Steel Bridge (note the yellow sign).
Since moving into an office on SW 4th (between Stark and Oak) the Steel Bridge has become my preferred access in and out of downtown. Because I prefer the most direct and efficient route, I ride up on the bridge roadway (not on the sidewalk and not the lower-deck, multi-use path).
Unfortunately, riding in the roadway over the Steel Bridge tends to make some people driving cars angry. This morning I got into a shouting match with a man in a minivan who insisted I should not be there.
At least once per week (that’s out of 10 trips on average) someone in a car gets annoyed with me — to varying degrees — simply for being on the road (the roadway isn’t safe for a car and a bike to share simultaneously, so I take the lane). Often it’s the classic motor rev and too-close-for-comfort pass (in which 99% of the time I pass them at the next light of course), sometimes people honk, and I’ve had several folks stick their hand out their window and motion to our right — as if to say, “Get over on the sidewalk!”
(Photo © J. Maus)
The problem with the Steel Bridge upper deck is that the sidewalk, at just five feet wide (that feels even narrower given the guardrail on one side and fence/river on the other), is not wide enough for people on bikes and foot to share the path. It’s not a multi-use path (the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices recommends that multi-use paths are a minimum of 10-feet wide) and therefore, the agency that manages traffic on the bridge (which is a confusing mix of PBOT (the approaches), ODOT (the upper deck) and TriMet (which subleases from ODOT)), has placed a yellow caution sign on the approach that reads, “Bicycles on Bridge Roadway.”
You’d think that sign would signal to folks that not only should they expect people on bikes on the road, but that people on bikes have a legal right to be there.
That is, unless, you read the sign as “No Bikes on Roadway,” which is what happened to me this morning.
As I rode mid-bridge I had a minivan pull along side of me (that happened to be an official Central City Concern fleet vehicle). A man inside was angrily pointing toward the sidewalk and yelling that the sign says, “No bikes on roadway!”
I smiled and yelled back at him (so he could hear, not because I was angry) that the sign actually said “Bikes on roadway” and that the sidewalk is made for only people to walk on. The man in the van wasn’t convinced. He rolled down his window and we shouted back and forth at each other for several more seconds.
When I rolled down off the bridge, the man parked his van in Old Town, got out and began talking to some friends on the sidewalk. I rode past and then decided to swing around to try and explain myself in a less stressful environment than riding inches from each other on top of the Steel Bridge.
It didn’t go too well. We both spoke loudly, trying to make our points. As I turned to walk away he and/or his friends shouted “Get a life!”.
When I got to my office, I called Central City Concern to share what happened and to express my concerns about the behavior of their driver. My call was met with an apology and a very professional response and I feel confident the fleet vehicle supervisor will be notified.
—
This story is as much about civility on our roads as it is about bike access and infrastructure.
If there was higher quality and direct access for bikes over the Steel Bridge, I would never be in that position. As nice as it is to sometimes ride through Waterfront Park and up the ramps from the Esplanade, I don’t always feel like making all those twists and turns, dodging dogs, runners, tourists, and other people (it’s analogous to routing cars through a windy, slow-speed alleyway instead of a nearby arterial).
However, when I choose to take the more direct route up and over the Steel Bridge, I am faced with two less-than ideal options. I either ride on the five-foot sidewalk, which is very narrow and tends to annoy walkers/joggers, or I take the lane and am subject to frequent unpleasant — and potentially dangerous — interactions with other road users.
As a solution, perhaps ODOT and/or PBOT could consider more clarifying signage and/or pavement markings letting people know to expect bikes on the road. At the moment, a painted shoulder lane (which looks like a bike lane) on the uphill approaches to the bridge abruptly ends and the lane becomes narrow. The only cue that bikes are likely to be in the road (and have a right to be there) are the aforementioned signs, which are easy to miss (and misinterpret).
I’d suggest sharrows, but since PBOT has used those to mark family-friendly residentials streets, I don’t think they like the mixed message of placing them in situations like this.
I’d love to hear other people’s experiences with riding over the Steel Bridge. Do you take the sidewalk (I used to, but it got annoying) or the roadway?
—
UPDATE, 5:02pm: As another possible step that might help clarify this situation with road users, several folks have suggested this sign (instead of the “Bikes on Bridge Roadway”):
how much time do you actually save by going over rather under the bridge?
Quite a bit actually. Have never timed it, but if you map it out, you’ll see it’s much shorter/more direct.
I completely agree with Jonathan. I also mapped it out and it is clearly the most direct route. It used to be even faster before people on bikes had to slow down to navigate the right turning light rail tracks at the bottom of the westbound ramp.
I timed my ride home (I commute from Lloyd District up to the west end of Glisan) by going the under route and following all the traffic laws. It increased my commute time by about 10 minutes, or by more than 50%. Breaking laws, it still adds considerable time.
10 minutes eh? Considering I walk that route daily, and the difference in walking is about 3-5 minutes, depending on traffic/lights. More of course if the lower spam is up.
Sometimes I’ll take the upper route but even as a pedestrian it is annoying to use as bikers and joggers come VERY close to you on that path.
~10 minutes following all traffic laws, which I timed a while back as an experiment. That means crossing Naito at the light at Davis and going west to 4th, then north back up to Glisan, not running red lights, crossing safely at stop signs, etc. But by ducking under the bridge, crossing Naito and the railroad tracks and then riding up the slip road south of the Steel bridge ramp, it still adds a couple of minutes as well as a busy street crossing and an extra stoplight. Kind of pointless, when there’s a road and a sidewalk that goes right where I want to be.
why don’t you take the broadway bridge? you’re riding south on vancouver, mississippi, interstate or greeley, right?
Because there’s no direct access to B’way Bridge from SW 4th. I despise riding out of my way unless there’s no other option.
ha! alright then. you’re right, coming off the broadway bridge would put you waaaaaay out of the way of your office. something like, i don’t know, 3 of those huge downtown blocks.
