home

The Monday Roundup: Bike suit, Idaho Stop endorsement & more

Posted by on May 12th, 2014 at 8:29 am

Hidden features on the “Commuter Suit.”
(Photo: Parker Dusseau)

This week’s roundup of the best bike links from around the world is brought to you by Abus Locks, which recommends investing 10 percent of your bike’s value in its lock.

Bike suit: The new Parker Dusseau Commute Suit combines “the look of a well-tailored two-piece with the stretch of workout clothes.”

Idaho stop praise: Laws that allow people to make careful, rolling stops instead of full stops when they’re on bikes are just as safe or safer; make biking almost 25 percent more efficient; and have been making Idaho an unusually bike-friendly state since 1982, writes Vox.com in an endorsement of the concept.

Seattle’s big week: Three weeks after the city approved a Portland-style bike plan, the mayor announced that Seattle’s 500-bike Pronto! Emerald City system will launch this fall with Alaska Airlines as lead sponsor (“I made one call, and they said, let us know how to do it”), and also that a protected bike lane will be installed on 2nd Avenue downtown in time for the launch. Also, the beautiful protected bike lane on Broadway through Capitol Hill is “finally ready to (mostly) open.”

“Street view for bikes”: British site cycle.travel is aggregating photos of various off-road routes. Not available stateside yet.

Strava data: London and Glasgow have joined Oregon’s department of transportation as early buyers of bike route data from a company that lets people track their rides. The controversial idea is to use the data in bike planning.

Suburban poverty: Rising demand for urban life is pricing poor people out of cities, but the suburbs are frighteningly bad at helping poor people survive.

Safer trucks: Europe’s domestic vehicle manufacturers have successfully delayed proposed British rules that would require trucks to become less lethal to people on bikes.

Haptic safety: When an object (such as a car) is in your blind spot, this “connected carbon fiber bike” that’s soared past its Kickstarter goal vibrates its handlebars to warn you.


No problem? Willamette Week looks at Portland’s traffic death statistics over time (about 30 per year for 10 years) and suggests the city is calling it a “crisis” in order to gin up public support for a street fee. (The piece doesn’t mention that when polled on the issue, 61 percent of Portlanders rated their priority of pedestrian safety improvements 6 or 7 on a scale of 7.)

Driving got boring: A novel explanation for the decline in driving: it got much more boring. “Before there was power steering and automatic transmission, maneuvering a car took effort. … Today what I feel is boredom, if not misery.”

Biker-walker truce: The terms of good behavior are proposed by a New York Times obituary writer who says Citi Bike has made NYC biking “better than it has ever been.”

Free research: Academic publisher Taylor & Francis has temporarily opened its archive of biking-related research papers.

DC’s bikelash: My favorite of the above articles is one exploring how bike-friendliness helped topple the career of once-promising DC Mayor Adrian Fenty, an event that shaped the national bike movement’s rising attention to “equity.”

If you come across a noteworthy bicycle story, send it in via email, Tweet @bikeportland, or whatever else and we’ll consider adding it to next Monday’s roundup.

Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • 9watts May 12, 2014 at 8:49 am

    safety -> street fee?

    = 100% public relations; using polling to package policy.
    99% of the dangers emanate from the overwhelming presence of cars, from inattentive drivers, from attitudes about who owns the roads. Charging everyone a flat fee to ‘pay for this’ is ridiculous, and Novick (apparently) knows this.
    From the WW article: “One of the best and cheapest ways to reduce fatalities is not new construction but simply lowering speed limits and enforcing drunken-driving laws.”

    Recommended Thumb up 26

    • James Sherbondy May 12, 2014 at 9:03 am

      You mean make the PPD actually get out there and write some tickets during rush hour and Saturday night instead of parking the bikes at Starbucks every morning and god knows where Saturday night? Blasphemy! Making the drivers test a little harder than driving through some cones and your ability to give the state it’s money, would go pretty far to make the roads safer as well.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

    • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 12:49 pm

      I was pretty disgusted by the tone of that WWeek article. While they may be technically correct that pedestrian and cyclist deaths don’t appear to be spiking (national data do appear to suggest an emerging upward trend, however), the point is that the situation is already completely unacceptable.

      They even cite the statistic that cars are now killing twice as many Portlanders as guns are — and then somehow spin that into No Big Deal. I share their disaffection for Novick’s proposed tax, but downplaying the bloodshed on our streets is the wrong way to stop it.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

      • Pete May 12, 2014 at 8:16 pm

        Hear hear. Here in the bay area there’s also been a radical increase in pedestrian deaths, especially in San Francisco. Granted the population has grown rapidly with the booming tech sector, but local Mayors have taken notice and it’s become a common news theme.

        One of the things I believe would cause a reduction (and shift in prioritization of ‘road rights’) is to repeal the “right turn on red (after stop)” laws. These were enacted when I was a young driver, but I believe there have been generations used to taking right turns as yields and not stopping before the actual stop lines. The single most common traffic violation that I see here – even more than failure to signal turns properly (if at all) – is drivers stopping in crosswalks, or not stopping at all but just doing a compulsory glance for oncoming traffic while turning. Enforcement for both of these common violations is almost entirely non-existent, and every LEO I’ve spoken with says the same thing: it’s entirely impossible due to the sheer number of people doing it.

        Repealing the “right turn on red after stop” laws would be radical, I admit, and likely unpopular with both drivers and traffic engineers, but it could be used to create an almost instant awareness of the correlation between pedestrian fatalities and intersection control compliance (i.e. stopping at stop lines). Awareness is clearly not brought about through traditional driver education, partly because programs emphasize rule memorization and not cause and effect or rationale.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • John Lascurettes May 13, 2014 at 9:40 am

          The stopping beyond the stop lines or crosswalk demarkation is the same in Oregon. I see nearly no one come to a stop (or even near stop) behind the limit lines. Almost all are looking left as they encroach into the pedestrian zone and then bother to look right – maybe.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Dan May 13, 2014 at 10:28 am

            Um, yeah. Was nearly hit yesterday by a driver rolling through the crosswalk at Sylvan/Hwy 26 before he even bothered to look left. That needs to be a no-turn-on-right, with a stop line a few feet before the crosswalk.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Peter James May 12, 2014 at 8:50 am

    Why didn’t the proposal to adopt the Idaho stop in Oregon pass in 2009 and how can we get it passed as soon as possible?

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • James Sherbondy May 12, 2014 at 9:00 am

      Because the Big-O ginned it up as a law to allow cyclists to blindly run red lights and stop signs. In an effort to sell more papers and internet comments, they went a long way towards killing a sensible bill.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • spare_wheel May 12, 2014 at 9:53 am

        imo, cycling bias at the oregonian has more to do with billionaire-funded “culture wars” than money.

