Comments on: Time to unite the city behind biking (and other ideas shared at our Social) http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764 Portland Oregon bicycle news, events, culture, travel and opinion. Tue, 29 May 2012 00:55:47 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: wsbob http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477927 wsbob Tue, 08 Dec 2009 21:34:25 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477927 are, the OJD record and bikeportland story are interesting. Regarding the case covered by OJD record; it's too bad that the defendant's appeal arose out of a Critical Mass ride...on the Hawthorne Bridge. What the bikeportland story of PBOT employee Jeff Smith's day in court over the failure to ride in a bike lane, was able to report about the 'public meeting' element of the bike lane statute was very interesting. Based on this story's limited account, the opinion of the judge, and maybe the City of Portland's Chief of Bicycles, Roger Geller assumption that the public meetings element of the bike lane statute has been met by approval of the city's master bike plan isn't very satisfying. I haven't read through the city's master bike plan, so I have little idea of the specifications to which bike lanes have designed, constructed and approved formally by governments in Oregon. The simple fact seems to be that though they are being built...and I think that's a good thing, from a first hand user perspective, they frequently do not seem to be built according to a standard that would make them safe to be ridden on at a speed that is reasonable for many of the people riding bikes for transportation today. That presents the situation of how to proceed to address this problem. Too much to discuss on this thread. are, the OJD record and bikeportland story are interesting.

Regarding the case covered by OJD record; it's too bad that the defendant's appeal arose out of a Critical Mass ride...on the Hawthorne Bridge.

What the bikeportland story of PBOT employee Jeff Smith's day in court over the failure to ride in a bike lane, was able to report about the 'public meeting' element of the bike lane statute was very interesting. Based on this story's limited account, the opinion of the judge, and maybe the City of Portland's Chief of Bicycles, Roger Geller assumption that the public meetings element of the bike lane statute has been met by approval of the city's master bike plan isn't very satisfying.

I haven't read through the city's master bike plan, so I have little idea of the specifications to which bike lanes have designed, constructed and approved formally by governments in Oregon. The simple fact seems to be that though they are being built...and I think that's a good thing, from a first hand user perspective, they frequently do not seem to be built according to a standard that would make them safe to be ridden on at a speed that is reasonable for many of the people riding bikes for transportation today.

That presents the situation of how to proceed to address this problem. Too much to discuss on this thread.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: are http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477857 are Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:05:11 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477857 oh, and get rid of the far to the right law too while we are at it oh, and get rid of the far to the right law too while we are at it