Riding up Broadway is a mess. There is constantly construction at the new building(s) by Burnside and Couch, and the crossings where there aren’t lights can be relatively dangerous if you get stuck in traffic. Also, you are riding up in the bike lane, so if you’re trying to get east to 2nd/3rd/4th/5th you have to dodge across 3 lanes of traffic to merge left. Why should you suggest Jonathan go that way, instead of the direct route across the steel bridge, where he can get directly onto 3rd which has well-timed lights for bicycling (also unlike broadway) and is much easier and safer to take the lane versus the bike lane on Broadway?
i’m suggesting that because i think jonathan is whining really badly here. he can take broadway and be horribly inconvenienced by a few extra blocks and temporary construction (which has been very accommodating to bike traffic) or he can continue to take the lane and be harassed by stupid dudes when he takes the lane. if he takes broadway he can avoid stuff like this.
you know what? i don’t really care. i think this post is a little ridiculous. i also think it’s ridiculous that jonathan “despises” riding out of his way when i mentioned the mega distance of 3 blocks.
Sharrows.
And thanks for calling the fleet supervisor. I’m sure that they do want to know how their drivers are representing their company.
Not just that, but operating expensive, potentially lethal equipment the organization owns.
w, does that matter? If going under is faster, does that eliminate a bicyclist’s right to ride on the upper span of the bridge?
I also took the top deck of the Steel Bridge when I worked in SW Portland for nearly 6 years. It was the most direct and comfortable route for me. I also occasionally had drivers yell at me and one time got physically brushed by the side panel of a car.
I have also had some heated verbal exchange with drivers when I point out the sign that says “[bike picture] ON BRIDGE ROADWAY” They simply don’t get it.
One method that I used to try and mitigate altercations was to immediately move over to the far left side of the lane until under the main span of the bridge. This lets as many cars as possible safely pass me until I need to move to the center of the lane for lack of shoulder width.
I used to ride in the center lane between the TriMet tracks, but when they remodeled a few years back they placed a cub there limiting traffic only TriMet vehicles.
curb… not cub… and the “remodel” was during the addition of the new green line route down the transit mall.
We shouldn’t be thinking, “Should he have taken another route? How much time did he save?” etc. He had a right to be there and he doesn’t deserve to be harassed and intimidated. Calling Central City was absolutely the thing to do. It amazes me how people behave when they are practically billboards for themselves or their employer. Duh! My only similar experience is on the Sellwood where I always take the lane.
I live near the foot of the NW ramp and take the sidewalk. Always. I frequently return home coming south on the Interstate bike route and get onto the north sidewalk, along with most other cyclists. Many cyclists simply dismount if passing a pedestrian. As a senior citizen who never wants to drive again, I need safe way to get home. Shared roadway is great, but here an additional option is warranted.
But your personal preference does not negate a cyclist’s legal right to use the lane.
This is why I prefer either the Esplanade or the Burnside Bridge. The cramped situation of motor vehicle traffic and light rail tracks is too much for me. Stay safe out there.
Burnside bridge doesn’t reallyl make a lot of sense for most N/NE people to go to – because you have to cross over I-84, if you’re coming from anywhere north of the alphabet streets, basically.
I’m in the same boat as you Jonathan – the upper deck of the Steel bridge is way quicker than the lower deck and it’s meandering route. I typically ride on the sidewalk however to avoid the perils of the actual roadway, and laugh about how useless the “bikes on bridge roadway” sign is.
I’d prefer to ride in the roadway, but I’ve found there are too many people that would prefer that I NOT ride in the roadway. I also once had an incident where I slid out on the steel bridge seam one wet day near the west end of the bridge as it narrows just before straightening out (just to the left in the uppermost picture).
The worst part of riding in the sidewalk is passing people heading in the same direction – you have to practically yell at them to hear over the traffic noise. It’s even more frustrating when they’ve got headphones on.
If you frequently encounter dangerous situations, why do you persist with going on top of the Steel bridge? How can we really argue for more bike access when the very bridge we are complaining about has a no-cars pedestrian/bicycle path on it, just in a different part than we’d like? I bike as well as drive, if it matters.
How can we really argue that bicycles make way for cars on the Steel bridge when there are at least two bike-free, car-only bridges that go over the same river?
Four. Ross Island and Sellwood are effectively bike-free given the use-sidewalk-and-dismount requirements.
Neither bridge has such requirements.
I was under the impression that although uncomfortable and hostile, it was legal and perfectly fine to bike across the Ross Island and Sellwood bridges.
Ross Island has a no bikes on bridge sign. The sidewalk isn’t that bad going west, but isn’t any fun going the other way against traffic. Connections at either end are terrible, especially the west end, where its next to impossible to reach the sidewalk going eastward, if you’ve managed to not get run over by the freeway style ramps.
Effectively bike free.
“If you frequently encounter dangerous situations, why do you persist with going on top of the Steel bridge? ”
This also seems to be the attitude of the angry drivers Jonathan and others have encountered. Note that the danger comes from *car drivers* who can’t fathom that those of us on bikes might have just as valid (and legal!) a reason to be there as they do. It is a matter of principle as much as it is anything.
This phenomenon–people in cars ‘knowing’ where bikes belong and don’t belong–is why some folks are ambivalent about bike lanes. They feel entitled to the whole road because they (at times mis-)read signs suggesting bikes belong somewhere else. No sharing with them!
Sarah,
Please re-read the story. I never said I “frequently encounter dangerous” situations. If I did I would be in the Mayor’s office demanding a fix immediately. In this case, while the interactions can sometimes be dangerous (depending on your bike skill level), they are mostly just annoying and stressful.
Also, even if I felt the situations were often dangerous, I might choose to continue to ride up there because I have the legal right to do so and I feel that giving into dangers that exist in our car-centric system only perpetuates those dangers and reduces our roads to places where only the strong/big/fast survive…. which is not my vision of the roads.
Cut Sarah a little slack, you said, “or I take the lane and am subject to frequent unpleasant — and potentially dangerous — interactions with other road users.“
I ride on the steel bridge. I also ride Sandy, Cesar Chazvez, Burnside, and many other arterials. I don’t do this to irritate you or other motorists. My goal is simply to get from point A to B as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Your response makes me wonder whether you believe that I, as a cyclist, have an equal right to be on a road. If so, then the existence of a lower stress root is completely irrelevant to my route choice.
I bike and no longer drive, if it matters.
route
Once again I long for the awesome signage in San Francisco: “Bikes allowed use of full lane”. It makes it pretty clear. There is even some kind of nationwide proposal for a similar sign… found it:
“Proposed R4-11 “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” Sign – Part 9 of the MUTCD”
We recently got some of the BMUFL signs in Maine:
http://www.meetup.com/Portland-Bike-Commuting/photos/3184442/
jk
You’re from that other Portland, aren’t cha?
