Hello, as a cyclist who's ridden 20 years or so, I am comfortable in traffic and riding on the roads. However, I feel that bike lanes are helpful to give newer riders a clearly defined area to ride in. I feel that cars and bikes should follow the same road rules and receive the same penalties. One of my biggest peeves is when I'm stopped at a light on my bike and some other idiot on two wheels blows through in front of other drivers and riders. At the same time, I think Idaho's law of cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs is a good one.

I agree with 2wheels2go. It appears that John Schubert thinks 'vehicular cycling' (VC) is the only way to go. I believe Portland's approach allows for both VC (for stronger riders who are comfortable with it) and mode-specific facilities such as bike lanes, bike boxes, etc. (for most of the rest of us). I believe Roger Geller when he explains that studies show that this set up is safe.

Bike lanes *per se* are not necessarily a safety problem and often can improve bicycling conditions. However, a serious and avoidable hazard arises from the City of Portland's defiance of nationally accepted bike lane design guidance to either discontinue the bike lane or dash its left bike lane stripe well in advance of intersections where right turns are permitted. This puts straight-through bicyclists in the blind spot of right-turning motorists, resulting in right-hook car-bike collisions, such as the two bicycling fatalities last October. A secondary safety problem is Oregon's statewide law that requires bicyclists to use bike lanes (with exceptions that still leave the burden of proof on an injured or ticketed bicyclist).

By giving its highest level (Platinum) award to Portland--without even admonishing the City for its defective and mandatory bike lane designs--the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) has violated it's own board-adopted policy positions on bicycle facilities, has disregarded the safety and travel rights of Portland bicyclists, and has devalued the sound vehicular-cycling principles that underlie LAB's own national bicyclist education program. In short, LAB has disgraced its Bicycle Friendly Community Program and has seriously harmed all bicyclists with an award that encourages other cities to copy Portland's dangerous bike lane designs.

Thank you, John Schubert, for speaking the inconvenient truth.

Portland frequently experiments with unapproved designs - they have to be field-tested *somewhere*

If Portland's practices are as dangerous as you claim, why then have injuries declined and fatalities remained constant while bike use has skyrocketed? The statistics and facts don't support your claims. In fact, they support exactly the opposite.

John Schubert hasn't spoken an inconveient truth, merely an inconvenient opinion - one which the facts do not support.

I heartily disagree with any "yeild at a stop sign" approach. It is an invitation in traffic for someone on a bicycle to act like they own the road and find a vehicle that has no reason to believe such moving into their path. Stop means stop for all of us, or it shouldn't be posted as such for any of us.

I definitely think that bicycles should be treated the same as cars, primarily for the safety of the bicyclists. If bicycles were treated differently, it would result in riders going wherever they want (of course they sometimes do anyways, regardless of how their treated by laws). Without treating them the same, it would be difficult to determine who is at fault when there is a collision between cyclists and vehicles. I think that bike lanes are very helpful when it comes to safety, as it clearly labels a lane of traffic for the cyclists. If not, the drivers could run bicyclists off the road and use the excuse that it's their road. If someone gets hit in a bike lane, it leaves no doubt that the driver was negligent.

i love bike lanes - they allow me a certain amount of comfort in riding to places that i otherwise wouldn't. Do they make cyclists safer on the road? Somewhat, i think, but there's no substitute for being an educated & skilled cyclist, which means: being aware of what the hazards are, controlling your bicycle, and staying aware of your surroundings. Same principals apply for drivers.

Bike lanes in Portland have raised the visibility of cyclists, provided a definite legitimacy for cyclists to use the road, and attracted a lot of people to cycling that might otherwise be driving. In my experience, 20 years ago it was not unusual to be harrassed by drivers; in recent years I can't think of a a single occurance.

Bike lanes: they're a good thing, but no substitute for cyclist & driver education. Some mutual respect & consideration would go a long way, too, to making our streets safer.

John Forester said it best: cyclists fare best when they behave and are treated as the operators of vehicles. To the extent that cyclists behave as vehicle operators, they give themselves the best options. To the extent that cycling facilities do not interfere with such an engineering model, they can work.

Where they break down is where cycling-specific facilities force cyclists to engage in behavior or in manuvering that is counterintuitive and unsafe, such as making a left turn from a right lane, overtaking slower vehicle traffic on the right side (blind spot), or being cut off by a right turning motorist. Etcetera. Not to mention being harassed when they are not in a cycling specific facility. That's for another rant.

Unfortunately, cycling facilities are not always constructed with such complexities in mind. Here they may fail.