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: are http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477855 are Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:02:09 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477855 wsbob, you have perhaps inadvertently identified a very specific case in which the BTA has failed spectacularly to represent the interests of transportational bicyclists. yes, the statute needed to be changed, and yes, if you are going to have a far to the right law (which we already have in 814.430) you need the exceptions for road hazards. well done, thanks BTA. but they left subsection (2) untouched. the state appeals court has ruled that the burden is on the ticketed cyclist to show that there was _not_ a public hearing, http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm and PBoT has taken the position that the public discussion that preceded the adoption of the present bicycle master plan constituted all the public hearings you need. the only reason Jeff Smith was let out of a ticket on this issue a couple of years ago is that the judge bought the argument that he needed to merge left a block and a half early to prepare for a left turn. http://bikeportland.org/2006/11/07/expert-witness-backfires-on-da-in-bike-lane-case/ that's fine, but why should each of us be subject to the whim of the police when all we are trying to do is exercise our best judgment in a tricky situation? if the BTA will not represent us on this kind of thing, we need another, edgier group to step forward. wsbob, you have perhaps inadvertently identified a very specific case in which the BTA has failed spectacularly to represent the interests of transportational bicyclists. yes, the statute needed to be changed, and yes, if you are going to have a far to the right law (which we already have in 814.430) you need the exceptions for road hazards. well done, thanks BTA. but they left subsection (2) untouched. the state appeals court has ruled that the burden is on the ticketed cyclist to show that there was _not_ a public hearing,
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A115242.htm
and PBoT has taken the position that the public discussion that preceded the adoption of the present bicycle master plan constituted all the public hearings you need. the only reason Jeff Smith was let out of a ticket on this issue a couple of years ago is that the judge bought the argument that he needed to merge left a block and a half early to prepare for a left turn.
http://bikeportland.org/2006/11/07/expert-witness-backfires-on-da-in-bike-lane-case/
that's fine, but why should each of us be subject to the whim of the police when all we are trying to do is exercise our best judgment in a tricky situation? if the BTA will not represent us on this kind of thing, we need another, edgier group to step forward.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: wsbob http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477722 wsbob Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:02:14 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477722 are, getting off topic I suppose. You might consider starting a thread in the forums. Through a web search today, my memory was refreshed, that some time back, Bricker and the BTA worked to have this statute amended to what it is today: <a href="http://stc-law.com/straightening.html" rel="nofollow">CLARIFICATION OF BICYCLE LANE LAW, Ray Thomas, Swanson Thomas Coon Attorneys</a> Seem as though, if a bike lane has a problem, an appeal would be in order according to subsection 2 of the law. For a given location or situation, what does the state/authority regard as 'safe bicycle use'? What is the reasonable rate of speed at which it finds the bike lane to be safe to travel in? I wouldn't imagine that a bike lane such as the one adjoining and amidst the main lanes of travel on NE Broadway would have a posted speed separate from that of the main travel lanes. So unless they attended the public hearing or had access to the records, how would people riding there know what speed the jurisdictional authority had approved for travel in that lane? Lacking commonly known answers to such questions, of course, there's always the option of common sense. That should be enough for most people to decide to either leave the bike lane on a road such as NE Broadway and travel in the main lanes of travel, as long as the use was reasonable, or, possibly find a nearby route that's more compatible for their needs. From ORS 814.420: (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. are, getting off topic I suppose. You might consider starting a thread in the forums. Through a web search today, my memory was refreshed, that some time back, Bricker and the BTA worked to have this statute amended to what it is today:

CLARIFICATION OF BICYCLE LANE LAW, Ray Thomas, Swanson Thomas Coon Attorneys

Seem as though, if a bike lane has a problem, an appeal would be in order according to subsection 2 of the law. For a given location or situation, what does the state/authority regard as 'safe bicycle use'? What is the reasonable rate of speed at which it finds the bike lane to be safe to travel in? I wouldn't imagine that a bike lane such as the one adjoining and amidst the main lanes of travel on NE Broadway would have a posted speed separate from that of the main travel lanes. So unless they attended the public hearing or had access to the records, how would people riding there know what speed the jurisdictional authority had approved for travel in that lane?

Lacking commonly known answers to such questions, of course, there's always the option of common sense. That should be enough for most people to decide to either leave the bike lane on a road such as NE Broadway and travel in the main lanes of travel, as long as the use was reasonable, or, possibly find a nearby route that's more compatible for their needs.

From ORS 814.420:

