front of them to make a legal turn.

I understand that "A bike lane is a separate lane"; but unlike any other traffic lane, a driver in the adjacent lane is required to drive across it at an intersection in order to make a legal turn. That's why the law in it's current form is so dangerous.

If you bike along a busy street, you will quickly learn that cars often pass cyclists and make sudden turns. Your proposal will create a lot more ambiguity as to who is at fault in that situation.

As a matter of safety I don't pass cars on the right when their right turn signal is on unless they clearly yield, but I don't pretend that my defensive riding will save me from someone who makes a sudden turn without being aware of my presence or checking their blind spot.

There is plenty of incentive for cyclists to ride defensively. The law provides additional incentive for motorists to check their blind spots and yield. When I drive, I do. It is really easy.

Replying to David Dean (again)

I do (almost compulsively) check my blind spot. I'm just not that confident I won't fail to see a bicyclist. In fact I drive in fear of hitting a bicycle.

Thanks.

That's an engineering problem. Bike lanes should never be "outboard" of a right-hand turning lane. Unfortunately, some roads with bike lanes have no right-turn lane (the traffic lane is also the turn lane). That's a good argument for abolishing bike lanes entirely and requiring the right lane of all roads to be wide enough to allow a car to safely pass a bike (riding single-file) without having to leave the lane. Or for removing bike lanes from any road that doesn't have dedicated turn lanes at intersections.

Or drivers could just learn how to be more careful, since we and cities around the country have already had bike lanes implemented for the last 15+ years.

You are presenting a false dichotomy.

What percentage of annual transportation funds do you think go to bike infrastructure?

There are some intersections in Portland where the right hand turn lane begins early and lets cars get across the bike lane into the right hand turn lane well before they initiate their turn. I vastly prefer that approach.

I agree caution should be taken in the bike lane, especially when passing because cars aren't expecting it. But if bikes passed on the left, then they would be subjected to left hooks instead of right hooks. Cyclists need to be cautious and drivers need to check their blind spots. It will have to be a combined effort.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iibXnV4AU

Here is an example of such a right turn lane.

I'm one of the many, many people who prefer to ride a bike over driving ... but I still own a car. I don't know what's so hard for people to understand about this. We DO pay our fair share of "FEES", with things like property abd income taxes. Most road funding comes from general taxes, not specifically gas or other auto-related taxes. Bike riders are 5% of the population of Portland, and bike-related infrastracture gets 2% of PDOTs funding.

On a related tangent, I witnessed the first set of snow tires grinding along a neighborhood street in SE this morning. Maybe that's where our missing 3% of funding is going ...

For every anecdote you can cite about having a cyclist run a light, roll through a stop sign, etc., I've got 20 about cars doing the exact same thing, but they're endangering my life in the process, not just annoying me.

I'm all for negligent/dangerous cyclists getting citations for their bad behavior. But if that's not matched by a better level of enforcement for cars doing the same, it's not a solution -- it's just harrassment.

“We DO pay our fair share of "FEES", with things like property and income taxes. Most road funding comes from general taxes, not specifically gas or other auto-related taxes.”

If you had attended one of Sam’s Town Hall meetings, you would have heard him say otherwise. Most road funding comes from auto related taxes such as the gas tax. Federal grants that help for roads, bridges, transit and bicycle infrastructure comes from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, money that comes from the Federal tax on motor fuels. General fund money pays for street lighting only from which even pedestrians benefit. The only exceptions are some one time monies that have been allocated to specific safety projects and in urban renewal districts where tax dollars on increased property values are siphoned off from basic services like fire and police protection and are used to pay for new transport and other infrastructure, but only within those districts.

As for the perceived small amount of PDOT’s budget directed specifically at specialized bicycle infrastructure, that is deceptive in that bicyclists also can and do use the majority of roadway infrastructure motor vehicles can use. The figure is also deceptive when it comes to combined projects where bicycle infrastructure costs are hidden within roadway construction or reconstruction costs. One example, although not a PDOT project, are the proposals for replacing the Sellwood Bridge. Less than half of the deck width on all of the replacement options is reserved for motor vehicles with a third or more dedicated for bicycles. Therefore bicyclists only should be directly taxed to pay for a third t0 one-half of the costs of any new bridge built.

Basically bicyclists are freeloaders who continually vocalize their environmentalism, but are unwilling to themselves open their wallets to pay for what they preach, and therefore DO NOT pay their fair share of the roadway-bicycle infrastructure costs.

Welcome to Oregon Terry. For over 35 years we have had a law requiring bicycle and pedestrian facilities be built alongside new or reconstructed roadways. We have this law because autos create a hazardous environment and discourage other forms of use in the public right of way.

The most unfortunate part of your post was at the end where you prioritized the convenience of motorists over the lives and safety of bicyclists.

Crap, I see cars driving the wrong way down one-way streets all the time. Driving on the Max tracks, blocking the Max. But police can't be everywhere and ticket every infraction.

Another possibility, require all bikes sold in Po