        Recommended Thumb up 13

        • James Sherbondy May 12, 2014 at 12:38 pm

          Oh yeah! That too. Have to make sure their car dealership ad overlords are satisfied and not threatened.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

    • wsbob May 12, 2014 at 9:04 am

      “Why didn’t the proposal to adopt the Idaho stop in Oregon pass in 2009…” Peter James

      I suppose, because most people realize relying on people to very consistently use good judgment in rolling through stop signs on their vulnerable road user bicycles, is a bad idea. About getting Idaho’s law passed in Oregon, or in any other state in the nation? Pray very hard, and don’t hold your breath for it to happen any time soon.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • El Biciclero May 12, 2014 at 10:21 am

        “…most people realize relying on people to very consistently use good judgment in rolling through stop signs on their vulnerable road user bicycles, is a bad idea.”

        Ah. Just like relying on drivers to know when it’s safe to make a right on red? Or relying on drivers to know when it’s safe to pass? Or relying on drivers to know when they can or can’t safely stop for a yellow light? Or relying on drivers to use their judgement as to when they can safely make a left turn across traffic? Maybe it’s as bad as relying on drivers to know when they have to wait to yield to a “bicycle rider upon a bike lane or path” before making a turn across that lane or path?

        The set of traffic laws we have now is a collection of rules, many of which rely on operators to make their best judgment calls. Oh, but I forgot that cyclists in Idaho have been getting creamed (and killing drivers and pedestrians) at four-ways at such a high rate that the results of allowing cyclists to use judgment are empirically and obviously extremely dangerous.

        I don’t think people “realize” anything about the Idaho stop rule–”realization” implies coming to see some factual truth–they “believe” that allowing cyclists to treat traffic controls differently is “no fair”, and have envy/jealousy issues which they attempt to disguise as concern for safety.

        Recommended Thumb up 37

        • wsbob May 12, 2014 at 5:28 pm

          “…Ah. Just like relying on drivers…” El Biciclero

          Well no, not “Just like” relying on drivers, because they’re inside the protection of their cars. People on bikes aren’t. I thought you’d noticed this, but apparently not.

          Crashes involving people in motor vehicles, in situations where one or the other failed or declined to stop for a stop sign, stand a fair chance of getting out of the collision with little or no injury, and only damage to the vehicle. On the other hand, in crashes between motor vehicles and people on bikes, the person on the bike, stands a poor chance of getting out of the collision without sustaining an injury.

          Add to this, the sentiment* on the part of some people, on questions of responsibility for bike-car collisions, that people driving should bear the greater burden of responsibility covering resulting costs of the collision. The result is that the Idaho stop has the makings of a very bad deal for the 80 percent or more of the total amount of people traveling the road, by way of either driving or traveling by motor vehicle.

          *As per, the concept of ‘Strict Liability’, said to be resorted to more commonly in some European countries, to shift responsibility for bike-car collisions onto persons driving, for the most part, whether or not the vulnerable road user was using the road in a safe manner according to the law..

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • 9watts May 12, 2014 at 5:44 pm

            You have it backwards, wsbob.

            I think El Biciclero’s point wasn’t too hard to discern: that the risk of letting folks on bikes use their judgment is going to be a whole lot less scary or dangerous than doing the same for those in cars (which is, as we might agree, quite commonplace).

            You like to point out how vulnerable people on bikes are, and fall back on asymmetric rules that restrict movements or judgments of those piloting them ostensibly for their own protection. But this is not so different than codifying how large a stick wife-beating husbands may use.

            “…expert on Welsh medieval law [...] had seen in an ancient Welsh publication called ‘Laws of Women’, that ‘a man may beat a woman with a stick or rod as thick as his middle finger and as long as his forearm. Elsewhere in Welsh laws there are references to sticks the thickness of a thumb and their appropriateness in the chastisement of the unruly wife. Certain conditions applied. Such violence was justified only if a woman had insulted a man’s beard, wished dirt on his teeth, been unfaithful or given away property that was not hers to give. He could hit her three times, anywhere on the body, but not on the head.’
            http://www.historyofwomen.org/wifebeatingthumb.html

            Recommended Thumb up 6

            • wsbob May 12, 2014 at 6:09 pm

              As modes of travel on the road together, the difference in design between bicycles and motor vehicles results in their being inherently asymmetrical. Bicycles, relatively, are the more vulnerable in collisions between the two. Laws reducing vulnerable road users obligation to responsibly use the road, which is what the Idaho Stop does, is a bad deal for people that drive and travel by motor vehicle.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • 9watts May 12, 2014 at 6:23 pm

                Alright, wsbob – substitute women and marriagefor bicycle and collisions, and perhaps you’ll hear what I’m suggesting:

                For the two sexes sharing the road of life together, the difference in physical strength between women and men results in their being inherently asymmetrical. Women, relatively, are the more vulnerable in physical arguments between the two. Laws reducing the weaker sex’s obligation to responsibly behave in the marriage, which is what the Idaho Stop does, is a bad deal for couples that have exchanged vows.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

                • Chris I May 13, 2014 at 7:35 am

                  Your analogy only works if you believe that you can beat your wife if she misbehaves.

                  Cyclists and pedestrians are interested in self-preservation. The threat of imminent death from the vehicles around us controls are behavior and provides the incentive to avoid collisions.

                  Recommended Thumb up 4

                • 9watts May 13, 2014 at 8:11 am

                  “Your analogy only works if you believe that you can beat your wife if she misbehaves.”

                  Just to be clear, I don’t believe any of this. I’m just trying to hold up a funhouse mirror for wsbob.

                  Recommended Thumb up 6

              • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 9:21 pm

                Idaho Stop doesn’t reduce the responsibility of vulnerable road users. They still have to stop if any other vehicles approach the intersection.

                And the law exists and works precisely because of the asymetry between motor vehicles and bicycles: the need for motor vehicles to come to a complete stop, no matter what, is due to (1) their great mass and ability to inflict harm, and (2) the fact that they are fully enclosed and reduce their operators’ ability to detect other approaching traffic using their senses.

                Recommended Thumb up 5

                • wsbob May 12, 2014 at 11:34 pm

                  “Idaho Stop doesn’t reduce the responsibility of vulnerable road users. …” GlowBoy

                  Idaho Stop does reduce the responsibility of vulnerable road users to stop at stop signs. That means they no longer are required by law to stop at a stop sign to check if the way is clear, before proceeding through a stop sign. Ask yourself how you think people responsible for safe operation of motor vehicles, are likely to feel when asked about adding this additional responsibility on their part, to watch for people traveling by bike and that do not manage good judgment in rolling through stop signs.

                  The law has continued to exist in Idaho, but how well it works or how well it’s generally regarded by road users there is debatable. Not much is heard from ordinary people that drive, about Idaho’s law. If there hasn’t been collisions arising from use of this law by people riding, that may be due to extra watchfulness on the part of people in that state that drive, rather than vice versa.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • Spiffy May 13, 2014 at 8:53 am

                  wsbob, why do you assume that stopping is a responsible act?