When it comes to bike lanes I think both sides should credit the other a bit:

The pro bike lanes folks could admit:

* there are unresolved issues with bike lanes at intersections
* bike lanes can give an excuse to drivers to think that bikes don't
belong on the rest of the road

the Vehicular Cycling folks could admit:

* bike lanes are preferred by most cyclists (and thus increase the
number of riders on the road)
* more cyclists appears to a good thing from a safety standpoint (which
is really surprising when you realize that by definition a lot of the
new cyclists are inexperienced)

The pro bike lane folks could then work more on fixing their issues and
the VC folks could maybe actually help them do so.

When it comes to increasing cyclist safety what is most helpful is getting more cyclists out on the roads and clearly bike lanes are a means to this end. My guess is that without bike lanes a large number of cyclists would never venture out.

With that said, bike lanes are certainly the recipe for the dreaded right hook. Practical ways to fix this include better education of both drivers and cyclists, and, more importantly, increasing the number of cyclists riding with the confidence and smarts to take the full traffic lane when conditions warrant. Contrary to statements in this discussion a cyclist can legally leave the bike lane for several reasons including “preparing to execute a left turn” and “avoiding hazardous conditions”. This pretty much covers all urban conditions and I’ve never heard of anyone being challenged on this act. As someone who has commuted through downtown on Broadway everyday for years I often opt out of the bike lane and have never had a problem.

Bottom line, while re-engineering intersections, re-striping lane lines, and re-working hard fought pro-cyclist laws are certainly worthy undertakings that may increase safety, the more effective and expedient approach is to promote the safety achieved by existing laws and engineering. Call me simplistic, but it seems that lanes beget riders and riders beget safety. I believe the numbers support me.

ps: here is the Oregon Vehicle Code pertaining to this issue:

814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person commits the offense of failure to use a bicycle lane or path if the person operates a bicycle on any portion of a roadway that is not a bicycle lane or bicycle path when a bicycle lane or bicycle path is adjacent to or near the roadway.

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

(3) A person is not in violation of the offense under this section if the person is able to safely move out of the bicycle lane or path for the purpose of:

(a) Overtaking and passing another bicycle, a vehicle or a pedestrian that is in the bicycle lane or path and passage cannot safely be made in the lane or path.

(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(c) Avoiding debris or other hazardous conditions.

(d) Preparing to execute a right turn where a right turn is authorized.

(e) Continuing straight at an intersection where the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure to use a bicycle lane or path, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §700; 1985 c.16 §338; 2005 c.316 §3]

While the temptation is for me to start a rant about poor rider behavior, I’ll just say I’m a trucker who has seen too many otherwise presumably sane folks behave as if they thought they were invulnerable when they mount a bicycle.

I think the biggest issue for everyone is education. But let me define, by everyone, I mean the four groups involved in the discussion: cyclists, passenger vehicle drivers, commercial drivers (emergency vehicles, trucks, and mass transit), and government.

For an environment like the Portland metro area, the greatest burden should be on government to make sure that motor vehicles are fairly notified that bicycles on surface streets have equal right of way. Bike boxes are a great example of something that anyone not from Portland will have no reason to understand. Because bike lanes exist, drivers not from town will understandably be confused if not irritated to have bikers impeding traffic flow without knowing that they have that right.

Why isn’t there something simple like overhead signage on all the majors telling cars and commercials that “Bicyclists Have Equal Right-of-Way on Portland Metro Surface Streets” or something to that effect? I don’t mean some dinky sign that you risk your life or someone else’s to look over at and read, I mean standalone overheads in green and white on I-5, I-405, I-84, US26, US99, US30, and any other major inbound artery. The city grants special privileges, it should notify the rest of the driving public about it.

Next, one for the state, why isn’t there a bit more about what rights the bikes have in the driver handbook and on the test? Most of us know that cyclists have bike lanes because we know a motor vehicle driver who has gotten a ticket for being in one. But that begs the corollary, why isn’t there an actual ticketing policy for the VC group when they are impeding traffic just because they can (see Corvallis morning or afternoon crossing the bridges or running up US99W)?

Hmmm… must not rant about recumbent drivers in “bike lanes” on major highway shoulders crossing the fog line like they think 55-60 MPH traffic should swerve or panic stop just because their weaving makes them look like they’re intoxicated… (if anyone reading this knows the guy who rides back and forth from Corvallis to at least Camp Adair on US99W, PLEASE tell him that he needs lessons in how to ride his bike; especially in poor weather, he’s an accident waiting to happen).