(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.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: Steve Brown http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477487 Steve Brown Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:53:09 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477487 Hope I can find time to be at the next discussion. Regardless of the approach, bikes are a quality of life issue. The more bikes, the better we live. One of the issues Scott Bricker and I discussed often was BTA serving as a platform or catalyst for greater political involvement statewide. It kind of sounds like this is what is emerging from a different ad hoc group. If you know what NARAL Oregon does in terms of political power in the state, you can imagine what the bike community can do. Hope I can find time to be at the next discussion. Regardless of the approach, bikes are a quality of life issue. The more bikes, the better we live. One of the issues Scott Bricker and I discussed often was BTA serving as a platform or catalyst for greater political involvement statewide. It kind of sounds like this is what is emerging from a different ad hoc group. If you know what NARAL Oregon does in terms of political power in the state, you can imagine what the bike community can do.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: are http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477469 are Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:45:50 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477469 wsbob, i have read 814.420 many, many times. the statute does not provide an exception for the circumstance in which the striped bike lane is poorly placed, so that if i were to use it i would encourage overtaking motorists to pass too close. possibly the most obvious example is the pinch point on williams at about graham, but there are countless others. only rarely will i use the striped lanes on either broadway or lovejoy descending from the bridge, and then only until i can find an opening. the safe passing distance law includes an express exception for overtaking a bike in a striped lane. you can paint all the stripes you want. i need to be able to make an independent judgment what is safe for me. wsbob, i have read 814.420 many, many times. the statute does not provide an exception for the circumstance in which the striped bike lane is poorly placed, so that if i were to use it i would encourage overtaking motorists to pass too close. possibly the most obvious example is the pinch point on williams at about graham, but there are countless others. only rarely will i use the striped lanes on either broadway or lovejoy descending from the bridge, and then only until i can find an opening. the safe passing distance law includes an express exception for overtaking a bike in a striped lane. you can paint all the stripes you want. i need to be able to make an independent judgment what is safe for me.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: wsbob http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477212 wsbob Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:50:41 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477212 are, thanks for clarifying your thinking behind the two terms you used. The so called Oregon side path law, actually titled: "814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty." The word 'exceptions' in that title relieves people riding bikes from being confined to bike lanes. Read the statute in entirety to understand why. Many kinds of people that ride bikes or might be persuaded to...really benefit from having bike lanes available. are, thanks for clarifying your thinking behind the two terms you used.

The so called Oregon side path law, actually titled: "814.420 Failure to use bicycle lane or path; exceptions; penalty." The word 'exceptions' in that title relieves people riding bikes from being confined to bike lanes. Read the statute in entirety to understand why.

Many kinds of people that ride bikes or might be persuaded to...really benefit from having bike lanes available.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: are http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477148 are Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:50:06 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477148 the phrase "church of green" was used specifically to respond to points raised by vance, who uses the term. if i am a vegan who buys locally grown organics and grows stuff in my own yard, who does not have a car or a television or a dishwasher or a clothes washer or dryer, i might be green myself, so you may be assured i am not engaging in bitter name calling. the word "funnists" identifies a specific group here in portland, and i think does not really require further elaboration by me. though again i might note that i have participated in any number of pedalpalooza rides and other shift events, so again, no bitter name calling, just singling out certain subgroups who may be seen by outsiders as somehow constituting a "bike culture" that ordinary folks cannot get into. as far as staking your claim. there is an appropriate place in the travel lane, and it is not way the hell over on the right, that a cyclist needs to assert in order to maneuver safely in auto traffic. many motorists mistakenly believe you should be much further to the right, or off the road entirely. they are simply wrong. my taking the lane has nothing to do with aggression, and is actually the opposite of oblivious, ignorant, or inconsiderate. if a motorist becomes unhappy and is willing to engage in a civil discussion of the matter, it should be possible to have that conversation at the next light. but if a motorist insists on leaning on the horn and then passing too close when the first opening appears, i may become angry because my safety has been threatened. you might say i created the situation by taking the lane, but the alternative is to surrender the commons entirely to thugs. the phrase "church of green" was used specifically to respond to points raised by vance, who uses the term. if i am a vegan who buys locally grown organics and grows stuff in my own yard, who does not have a car or a television or a dishwasher or a clothes washer or dryer, i might be green myself, so you may be assured i am not engaging in bitter name calling. the word "funnists" identifies a specific group here in portland, and i think does not really require further elaboration by me. though again i might note that i have participated in any number of pedalpalooza rides and other shift events, so again, no bitter name calling, just singling out certain subgroups who may be seen by outsiders as somehow constituting a "bike culture" that ordinary folks cannot get into.

as far as staking your claim. there is an appropriate place in the travel lane, and it is not way the hell over on the right, that a cyclist needs to assert in order to maneuver safely in auto traffic. many motorists mistakenly believe you should be much further to the right, or off the road entirely. they are simply wrong.