/jk
We used to ask for these signs on the SF Peninsula in situations like this.
I like them much better than “Bikes on Roadway” or “Share the Road” — both of which send the message that sharing the road with bikes is an unusual situation. The BAUFL signs suggest that the unusual situation is bikes actually needing a full lane — less car-centric, more accurate.
Not a proposal: Actual requirement.
Please point to where you have seen these legal requirements in written Federal or State code; I’d really like to be able to reference them if they exist.
A quick google found this USDOT FHA statement that contradicts your statement:
Overall Federal guidance seems to point to many standards of a application but few explicit requirements when it comes to road signs.
Why use the term ‘allowed’ or ‘may?’ If it’s not wide enough for both bike and car, where the sign would likely be posted, then the bicyclist should take the lane.
Because that’s the standard sign text. You’re welcome to petition USDOT to update the language.
Thank you for highlighting this, Jonathan. I take the upper deck and use the north sidewalk on my commute home. I just go slowly, smile and use my bell and voice when pedestrians are around. I’m a fairly confident cyclist but taking the roadway on the steel has just never seemed wise to me so I don’t do it. People in cars are really aggressive and in a rush to escape the Rose Quarter. I do use the lower deck when I’m eastbound in the morning.
Living at NW 22nd and Glisan, I use Everett/Glisan and the Steel Bridge whenever I ride into work, but these routes are neither safe nor pleasant.
PBoT is planning to put sharrows on the deck of the 12th avenue bridge as part of the lloyd district project, so we may have broken that logjam, finally. it is too bad that the device was misapplied on bike boulevards as wayfinders, but we play the hand we are dealt.
the yellow diamond sign is a warning — deer, schoolkids, people on bikes, whatever. any motorist who does not know this should, um, lose a couple points on their license exam, for which the passing score is apparently rather low.
disappointing to see several comments here saying why not take the sidepath. we fought two wars for you kids, let’s show some appreciation.
@are: In the summer of 2010 I had the following email exchange with a member of the FHA MUTCD team in DC that you might be interested in (I edited my initial email for the sake of brevity). He suggests that our bike boulevard/green street sharrows are indeed a misapplication but doesn’t touch on the issue of whether there are any consequences, something that I’m still curious about.
Not only do we need sharrows on the Steel, we need them on many other surfaces that are shared by relatively large numbers of cars and bikes, i.e. SE 11th and 12th, etc. etc. The bike boulevards are great, but PBOT should have used different symbols to mark them as such.
——————————
Andrew,
The provisions regarding the new optional shared lane markings are contained in Section 9C.07 of the 2009 MUTCD.
The five purposes for using shared lane markings are described in Items A through E in Paragraph 1 of Section 9C.07. None of these purposes are
related to wayfinding or to the designation of bike routes. The bicycle guide signs described in Sections 9B.20 and 9B.21 (and shown in Figure 9B-4) should be used for designating bike routes rather than shared lane markings.
I hope that this response is helpful to you.
Bruce
___________________________________
Bruce E. Friedman, P.E., PTOE
Transportation Specialist, MUTCD Team
Federal Highway Administration
Office of Transportation Operations, HOTO-1
—–Original Message—–
From: andrew
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 8:56 PM
To: Friedman, Bruce (FHWA)
Subject: MUTCD — Question About Sharrow Application
Hi Bruce,
(…)
My question pertains to whether this application is appropriate under MUTCD guidelines and whether there are any consequences if the answer is “no”. My understanding is that the purpose of the sharrow is to signify to users of roads with moderate traffic levels and shared traffic lanes that bikes are likely to be present and the space is to be shared (hence the name). These recently-applied sharrows are on low-traffic streets that generally don’t even have demarcated lanes — it seems that their purpose is more as wayfinders.
The primary concern that I have is that PBOT will now say that sharrows cannot be applied to the moderate-traffic, shared-lane streets all over Portland that would seem to be begging for them.
(…)
DMV testing – too lax:
What kind of political motivation is behind keeping driver’s license written tests so simplistic anyone can pass?
Making the driving portion of the test more difficult would cost much more in man hours but an expansive thorough written test can now be easily be computer generated and randomized, accessible on the web for self test practice and officially taken at the DMV to assure no cheating.
People put so much effort in to memorizing stats about sports, celebrities, weapons, drugs and many other non practical minutia; I think the general populace is capable of knowing what is legal safe behavior on our roads.
I’m wondering how Oklahoma manages to keep costs down on this…I took my driving test with an Oklahoma Highway Patrolman whose essential duty was just license testing, and the license tax was just $25.50…
I too ride across the Steel Bridge via the upper deck in the roadway. My friends are always nervous about following me onto it and taking the lane, but it is not wide enough to permit “squeezes” even with non-trucks. Sometimes people follow too closely but most are understanding. It’s always the few bad apples that make a group look bad as a whole, and it happens far too often to simply be isolated, misinformed drivers.
I think the bridges are the weakest part of Portland’s bike infrastructure. In most cases, riders are forced to choose between lanes with high-speed auto traffic or extremely narrow sidewalks that are marginally adequate for pedestrians, to say nothing of bikes. Even the most bike friendly bridge, Hawthorne, is a chaotic mess of riding and walking traffic during most times of the day. If Portland is ever to truly become a bicycling city, we need to renovate the bridges to provide separate lanes for cars, bikes, and walkers, and good connections to the city streets.
Except for the Hawthorne Bridge, where there are two 12 foot sidewalks, or the Morrison Bridge where there is a striped bike lane, or the Burnside Bridge where there’s a striped bike lane, or the Steel Bridge, which is part of a MUP trail on the lower deck, or the Broadway Bridge that has sidewalks wide enough to ride two abreast on either side of the span, or the Interstate Bridge that has an MUP on it, or the Glen Jackson Bridge, which has an MUP on it.
Other than that you’re dead on.
Are you kidding? We have *four* bridges with dedicated wide bike/ped lanes, another one devoted solely to bike/peds/trains, and the future Sellwood will have dedicated bike lanes.
I understand the situation may be frustrating, but we have it VERY good. Yes it could be better, but I don’t understand the compromise of using the lower span for one of the oldest bridges in the country, or pushing for better communication with drivers for shared road access.