On a related note, we do need more bike lanes away from towns. Put them within the highway’s right-of-way but separate from the roadway itself; it would be cheaper than widening the road surface itself since shoulders have weight load requirements that require more engineering and construction than something for cycle or foot traffic. In places where such lanes exist and the actual roadway shoulder is too narrow for a cyclist to be entirely clear of the fog line (not just his/her tires), like between Monmouth and Rickreal, cyclists who are in the roadway should be ticketed if they slow traffic at all. Period. They aren’t, but they should be.

There are not only courtesies that need to be carried over to cycling as a vehicle, but realities of physics. For example, cyclists who have no clue about Newton’s Laws of Motion or Inertia should avoid sprinting out in front of loaded (or empty) semis and buses. If they have any unexpected problems, the commercial drive will wind up hurting them or some innocent in their vicinity. Problem is, I’d not be surprised to find that these same folks are a subgroup of those guilty of driving their cars with the same lack of awareness, so it is probably a bigger issue than just people powered transportation.

Local communities who want to encourage VC and motorist equality might also consider controlling speed limits on corridor streets to be closer to what the average “vehicle” cyclist might actually accomplish (say 15 or 20 mph). This might have the effect also of creating cyclist arterials that motor drivers might actually recognize as places to abandon outside of actual need. After all, why dance your car around 50 cyclists when the cop on the corner will give you a ticket for going faster than they are? Law enforcement would probably favor this since it’s much easier to prosecute speeding than a judgment call about who is actually in the right in a fluid traffic flow.

One of the problems with granting full equal access at a state or local level is that we do not require a person who wants the VC status to pass a knowledge or driving skills test… so they go unregulated. But I submit that a test should exist and VC riders should be ticketed unless they can prove that they have the proper skills and knowledge (i.e. show a local or state license) to behave as an equal partner on surface streets. Should everyone be regulated just because five or ten percent of their group behaves poorly with their roadway privilege? Well, don’t we require helmets for motorcycles when only a fraction of riders will ever need them and some are more than willing to take the risk for their personal freedom?

How would we know? Same way we generally find out if a motorist is licensed: during a traffic stop or after an accident. No license would mean no legal authorization to be there, hence no right-of-way. Is that a perfect system? Nope, but we endure it in the motoring public; if cyclists want equal access, there should be equal burden and responsibility.

This is getting long. Sorry, I’m just realizing that I could do several essays on this from several perspectives.

What I would sum up to say is if bicyclists want equal right-of-way on sub-40mph roadways, fine… as long as they take equal responsibility and behave accordingly. If these rights are granted, then those who grant the rights have a burden to publicly and prominently inform the motoring public of these rules. Also, these same authorities have a responsibility to enforce the governing laws on the cycling public when they violate them just as they do with the motorized traffic within their jurisdictions. There should be zero attempt to give equal status on 40+ mph roadways; there, a bike between the fog lines should behave like any slow moving vehicle: triangle them and enforce pullouts when they're slowing 5 or more vehicles.

I certainly concur with pyranometer: a strong education program for cyclists would eliminate many of the dangers, since a cyclist would use the facility smartly and not put him/herself into harm's way (i.e., right hook, etc.). I have used bike lanes, even poorly designed ones, for years, without getting drilled.

My last post wasn't a criticism of the Portland system more than any other system--just a concern that cycling specific facilities, while providing many advantages to getting more people riding (in part simply by providing more space for vehicles to overtake each other, are not fault-proof, and must be ridden with skill and an alert mind. Congrats to Portland for its Platinum ranking, too.

Our society and the infrastructure that re-inforces it has been shaped by the availability of cheap oil. This has made the streets unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians. The recent rise in fuel prices should be seen as an opportunity to improve the city with more people walking and bicycling. Ways to do this could include lowering speed limits, dedicating whole lanes/streets to bicyles, stiffening penalties for aggressive drivers. Or we could wait and see how fuel prices go. Or if all the mouth-breathers out there love the free market and loathe government intervention/spending so much, maybe we could stop subsidizing gasoline and then we can see how much it takes to satisfy your ribbon-sticker-on-wheels. Could that be the final progression of society?; a stereotypical third world country street scene with bikes and people crowding the street, rickshaws, and a car, I want to say a land rover, struggling to get through.

I have been teaching bicycling for the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) since 1985. I have bicycled in Portland, many other large cities and most US states as well as on Europe's special bicycling facilities. Having consistent roadway rules, courteous and legal behaviors among all motor vehicle and bicycle drivers (and pedestrians), and appropriate education and enforcement of traffic laws makes for safer streets... fewer surprises. I do not speak for the LAB, but I can safely state that Julie Sabatier is wrong when she states that LAB would disagree that "bicycles should be more integrated into automobile traffic" or that LAB endorses "keeping bike traffic to the right of cars, where cyclists often end up in drivers' blind spots." It just ain't so!

