Safer Streets: A sign of respect for non-motorized vehicle lanes
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on October 15th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
With all the discussion going on about how to make bike travel safer on crowded downtown streets, I thought we should take a closer look at some of the options on the table.
The first one has to do with signage and how legislation, enforcement, and engineering deal with non-motorized vehicle travel lanes (previously known as bike lanes).
According to the law, a bicycle is a vehicle. So, it seems to follow that a bicycle lane should be considered (in the eyes of engineers and law enforcement professionals) as a vehicle travel lane, on par with motor vehicle travel lanes.
In the case of SW 14th and Burnside, where Tracey Sparling and a cement truck collided on Thursday, there were two vehicle travel lanes involved: one of them was a motor vehicle lane, the other was a non-motorized vehicle lane.
Here are the signs hanging across W Burnside. This is close to the view the cement truck driver would have had as he waited at the red light (I apologize for the poor quality):
Each of the three motor vehicle travel lanes have dedicated signage telling them what type of movement they can and should make.
However, the non-motorized vehicle lane has no signage. Also, there is no explicit warning on the motor vehicle lane signs that there is another vehicle travel lane at this intersection. This fact, along with several others, created a situation where Tracey Sparling was invisible to the driver of the truck.
Do you think a sign like the one below would increase safety at intersections like this?
I realize signs have limitations in their effectiveness and they are not the only answer to increasing safety. However, it seems if we are going to respect bicycles as vehicles in the law, and we are going to continue to use and maintain bike lanes downtown (some folks think we’d be better off without them, but that’s another post), then it seems we should give their travel lanes the same respect as motorized vehicle lanes in all other facets of our street engineering.
What do you think?
[Please note: I am not a bike planning or engineering expert and I am not saying that a sign would have saved Sparling’s life. The intent of this post is to promote a discussion of signage and how treatment of vehicle travel lanes differs between cars and bikes.]
Depending on the response to this post, I’d like to continue the “Safer Streets” series to explore other ideas like; bike boxes, the California bike lane law (proposed by the Police Bureau), removing bike lanes downtown, early-phase signals for bicycles, equipment requirements on trucks, and any other idea that rises to the surface.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
October 15th, 2007 16:10
i'd like to see those signs at every intersection.
October 15th, 2007 16:22
That's the view from the left lane. The concrete truck was in the right lane and would have had a different perspective.
October 15th, 2007 16:23
Yes, Jonathan, I think you are right. This would be a seemingly obvious first step in enhancing safety for cyclists downtwon.
October 15th, 2007 16:25
Some signs would be nice. I agree.
October 15th, 2007 16:26
BillD said:
"That's the view from the left lane. The concrete truck was in the right lane and would have had a different perspective."
I realize that BillD. That was the best image I could grab. The exact view is not the point here. I just wanted to show all the signs.
October 15th, 2007 16:29
I think the yield to bikes sign would be an excellent idea. In the case of 14th and Burnside, one sign placed on the corner and another on the overhead lane use sign. This is how "no right turn on red" intersections are marked and a well trained professional driver will automatically look to these locations at every intersection.
October 15th, 2007 16:33
I'm guessing the traffic engineers would have an argument against those signs similar to their argument against striped crosswalks: basically every additional sign you have like that would help make motorists start thinking that in places without the sign they wouldn't have to yield, and even in places with the sign it would just give cyclists a "false sense of security".
Not that I agree with the argument, but it seems like something they'd say.
October 15th, 2007 16:37
I like it..that coupled with blue paint strips for bike lane throughways at like intersections. It seems to work OK on E. Hawthorne, on the bridge, if both driver and cyclists are alert to the situation...with that said, I see a lot riders not looking over their left shoulder there and just expecting cars will yield to them...which, IMHO, is pretty dumb.
October 15th, 2007 16:57
I would like to see those signs at every intersection as well.
October 15th, 2007 16:57
Headig West/South on the Broadway Bridge, there is explicit signage reminding both cyclists and motorists that when motorists are turning right, cyclists should not be going forward, and vice versa. I don't expect systems like that at every intersection, but I think some regular visual remind to drivers that they are crossing a bike lane (and to cyclists that motor traffic is crossing the bike lane) would help.
October 15th, 2007 17:04
It is still counterintuitive and improper destination positioning to have a through bike lane to the right of a lane it is legal for a motor vehicle to turn right from, and the suggested signage, while certainly an improvement, is really just a band-aid fix for what always has been, and will continue to be, very bad engineering practice, MUTCD notwithstanding.
FYI, there's some good discussion on the Shift list on this topic, as well.
October 15th, 2007 17:06
I like that sign and think it is good but if right hand motor vehicle lane that could hook a bike lane had them at every intersection (coupled with other missing non-motorized signage we should add) the quantity of signage around the city would become excessive. I think the blue bike travel lane at arterial intersections to remind drivers about the non-motorized travel lane and signage at extra dangerous intersections.
Non-motorized vehicle lane....is this term appropriate? I thought the only other vehicle allowed to travel in the bike lane is a motorized wheel chair. And to be obnoxious what about bikes with electric assist?
October 15th, 2007 17:07
It would seem even more appropriate to outfit intersections like these with a different signal, one with four lights instead of three in this order (top to bottom): red, yellow, green arrow pointed up/straight, yellow flashing arrow pointed right. This would strongly reinforce the necessity to yield when turning right. However, it would likely be an expensive solution.
I like the signage from the Hawthorne viaduct and in that case it is very effective, but a key factor in that scenario is also the blue lane treatment for the "non-motorized vehicle" lane. I think the next (and most easily implemented) step to increase safety in the downtown "NMV" lanes is the blue lane treatment approaching and through the intersections.
I realize the argument often used against this sort of treatment is the short lifespan of the blue paint due to the number of cars crossing its path. Still, this is better than nothing. And if our "almost platinum" city wants to really step up, then change the paving material in these lanes. That certainly won't wear off.
Kudos, Jonathan for continuing the discussion and seeking input on positive alternatives.
October 15th, 2007 17:08
I would love to see bike boxes and staggered signals at many of the highly trafficed or more complex intersections.
October 15th, 2007 17:10
It couldn't hurt to have a sign for the bike lane but I don't feel like this will help too much. Most cars don't seem to notice these signs, i.e. NE Broadway, eastbound Hawthorne Bridge. Almost every time I have gone through the intersection at W Burnside, I've just had to yield to cars that are turning and not looking for bikes. I don't feel like this will change unless cars were really held accountable for the safety of smaller vehicles/peds.