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • dr2chase May 13, 2014 at 9:28 am

                  “Ask yourself how you think people responsible for safe operation of motor vehicles, are likely to feel when asked about adding this additional responsibility on their part, to watch for people traveling by bike and that do not manage good judgment in rolling through stop signs”

                  I think they would approve of a law that was rationally designed to apportion legal responsibility and inconvenience onto those people whose choices bring the greatest danger to others on the roads.

                  Or are you suggesting that car drivers are unaware of how dangerous to others their cars and their law-breaking actually are? In which case, why should I care what they think?

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • wsbob May 13, 2014 at 11:55 am

                  “Ask yourself how you think people responsible for safe operation of motor vehicles, are likely to feel when asked about adding this additional responsibility on their part, to watch for people traveling by bike and that do not manage good judgment in rolling through stop signs” wsbob

                  “I think they would approve of a law that was rationally designed to apportion legal responsibility and inconvenience onto those people whose choices bring the greatest danger to others on the roads. …” dr2chase

                  Alright, you write a hypothetical bill proposal you think can accomplish what you’re suggesting, then read it back to yourself, and ask yourself the same question I posed to GlowBoy.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • dr2chase May 13, 2014 at 12:13 pm

                  Perhaps such bills would do better if people who knew better (which you presumably now do — many times people have pointed out how much more dangerous cars and trucks are to others on the road) would make a point of letting other people know when the conventional “safety” wisdom is wrong, instead of parroting it endlessly.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • El Biciclero May 13, 2014 at 1:01 pm

                  “Idaho Stop…means they no longer are required by law to stop at a stop sign to check if the way is clear…” -wsbob

                  Ah. You are seemingly conflating two things here. Under the Idaho-style rule, cyclists would be required to check that the way was clear, but would not be legally obligated to stop in order to do so. You seem to be worried, as many motorists mistakenly are, that the rule would absolve cyclists of the obligation to look, as well as stop; it wouldn’t. Such a rule allows cyclists to use the increased level of awareness they possess simply by not being enclosed in an insulated metal box.

                  Your argument here seems to be two-fold:
                  a. Idaho stop is a bad idea because people think it’s a bad idea.
                  b. Advocates might as well give up, since such a law would never pass anyway (see a.).

                  Recommended Thumb up 4

                • wsbob May 14, 2014 at 5:37 pm

                  The Idaho Stop:

                  “…removes a burden from cyclists and lets them use their own judgment and self-preservation instincts…” El El Biciclero

                  Judgment and self preservation instincts that many people traveling by bike either do not have or do not use sufficiently, if at all when traveling on streets with motor vehicle traffic.

                  Stop signs offer some safeguard against good judgment not exercised by vulnerable road users. Vulnerable road users stopping at the stop signs, taking a second or two to be sure the way is clear, is a super simple way of avoiding possibly making a mistake that could mean injury or death to them. Permitting vulnerable road users to roll through stop signs without stopping, undermines that safeguard, which is why it’s as bad deal, not just for people that drive, but also for people that ride.

                  Four or five months ago, bikeportland reported on a collision that occurred in NE Portland. Person with the right of way on a thoroughfare, driving a motor vehicle, person on a bike at a cross street intersection with a stop sign. Person on the bike proceeded through the stop sign and collided with the motor vehicle, got injured. No report of whether or not the person on the bike did or didn’t stop at the stop sign. Either way, various bikeportland readers tried to lay blame for the collision on the person driving.

                  The Idaho Stop is likely not going further than Idaho for a very long time to come.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • wsbob May 14, 2014 at 5:48 pm

                  “…the need for motor vehicles to come to a complete stop, no matter what, is due to (1) their great mass and ability to inflict harm, …” GlowBoy

                  So you think it’s a big deal if, not having to stop at stop signs, someone operating a motor vehicle inflicts harm, but no big deal if, not stopping at stop signs through an error in judgment, a vulnerable road user on a bike brings harm upon themselves? And upon others driving and traveling in motor vehicles affected by close calls and collisions with vulnerable road users on bikes.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • Tacoma May 14, 2014 at 6:39 pm

                  “And upon others driving and traveling in motor vehicles affected by close calls and collisions with vulnerable road users on bikes.” wsbob

                  What does this sentence even mean?

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

              • El Biciclero May 13, 2014 at 12:11 pm

                “Laws reducing vulnerable road users obligation to responsibly use the road, which is what the Idaho Stop does, is a bad deal for people that drive and travel by motor vehicle.”

                How is that? Because drivers are going to start getting killed by non-stopping cyclists? The Idaho rule does not absolve cyclists of responsibility to stop if someone already at the intersection would have right-of-way. If there is somebody already sitting stopped at an intersection, a bicyclist would have a legal responsibility to stop and wait for that person to go. If they didn’t stop, and got run over, it would be the cyclist’s fault, same as now. If you take someone else’s right-of-way and get crunched for it, it is your fault. We don’t have any kind of “strict liability” rules here in the U.S., so that is a red herring.

                You’re making the same argument that non-cycling motorists make: cyclists could get killed by a car, therefore we must restrict them so they don’t get themselves killed. Well, if we apply that logic to everything, then all activity would be legally banned. Greater legal responsibility should fall on those who have the greatest potential to do harm.

                Truck drivers have to get extra training, as do bus drivers, airline pilots, heavy equipment operators, etc., before they are allowed to operate their respective machines around other people. Why? Because if they screw up, the consequences are huge.

                On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have pedestrians, who don’t have to get any training, and whose potential to cause harm is essentially nil. They don’t ever have to stop at stop signs–even if they are running at more than 5 mph. Now there are certain times when pedestrians are supposed to yield to vehicular traffic, and they must legally wait for a traffic signal, if present, but there is nothing that prescribes stopping at stop signs as pedestrians. Oftentimes, a pedestrian will stop and wait for traffic even if they should have the right-of-way. Why do they do that? Self-preservation. In the pedestrian’s judgment, it would not be safe to proceed, so they wait.

                Now, one step up from pedestrians, we have cyclists (I’m disregarding skaters for brevity). No special licensing required, same self-preservation motivations as pedestrians. Do we agree that bicyclists should take special care around pedestrians and perhaps have a higher level of responsibility to watch out for them? Do bicyclists have a slightly higher level of destructive capability than pedestrians?

                Next up are the everyday motor vehicles we see driving around all the time. License required, although it’s a little too easy to get. Insurance required–who figured out that was a necessity, and why? Lawmakers saw that operation of a heavy and fast motor vehicle required a higher level of responsibility.

                One can see from the systems that we have in place, and from contemplating the moral and ethical rules we have as a civilized society, that with more power, i.e., destructive capacity, comes more responsibility. You are arguing the opposite.