I take the lane on the Hawthorne when there are so many people that I can’t just roll up onto the sidewalk easily…
I agree. I hate the Steel Bridge path under the bridge. It’s dangerously narrow. I feel like I’m going to scrape my knuckles on the barriers all the time. No one slows down for the turns either, making all of those sections a quick game of chicken.
Why SHOULDN’T you use the road to travel on with your vehicle? Isn’t that the whole point of roads?
I just started bike commuting from inner N/NE to PSU this summer, and I quickly learned to avoid the waterfront and Steel Bridge. It’s pretty, but so busy. Maybe this is a better option, though, now that it’s getting darker earlier. Or maybe it’s better when it’s raining?
If you’re going from N/NE to PSU I’d take the Broadway Bridge, it drops you off on Broadway in NW, the most direct route to PSU. On the way back take 6th until you get north of Burnside, then when you’re ready go a block north to Broadway and hop over the bridge again.
I should add that beyond being the most direct route, it’s got a bike lane pretty much the whole way (and a cycletrack up by PSU), and it’s generally a pretty mellow ride except potentially for the area right around the Heathman (which can sometimes be a pain, but nothing really that bad). It’s definitely faster than taking the waterfront during the busy season.
daisy–
Way to go taking up commuting by bike! Although I, too will choose routes based on stress level at times, I find this quote of yours interesting:
Again, I salute and encourage your choice to bike commute, and I DO NOT think you are doing anything wrong by picking and choosing the most comfortable route–I do it too, but…regarding the quote above, who “teaches” us what to avoid, and what other things do we “learn” via the same teaching methods?
This is a rhetorical question for us all to consider.
Good move switching to bike! I also live in NoPo and attend PSU. I do Greely to lower deck of Steel and find it no big deal. During the hot month(s) it gets crazy but most of the time I much prefer it to traffic lights and cars. I have taken the upper deck of Steel (prior to my PSU commute) and quickly learned to use the deck designed for bikes. Not perfect, but then, nothing is. I haven’t taken Broadway into school, but like I said, I prefer to stay away from cars and lights.
Yes, you have a right to be there, but is it really the best choice if it antagonizes drivers and puts you at risk? As someone who both rides and drives, I don’t get it when I see people taking the lane on streets like Hawthorne or Division when there are more appropriate alternatives. Even if you have the right, is it worth it to exercise the right?
yes, and yes…
Just the opposite – the more people that ride there the more people get used to seeing them there and everything gets safer.
Yes and Yes. Why sit in the front of the bus if it antagonizes people and puts you at risk?
“…is it worth it to exercise the right?”
Are you serious?
How is riding in the street antagonizing drivers, pray tell? Is it any more antagonizing than drivers driving in the street? I mean, come on. When I’m driving, I have to slow down for people in cars more often than I have to slow down for pedestrians or cyclists. So, when granny is driving slowly in front of me, is that some huge antagonizing thing she’s doing just to get me mad? Should she be prohibited because she’s slower?
Is it too much to ask to be able to ride our streets legally, without fear of harassment? For real????
I don’t know about you, Mark, but when I bike it is typically because I *need* to be somewhere such as at work. Taking the lane on Hawthorne or other main arteries is much faster than riding on the “bike boulevards” such as Salmon or Harrison which feature a stop sign every other block. Plus, there are typically passing lanes for faster vehicles on Hawthorne, MLK Jr., Sandy, et al. It’s a win-win for all modes of transportation. Faster vehicles pass on the inside lanes, I get to work faster on my bicycle and all laws are obeyed with caution being employed by all users of the road. Voila.
Sometimes it’s just you and the “Law of the Wild”.
Too many angry people out there and driving a car seems to make them a whole lot angrier.
Applying the “Law of the Wild” to our roads demands that we as cyclists make ourselves every bit as dangerous to autos as they are to us.
I know of few ways to inflict equivalent damage on an auto from a bicycle and all of them involve either explosives or firearms; usually both.
Is this the “road” we want to go down?
I really don’t but if that is my only option … I’m just sayin`… I’m not a signatory of the geneva conventions.
I think it’s unreasonable to question why Jonathan is taking the upper deck. He is simply doing what EVERY road user does: finding the shortest, most direct, most rapid route to his destination. This is basic, rational human behavior. The answer to the problem is not that he kowtow to a few misinformed road users and their fictional traffic laws. The answer, at least in the short term, is better signage, more education and enforcement. In the long term, obviously, we need to create infrastructure that is not beholden to one politically powerful means of transportation but actually takes into account the needs and abilities of the traveling public.
so you turned around to confront the man again (so you could be ‘understood’) and you expected a different response? is further antagonizing someone a good decision after he’s obviously inflamed by a situation? pride in valor, eh?
What’s funny is that he apparently got into a shouting match with the guy, (“It didn’t go too well. We both spoke loudly, trying to make our points) and then in the next sentence said that it was a story about civility.
grumpcyclist,
what does speaking loudly have to do with being uncivil?
people speak more loudly when they are in a high-stress/noisy environment (like up on the bridge deck). When I approached him later we were on a city street, i was several feet away from him (still on my bike) and we were both feeling very strongly about the points we were trying to make.
thanks.
I’d argue getting into a shouting match with someone is uncivil. Maybe others disagree?
I would argue that this article is indeed about civility– its presence or lack of presence.
In many cultures speaking loudly is not a sign of uncivil behavior. Take for example, two boisterous males who greet one another from some parts of Greek cultures. It is possible to be *loud* without loosing civility. It depends largely on the intent and tone of the participants. I firmly disagree with your assumption that being loud is not civil, grumpcyclist.
who said I was “further antagonizing someone”?
I have been in these situations before Jeff. Sometimes, with a few minutes to breath after the initial encounter, it’s possible to have a productive conversation. It’s got nothing to do with pride or valor.. It’s about two fellow citizens attempting to be civil and discuss a disagreement. I hope people never stop doing that.
you did. you physically turned around to continue what was a bad/tense situation. did you think that action was actually going to de-escalate the tension?
It’s better to attempt to reach mutual understanding than continuously walk away and let parties come up with their own speculations about what lead to the situation. Conversation is always better even if in the short run it seems difficult or uncomfortable.
Sorry Jonathan, but i am agreeing with Jeff/Grumpy here as well. Taking time away from your commute (which you point out that time is the main reason you take the upper deck to begin with) to lecture someone about the rules of the road was not the best course of action in this case. Especially since you already where in a shouting match on the road and the person is now with a group of friends.