October 15th, 2007 17:23
Jonathan,
This is a discussion that needs to be had. Please continue bringing ideas forward. Personally, I like the idea of bike boxes paired with signs at all intersections where right hooks are likely to occur. Even better would be some type of curb and/or barrier between the bike lane and motor vehicle lane, near the intersection only, that would force the vehicle to swing wider while making right turns. In addition to slowing the right turning vehicles considerably, it'd also reinforce the fact that a bike lane exists there. The city could start with the same type of flexible yellow pylons used in the bike corrals. Just glue a couple to the bike lane stripe.
In the short term, signs alone would be a good first step. Start at the the most dangerous intersections and continue as cost and sign availability allow. This can and should begin tomorrow. The first sign belongs at 14th and West Burnside.
As for Kruger's 'California' suggestion, I hope no serious merit is given to it in official circles. It would simply encourage cars to drive in the bike lane to make right turns quicker, making things more dangerous, not less.
October 15th, 2007 17:34
I don't think more signs will do anything. If a driver can't see somebody, a sign will not help much except to provide fodder for prosecutors. We already have plenty of signs indicating the need for max speed limits, full stops and STD protection but people just tend to ignore them for whatever reason they (don't) think of. The biggest thing that needs to happen to is to fully hold all users of the road accountable for their actions. But until the social change and technical means to actually prevent illegal vehicle operation by a driver who has had a license suspended/revoked are in place, nothing is really going to change. The DMV likes to say that driving is a privilege and not a right but it sure is tough to lose a license. Seems like a virtual right to me.
October 15th, 2007 17:35
Many of us in the bicycling community have yet to learn that not all of the man-made laws in the multiverse will ever trump so much as one law of physics or in any way contravene geometric principles. By their very nature trucks are big, they are heavy, and large areas of the outside world surrounding the truck are invisible to the truck's driver. Nothing is likely to change this anytime soon.
While signs like that depicted in the photo above can serve a useful purpose, they might also have the unintended consequence of causing cyclists to develop a false sense of security. It's highly unlikely that such signs would have prevented Tracey Sparling's death, or that they would prevent similar accidents in the future.
A better course of action would be to educate cyclists to stay out of a truck's blind spots. A good rule of thumb is that if you can't see the truck driver, either by direct line of sight or reflected in the truck's rear-view mirror(s), the truck driver can't see you.
October 15th, 2007 17:39
If I really thought it would help, I'd be all for it, but I honestly think it would just contribute to sign-clutter. The sign on the Hawthorne Bridge is far more obvious (because there are fewer signs around) and, in my opinion, more necessary because the traffic is moving at higher speeds. Frankly, I'm not convinced that signs and laws can "fix" this.
Education, on the other hand, has helped a lot. Portland drivers are among the most attentive and courteous American drivers I've ever encountered and maybe I'm crazy, but ever since Thursday's tragedy, I've sensed an increase in motorist caution. I've even been wished 3 times in two nights to "ride safe" by motorists downtown.
It'll take some patience, but we need to keep making Portland road-users even better. That, as far as I'm concerned, is the key.
October 15th, 2007 17:42
BURR- with all due respect.
you want to ride your bike in the road?
where would you like to have a designated non-motorized vehicle lane?
totally separate infrastructure for bikes and cars on all streets is a pipe dream...lets work within the scope of modern urban confinement to come up with solutions that will keep us all safer overall. signage and bike lane barriers (which I really like..NYC style barrier separate lanes) are one step in that direction..at least within the UGB.
October 15th, 2007 17:43
"If a driver can't see somebody, a sign will not help much except to provide fodder for prosecutors. ... The biggest thing that needs to happen to is to fully hold all users of the road accountable for their actions."
Yeah, that's the way it works. The sign provides evidence of a standard of behavior, people who violate it get prosecuted, and then peoples' awareness of that fact makes them less likely to engage in the same dangerous behavior. You've identified the mechanism by which the signs will promote this change in the same post in which you conclude it won't happen. Maybe try putting the conclusion at the end next time. ;)
October 15th, 2007 17:54
At least two limitations with yield to bikes signs have been repeated: 1) may be ignored by drivers and 2) may give cyclists a false sense of security. Could we anticipate those shortcomings by giving the cyclist (especially the less experienced one) a heads up, too? What about a symbol or bright orange paint to warn cyclists that they may be in a "Suicide Slot" or other dangerous spot.
I like the blue pavement treatments, but they sure don't give me warm fuzzy feelings at night. Reflective paint? Great discussion, Jonathan. Thanks!
October 15th, 2007 18:27
Excellent observation.
I think new signs would help in *most* situations.
This is one of many inconsistencies in Portland's actual bike practices v. policy.
October 15th, 2007 18:30
I haven't noticed drivers being more cautious. I said this to the Oregonian reporter who interviewed me on camera this morning. But then I usually only ride downtown as much as I need to to get to work, and most of the drivers in SE where I ride all the time are already really good about making me feel safe. I told her that riding bikes has made me a safer driver because I understand what the cyclists are doing, and why. I said that even if drivers are trying to be safer around cyclists that without the knowlege of what cyclists are doing they probably can't change their behavior in an appropriate way. Are there any guides out there for drivers about best practices for operating a vehicle in proximity to bikes?
October 15th, 2007 20:03
Maybe if the bike lane were wider the bicyclist would be more visible. When you have a narrow lane you can't be very far away from a truck, which increases the chance you are in a blind spot and reduces the space you have to react to a vehicle coming into your lane.
Overall in downtown though I think speeds are low enough that we are safer in the lane. The same guy (kruger) who wants us to let cars into the bike lane wants to ticket cyclists for riding in the regular lanes on broadway. I've been doored exactly two times since coming to portland and they were both in the bike lane on SW broadway. With so much vehicle traffic in downtown the only safe bike lanes are no bike lane, or a separated one like NYC just installed that have lots of signage and striping to indicate how interactions with cars at intersections should occur.
Bjorn
October 15th, 2007 20:04
Also in the google street view image note which side of the white bike lane stripe the vans right tires are on...
October 15th, 2007 20:30
I'm pessimistic about the effectiveness of signage intended either to inform drivers or cyclists. Those drivers that are already aware of cyclists will heed the signs, others will not. Those cyclists that tend to follow traffic laws will heed signs, others will not.