                Imagine this: I am riding at 10 or 15 mph and approaching an intersection with STOP signs. There may be cars approaching, but none pose an imminent danger, so when I get close to the intersection, I veer onto the sidewalk (outside the sidewalk exclusion zone), do a flying cyclocross dismount and begin running while pushing my bike. I run straight across the intersection in the unmarked crosswalk at 5mph without stopping, because I deemed it safe and no one else had immediate right-of-way. Legal? Yet if I stay mounted on my bike and roll through at 5 mph, that should be illegal?

                Recommended Thumb up 5

                • Tacoma May 13, 2014 at 2:02 pm

                  Thank you, EB, for parsing through WSB’s main “points”.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • wsbob May 13, 2014 at 9:03 pm

                  “…How is that? Because drivers are going to start getting killed by non-stopping cyclists? …” El Biciclero

                  No, as I wrote earlier, because the law adds to the burden people driving already have to watch out for vulnerable road users on the road, watching additionally for people riding that do not use good judgment in rolling through stop signs.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • El Biciclero May 14, 2014 at 9:39 am

                  “…the law adds to the burden people driving already have to watch out for vulnerable road users…”

                  This burden exists already; it’s called “due care”. The law as it was proposed in Oregon made no mention of any higher standard of responsibility for motorists. The rules of right-of-way do not change. There is absolutely no additional attention that motorists need even give a law like this, except to point to it and whine about how terribly oppressed they are by the all-powerful bike lobby. Also, the argument could be made that cyclist behavior would not change as a result of this law. Further, the Police could still conduct their stop sign “enforcement actions”, they would just have to start writing tickets for “improper entry into an intersection” rather than “failure to obey a traffic control device”.

                  Again, you seem to be arguing the inverse of the actual situation this law would create. Rather than imposing any imagined burden on poor motorists, it removes a burden from cyclists and lets them use their own judgment and self-preservation instincts rather than blindly obeying a sign that has little to no protective effect for them.

                  Recommended Thumb up 5

                • Tacoma May 14, 2014 at 11:33 am

                  So is someone copying EB’s replies to an FAQ document about the “Idaho” stop law? That needs to be done.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • El Biciclero May 14, 2014 at 12:29 pm

                  See here

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • 9watts May 15, 2014 at 4:47 pm

                  what strikes me as the funniest aspect of what (I think) wsbob is arguing here is that, for all intents and purposes people riding bikes in Portland *already* do a version of the Idaho thing right now. Where’s the carnage?

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Pete May 12, 2014 at 8:23 pm

            In my opinion you’ve drawn a logical path to the conclusion that bicycles are more likely than drivers to make safer decisions and more conservative estimations of risk based on their own increased vulnerability (and knowledge of it) should a decision result in a collision or crash.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Pete May 12, 2014 at 8:24 pm

              bicycles–>bicyclists (missed the edit button ;).

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • dr2chase May 12, 2014 at 7:47 pm

        If they’re on bikes, they’re already showing better safety judgement than people driving cars. I direct your attention to the peds-killed-by-X mortality stats. Why shouldn’t we trust them?

        If results matter, cyclists are the safety experts. If results don’t matter, we’re not really talking about safety.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Anonymous May 12, 2014 at 9:08 am

      This is a great question.
      The answer is surrounded by mystery and secrets.
      What did happen in the 11th hour, and why did the BTA let to of their lobbyist working on the Idaho Stop Law just before the state reps went to a vote?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 9:56 am

      There were a lot of things that didn’t go well in 2009, the tabloid “journalism” was a big part of the problem but there were also misteps made in the way that it was lobbied for, and it is hard to get something like this passed in Oregon simply because people pay a lot more attention to bike stuff here. The place that Idaho Style has gotten the closest to passing since is Utah, where it failed by a single vote and no one even seemed to notice. I had a history of the Idaho Style movement ride last pedalpalooza, I’d be happy to regale anyone who is interested with tales from past attempts.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Gregg May 12, 2014 at 11:04 am

        I remember when the Idaho Stop Law was proposed in Oregon. What ‘Missteps’ during lobbying are you talking about, and how could the missteps be avoided in the future?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 3:07 pm

          The bill was introduced in the House, and would have had a better chance moving forward out of committee in the Senate, while we weren’t in total control of which side the bill started on more effort should probably have been made to ensure it was introduced in the Senate. The lobbiest for the BTA in 2009 was in his first year in the job and probably could have received more support from other more experienced people who were at the BTA at the time. We perhaps should have reached out to the Oregonian to try to encourage them to write an article that was factually accurate, and not sensational, instead we hoped to stay under the radar, in the end the O went tabloid and then KATU and other local news began reporting things that made it clear they didn’t bother to read the bill before reporting. Finally it was in my opinion an unbelievably bad decision by the BTA to fire their only paid lobbyist the day before the committee vote. Those of us who volunteered on the legislative committee found out on bikeportland that he had been fired. He was friends with a number of republicans who were supporting the bill out of friendship to him and once he was fired they made it clear that they had no intention of continuing to support the idea.

          Recommended Thumb up 11

          • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 10:39 pm

            One other thing that happened that ended up being a big negative was that one person who worked for the city of eugene who opposed the bill sent a letter that made it appear that the city of eugene opposed the bill. The letter was basically illegally sent as the city has a process for commenting on such things that was not followed, and it was just this one single person who sent it on city letterhead. In the end GEARS the eugene area bike group pressured the city and they officially reciscinded the letter, but by then it was too late and the voting was already done. In the future if I were trying to get such a bill passed I would try to get multiple cities on board ahead of time so that one rogue employee could not send a damaging letter out at the last minute.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

      • wsbob May 12, 2014 at 5:57 pm

        “…The place that Idaho Style has gotten the closest to passing since is Utah, where it failed by a single vote and no one even seemed to notice. …” Bjorn

        Right. It failed in Utah. I remember reading about Utah mulling over the Idaho Stop, but don’t recall if I read how far along in Utah’s legislative process the bill went before it got ditched. Did it fail in committee? Did the bill pass their and get to either house or senate, and then fail? If the bill failed by one vote, wherever, and no one noticed, that could be a strong sign of lack of interest in such a law in that state.

        Why don’t you share with all of us bikeportland readers, what you know about the familiarity of people of that state with the bill, it’s progress in the legislature, and its failure.