Calling the person’s employer, fine. Turning around to go out of your way to educate him about the rules of the road was not the solution in this case. And confronting him while he is in a group of other people you don’t know does not seem like the safest option either.
I have to admit, instead of being a defensive person on the road, you took the offensive position in this case and it seems like road rage.
JF and others who are critical of my actions. Please realize none of you were there and in many cases you are making false assumptions about what occurred.
I didn’t “lecture” the man. I had a smile on my face the entire time and I was simply trying to see if he’d listen to me. Was a perfect outcome? No. Was I perfect? No. But I absolutely do not regret turning around and trying to engage him.
Thanks for the comments.
Typically people don’t shout with a smile on their face. You may be the exception.
Calling someone’s employer is a big deal, not to be taken lightly. You might endanger his job, which he uses to support his family. I would not resort to this, unless someone deliberately endangered me (and I don’t think you claim this is your narrative). And, taking the guy on in front of his friends is a bad move. He is put in a position where he has to defend himself, or apologize. At least, ask him if you can step away a few yards and discuss the situation. Not many people are big enough to do this. You have to pick your battles intelligently.
“Calling someone’s employer is a big deal, not to be taken lightly. You might endanger his job, which he uses to support his family. I would not resort to this, unless someone deliberately endangered me (and I don’t think you claim this is your narrative). And, taking the guy on in front of his friends is a bad move. He is put in a position where he has to defend himself, or apologize. At least, ask him if you can step away a few yards and discuss the situation. Not many people are big enough to do this. You have to pick your battles intelligently.”
–
Unless Maus lied to the employer, he has every right to point out dangerous behavior. I’d bet that CCC would be happier to fire or admonish an employee than pick up the tab if said employee runs over or assaults someone on the job. And beside, it’s his responsibility to be a good driver. If he fails at that, should he really have a job driving for CCC? If I represented my employer badly, there’d be consequences. So I don’t. That’s pretty simple.
This is not an example of road rage, JF.
Sorry, “Bike Rage.”
Just a thought, Say I (riding my bike) think a car did something I thought was little dangerous and I sort-of wave at him in frustration. Then at the red light ahead, we both have a little staring match. However, we both go our separate ways because he is a car and I am a bike.
I get to my destonation and the same motor vehicle passes by me, then deliberately turns around to come up next to me, and rolls down the window. Then driver starts loudly telling me that he legally had the right to do what he did.
Even if his intention was to just explain the situation, going out of your way to make a point to someone about what happened on the road while either party could still be in the heat of the moment can have variable outcomes. Sometimes a mutual understanding may be the end result. But other times could result in a physical confrontation. Most of the time it is probably in between (Like Jonathan’s situation). But that is a risk that the person who instigates the contact is taking.
Jonathan,
I have to agree here, especially since, as you wrote, this guy was with his friends. He probably thought you were either going to lecture him, yell at him, threaten him, or all three. No one wants to be made to look stupid in public and it’s best not to fan the flames after any sort of altercation unless someone was physically hurt.
Totally disagree.
Would someone make a request to ODOT to upgrade the sign to a more appropriate current MUTCD sign (and less confusing)? Share the road, Bikes allowed full use of the lane, etc.
People who don’t understand “bikes on roadway” tend to also believe “share the road” is aimed at telling people on bikes to move to the shoulder so people in cars do not have to be inconvenienced. “Bikes allowed full use of lane”, however, is fantastic.
I’d love to see sharrows. They would eliminate any confusion as to where we can ride.
Like somebody else said, I hate riding up on those narrow sidewalks when someone is riding ahead of me in the same direction. You can’t pass them, and if they’re using headphones, you might as well forget about being heard.
What’s the substantive difference between a bike being unable to pass another bike on a narrow sidewalk and a car being unable to pass a bike on a narrow street? Is it just a question of who is being inconvenienced?
Since you missed the point again, let me explain. The point is there is an alternative (the upper roadway of the Steel Bridge) to being inconvenienced by riding on the sidewalk. The slow cyclist on the sidewalk still has every right to be there, but that does not mean annoyance won’t be felt by people unable to pass.
Well, for starters, I’m pretty sure bicycles aren’t allowed to use the footpaths on the upper deck except to walk a bicycle, being downtown sidewalks and all.
there is a narrowly defined zone downtown where bikes cannot roll on sidewalks. the bridges are not within that zone.
BICYCLES ON SIDEWALKS
by Ray Thomas
East bound of bicycle exclusionary zone is Front Avenue.
Much like the car has to wait for a cyclist, you would have to wait for a slower cyclist.
Or is that too much of an inconvenience?
Just to add another lament from a Steele Bridge user. It is the most direct for those in the Lloyd District headed downtown for meetings. I was yelled at recently by a woman for being on the bridge. The funny part was she had to ask the person on her cell phone to wait, set the phone in her lap, roll the window down and yell. Awesome.
Really wish the cellphone laws were enforced better here.
I don’t get the feeling that enforcement of cellphone laws is a high priority anywhere. Don’t think that Portland is some sort of abnormality.
Really wish the cellphone laws were enforced.
Fixed that for ya…
Touche.
i started using the top deck of the steel bridge for my morning ride in (most of the time, anyhow) to downtown about a year ago, because i was fed up with dealing with commuting cyclists on the broadway and its approach, and didnt want to deal with them on the lower deck, either. i also use it pretty regularly during the work day, in both directions. a nice side effect was that its a much faster route than either alternative, coming from n vancouver to downtown. the other bonus? drivers have been near-universally accommodating and courteous. in ALL the time i have been using it as a commute and work route over the past 5 or 6 years, the number of negative interactions i have had with drivers hasnt even hit double digits – and most of them were irritated honks, rather than any other interaction.
for what its worth, one of the vocal ones was with a central city concern van, some months back in the morning, but i laughed him off, took the lane, and ignored him for the rest of the span. granted, im a bit more fearless about these things than most, but id still rather deal with a minimal bit of hassle from drivers on the steel bridge top deck than a bunch of dimwits on the broadway path.
heres hoping you havent just opened the floodgates for the steel turning into a new bike commute route.