I would prefer to see a voluntary licensing program for area cyclists. It seems to me that we are victims of our own success. In other words, Portland is such a bike friendly town that cyclists are encouraged to ride on high traffic without necessarily understanding how to do so safely.
A voluntary licensing program, marked by some visible emblem on cyclists' bikes may help novices realize the importance of learning how to ride safely in an urban environment.
October 15th, 2007 20:43
None of these proposals matter unless cyclists actually obey the laws.
Just today, a female cyclist flew through the Kearney intersection the the art school and 24 hour fitness. Yes - she saw me come to a stop. She didn't.
So would any cyclist propose that she should have been fined for failure to stop?
October 15th, 2007 21:02
Yes, of course she should obey the laws, and if not, should be fined.
BUT....
NW Portland is notoriously unfriendly to bikes, with a stop sign every 200 feet. That is not an infrastructure that is conducive to cycling, and it must be addressed. If bike-friendly infrastructure were in place, I suspect many cyclists would consider it more reasonable to stop when the infrastructure commands a stop.
That said, the other night I rode home through NW, and of course, I stopped at every stop sign. It drove the driver behind me nuts. I guess he was hoping I'd blow the stops so he wouldn't have to wait for me to stop and the start again.
Made me laugh when he blew past me.
October 15th, 2007 21:05
@21- "Yeah, that's the way it works. The sign provides evidence of a standard of behavior, people who violate it get prosecuted, and then peoples' awareness of that fact makes them less likely to engage in the same dangerous behavior. You've identified the mechanism by which the signs will promote this change in the same post in which you conclude it won't happen. Maybe try putting the conclusion at the end next time. ;)"
kind of like giving out $200+ tickets for blowing a stop sign? yeah, that's really helped stop the bike "stings" hasn't it?
October 15th, 2007 21:10
the signage might be a good begining, but i agree with what some of the others have said. too many signs in a given space is counterproductive as a driver/bicyclist/ped only has so much time to try and decipher what each sign is before they pass by.
also, i'd be afraid that the city would either a: decide the signs were good enough and not do anything else, or b: decide the signs "might" be a good idea and designate a commitee to research their viability and spend three years deciding what will be the most effective way to place them, then scrap the whole thing due to lack of funding.
October 15th, 2007 21:26
Yes, right on. Put a sign up. Do it right away. Put it up last fucking week.
The place to put the "Yield to Bikes" sign (like the one on the Hawthorne Bridge) is hanging next to the traffic light.
Get rid of the sign that is currently there. It makes motorists think that they can turn right with impunity. Replace it with a sign like the one on the Hawthorne Bridge.
October 15th, 2007 21:31
Jonathan,
The sign is a great suggestion. Actually, it borders on brilliant. Of course, even an attentive driver can't see us, but over time, the sign would make a difference.
Lt. Kruger's recommendation, to adopt a California-like law allowing motorized vehicles to cross into bike lanes prior to right turns, isn't totally nuts. But it's not the best solution. It mostly tends to move the potential collision point back from the intersection to the point where cars can cross into the bike lane. That said, it might have avoided the unspeakable tragedy at 14th and Burnside.
Riding in downtown Portland has it upsides and downsides. Traffic speeds are slow so collision speeds are generally less injurious to cyclists. On the other hand, because we can ride so much faster than cars, we're tempted into risky situations. I've learned my lessons. When I'm downtown, I prefer to stay in the vehicle lane, whether there's a bike lane or not. I NEVER creep up on the right side between cars in the travelled lane and parked cars UNLESS there's a very clear and very wide bike lane. Even then, I'm cautious. I expect someone to cut me off or open a car door into me. I've experienced both, and the results weren't pleasant. Injuries don't heal as fast as they used to.
October 15th, 2007 22:19
I agree the signage would help, but it would need to be at ALL intersections where a certain number of vehicles, say 1000 +/- motorists, are estimated to turn right on a daily basis. In addition we need a "final approach boundary", like bollards, curbing or something similar along the bike lane stripe to prevent motorists from driving in the bike lane the last 10-20 meters before turning.
October 15th, 2007 22:50
I don't understand how a "yield to bikes" sign would help when there are situations in which a driver may not be able to see if there is anything to yield to. In those rare cases, right of way doesn't mean much and it's up to the individual in danger to protect themselves from harm. That's the whole theory behind defensive driving.
Even though there was a tragic accident last week, Portland is still a very safe place to ride a bike.
October 15th, 2007 22:53
#20 what are you talking about? you can't have it both ways. unless PDX designates a central city car free zone, which I don't think is likely to happen any time soon, no one is going to carve out space for cyclists beyond the bare bare minimum of unsafe bike lanes. Most bike lane designs are inherently unsafe from the perspective of righ-hook and dooring incidents, and I challenge any traffic engineer or law enforcement officer to argue otherwise.
October 15th, 2007 22:55
I like the sign; I think it would get a driver's attention. But I think I Iike the idea of bike boxes better, at least pending the upcoming discussion on that topic here.
Maybe it would help in comparing these strategies if we knew the relative cost of each. Can anyone estimate how much such a sign would cost per lane installed? And how much a bike box would cost?
My real preference is the Dutch system of separated lanes I saw working so well first hand this summer. I hope that option can be part of this Safer Streets discussion too.
October 15th, 2007 23:04
in case you still don't get it, my preference is to be able to ride vehicularly in whatever lane I deem most safe in the downtown core. Given the imperatives of PDOT and the US traffic system, I see no safer way to do it. The fact that cycling is increasing exponentially in popularity in PDX while infrastructure development remains flat only proves my point. Separated bike facilities are a bike ghetto, often poorly designed, and to a large extent are what got Tracey killed. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and I don't think Portland has either the political will or the necessary capital to execute a complete Amsterdam make over. Sorry to be so negative about it, but feel free to prove me wrong...
October 15th, 2007 23:17
Jonathan, I am a transportation planner and I do agree with you, thanks for providing the space for discussion.
Over a year ago when I was inventorying your close calls list for a possible PDOT project, one thing that really stuck out was how many of the close calls are right hooks.
I suggested to a PDOT employee we should install the type of signage you are describing. His reply was that there are so many signs out there already, people become numb to them.
I disagree, especially in this instance, because most people are not aware of the frequency of this type of error, motorists as well as cyclists (I think more so motorists). Signs like these educate drivers, cyclists and even pedestrians to be more aware.