        Way too much credit is given to the Oregonian’s coverage, sinking past efforts to pass an Idaho Stop for Oregon bill into law. People don’t need the Oregonian’s coverage of those efforts to know such a law is a bad deal for them, because on the road, they see first hand, the potential liability that people traveling by bike present to people driving or traveling by motor vehicle. For people driving, that liability grows greater if people traveling by bike become entitled to elect not to stop at stop signs if in their judgement while rolling, the way is clear to proceed without stopping.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Pete May 12, 2014 at 8:37 pm

          If there’s one Universal Truth I’ve uncovered, it’s that in conversations about bicycles with anyone who doesn’t ride one – and even many who do – the very first place that conversation will go is “Bicycles Run Stop Signs.” [sic]

          Therefore, trying to introduce legislation with the words “bicycle” and “stop sign” in the same proximity will result in failure as long as the majority of the voting public has no experience navigating stop signs with bicycles.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm

            “Therefore, trying to introduce legislation with the words “bicycle” and “stop sign” in the same proximity will result in failure” … Bingo! Because if bicycles are no longer required to obey all stop signs, it gives motorists a lot less reason to feel outraged at (and thus superior to) cyclists.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 10:20 pm

          The Utah bill passed in the house and failed in the senate because it was a tie, one more vote and it would have become law. No one cared because it is no big deal, as Idaho has shown for over 3 decades now there is no safety issue whatsoever.

          **EDIT: This comment has been edited to remove personal attacks. Please keep it civil, all. -Michael

          I am not saying that the law would definately have passed without the oregonian’s tabloid coverage and the subsequent lies by outlets like KATU that broadcast coverage that was so far from fact that it boggled the mind, but I can say that after the outcry against the bill as it was falsely presented by these groups, (cyclists would be allowed to proceed through red lights without stopping and with impunity), we had little to no chance of recovering.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • wsbob May 12, 2014 at 11:59 pm

            “The Utah bill passed in the house and failed in the senate because it was a tie, one more vote and it would have become law. …” Bjorn

            Unless the governor decided to veto the bill. And that’s Utah, not Oregon, or any other of the states in the union besides Idaho. I think you seriously underestimate the intelligence and individuality of Oregonians relative to other states, in making decisions through the election process, affecting life in this state.

            By all means though, if you really think Oregonians presented with yet another proposal to approve passage of an Idaho Stop law, will happily vote for it or give their elected reps their support to vote for it, thinking that people legally allowed to roll through stop signs is “…no big deal…”, you’re sure welcome to get busy trying to sell such a proposal. If nothing else, it’ll give you something to do.

            Michael…thanks for the editing, and the reminder.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Bjorn May 13, 2014 at 10:15 am

              It has also passed in the House in Oregon, but died in committee in the Senate when Lars Larson’s radio show created a false controversy around the bill and momentum was lost. In Lars defense Karl and I were both on his show in 2009 and while he did not endorse the bill he was far less sensational in discussing it and gave us a fair chance to accurately present the bill. I don’t think that you have ever been involved with this and you don’t really know the history of the bills in Oregon or other states.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • wsbob May 13, 2014 at 12:16 pm

                “…I don’t think that you have ever been involved with this and you don’t really know the history of the bills in Oregon or other states.” Bjorn

                Oregonians that read about what the legislature works on, as I do, have some familiarity with work spent there on considering whether to put an Idaho Stop law in effect in Oregon. I also listen to other sources, towards developing a sense of how people in the state feel about various issues.

                My sense, is that Oregonians, particularly those having the responsibility of driving motor vehicles safely on the road with people on bikes, have major reservations about putting an Idaho Stop law into effect in Oregon. I’ve explained in earlier comments posted, why I think that is, so I won’t repeat them again here.

                Based on comments posted to this story’s discussion sectionb, people advocating for such a law in Oregon, are not doing a good job of making their case.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 10:00 am

      Also Jonathan did a pretty good job covering the completely inaccurate sensational coverage by other outlets including KATU which then snowballed around the state.

      http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/18/the-oregonian-takes-low-blow-at-idaho-stop-law-16217

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • 9watts May 12, 2014 at 8:52 am

    From the WW article on the street fee:
    “Hales and Novick are looking for ways to get the fee approved without going to voters. Commissioners Nick Fish and Dan Saltzman say they oppose going around voters.”

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Peejay May 12, 2014 at 8:58 am

    I fully accept that the rate of vehicle violence is not sharply increasing in recent years. But that means it has always been a crisis. Obviously, that means we can ignore it then? Thanks, WW.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

  • TOM May 12, 2014 at 8:59 am

    >> “in order to gin up public support”

    actually it’s GEN , shortened from generate.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Spiffy May 12, 2014 at 9:14 am

      gin
      /jin/
      verb
      2. trap (a person or animal) in a gin.

      seems that they meant to trap in public support…

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Charley May 12, 2014 at 9:30 am

      Spelled “gin,” it is also short for engine. Gin is a fine way to spell it. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gin_up

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • El Biciclero May 12, 2014 at 10:24 am

      I thought gin/jin in this context came from the arabic word for a magical spiritual being–same place we get “genie”, and therefore meant to conjure up as if by magic.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Spiffy May 12, 2014 at 9:03 am

    Haptic safety: bikes don’t have blind spots… they only have “forgot to look there” spots…

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • Joe May 12, 2014 at 9:21 am

    I got a ticket for pulling Idaho stop on Naito, wild because the Portland officer was bent on me saying I ran a red.. lol didn’t even want to make him upset, but you know how many cars blow reds on Naito? waaay worse if you ask me.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Audrey May 12, 2014 at 10:05 am

      So I cross Naito at Davis all the time to stroll around the waterfront during my lunch break. I am always seeing cars and bikes running that red light to go straight onto the upper deck of the Steel Bridge. Is that legal? I get apoplectic when I see it happen and have had to jump out of the way of a handful of bikes and cars who treat that light as optional.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Pete May 12, 2014 at 8:50 pm

        On my most popular routes on Foothill Expressway in the bay area there are two ‘T’ intersections where cyclists can easily (and relatively safely) run (or Idaho Stop) red lights because the path doesn’t cross auto traffic or crosswalks. At one of them (Grant) the stop bar continues across the shoulder, and at the other (280 offramp near Homestead) it does not. I’ve actually heard – on several occasions – fellow cyclists say (matter-of-factly) that you do not need to stop at the red light at 280 because there is no stop bar painted across the bike lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Spiffy May 13, 2014 at 9:19 am

        it’s illegal to go straight across Naito while on Davis against the red light…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Keith May 12, 2014 at 9:42 am

    I feel like a sitting duck if I stop at an intersection. When I maintain some momentum, I can readily make an evasive move. Also, rolling through without stopping, I clear the intersection more quickly without confusing the approaching and slowing car driver.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • spare_wheel May 12, 2014 at 10:09 am

      Factors that influence my cycling style in order of importance:

      1. Safety.
      2. Courtesy.
      3. Mood.
      4. Weather.
      5. Oregon revised statutes.

      Recommended Thumb up 38

  • Oliver May 12, 2014 at 9:57 am

    City wide street fee is how they’re going to make good on promises to improve conditions on the east side, and pay for putting in sidewalks where the property owners won’t pay for it themselves.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • gutterbunny May 12, 2014 at 2:32 pm