Boy Jonathan, this guy had no idea who he was arguing with, huh? That said, you did turn around and you had to know that could escalate things. Not saying you’re at fault but sometimes it’s best to just move on. As for what happened on the bridge, you do have every right to take the lane and the driver was being a jerk but your reasons for not using the lower multi-use path are trivial. Just an opinion.
My good friend and mentor, Fred Nietzsche, strongly recommended “going under,” especially if one is dealing with overmen (and overwomen).
Are you shocked that your vision of what the roads should be doesn’t jibe with the majority? I ride my bike alot and still get pissed if I am in my car and held up my someone noodling along at a snails pace. Taking the lane is great in some instances but all the time? It is nice to see from both sides of this issue.
I just wait it out. Not a big deal. Then again, I do this new thing called “planning ahead” that makes dealing with traffic a lot better. Especially in a city with eternally jammed traffic.
Right. Both sides have equal access to the road. You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, Mike.
I always, always, always take the upper deck. Its the best way to get from anywhere east of broadway to NE PDX. I will always do it an no amount of ‘go the other way’ comments will ever affect me. ‘Go out of your way’ -> no way. I relish the opportunity to slow down cars and see a bit of our history by imagining the 1960’s era freeway ramps that used to exist on the east side of the bridge. We’ve calmed the street by reducing it to 1 lane of cars, and now we’re calming it more by biking in the lane. What I don’t understand is why cars are allowed to use the bridge at all. make them take the burnside or broadway. You get off the bridge and end up in no-man’s land. Make it a transit/bike only bridge!
way to ‘share the road’ there bud..
Sharing the road means coexisting as traffic, not necessarily letting faster traffic pass in the same lane when there’s no room. Kind of like when I’m doing 50 out of downtown in my car up Sylvan Hill and some jerk rides my bumper. I just let ’em fume, I’m already doing the legal maximum, if they want to hit me when traffic slows down, whatever, I’ll be happy to take their insurance money as idiot tax.
“Share the road” means he gets to use it too. Part of anyone’s bike ride shouldn’t be, “Will I piss off a motorist if I go this way? Golly gee! Maybe I should take another route.”
You ride the top deck because the bottom is inconvenient. You take the lane because using the sidewalk is inconvenient. Drivers get pissed because a bike blocking them and going 15mph is inconvenient. See the connection? I think you just have to decide if your convenience is worth more than theirs. Generally I try not to place my convenience above others but thats just me.
But the fact is that most of the time it is not actually inconvenient to them. As Jonathan pointed out, he typically catches them at the light.
I have that happen all the time, especially on 28th between Glisan and Burnside where a driver will essentially freak out because (gasp) they’re behind a bike, they pass dangerously or way too fast and then simply get caught at the light ahead. They’d rather drive way too fast (there’s a school zone there, but forget it, they’ve GOT to just get past that bike) and then stop and wait in a line of cars at a red light, then just chill out and slow down a bit.
Exact same scenario every time I ride 20th in between Burnside and Hawthorn. Repeatedly cars pass unsafely and I catch them at every light. Thats why I ride 2 to 3 ft to the right of the center line and though I’m not entirely trying to piss off drivers, I seldom see any reason to move right. Some cars still pass by crossing all the way over the center line, and most of the time the end up cutting me off because a car comes around the corner ahead of them. And I catch them at the light.
Regarding convenience:
Let’s say I have to go a mile out of my way to avoid inconveniencing drivers. At 15mph, with no stops, that increases my travel time by 4 minutes. Let’s say I take a sidewalk–again to avoid inconveniencing drivers–and have to follow a 4mph pedestrian for a mile. That increases my travel time by 11 minutes. Now let’s say a driver who would normally be going 30 has to follow me at 15 for a mile. That driver’s travel time is increased by 2 minutes. Who suffers the most inconvenience?
But it’s his RIGHT.
Also regarding convenience:
Why is it that drivers take hold-ups caused by other drivers in stride, e.g., slowing down for somebody making a right turn, stopping to wait for somebody to make a left turn, having to sit through two light cycles because the queue of cars they are in is too long to all make it through, etc. Even delays caused by pedestrians crossing are fine. But let a cyclist cause any kind of perceived delay, and woe be unto him. Or her, sorry.
When that guy gets to a STOP sign does he read it as saying, “Don’t STOP?” Well, maybe not. Maybe his blindness for signs only applies to things about which he’d rather remain in a state of willful ignorance and entitlement.
I can sympathize with drivers and riders both in these situations. The courteous and safe thing for a driver to do is to wait for a safe place to pass before going around a rider. Drivers have extra responsibility in situations involving vulnerable operators, such as cyclists and motorbikes. They need to think about how they’d drive if that was their kid on the road.
The courteous (and, I’d argue, safer) thing for a rider to do when taking the lane, is to ride as fast as they can safely ride, so as to impede the flow of traffic the least. You might say you shouldn’t have to do that, but I think there are two good reasons you should (step on it when in the lane).
1. Riding slowly in a traffic lane will piss drivers off, no matter how much of a right you have to take the lane. That’s rude, whether you’re in a car or a bike, or whatever. It’ll only create more tensions between drivers and cyclists.
2. If you’re taking a lane of travel, and riding significantly slower than the posted speed, you’re impeding the normal (and I’d argue, safe) flow of traffic. Streets are for travel, and alacrity is actually a rule, not a preference: 811.130 Impeding traffic.
Regarding #2, you should actually read it. 🙂 It implicitly states “motor vehicle.” The clarity is important, and the laws carefully state “motor vehicle” or just plain “vehicle” when appropriate.
Hope you don’t mind me noting this, Don, but your note above about “clarity” is so important that I wanted to make sure it was, uh, clear but I think you meant to use “explicitly”.
“Explicit means clearly expressed or readily observable. Implicit means implied or expressed indirectly.”
I looked up 811.130 Impeding Traffic and it actually does state “motor vehicle” in the wording. Excellent point.
This is EXACTLY the situation that sharrows were meant for.
The fact that the city refuses to use them in this situation reflects a major failure at PBOT, that starts at the highest levels of the organization.
While I don’t commute on the Steel Bridge, I have had a similar situation on my commute. I found a sidewalk alternative to avoid the “hot spot”. I got tired of getting honked at/yelled at/cursed at, etc. I’ve certainly yelled a few times in return, which only makes me burn for the entire day. On the sidewalk, a couple of people have grumbled. Once, I attempted to calmly explain myself, but this was a waste of time. From now on, I will only say (if I say anything), “perhaps you should call the police.”