While visiting Grenoble, France I saw this sign http://tinyurl.com/2jeq4g
which I think is clearer than the one on the Hawthorne Bridge you show.
About a month ago I saw a woman get hit by a car while cycling east on SW Madison at 3rd, the car turned right, into her. After this I suggested to another PDOT employee we should do what most Northern European countries do, and paint in very bright colors the bike lane through EVERY intersection. Lots of options.
http://tinyurl.com/2ezd6s
http://tinyurl.com/27agkq
http://tinyurl.com/ywa2hj
http://tinyurl.com/2kdn9e
It seems really stupid to me that bike lanes end at intersections, where cyclists are most vulnerable. Pedestrians have crosswalks and in many places signage, cyclists need markings/signs too! The PDOT employee is looking into it.
Now, the intersection where Tracey was killed does have a dotted line through the intersection, but that is NOTHING! Of course these European countries can do this and upkeep the paint because they have adequate funding for bike infrastructure, whereas here we have a fraction of a percent.
October 15th, 2007 23:34
Signs might work. Another option is installing rumble strips along bike lanes. They could help make motorists aware as they are crossing over bike lanes when making a right hand turn. I tend to think hearing and feeling the bumps of riding over a rumble strip is a stronger que than a sign or paint over a bike lane.
October 16th, 2007 00:33
Here is another tool to throw into the discussion about making US arterial streets more bike friendly: near side traffic signal head placement.
Listen up pedestrians...tired of motorists crowding or waiting inside the crosswalk for a signal to go green? (Yes of course.)
By placing the traffic signal heads (properly angled) above the nearest crosswalk (vs. on the otherside of the intersection as is common in North America) then motorists who creep up into a crosswalk can no logner see the signal. This effectively manages the creep, as most drivers do not want to loose any green time.
Now by placing traffic signal heads back to this point there is also more room to locate bike boxes. Yeay.
October 16th, 2007 00:38
Also an open invitation ...to facilitate this design discussion with the community...I am sure that Michael Ronkin and I would be willing to dust off our street design presentation "From Holland with Love" that includes many of these tools and how they can be applied to the US. (Right Michael?)
October 16th, 2007 00:58
And to Lt. Kruger...respectfully...please tell us if this is a case where your comments published in the Oregonian were incorrect/ misquoted or taken out of context...such happens to us all from time to time...just mention this point in your next TV press interview, so we can move on and start an effective publci dialogue towards well designed streets that safely serve both the powerful AND the vulnerable road user.
Also, good design makes streets easier for vehicle operators to self enforce their behaviors and for your officers to enforce the remaining instances of traffic laws that are broken...I would think that this would be on the top of the traffic division's wish list.
October 16th, 2007 03:17
Motorists pay less and less attention these days, for many reasons. the gadget mentality (cell phones, mobile media, gps,
and vehicles do more and more for us than ever before.
I still would trust the driver of an 18 wheeler over a cell phone soccer mom driving an SUV with two 1/2 kids on board.
Of course the sign above would help.
but I know that intersection well.
for one, have you noticed the parking along the ballroom entrance? spaces literally to the corner, there's no room to even maneuver a bike out of the crush zone. smaller cars even have to go way out into the intersection to turn right.
It's fully possible, that Tracey believed that truck was actually going straight through that intersection and rode accordingly.
A truck of such a length (and girth) shouldn't even be able to turn there.
the bike lane changes abruptly from the LEFT side to right just one block prior to that light. If following the bike lane, you need to transverse 3 lanes just to stay in the bike lane.
To me thats a hazard, I take the car lanes through there.
The bike lane strat of California works for them, I've ridden there and used them.
Portland is not CA.
Ca is far more spread out, those lanes give drivers and riders far more distance to integrate as a general rule.
I take more of a pro-active approach to riding in the city. It's my welfare at stake. If I can ride the traffics pace, I take a lane, If I see where the "white line" has been worn by vehicles, I believe cars are cutting the corner.
I take a lane(cautiously) then return after it's safer.
October 16th, 2007 03:22
I rode through the Burnside/14th intersection every workday morning for about 6 months and I would leave the bikelane about a block before Burnside, entering and centering in the motorized vehicle lane about a block before Burnside. This is allowed by the SB 938, effective 1/1/06, allowing leaving a bicycle lane, "When continuing straight at an intersection when the bicycle lane or path is to the right of a lane from which a motor vehicle must turn right". I understand, for my own self-preservation that "must" in this instance is "may" which in my opinion should be the wording of the Senate bill. If it had been me last Thursday, I would have been IN FRONT of the cement truck. I would like to see discussion and review in Salem of 3 possible changes to non-motorized vehicle lane changes; route bicycle lanes to the left side of dedicated right-turn lanes, as has been done at several intersections around Portland, install "yield to bicycle when turning right" from a combination straight/rt-turn lane, and the possibility of showing a merged bike-motorized lane, with blue paint showing the bicycle lane in the middle of the lane instead of to the right. Staying alive commuting on a bicycle in Oregon should not depend entirely on being familiar with the hazards of every single intersection we travel on. Because the young lady may not have been aware of just how dangerous 14th /Burnside was, as she was new to town likely contributed to her death. Seasoned, experienced bicycle commuters like me stay alive by riding the edge of law-breaking, under current regulations, risking getting a ticket, depending on the PPB officer that may observe us and interpret the law. But...... we stay alive.
October 16th, 2007 07:33
Signs are good. They are a deterrent to professional drivers who do NOT want any incidents. If a sign saves a life, it will be worth it.
Underneath all the "rights" is the feeling on a bike: I am the vulnerable one here. I want drivers to WANT to see me. If the cement trucker had signs, or if Portland had strict laws about NEVER crossing a bike lane if a biker is there, perhaps he would have been checking his mirrors more and would have seen her approaching from behind before she entered his blind zone. Perhaps. Isn't a perhaps a good enough rationale to strengthen signage and the laws to protect us? We are the ones without a several-ton carapace.
October 16th, 2007 08:45
Regardless of what anyone thinks of this Lt. Kruger, and in addition to all these items we need to get more input on the CA solution. As a former saftey professional I still think it makes sense in addition to all the new signage. I understand the fear of vehicles abusing this law. But it does eliminate the blind hook. I had a conversation yesterday with the owner of a business that has many trucks on the Portland streets. He tells me that most of his trucks have a blind spot and cannot see when a rider comes up on the right.