      Yeah, Sure….How many times in the last few decades has middle and outer SE heard such stuff. If even a small amount of the promises did happen. All the action in this town would be out in Lents and Gateway.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Spiffy May 13, 2014 at 9:20 am

      they wouldn’t need the street fee if it wasn’t for the damage and carnage caused by motor vehicles…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • davemess May 16, 2014 at 7:26 am

      I think you mean “where the property owners CAN’T pay for it themselves”?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe May 12, 2014 at 10:00 am

    yup so true its all about foward movement in a correct manner, but have you noticed how some ppl in cars look us down instead of just driving. its like keep your eyes on the road not me. * or speed up to be forceful *

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy May 12, 2014 at 10:08 am

    I suppose, because most people realize relying on people to very consistently use good judgment in rolling through stop signs on their vulnerable road user bicycles, is a bad idea.

    that’s what most car drivers assume suppose… even though Idaho showed more safety after the law passed… and even though those car drivers rely every day on people to very consistently use good judgment in rolling through stop signs in their vulnerable-road-user killing motor vehicles…

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • wsbob May 13, 2014 at 12:03 am

      “…even though Idaho showed more safety after the law passed…” Spiffy

      Not established though, whether the Idaho Stop was responsible for the improvement in safety determined by the study.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Spiffy May 13, 2014 at 9:22 am

        in the minds of people you need to pitch the law to it’s enough causality for them…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • wsbob May 13, 2014 at 12:24 pm

          “in the minds of people you need to pitch the law to it’s enough causality for them…” Spiffy

          Say who it is you’re suggesting the law needs to be pitched to. If it’s people that drive, with an Idaho Stop law putting them in situations where vulnerable road users on bikes are legally allowed to roll through stop signs without stopping, I think you’re going to find they have major reservations about such a law. Regardless of studies conducted in Idaho and presented to them in attempts to prove the law would be just fine for Oregon and high traffic situations common to the Metro Area.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Bjorn May 13, 2014 at 10:46 am

        Jason Meggs published a paper called “Bicycle Safety and Choice:
        Compounded Public Cobenefits of the Idaho Law Relaxing Stop Requirements for Cycling” which studied the safety impact of the Idaho Style Stop as Yield law. It not only compared Idaho before and after the enactment of the law but also compared Idaho now to places that do not have Stop as Yield. The finding was of course that Stop as Yield has no negative impact on safety. The argument that this law is dangerous and will lead to an increase in injuries and deaths has been disproved.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Joe May 12, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Two types of stops.
    1. blowing a stop sign :(
    2. Idaho stop :)
    3. safety happens

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • El Biciclero May 12, 2014 at 10:59 am

    I don’t know why drivers should care about Idaho stops. I have come to view them as one of the few times I can do like the drivers do and speed. If the implied speed limit at a stop sign is zero, then when I roll a stop, I’m just momentarily doing 5 – 10 mph over the limit–just like most drivers do ALL THE TIME.

    Recommended Thumb up 21

    • are May 12, 2014 at 11:28 am

      and motorists for the most part also roll stops at three to five mph or more, but with a lot more mass.

      Recommended Thumb up 29

    • Pete May 12, 2014 at 9:03 pm

      Actually the problem I have most often coming to stop signs with cars present is that they assume I’m not going to stop (or don’t realize that I am ‘stopped’ because my foot’s not down) and they wait for me to go (or wave me on) instead of taking their right-of-way, which typically messes up my timing and balance. Drivers also don’t understand that I usually can’t see them waving behind their windsheilds, so it results in me unclipping to stop abruptly and wave them on (probably pissing off the guy behind me).

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Spiffy May 13, 2014 at 9:24 am

        I never go when they have the right of way and are waving me to go… since they can’t legally cede their right of way I can only see that going badly if I do what they suggest and illegally go first…

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • El Biciclero May 15, 2014 at 12:16 pm

          This same reason is why I only signal for left turns when there is someone behind me (to prevent them whipping around on my left as I turn–thanks, rear-view mirror). For some reason, many oncoming drivers believe they are either being “nice” or are legally bound to stop and let me turn left in front of them. I drop my foot and wave them on, much to the consternation of drivers behind me and the driver who thought they were “helping”. How else are they going to learn?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Eli May 12, 2014 at 11:27 am

    Actually, the protected bike lane only goes to a bunch of low-income housing projects that are likely to be demolished in the next few years. It was built as an opportunistic route, not a route that is intrinsically useful in isolation.

    It definitely doesn’t go to downtown Seattle. While a line exists in the bike master plan, there is currently no committed plans to build a bikeway from Capitol Hill to downtown. I wish there were!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 12, 2014 at 1:06 pm

      Thanks for the note, Eli. I’ll tweak.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Eli May 12, 2014 at 1:56 pm

        Thanks, Michael, and thank you so much for all the great work every day.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Evan Manvel May 13, 2014 at 9:34 am

      As a Seattleite, I’d humbly disagree with Eli.

      I use the Broadway separated bike lane as a functional connection to get from my home in Capitol Hill to many places downtown – and back (though Yesler is a pain of a hill, it’s stunning on the way down – and I can take a different street back up.)

      I actually go out of my way to use it sometimes, as it’s so pleasant – safe, and on an interesting street with lots of businesses and people-watching. It’s on one of Seattle’s several signature tourist streets, where the dancing steps are.

      But yes, we need more – and even more prominent ones.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Eli May 13, 2014 at 10:40 am

        Yes, I’m sure it does a fine job serving the existing 3% of bicyclists who would otherwise riding on other arterial streets for that mile.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Eli May 13, 2014 at 10:55 am

        P.S. I’m not actually sure what you’re disagreeing with, since everything you say seems consistent with everything I said. ;-)

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • are May 12, 2014 at 11:29 am

    essentially all of abus illustrations show a lock protecting only the top tube. so i guess they are calculating only ten pct. of the frame, not the wheels.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • are May 12, 2014 at 11:34 am

    i am slightly surprised as many as 2.5 pct. of cyclists crossing the hawthorne bridge actually use strava. but then of course i am getting old.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pete May 12, 2014 at 9:05 pm

      What is “strava”? ;-)

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • chris May 12, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    I don’t like the two-way cycletrack concept. Seems like a recipe for a head-on collision with a car during an intersection, which is without a doubt the worst kind of collision to have.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • El Biciclero May 13, 2014 at 3:34 pm

      Holy Toledo. Who ever thought putting a two-way bikeway on one side of a street was a good idea? It invites–nay, compels–the proven most dangerous mode of cycling: riding the wrong way while largely hidden from drivers’ view. Only one of two things can make such a design safe: prohibiting turns, or making cyclists stop and yield at every intersection. Of course these two could be combined with bike-specific signals, turn-only lanes, and and extra signal cycle at every intersection–that’s not too expensive [eye-roll].