Leave ten minutes early. Take the safer/friendlier route.
problem solved.
No, problem AVOIDED. There is a difference, unless of course the problem is the “encounter” and your “solution” is to “avoid” the encounter.
This type of answer always has a corollary that for whatever reason is unthinkable: Mr. Motorist–leave ten minutes early, chill out and acknowledge the rights and need for safety of other road users. Problem solved.
Another one I like: Drivers–too much bike traffic for your liking? Choose a more car-friendly route.
Or: “Get on the freeway!”
etc.
Awesome
This ten minutes thing is balderdash. I call shenanigans! I ride the bridge every day. If the difference is HONESTLY ten minutes then I suggest you trade the child’s tricycle you are riding in for a bike!
I don’t think the problem is with the bridge, or the signage, but with the driver. Is Central City Concern going to refer this driver to ODOT for retesting? That’s what needs to happen.
Emailed them and suggested a usage based fleet policy with GPS tracking to ensure safety.
Saves money on insuring their drivers, theft insurance for the property and provides corroborating evidence for legal matters.
If you are driving a fleet vehicle for a company or organization you have no privacy.
Ah yes, “get a life,” that classic 80s-vintage “insult” whose meaning and/or insult-value I’ve been trying to determine for 30 years.
Meaning: Find something worth doing rather than wasting your time bothering me.
Meanwhile, I have a life, and a Second Life, so when people say that to me, I’m like, “Jeebus, how many do you think I need?”
I’m a top-of-the bridge rider instead of the lower shared path, but generally unless I see heavy foot traffic on the sidewalk before I have to make the decision on whether to take the lane or the sidewalk, I’ll go the sidewalk route. Walkers are generally pretty good about giving room to bikes when you let them know you’re coming, and I’ve even managed to pass a bikes coming the opposite direction with one of us stopping and pulling over. You do have to be very confident about handling a bike in a tight area without a lot of room for error though. Riding by a pedestrian coming the other way, I often have my handlebars only a couple inches away from the side railing.
I think the post was a great example of how those ‘Bikes on Roadway’ signs are easily misinterpreted. It seems that PBOT defaults to those signs when a street or roadway really isn’t safe for bikes and they’re trying to appear to do something without really doing anything.
I think Oklahoma uses “BICYCLES USE FULL LANE” signs for this exact reason.
I ride eastbound over the Steel Bridge 2 or 3 times a week in the morning. About two years ago I had a Trimet bus driver honk and get on his speaker to yell that I didnt belong on the bridge- he followed closely across the center span, and then cut close in passing. I formally complained to Trimet- they launched an investigation and apologized for the incident. Other than that, seems about once a month I’ll encounter an angry driver on this; mostly they seem ignorant or confused about this situation.
Riding the upper deck, even with an occasionally ignorant motorist, still seems a safer bet than trying to go on the lower deck; I’ve had more potential encounters with joggers, strollers, tourists, homeless, dogs, skateboards, newbie riders, giant bike carts & the runamucka 4 person pedal carts on the lower deck and its approaches than I care to remember.
This is not uncommon! I have had MAX operators go on the PA while operating the train on the bridge and tell me to get off the road. Shameful the amount of ignorance expressed on that bridge by some Trimet operators.
Convenience to save a few minutes or safely using one of the many wonderful bike ways we are fortunate to have in PDX. I think it is a no brainer, but the choice is yours.
Jerko,
how do you think all those wonderful bike ways came about? By folks on bikes skeddadling? Getting out of the way of cars where those in them asserted their privilege? I don’t think so.
Martin Luther King was onto something.
There’s nothing unsafe about the Steel Bridge crossing. It’s the entitled motorists that are the problem.
Interesting the way people interpret signage. I wonder how many drivers/cyclists could identify the color significance that’s attached to road signs?
I had a couple of friends (both drivers who ride some but not a lot, pretty astute and observant people) encounter that sign (the bike in a yellow diamond, with the legend “on bridge roadway”) while out on a ride and took it to mean this was a good bike path. They had a slightly harrowing experience, and I had to explain to them afterward upon hearing their story that yellow = warning in the traffic sign vernacular.
The color is definitely a part of the message. I question the qualifications to operate any vehicle on the road, motorized or not, if you don’t know what the colors mean.
Oh, heck. Format fail. Let’s try again.
I’m one of those “strong and fearless” cyclist commuters, but I’ve relocated from Portland to Tacoma, WA, and ride between there and Seattle.
Portland’s bicycle infrastructure is AMAZING, stellar, first-class, best in the nation.
Concerns like these are picking the china pattern on the cruise liner — Seattle’s is still in dry dock, and most cities seem stuck on the “master plan” stage.
If I had to make a simple suggestion for signage on Steel Bridge’s deck — which I’d point out many municipalities WOULD make offlimits to cyclists, in
favor of the MUT below — it would be this:
Picture of a car, Picture of a bike, SHARE THE ROAD,
Arrow pointing towards roadway
Picture of a pedestrian, arrow pointing towards the sidewalk
That would eliminate any confusion about what people’s RIGHTS were.
I am sure some motorists would still become irate at the delay. But, the culture is slowly coming around — and the more significant parts of traffic cyclists in PDX become, the less and less these issues will be.
It’s a good place, down there. Activists like Mr Maus have done a great deal of service in making things better. I appreciate that.
(Feel free to delete above)
“…(the roadway isn’t safe for a car and a bike to share simultaneously, so I take the lane). ……As I rode mid-bridge I had a minivan pull along side of me (that happened to be an official Central City Concern fleet vehicle). …” maus/bikeportland
Maus…what are you doing here? You start out saying you take the lane, then turn right around and say the guy in the mini-van pulled along side of you. If you on the bike are taking the lane, it should be impossible for a car to pull along side of you on this lane.
Also, I was interested in what your mph on the bike was, and what the posted speed limit for the bride is.
If it was me on a bike on this bridge, I’d definitely take the lane, probably try keep the speed up to 20 mph, and not let motor vehicles pass until crossing the bridge. The length of the bridge is not that long that this would pose an unreasonable burden for motor vehicle traffic.