Some of his vehicles have a window in the right hand door which helps, but most do not. Does anyone have a mirror solution that would allow a large truck to see a cyclist? Does anyone have any contact with CA traffic planners and professionals with regard to their law. I would really like to hear some on this outside of Lt. Kruger.
October 16th, 2007 09:00
Did not have time to read through everyone's comments, so I am sorry if this is repetitive.
Having "yeild to bike" signs through out the city is a little like cring wolf. I think people would just ignor them after awhile.
I think the best way to deal with an intersection is the same as on the Boradway viaduct. Use signal lights for bikes in conjunction with the bike bolavard concept. Basically the light would turn green for the bikers and hold drivers for 30 seconds, giving enough time for bikers to get out in front and upto speed. Set up the bike boulevards with these at major intersections and the yeild signs at minor ones. The end result are grid of bike centric streets with some cars that should attract the bulk of the bike transit.
Ultimately, this would help get bikers aways from major streets, like 14th, onto ones better designed for them where they have clearly more right of way.
My 2 cents
October 16th, 2007 09:27
Signs like that would probably help confused people from Boise who are lost and trying to make it back onto 84 East, but they won't do much for someone who lives in the area- people just don't give a damn, or will mentally filter it out after seeing it the first three times.
I think you'd have to break down the mix of traffic in an area, and assess whether you could make more of a difference with the same money elsewhere.
October 16th, 2007 09:33
Cyclists should at minimum merge with motorized traffic at intersections. This is the most important place to be visible and consistent with all other traffic so accidents can be avoided. Further, there should not be a large difference in speed so all cyclists and drivers should be OK.
Bike lanes at intersections frequently placing the cyclist in direct conflict with motorized traffic. There should never be a through lane to the right of a right-turning lane. This is bad design. A sign won't fix it, although it might help.
I would recommend that if you haven't tried out Vehicular Cycling, or some other technique, that you try it out and see what seems best. I fear that most people don't do this, and dismiss it without trying.
Either way, ride defensively and put yourself in the safest place you can. You may feel like you're slowing down traffic or yourself, but maybe it's worth it.
October 16th, 2007 09:39
The problem is that we have two lanes of traffic that impinge on one another. It’s like having a left turn lane on the right side of a through lane. Before intersections, bikes and cars need to merge together in the right lane so there isn’t a cross-over. This idea means that drivers must yield to bikes that are merging into the right lane from the bike lane.
Bike boxes will only work if traffic is stopped and bikes ride by cars on the right to get to the box. If traffic is moving, the boxes are ineffective. The California rule only gives drivers a false sense of right to cross over the bike lane. Cars should never cross a bike lane unless they are parallel parking or turning into a driveway.
My other idea is to eliminate bike lanes and use the entire right lane for slow moving traffic downtown. The entire lane would be used by everyone, bikes, cars, right turners. If cars want to go faster, they need to move over to a left lane. If a driver wants to turn right they need to safely merge into the right lane and be patient and respectful.
When I ride downtown I almost always take the vehicle lane since I am at least as fast as the cars around me. When I need to turn left from a one way street, I always move over when safe and take the entire left lane at least a block ahead of time. The only exception is when I am going up hill on the SW streets and I get a little slow, then I use the bike lane and let the cars go by me.
The other thing is a public education and outreach blitz. This would include TV ads, newspapers, bus shelters, etc. on how drivers should act around bicycles. The Government spends a lot of money on anti-smoking, abstinence, drinking and driving, etc. It’s time to educate drivers on how to drive. And real penalties would help.
October 16th, 2007 10:10
I would like to see bike boxes and pedestrian signals that double as bike signals and give peds and bikes a head start to travel through the intersection. For bicyclists, a few seconds would be enough to get them through the intersection and well within the sightlines of vehicles still waiting for the red light. For pedestrians, a few seconds would put them well within the crosswalk and visible to cars making turning movements. It could also help speed through movements by getting pedestrians out of the crosswalk earlier and allowing right turning vehicles to make their move without holding up cars behind them.
This has been done elsewhere in the City I think. Crossing Sandy Blvd at NE 42nd in Hollywood comes to mind. When I'm sitting in the bike lane waiting for the green light, I actually take my cue from the pedestrian signal, which has said "walk" a couple seconds before the green light for vehicles. I don't think it was intended for bicyclists to use, but it seems to work well for bikes also.
Reprogramming signals is a minor undertaking, but changing the lighted traffic ped signals to include bikes (while possibly unnecessary) could cost much more.. don't know though. Either way, the costs of the loss of life, in addition to non-fatal crashes, is invaluable, despite the costs attributed to them through cost/benefit analyses conducted by traffic engineers. Improvement of our transportation system to structurally eliminate crashes is a necessary cost, I believe.
October 16th, 2007 10:18
Steven J. (#44):
I'm glad to see someone finally mention how that bike lane changes lanes abruptly. The only time I rode that bike lane across downtown, I was terrified when I suddenly realized my bike lane was on the other side of the road, there were 3 lanes of traffic between me and it and I was facing a freeway entrance 1/2 block in front of me. I had to make eye contact with every car stacked up across 3 lanes and zig zag my way across to get back in the bike lane. I never even saw the place where the lane changes - I was probably busy watching huge trucks beside me.
October 16th, 2007 12:21
Unless they have come up with non-slip reflective paint, I would prefer not to see any paint used in the traveled portion of the bike lane. It doesn't take much moisture and brake use on that paint to send you into a slide under whatever vehicle is adjacent to you.
There is no easy solution to this issue, signs sound great but they don't remove the problem which is through lanes to the right of lanes that can turn. That just doesn't work.
I would like to see numbers from California on cyclists getting hooked. While their per capita number of cyclist is lower they probably have more cyclists by numbers, as well as each of those cyclists interacting with a larger number of motor vehicles per traveled mile. Lets see if the
October 16th, 2007 13:00
I agree with Phil Hanson (#18) that signs could give bicyclists a false sense of security. From what I know of the Sparling/cement truck collision, this sign would not have helped, in this case, if the driver could not see her.
A better approach is to educate bicyclist to the dangerous situations. The website BicycleSafe.com Collision#3 "The Red Light of Death" describes this type of collision and what to do about it. This website "How not to be hit by cars" is a must read for all bicyclist's who share the road with cars.