my taking the lane has nothing to do with aggression, and is actually the opposite of oblivious, ignorant, or inconsiderate. if a motorist becomes unhappy and is willing to engage in a civil discussion of the matter, it should be possible to have that conversation at the next light. but if a motorist insists on leaning on the horn and then passing too close when the first opening appears, i may become angry because my safety has been threatened. you might say i created the situation by taking the lane, but the alternative is to surrender the commons entirely to thugs.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: wsbob http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477129 wsbob Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:41:34 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477129 " motorists are gonna hate you and think you are "the other" without the help of the "church of green." " are #31 Phrases like 'church of green' come off as sarcastic, bitter name calling that alienate potential allies for better cycling conditions. "you gotta stake your claim to your space on the road. it is not cm, and it is not bta, and it is not the funnists that make your life with motorists difficult." are #31 "...funnists..." ? I'm not exactly sure who or what that is supposed to refer to. Oh well... . As for the rest of what's said in that statement, I don't think a very sizable percentage of potential bikes as transportation members of the public want to have to stake their claim to the road if that means being very aggressive. Very aggressive, oblivious, ignorant, inconsiderate road users are largely responsible for problems on the road today. People are looking for less tension on the road...not more. Bikes as transportation can help produce that if supported by good ideas, improved attitudes and better infrastructure. " motorists are gonna hate you and think you are "the other" without the help of the "church of green." " are #31

Phrases like 'church of green' come off as sarcastic, bitter name calling that alienate potential allies for better cycling conditions.

"you gotta stake your claim to your space on the road. it is not cm, and it is not bta, and it is not the funnists that make your life with motorists difficult." are #31

"...funnists..." ? I'm not exactly sure who or what that is supposed to refer to. Oh well... . As for the rest of what's said in that statement, I don't think a very sizable percentage of potential bikes as transportation members of the public want to have to stake their claim to the road if that means being very aggressive. Very aggressive, oblivious, ignorant, inconsiderate road users are largely responsible for problems on the road today.

People are looking for less tension on the road...not more. Bikes as transportation can help produce that if supported by good ideas, improved attitudes and better infrastructure.

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]> By: Vance Longwell http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/04/time-to-unite-the-city-behind-biking-and-other-ideas-shared-at-our-social-26764#comment-1477074 Vance Longwell Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:55:33 +0000 http://bikeportland.org/?p=26764#comment-1477074 are #31 - I've said it before, I'll say it again, put me on that 'repeal 811.420' list fuh-sho! You'd all be surprised how little I'd care about all of this at that point. Bike advocacy I was involved in stirred up a hornets nest of backlash I do not want to experience again. And it started with endless attempts to ban us from motorist traffic, and to confine us to bicycle-lanes. Never-mind the plethora of personal injuries received from enraged motorists, and the stuff they could find to throw at me from out of their car windows. No bike-lane, no ban, savvy? It's so much easier to block the construction of bike-infrastructure, than it is to drag yourself out of being relegated to it, trust me. That's my brand, and should be self-evident. Why give 'em the rope? Much better to suck-it-up a little and get by, IMO. Oh, and Mathew #24 - Hey thanks for that! :-) are #31 - I've said it before, I'll say it again, put me on that 'repeal 811.420' list fuh-sho! You'd all be surprised how little I'd care about all of this at that point.

Bike advocacy I was involved in stirred up a hornets nest of backlash I do not want to experience again. And it started with endless attempts to ban us from motorist traffic, and to confine us to bicycle-lanes. Never-mind the plethora of personal injuries received from enraged motorists, and the stuff they could find to throw at me from out of their car windows. No bike-lane, no ban, savvy?

It's so much easier to block the construction of bike-infrastructure, than it is to drag yourself out of being relegated to it, trust me. That's my brand, and should be self-evident. Why give 'em the rope? Much better to suck-it-up a little and get by, IMO.

Oh, and Mathew #24 - Hey thanks for that! :-)

Recommended Thumb up 0

]]>