People on bikes taking the lane at 15mph and slower might be a problem though, especially if it became common.
wsbob,
in this case, i was taking the lane and noticed the agitated van behind me. i saw him gesturing and wanting to pass so I pulled to the left and we both fit side by side.
speed limit on bridge is 25 mph. i was going about 15 or so and then 25 or so on downhill portion
maus…don’t do that. You say the roadway width isn’t safe for a car and a bike to share simultaneously, and then out of the wide range of dispositions people have on the road, you let an agitated person pass you midway across the bridge.
Unless the person following is very agitated, threatening to bump a person’s bike with their vehicle, over the short distance this bridge span represents, it doesn’t make good sense to let an agitated person who by virtue of being agitated is probably less likely than a calm, focused person to be able to competently operate their vehicle…pass on an inadequate width roadway.
Given that you’ve said the speed limit is 25mph for the bridge, 15mph is kind of slow for this bridge roadway, but is probably a speed most people driving could put up with. For people on bikes deciding to take the lane, planning to travel at 20mph would be better. If people following in motor vehicles choose to allow themselves to get steamed over having to drive 20 percent, 40 percent slower than the speed limit, at worse case, behind someone on a bike traveling across the short distance of the bridge, that’s their business.
Something else I might have done in such a situation in response to an agitated person following, is give them the motorcycle style ‘slow down’ signal.
Definitely good job though on calling Central City Concern about their driver’s conduct.
Despite being OR 99W, the bridge doesn’t get a high volume of any kind of traffic save for TriMet vehicles these days.
PBOT has misused sharrows when the funding for them became convenient and I firmly believe we should have a “sharrow the gap” policy in place to deal with these tense areas until a long-term solution is studied and implemented.
Let’s start with 20/21st, 28th, MLK/Grand (at least between Tillamook and Ankeny), Steel Bridge upper deck.
Not sure how PBOT has misused sharrows; could you give some examples?
every neighborhood greenway in town
The sharrows I’ve seen on neighborhood greenways so far are consistent with the MUTCD. Save for that one in the middle of the intersection that has chevrons pointing in all four directions.
Jeez Jonathan, I’ve been commuting by bike since you were probably a little kid and have more miles then I can count. I also take the Steel Bridge on my commute but I’ve never even considered taking the auto deck. Are you sure you aren’t just trying to make a point?
I suspect he is making a point (with the article), but riding on the bridge doesn’t seem so outlandish to me. I understand it never occurred to you, lo these many decades, but that in and of itself doesn’t persuade me that Jonathan’s out to tilt at windmills.
What is the point you are trying to make?
That is the same vibe I’m catching.
“Jeez Jonathan, I’ve been commuting by bike since you were probably a little kid and have more miles then I can count. I also take the Steel Bridge on my commute but I’ve never even considered taking the auto deck. … . k.
Tell us some specific reasons why you haven’t considered taking the upper deck with your bike.
Imagine if pressure was brought to bear upon ODOT to reduce the speed limit across the bridge to 15mph. Would you consider riding it then?
Here’s a general question for everyone: What’s the difference in travel time for a vehicle traveling across the bridge at 25mph, and for a vehicle traveling across the bridge at 15mph.
My guess is that the time difference is less than a couple minutes, maybe less than that, and would be no excuse for people allowing themselves to get worked up about having to drive their vehicles slightly slower for such a short distance.
1 mile at 25mph takes 2.4 minutes. 1 mile at 15mph takes 4 minutes.
I don’t know how long the bridge span is, but I think with some simple math one could figure out how long it takes to go over the span at those speeds.
Here’s the calc: distance times 60 divided by speed gives you time in minutes and decimal seconds.
Based on my one mile calculations, it appears that the difference in time is significant.
Kristen…with my ruler on the map, distance across the Steel Bridge measures out to be a quarter of a mile from riverbank to riverbank.
So then, a 90 second difference between 15mph and 25mph for a mile distance, breaks down to 22-23 seconds longer travel time at 15mph for a quarter mile distance.
That could be a significant amount of time. How significant an additional 22-23 second travel time across the bridge for motor vehicles following bikes, depends on different things. ODOT and the city probably should be having some of its people look at what those things might be.
If traffic on the bridge isn’t particularly heavy, and people…or somebody on a bike isn’t regularly keeping a line of 10-20 cars backed up for a slow 15mph trips across the bridge, do people driving motor vehicles across the bridge have a legitimate gripe about a 22-23 second lengthening of their travel time?
Is that longer travel time a reasonable cause for them to lose their composure and become irritated? Because if it is, and ODOT and the city agrees with them, maybe those two should just come clean and put their priorities where they think they belong, which if this the case, would be prohibiting use of bikes from the upper deck main lanes of travel.
Using TriMet’s beta trip planner, which does bicycle navigation, from southbound 99W at the Rose Quarter Yellow Line station to 99W at 3rd and Everett:
Via top deck (“quickest” and “safest” option both pick this!): 2 minutes.
Via bottom deck (using either option, starting first leg in southbound 99W by the yellow line rose quarter station, ending in the bend on the ramp down to the eastbank esplanade, then starting the second leg at the end of the first, ending at 3rd and Everett): 6 minutes.
Neither option takes into account traffic or signals, which there’s more of both if you take the bottom deck. Realistically, from previous experience, depending on luck and traffic, bottom deck is typically 10 minutes to impossible.
Jonathan,
I don’t ever ride on Steel Bridge b/c it’s inhospitable and not on a route I use, but I sympathize with your desire not to use the lower deck on a bike. The Esplanade and it’s accoutrements is a wonderful public resource but it is hell on a bike and I avoid it to the degree I can. PBOT/Multnomah Co. should try to do a better job to address the upper deck. I don’t know whose bridge it is, but that scenario sucks.
Patty
It’s not a city or county bridge, it’s OR 99W, so it’s ODOT’s responsibility.
Interesting jurisdictional point: According to Wikipedia, PBOT is responsible for the approaches and ODOT is responsible for the actual bridge roadway. The bridge is leased by Union Pacific to ODOT, who subleases to Trimet.
The name calling blows me away when a motorist gets upset. I love saying have a great day, thats
following by more name calling.
On 1 out of 10 trips someone is annoyed with you? Nope. On 1 out of 10 trips maybe someone lets you know they’re annoyed.
I can pretty much guarantee someone is annoyed with you on 10 out of 10 trips even if they don’t give you the finger. Heck. I’m annoyed just from reading the article.