October 16th, 2007 13:09
I agree with the posts above in that I don't know if better signage is the answer. I come up and down Clinton everyday. At the 39th intersection there are signs that state no turn on Red, a bike box, and signs across the street that say Do not enter bikes only. I see cars everyday make rights on red stop in the bike box, and about twice a week I see some idiot shoot through the intersection ignoring the Do Not Enter Signs.
October 16th, 2007 13:34
I like the idea of moving the traffic signals behind the crosswalk (Todd #41), but that seems like a major undertaking to retrofit all the signal controlled intersections in the city. Seems like it could be possible when signals are added or replaced. It could be combined with a bike box and a 5 second bike/ped pre-signal.
Striping the bike lane through the intersection (Janel #39) seems like a good idea too, but would require frequent maintenance to withstand all the heavy traffic crossing it.
I really like the suggestion of installing flexible pylons (Doug #16) on the lane stripe for the couple of meters before the intersection. Slowing the right turning traffic and really forcing them to see the bike lane at the same time. This would prevent motorists from using the non-motorized vehicle travel lane as a turn lane, which is too dangerous to seriously consider.
My favorite idea, and one which costs nothing, is to continue to ride as I see fit to ensure my own and other's safety, using my own judgement and not relying on signs and laws to protect me. This includes taking the lane when I need to, being aware of all traffic around me, watching for subtle clues from other vehicle traffic and pedestrians as to their intended trajectory, and knowing that anytime I'm on the pavement, death is but a breath away.
October 16th, 2007 14:10
Place not your faith in painted lines. Get rid of bike lanes entirely, I say, and use the funding for education programs for motorists and cyclists, so that both are trained to use the appropriate lane at all times for their intended direction of travel (which is always the lane closest physically to the their intended direction of travel). And, where no exits, merges, or intersections occur, the outside lanes are always for slower moving traffic. Keep it simple, stupid.
October 16th, 2007 14:27
I don't know about signs, as a lot of motorists seem to ignore them. Not a week has gone by where I don't see people turning right on red when there is a "No Turn on Red" sign in three places (Fremont and 42nd anyone?). They also regularly get in the bike lanes,(I saw 3 cars do that today, while I was driving down West 14th, one turned on Burnside WITHOUT A TURN SIGNAL right where Tracey got killed and I wanted to SCREAM!), ignore "Yield to bike signs" (especially on NE Broadway) and so on and so forth. It's infuriating. I think EDUCATION is the key. Drivers need to go through Driver's Ed once every five years, with updates like "sharing the road with bicycles and pedestrians", "going slow through school zones", "being patient in your car", "avoiding road roage and it's symptoms", etc. I am a MUCH better driver now that I ride my bike 3-4 times a week and am AWARE of the dangers. If we forced everyone who drives to ride a bike and everyone who bikes to drive, we'd all have mutual respect for the dangers and courtesies required in both scenarios.
Just like I have to update my CPR certification once a year, why not have drivers update their education once every five?
October 16th, 2007 15:15
I like the rumble strip idea for bike lanes...a physical cue to drivers that 'you don't belong here.'
I really like the idea of bike boxes too, but education is important here. I have not been a bike rider very long and the first time I saw a bike box, I had no idea what it's purpose was.
Please do not remove bike lanes. I understand the reasoning behind the argument, but I think bike lanes help get more people on bikes. I've been a driver far longer than a rider and bike lanes helped get me on my bike. I knew I could get to my usual destinations because there was a bike lane for me to use. The bike lanes did not make me feel "safe", but they did make me feel safer. And now with a couple bike commuting years under my belt, I still feel safer on a road with a bike lane than without.
It should be said that I ride mostly on the west side near the burbs and have never ridden downtown. Two very different areas that need different solutions.
October 16th, 2007 15:22
I second the idea of Tasha #59....we need to reeducate and test drivers on a regular basis. In the past two days I've learned of two traffic law changes that have happened within the past couple of years. Had I not visited this site, I don't think I'd ever know of the changes...until I was ticketed.
October 16th, 2007 15:44
I was excited a few years ago when the City started putting down that heavy blue paint/sticker on the ground to mark the bike lane in dangerous intersections. I'd like to see that become more common.
October 16th, 2007 16:09
Thanks Sam Hill at #50 for link to Vehicular Cycling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling)
- Enlightening!
And Thanks to Janel for the links to Euro bike signage - the French one is excellent. It's encouraging that you work for PDOT.
October 16th, 2007 16:44
I don't know how much the sign would help - it's visibility that's the problem. There HAS to be some solution... sometimes I wish Bicyclists had a an actual separate signal. Then it would be super clear. People will tell me it's impractical. What we have isn't working too well either though.
Of course, that will mean that everyone -motorists, cyclists and pedestrians will have to actually follow the signals!
October 16th, 2007 16:45
No Paint,
There is a paint additive that sailboard manufacturers use to turn clear paint into a non-skid surface for the deck of sailboards. It works very well on a wet sailboard. I don't see why it couldn't be used here.
Shana,
I don't have an opinion on whether to remove bike lanes downtown, but I have to say I feel much safer when I can ride in the lane downtown. I work in Tigard so I ride in outer SW a lot and downtown is definitely a different animal. I wouldn't dream of taking the lane on 45 mph Multnomah Blvd., but on 25 mph downtown it feels much safer.
Now, if we could get the speed limit reduced to less than 20 mph like they're doing in England then we'd really have something.
October 16th, 2007 16:51
Ok me again, I just read through all the other comments. It seems lights aren't a crazy idea - I'd love to see some kind of Motorist Bicyclist Alliance for Safe Portland Street thing happening... if we put enough pressure on the city they have to do it... It'd be better if we could do it working together.
October 16th, 2007 16:59
The problem of a potentially right-turning lane to the left of a through-going lane has already been solved, in a way that could also work for bike lanes, given the civic will: treat the lanes as if they were separate streets entering the intersection. Each lane has its own traffic signal. While the bike lane has a green light, the vehicle lane has a straight-ahead green arrow and a right-turn red arrow (no right turn). While the vehicle lane has a straight-ahead green arrow and a right-turn green arrow, the bike lane has a red light (stay put). While cross traffic has any green light, both lanes have a red light. No right turns on red, at these intersections.
A similar solution could work at stop signs: treat the lanes as if they were separate streets entering a 4-way stop; whoever gets there first has the right of way.