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave May 12, 2014 at 12:34 pm

    It would be a very good thing if the PPB focused all of their brutality and heavy-handedness on drunk and distracted drivers to the point where drunks became afraid to drive. A few corpses of habitual drunk and phoning drivers, found coyote-half-eaten in shallow graves in the coast range, might be a significant behavior modifier for some of our more dangerous motorists. Drivers need to be made to feel fear–that has to be part of a system of solutions.

    9watts
    safety -> street fee?
    = 100% public relations; using polling to package policy.
    99% of the dangers emanate from the overwhelming presence of cars, from inattentive drivers, from attitudes about who owns the roads. Charging everyone a flat fee to ‘pay for this’ is ridiculous, and Novick (apparently) knows this.
    From the WW article: “One of the best and cheapest ways to reduce fatalities is not new construction but simply lowering speed limits and enforcing drunken-driving laws.”
    Recommended 11

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    “Rising demand for urban life is pricing poor people out of cities, but the suburbs are frighteningly bad at helping poor people survive.”

    Wow, didn’t realize this was happening in/around Atlanta, too. The predictions of ’90s era urbanists seem to be coming true in many parts of the country. Millennials and retiring Boomers are moving back into our cities, pushing urban property values up and poor people out to the suburbs — where in some ways they are worse off. At least the inner cities have decent public transport.

    A couple of thoughts about the future:
    1. At some point, improving mass transit and affordable housing in the suburbs will become a major equity issue.
    2. The urban boom is playing itself out everywhere I’ve lived – Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland – as well as many other places. The next wave of gentrification is going to include many of the inner-ring suburbs: the ones with mega-blocks and at least some mass transit along the major corridors, along with nice mid-century ranch houses ripe for remodeling — and a new epidemic of childhood lead poisoning, if their new owners aren’t careful). In the Seattle area this trend is already well underway.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 12, 2014 at 1:10 pm

      Yes, just about every major city in the country is seeing a lot of central-city apartment infill development right now, the combination of the national shortage of rental housing (which is mostly a result of tighter lending markets and falling homeownership rates), the rising demand you note, and low low interest rates.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 1:16 pm

      Oops, meant to say:
      1. At some point, improving mass transit, bike infrastructure and affordable housing in the suburbs will become a major equity issue.

      Also under #2, as the inner-ring suburbs gentrify there will be a renewed push to improve bike infrastructure. Some suburbs like Beaverton have already done a lot of the work, but many more (including East Portland) have quite a ways to go.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Joe May 12, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    I would also like to chime in with regards to suburbs relating to the westside as in Wilsonville seems like a remote island that lacks complete bike connections. Really feel gentrification has been happening here for sometime now :( city planners really back pedaling on things I’m in for the long haul, but it gets old when you feel like its a money machine of working class. * this place will bottom out in 2035 for housing * but the urban planners lack complete structure. strip malls and parking lots not the way to go.. aka sprawl

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Chris I May 12, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    The issue of truck safety is a big one. Cars are being better-designed now to reduce the risk of injury and death to pedestrians. Large trucks just seem to be getting worse. It seems like every new pickup is designed with a huge flat front on it, which would strike you in the upper body and head when hit. They are like giant speeding brick walls.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Oliver May 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm

      And what pavement princess isn’t complete without a set of massive steel roo-bars?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Robert Burchett May 13, 2014 at 4:11 am

      If you have rented a car lately you may have noticed that some newer small or mid sized cars have a huge blind spot. Not good for bikes. Of course many drivers do not look anyway.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Spiffy May 13, 2014 at 9:29 am

        I drove my friend’s VW Golf for a week and it has a huge blind spot due to a huge B pillar… really annoying taking the time to look all around the pillars of a car…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Champs May 12, 2014 at 3:22 pm

    I don’t understand the Idaho Stop fetish.

    First off, I say that the safety data from Vox is questionable. Its measurements read like a page from the Lying with Numbers manual.

    When it comes to stop signs, 99%+ of us are already noncompliant at stop signs. If the coast looks clear, I slow down and roll through. It’s no faster than people on foot, who are not expected to stop at all. That’s fine, and aligning the letter with the spirit of the law would be great.

    Stoplights are a different story. If you can trigger a green, legitimate reasons not to cross against them are precious few. At times, the rule is stupid, but so are countless others. Asking people to stop is not a huge imposition and you don’t conserve any effort by starting up before the light changes.

    We’re better off with a more or less universal, mode-independent set of rules. ODOT shouldn’t need separate manuals to spell out the quirks of Oregon Motor/Bicycle/Pedestrian law. Then we’re prepared for the day when Steve Jobs’ prophecy becomes true and Segways take over the world.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 3:56 pm

      To be clear when the BTA attempted to pass an Idaho Style Stop law the bill only contained the portion allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, not the stop light portion. However in Idaho the stop light part was added at the request of their state police and the bill was written and sponsored by a republican state senator. That law requires people to come to a complete stop, but doesn’t require them to sit there waiting if there are no cars in sight not knowing if they are going to trigger the light or not. Idaho has demonstrated that there is no reason why either provision should be controversial or partisan, unfortunately that isn’t the way it seems to play here.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

      • spare_wheel May 12, 2014 at 4:53 pm

        large areas of france and parts of scandinavia also allow cyclists to treat reds as yields.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • are May 12, 2014 at 6:29 pm

      in a sufficiently repressive enforcement environment, rolling through in the manner you acknowledge you do could get you an expensive ticket. change the statute to conform with common sense, remove a bludgeon from the enforcement toolkit. no fetish required.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Pete May 12, 2014 at 9:49 pm

      I totally agree we should have a universal – actually a NATIONAL set of traffic rules (as opposed to the ridiculous, confusing, costly state-based fiefdoms, er, administrations we have now), but completely disagree that they should be mode-independent.

      First off, as a bicyclist I’m required to hand-signal using an ancient set of rules designed before automobiles had electric lamps. I’m supposed to use the hand I’m most likely braking with, and I only have right/left/stop but no way to discern taking the (first) lane in front of drivers without making them believe I’m going all the way across to take a hard left turn. Secondly, if I move into a left-turn lane and position my carbon-fiber & titanium race bike positioned over the little dude(tte) with the helmet on, I have a choice of waiting for a car to pull up behind me, crossing lanes unprotected to hit a walk button, or breaking the law and running my red across oncoming traffic. (If I do the latter on a motorcycle that doesn’t trigger then I’m not breaking the law).

      Regarding the stop law, what we need first is a universal understanding of how the other modes stop in practice. Studies show that cars tend to stop beyond stop lines, typically attributed to their geometry/driver visibility and their sizeable momentum, and bicyclists tend to stop their bikes in advance of stop lines, presumably to preserve their balance and motion through the intersection once they’ve determined it’s safe to go (or timed for their right-of-way given cars present; see my previous comment on that one). I believe that if most drivers (and bicyclists) fully understood and applied this in practice, most people wouldn’t have a problem with the Idaho Stop Law. (And no, cyclists don’t have to put a foot down).