I expect the LAB award to Portland was decided because of Portland's substantial overall achievements at encouraging bicycling as a desirable transportation choice and did not, in my opinion, mean endorsement of each and every facility there. Decisions about what roadway design to use should be very much subject to the circumstances at each specific location and to the likely behaviors of the users expected there; "the devil is in the details." Portland, under Roger Geller, is experimenting with facility designs to encourage more and safer bicycling on public roadways and with some separated from motor vehicle routes. Some failures and learnings may result; we all hope no more deaths or injuries occur while we in the US learn how to share the roads.

Although it seems that many people in the US think otherwise, it is my opinion supported by traffic laws in all states that roads are for people not just for people in cars. The sooner we all learn to integrate uses and are able to choose among available transportation mode choices with relative safety, the better off each of us and the US will be - economically, environmentally - locally and globally, and health-wise - personally and community wide!

I'm excited to hear the perspectives on this upcoming show. I've lived in Portland for three years now and have found that it's much more bike friendly than any city I've lived in previously. I feel that the city has done an exemplary job in planning and execution to accommodate bicycle traffic. Certainly there are more steps to be taken to increase safety for all road users (the new green bike boxes are a good start).

I feel the biggest breakdown lies within individuals. I hate to say it, but it seems like attitudes are trending towards feelings of entitlement more and more...I see this with cyclists, peds and people in autos. Portland can install and enforce traffic safety all day and night but in the end, it's going to be up to individuals to take the steps necessary to keep traffic of all kinds flowing safely.

BTW - I'm a cyclist, I work in the bike industry and while I don't have to commute to work myself, I accompany my wife to and from school as often as possible. Truth be told, most of my negative traffic interactions are with pedestrians and other cyclists who seem to be only looking out for cars when they make decisions in traffic (like whether or not to step out from between parked cars, or to roll through a stop sign [I can't tell you how many times I've nearly t-boned a cyclist when they blast through stops, it's my #1 peeve])

Thanks for the great programming. I listen every day before walking out to my shop.

Sean Chaney

Portland, and the west coast in general, is a polarized place. Everthing is a political statement. Why can't a bike ride just be a bike ride? In Minnesota, where I grew up, people rode bikes and people drove cars, and it was just that. Nobody was making a political statement. Grow up Portland.

Hi fatmidwesternwhiteguy -

Where are you from in Minnesota? My mom grew up there and I remember Minneapolis does have those great double paths around the lakes - one for wheeled transport (non-motorized) and one for foot transport, I think.

I always thought that meant the planners there realized early on different kinds of transport are better separated. Political?

Enjoy your rides!

Emily

If bicycles are to be part of traffic, then they should be licensed like automobiles. Why shouldn't they pass a test and have a license plate if they are going to be on the road?

Yes. While it would seem impractical to license every bike owner, I have often wondered if permits could be required for use of designated bike lanes and (most especially) bridges. This would make education and enforcement easier and create a population of permitted bikers with a stake in keeping the bike routes safe.

Yes, I think, this is sort of a good idea! But, on the other hand, a bike is intrisincally different then a car. If you CAN ride a bike then you do indeed know HOW to ride a bike---although perhaps not how to follow traffic rules. So there is a fundamental difference between riding a bike and a car, maybe?

What is the difference? You have to learn to ride a bike, just as you have to learn to drive an automobile. If you CAN drive a car, then you know HOW to drive a car. You may not do it well, or wisely -- but the same may be said of people who can balance on two wheels.

Bicyclists are subject to the same traffic laws as drivers of cars. More to the point, both bicycles and automobiles are subject to the same laws of physics. The only real difference would seem to be that a collision between a bike and a car is much more likely to be lethal for the the bicyclist than for the driver of the car.

Yes, I realize this. But there is clearly something fundamentally basic and simple about a bike. Cars and bikes as machines are not equal in terms of complexity or difficulty. As much as I personally love the idea of cyclists needing a license, it seems inequitable. It takes away from the freedom of what a bike is!

I disagree. Bikes are cheaper than cars, but there is nothing about the operation of bicycle that is more intuitive or in -- any meaninful way -- simpler than the operation of a modern automobile.

As for the "freedom of what a bike is" Is riding a bike a right? Or, more on topic, is riding a bike on a city street a right?

As I said, I do not think that it would be practical to license every bicyclist, but I do wonder if it would be possible to issue permits for the bike lanes (on major commuter routes), and to ride a bike over the bridges.