These rules would eliminate the possibility of someone rolling into a blind spot and having the right of way over someone who can’t see them, yet would preserve bike lanes up to and through intersections.
It would slow both cars and bikes a little through busy intersections. It would also require both drivers and riders to stop at red lights and stop signs. As a driver and a rider, that would be OK with me.
October 16th, 2007 17:37
Steve Brown #47
A few thoughts on mirrors from someone who drove large trucks and bicycles in Portland for 25 years:
There are several blind spots on the right side of a conventional cab such as a that on a concrete truck. The large rectangular mirrors on each side of the cab are for seeing what's behind and, when adjusted properly, will not see anything next to the truck forward of the rearmost wheels. there is usually a small (6"-8") convex mirror mounted just below the large mirror. These will be adjusted to show the lanes immediately to the right and left from about the rear of the door back to where the large mirror will begin to give you some visibility. An experienced driver will also use these mirrors to center the truck in the lane by watching the distance from the rear tires to the lane markings. The right convex mirror will have a blind spot at the area of the door laterally for about 3 feet from the mirror location back to about the rear of the cab. This is the blind spot that can be eliminated by the small window at floor level. There is also a small rectangular convex mirror that can be mounted over the right side window, parallel to the ground. These are not very common but do give good visibility out to 4 feet from the side of the truck in the door area.
Because of the width of the cab and the height of the top of the hood above the ground, there is a huge blind spot that extends from about 6 feet in front of the front bumper back to about the middle of the right side door. This blind spot extends 10 to 15 feet to the side. Most trucks, including the one involved in the crash at 14th and Burnside, will have a large (10"-12") round convex mirror mounted on the front fender to give some visibility in this area.
There are some of problems with these mirrors, when it comes to looking at bicycles.
They are designed for checking the blind spot for a car in the lane next to you, prior to making a lane change. you are looking down at the top of the car... at the widest part of the car... it is very obvious that something is there. Looking down and from the front of a bicycle, you see it from the narrowest perspective possible.
Any convex mirror will show reflected objects as smaller than they really are. This effect is more pronounced as the object moves to the edge of the field of view. A bike close to the side of a truck will be at the edge of the field of view of the mirror and will appear smaller than it would if it were in the center of the mirrors field of view.
Vibration... A heavy diesel truck idles at 500-700 rpm. At this speed, the engine is quite close to stalling out and is vibrating so much that the mirror on the fender is just about useless for seeing small objects. As the truck gets up to speed the engine smooths out and the view clears up.
Given the nature of the vehicle, I don't know how to give the driver a better view of the blind spot. Perhaps a video camera would do it. I had one on the rear of the truck I drove most recently and it was good for backing up and watching following traffic and skitchers. It was also very susceptible to low rpm vibrations so maybe it's not any better than a big convex mirror at an idle. They are relatively cheap at around $500.00.
I was fortunate to always have a crew member in the right seat who I could ask "What's down there"? A solo driver doesn't have that option.
October 16th, 2007 18:51
All this talk of merging and road-sharing and telling bicyclists to take the lane has me worried.
What about the riders who cannot keep up, whose top speed is something like ten miles an hour on the flats?
They're screwed. And they're the ones who tell me, time and again, that they'd love to ride bikes more often but that getting yelled at by car drivers -- and faster riders! -- to speed up or get out of the way really compels them to stay in their cars. And who can blame them?
I was yelled at today, on the Burnside Bridge. I was yelled at by another bicyclist for going "too slow". I kept riding until there was a safe place to pull over and let him pass. It turned out that he was one of three bicyclists all waiting for me to get out of their way. The last one in the group yelled at me, "If you can't ride faster then stay off the road, geezer."
Okay. It's true, I'm pretty slow. I'm not old yet, but one of these days I will be. And if this is the welcome that older riders can expect, who would blame them for getting back into their cars?
This is not about making bike riders behave more like car drivers in order to fit into the car landscape. I maintain it's about slowing everyone else down to make the streets safer and better for bicycle riders and pedestrians. Period.
October 16th, 2007 19:06
beth h (#69): I couldn't agree more. I don't ride for speed, either. I do most of my riding downtown (or at least through downtown) and I've had far more close calls and bad experiences caused by other bikes than by cars/trucks/busses/pedestrians. I would love to cruise along the river sometimes, but the bat-out-of-hellers, clipping my handlebars and sneering at me, keep me away. I've been biking for years in more than one city, but crossing the Hawthorne bridge fills me with dread. Way too many cyclists in Portland seem to be just aggressive, rude drivers without their cars.
October 16th, 2007 21:20
For those of you (like #64) looking to see what a new bicycle traffic signal with a count down timer (until green phase) looks like go to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15235675@N07/1594161283/in/photostream/
This is the new type of traffic signal for bicycles appearing in Amsterdam about 2006. It is placed on the 'near side' of intersection.
October 17th, 2007 00:10
I strongly agree with Tasha #59 that people with motor vehicle drivers' licenses should be required to recertify every 5 years.
I agree with Peter W #7 that transportation planners might well argue against the signs suggested by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on the grounds that motorists might think that in places _without_ the sign, they could just charge ahead. But I also think signs like that help raise general awareness and could lead motorists to act more responsibly overall.
October 17th, 2007 00:20
BillD #68 -- Thanks very much for providing such extensive information on truck mirrors.
I am VERY concerned that most of the people who've heard about this accident have made the jump from thinking "It wasn't the truck driver's fault that Tracey Sparling died" to thinking "There is nothing that can be done about trucks or truck drivers to prevent future accidents of this kind." The first opinion is understandable, the second is preposterous. But it's the sort of jump that people make.
Getting rid of trucks' blinds spots will by no means solve the "right hook" problem -- heck, even a bicycle can hook another bicycle -- but it's an important piece of the puzzle. I'm going to contact Portland's city commissioners (including the mayor) to ask them to pass a city law requiring that in order to operate a large truck within the Portland city limits, its mirrors (or other visibility devices such as cameras, which should be seriously considered) must meet certain specifications. (It'll probably be politically necessary to have a few exceptions, e.g. for interstate highways.)
I would greatly appreciate support in this effort from anyone willing to give it. Please contact the city commissioners... and let other cycling advocates know that you want a city law requiring trucks to have decent mirrors. Sadly, I don't have have the time to fully coordinate an effort to get such a law passed, and I'm not sure anyone else does either; but the more we "truck mirror advocates" let each other know who we are, the more useful our actions will be.