      (I don’t have links to these studies, sorry, but I read them years ago through the Monday Roundup).

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Dan May 13, 2014 at 10:49 am

      Pedestrian laws are quirky. Let’s just make them follow the same rules of the road too.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dwainedibbly May 12, 2014 at 5:40 pm

    Motorists should support an Idaho stop law for Oregon because when I’m taking the lane I hold them up less if I’m Idaho stopping.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • TOM May 12, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    On the Idaho stop: I read somewhere (on BP.O I think) in an article about not having to put a foot down at a stop sign , that a 1 second pause was enough ? (AFAIR) ?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • are May 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm

      the wheel is supposed to stop rolling forward. putting a foot down is ornamental.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • dr2chase May 12, 2014 at 7:52 pm

      If it’s really same roads same rules, then unless drivers have to put a foot down, cyclists don’t either.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 9:27 pm

      A second is a long time, and you do not need to remain stopped for a full “one-one-thousand”, nor do you need to put down your foot. A momentary stoppage of the wheels turning is sufficient.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • q`Tzal May 12, 2014 at 8:03 pm

    How many people noticed the product endorsement in the first paragraph of the main article?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 12, 2014 at 9:07 pm

      It’s a sponsored endorsement, like we do on the Roundup many weeks; Abus paid us for the time it took me to do this post, essentially. Is there a way you think it should be handled differently? If it doesn’t seem natural and transparent to readers we don’t want to do it.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Bjorn May 12, 2014 at 10:25 pm

        I think it was more than clear that there was a sponsor and that a portion of the content was basically an ad for that sponsor. I think that anything that helps make sure that bike portland can continue to have more than one full time reporter without undermining the integrity of the product is a good thing. Having 2 prospectives has added depth to the reporting and there is noticably less drop off when a much needed vacation is taken IMHO.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • q`Tzal May 12, 2014 at 10:33 pm

        It wad so natural and transparent I didn’t see it the first few times I read through. I don’t imagine that was what the sponsor is looking for.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy May 12, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    I don’t have a problem with the idea of endorsements and “brought to you by” stuff, but I do have a bone to pick with the “10% of your bike’s value” rule, which to me is the same kind of “two months’ salary” BS pushed for so long by the diamond industry. There are Sold Secure rated U-locks available for $30-40, and that’s more than sufficient to lock a $1000 bike anywhere in Portland except maybe overnight downtown.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Jane May 13, 2014 at 10:00 am

      Abus’s higher end line can be pretty pricey, so they’re trying to justify it. I’ve got a ~$2k bike with a $90 abus u lock and $90 worth of pitlock skewers, and a ~1k bike that I use the same u lock with, both of which aren’t far off the 10% mark (9% actually) so it’s not like it’s unimaginable. Hell, when I ride my $700 bike with the same lock I’m up to almost 13% of the bike’s value. I find the abus to be the most user friendly of the locks I own and I don’t mind spending extra for my preference. If you can get by with less, by all means, do so.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 12, 2014 at 10:57 pm

    Useful feedback all.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • TOM May 13, 2014 at 7:56 am

    The ONLY red light that I will run is on a “T” intersection on NE 102nd ..going North.. just south of Gateway/Winco. I feel foolish sitting there (have done it a couple of times), since there isn’t any cross street. I DO pause tho , to make sure there are no PEDS trying to cross.

    In outer SE , the PPD presence is spotty ..to say the least.

    Oh yeah, as I type this ..there is another “T” that I almost ignore. In Gresham, on Burnside – headed West, top of a small hill , just west of K-mart. It would kill uphill momentum to stop there and there just is not much need (Have NEVER seen a PED cross there)

    At Springwater & SE82nd or Foster , I sit and wait for the light, watching others run them. :(

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Clark in Vancouver May 13, 2014 at 9:09 am

    Pete
    First off, as a bicyclist I’m required to hand-signal using an ancient set of rules designed before automobiles had electric lamps. I’m supposed to use the hand I’m most likely braking with, and I only have right/left/stop but no way to discern taking the (first) lane in front of drivers without making them believe I’m going all the way across to take a hard left turn. .

    We’re not in a car so don’t have to use special modified signals because we’re not hanging out a window.
    There are hand signals that people use when on a motorcycle that are used for indicating changing lanes. It’s to use two fingers and point down at the lane you’re wanting to change into. You can shoulder check at the same time. I see people using this type of signal when cycling too sometimes.
    Another way to indicate a right turn is to use your right arm straight out.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Pete May 15, 2014 at 9:37 pm

      Yes – you get it! Motorcyclists do not have particular hand signals according to any state laws, but they’ve developed practical protocols. This is exactly how I signal taking the lane and have seen many other cyclists do so as well. A few states have now modified their driver’s handbooks (but not all the laws) stating that bicyclists may signal with their right hands (which I do exclusively since I only use my front brake). Regardless, nothing in a driver’s handbook tells them that I am (or moto-biker is) planning to take the lane in front of them when pointing to the middle of that lane, yet it still seems to work out of common sense and courtesy.

      Recently I certified as a LAB bike instructor, and I learned that teaching my own interpretations of these hand signals is highly frowned upon, as it technically teaches rules that aren’t backed by predominate state laws. Since then I’ve had it in the back of my mind to start a movement to standardize (nationalize) practical hand signals for bicyclists (and hopefully get LAB to back me). Alas, my kingdom for spare time…

      My primary point is that the rules should be mode-dependent, as motorists, bicyclists, and motorcyclists indeed develop protocols by modifying rule interpretations to their particular needs (and physics of motion). Thanks for your comment!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe May 13, 2014 at 10:10 am

    no Idaho Stop fetish here just if your sitting at a light and its red for you for like 15mins and its dark ,wet and cold, say you have been riding same area for years say its a nightmare intersection, I pull a Idaho stop some police officers have no idea. I’m traffic too :)

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • GlowBoy May 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    wsbob
    “…the need for motor vehicles to come to a complete stop, no matter what, is due to (1) their great mass and ability to inflict harm, …” GlowBoy
    So you think it’s a big deal if, not having to stop at stop signs, someone operating a motor vehicle inflicts harm, but no big deal if, not stopping at stop signs through an error in judgment, a vulnerable road user on a bike brings harm upon themselves? And upon others driving and traveling in motor vehicles affected by close calls and collisions with vulnerable road users on bikes.
    Recommended 1

    Correct. I’m all for laws protecting us from each other, not so much for laws protecting us from our own stupidity (for the record, I oppose helmet and seatbelt laws on that basis).

    If I kill someone else accidentally, that’s a crime. If I kill myself accidentally, too bad for me.

    And yes, in collisions between vulnerable road users and motor vehicles, I’m a lot more concerned with the welfare of the vulnerable users than with that of the motor vehicle occupants. The former are many times more likely to be killed or maimed than the latter, see?

    Recommended Thumb up 3

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.