October 17th, 2007 06:03
Beth (#69)
I've ridden downtown for the last 4 years
and I'm pushing 50, I don't ride for speed as well, I ride to ride. I would be the first to tell you, that if you can't stay at traffic speed, It's best not to take a lane. However, it's very easy to ease out into a lane at an intersection slowing for a light. (last 50-75ft)
then when through the intersection, ease back to the side for traffic.
It's essentially like Krugers proposal, in CA. just close quarters
I've used this strategy all the way down the coast, in downtown areas and most recently On the strip in Las Vegas. by bike.
As far as people yelling at you for going slow, time will catch them. Hawthorn BR, Springwater Corridor and many areas are muli use ped & bike.
Remind them it's not the velodrome.
October 17th, 2007 07:06
Lisa 67,
While the idea of treating the bike lane as a separate street with separate signals sounds good it just isn't feasible from a money standpoint and a traffic flow standpoint.
Yes this sounds car centric, but the gridlock imparted by right turn on red being turned on and off based on the bike lane signal is going to be huge.
And whether we like it or not cars are in the majority but it also benefits cyclists to have a smooth traffic flow.
October 17th, 2007 08:04
Anyone suggesting that a situation allowing cars to turn right across a through-going lane of *other cars* without any controlling signal should be allowed to persist because installing adequate traffic signals would not be cost-effective or would increase gridlock would be laughed out of town. Even leaving aside the private costs (financial and emotional) of such easily preventable accidents, how much does it cost the city of Portland to respond to and investigate them? Also, every bicycle commuter going through downtown is one less car contributing to gridlock, air pollution, and gasoline consumption, all of which have their own costs. If the city is serious about encouraging citizens to switch from cars to bicycles, it should make the effort to make is possible to do so without gratuitously risking our lives.
October 17th, 2007 10:30
Phil Hanson(#18)
"A better course of action would be to educate cyclists to stay out of a truck's blind spots."
Well said. While the truck driver is legally liable whether he can see a cyclist or not, look at what they have to deal with:
http://tinyurl.com/39fmgg
This is the street view from almost exactly where the cement truck is. A stopped truck, when moving, has to worry about taking the corner sharply enough not to hit stopped traffic WB on Burnside, but wide enough to not hit the light or utility poles on the corner, while watching for possible (illegal)oncoming traffic from the left, and oncoming pedestrians entering the crosswalk from either side of Burnside. He can't pay attention to everything at the same time, and shifting one's eyes rapidly between the potential trouble spots means he might miss something. Sure, he's responsible - but does that relieve us as cyclists of our responsibility to be as visible as we can?
Bjorn (#26)
"Also in the google street view image note which side of the white bike lane stripe the vans right tires are on..."
That's because the Google vehicle has just turned the corner from Burnside - it's perfectly legal for him to cross the bike lane while making a turn.
Todd Boulanger (#41)
"By placing the traffic signal heads (properly angled) above the nearest crosswalk (vs. on the otherside of the intersection as is common in North America) then motorists who creep up into a crosswalk can no logner see the signal."
Many cities do this, including DETROIT, of all places. If "Car Central" can do it, Portland surely could. It likely won't happen without serious political will, though, because it would be very expensive.
99th Monkey (#45)
"If it had been me last Thursday, I would have been IN FRONT of the cement truck"
I think you mean "IN BACK" - to be in front of the truck, the truck would have to drive up AFTER you were already at the intersection. In that case, the driver would already know you were there (since they check the right corner for obstructions they could clip during their turn). While we don't know exactly what happened in the Sparling case, it's likely she rode up alongside the truck after he was stopped at the light, and unless he was watching his right side mirror the entire time, he may never have seen her riding up into his blind spot.
I think "near side" signals combined with bike boxes would be the best solution for this, but given the expense I don't think it's going to happen. The "user fee" fanatics like Terry Parker and Jim Karlock would have a field day with it.
October 17th, 2007 10:38
I think the biggest problem here is that we have the worst of both worlds: cyclists are as vulnerable to injury as pedestrians, and less maneuverable as well. Pedestrians can jump back when a car or truck right-hooks them. Bikes can't. (Fixies might be able to, if the rider has good balance and quick reflexes - one of the cases where they may be superior to all other bikes)
October 18th, 2007 00:19
Adult bicyclists are already supposed to be educated about avoiding blind spots around trucks and buses.
The Oregon Driver Manual (ODM) says "As a bicyclist in Oregon, you must be aware that bicycles are considered vehicles. You have the same rights, duties, and responsibilities as vehicle drivers."
So far I've seen a lot of talk about rights, but not so much about duties and responsibilities. The ODM also states, in bold, "The same traffic rules and regulations apply to both bicyclists and vehicle drivers." This means that one of the responsibilities of using the road is to be educated about the rules and regulations that apply to you.
The ODM also has important safety information that all bicyclists should know for their own protection.
For example, there are illustrations showing where the blind spots are for both cars and trucks. Trucks and buses are identified as known hazards with large blind spots that can hide a small car, let alone a bicycle. It's up to motorists and bicyclists to adjust their driving/cycling to compensate for these known hazards, and the ODM explains how to stay safe around trucks and buses. It needs to be adapted a bit for bicyclists, but you can get the idea.
The Oregon Bicyclist Manual has useful information like how to trigger the traffic signals, and what to do if a signal won't trigger for you. It also has a list of statewide and local bicycle map providers, and contact information with phone numbers you can call to suggest how to improve road conditions for cycling in your area.
I urge all bicyclists to study both the Oregon Driver Manual and the Oregon Bicyclist Manual. It just might save your life.
http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/37.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/docs/Bike/2006_Bicycle_Manual.pdf
October 18th, 2007 13:30
Deb, I agree with most of what you wrote there but I think you're missing a point. The bike lane IS a traffic lane populated by vehicles and cars are turning across that lane. Would you remind a driver in the left of two auto lanes of their duty to check their "blind spot" before turning right onto a side street? No, of course not because no car driver in their right mind would do that and it would be frighteningly illegal if one did. I'm not saying that cyclists don't share responsibility but that the situation is a bit more complex then what you're putting forth.
October 18th, 2007 20:42
[...] I mention education this is the sort of thing I’m talking about: from bikeportland.org—Safer Streets. (Image: [...]