home
Advertise on BikePortland

Monday Roundup: SF’s Idaho Stop rule, Seattle’s big vote & more

Posted by on September 28th, 2015 at 9:56 am

It’s the law. But is it a priority?
(Photo: J.Maus/BikePortland)

This week’s Monday Roundup is sponsored by Abraham Fixes Bikes who reminds Portland mountain bikers that they’re loved on Williams Ave!

Here are the bike-related links from around the world that caught our eyes this week:

Idaho stop: A majority of San Francisco’s board of supervisors has endorsed a measure that would de facto make it legal to treat stop signs as yield signs while biking by designating it as the lowest priority for police enforcement. Could this be a model for city-level changes?

Dream Beijing: To prepare for the biggest military parade in its history, China banned half the cars from Beijing’s streets and closed hundreds of factories for two weeks. The result: a stunning azure sky that immediately vanished on the morning after.

Dream Philly: The Pope’s weekend in Philadelphia led to a five-square-mile ban on driving and led to people “rushing into the streets like toddlers too long strapped in their strollers,” The Inquirer’s architecture critic writes.

Seattle levy: While Portland was bending backwards to avoid a public vote on transportation funding, our neighbors to the north rolled the dice and sent the question to voters. With the vote looming, a debate on King 5 this week gives a taste of what that sort of fight looks like.

Subway speed: The structure of London’s Tube system is such that its trains’ optimal speed is actually the speed of a bicycle, researchers calculated.

Volkswagen scandal: The automaker’s huge emissions cheating system was unearthed by four American academics driving up I-5.

Star Trek bridge: KGW has the story of the guy who spent $5,000 on billboards to suggest naming Tilikum Crossing after Jean-Luc Picard instead.

Housing costs: TechCrunch reporter Kim-Mai Cutler’s packed address about the parallels between the roots of San Francisco’s housing crisis and Portland’s current situation is online.

Housing action: A San Francisco renters’ group is pioneering a new strategy to increase housing supply: suing suburbs for blocking density there.


Transportation innovation: More cities are discovering a fun new way to save on gas while zipping around town: the pimped-out golf cart, of course.

Teaching bikes: High schools around the country are building them into extracurrics and even into curriculums.

School safety: Edinburgh’s latest livable-streets measure is to test a ban on driving near six primary schools at the start and end of each school day.

Bike fee: L.A. Times columnist George Skelton has a plan to fix California’s roads: charge kids and poor people for riding bikes.

Pump track: The new dirt-biking course along the East River in Brooklyn is gorgeous.

Apple car: It’s arriving in 2019, the company says.

Prettier freeways: Minnesota is trying to get people to leave highways by making its exits look less like highway exits.

Congestion culture: If cars are so great, why do so many people who use them get upset by “the thought of spending a few extra minutes in a comfortable climate-controlled vehicle where you control the radio station”? A West Seattle Blog commenter wants to know.

And finally, in your video of the week: You may have already read about the residents of Coronado, Calif., who have successfully stopped their city from painting bike lanes because of the “vertigo” that hashed pavement markings might induce in people driving past them. But did you know you can also see them say such things out loud?

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

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you — Jonathan

196 Comments
  • Anne Hawley September 28, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Ha ha ha George Skelton. That argument never seems to get old. I still hear it all the time, even among my own friends and family: (assume a whiny tone) “If you just paid your way.”

    They say this while doing what Chris on the Seattle West Blog points out in his comment: sitting in extremely comfortable (and highly subsidized) SUVs, complaining about the traffic. Probably texting.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • El Biciclero September 28, 2015 at 11:56 am

      I find it telling that these two sentences are contiguous in his piece:

      “…bicycling is clean transportation and good exercise. It should be encouraged.

      But if cyclists were required to pay a state registration fee to ride their bikes on public roads…”

      That naked dearth of logic always leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. Indeed, let’s encourage cycling by charging a fee to allow one to reduce wear, congestion, and pollution by using a mode that requires more physical exertion, more time, more exposure to the elements, and the privilege of putting up with drivers’ carelessness, negligence, and outright abuse. Seems like a bargain!

      Recommended Thumb up 14

    • B. Carfree September 28, 2015 at 5:10 pm

      Considering that user fees pay for less than half of road building and maintenance while damage is proportional to the fourth power of weight, it’s pretty laughable that anyone would think that cyclists aren’t paying their fair share. That 50%+ that is coming from property taxes, sales taxes (in CA) and income taxes is orders of magnitude more than the damage cyclists cause.

      Why do motorists have such a sense of entitlement? Maybe we should have a registration fee for all vehicles, bike included, that is adequate to pay for all the road damage, not just the fraction the user fees currently pay for, and is proportional to the weight of the vehicle to the fourth power, per the damage done. For every penny a cyclist pays, motorists would pay $2000. I don’t think they would like a world in which they aren’t allowed to freeload on our roads.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 10:33 am

    The VW emissions scandal is one beautiful illustration of why we should never let corporations run the world, and why waiting for a whiz-bang solution to our transportation predicaments is so ill-advised. Both are built around profit and that is one risky way to try to fix the world.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • John Lascurettes September 28, 2015 at 11:12 am

      The #1 legal responsibility of a company with a corporate charter: protect the financial interests of the shareholders. Is it any wonder?

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 11:16 am

        I’m talking about our eagerness to defer to corporations, to trust them to solve these problems.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 11:48 am

        The number one business responsibility of any company wishing to be successful, is to deliver a product its customers want
        and are willing to pay for. VW did marvelously well on that count. People that bought them, love the peppy diesel Jetta.

        Except that the company cheated and lied across the board in order to provide their customers with the car performance they want. Who’s going to still want those cars after the recall ‘fixes’ the cars by deleting their performance defeating, emission reduction software?

        Though it’s hardly a feature essential to practical motor vehicle travel, that people like their cars to have peppy performance, is understandable. VW’s chicanery is a disservice to other auto manufacturers and people around the world having a true regard for and priority on reducing motor vehicle emissions with the loss of peppy performance being part of the trade off.

        False expectations is what VW has led people to have. A bit like Lance Armstrong’s efforts to persuade people he was more of a hotshot cyclist than he was in actuality. So there’ll be a little readjustment of expectations involved, but other than that, not such a big deal.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 2:09 pm

          “that people like their cars to have peppy performance, is understandable”

          Or not.
          Peppy is continuously redefined, never stands still.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 2:20 pm

            true, we used to think that we needed a 454 CI V8 in our car for it to be peppy…

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Pete September 28, 2015 at 3:08 pm

              And now, ironically, the “peppiest” cars on the road are electric. 😉

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 5:03 pm

                That’s right..some electric cars do have peppy performance and some people want that. And some people like their diesel powered cars to be able to do more than just go down the road on the fewest mph possible. They want their cars to jump when they put the pedal down.

                Kind of like, not everyone that enjoys riding bikes, would necessarily be obliged to ride only a heavy, doggy performance bike share bike like Portland’s going to be getting. Instead, many people prefer a lightweight, track bike, fixie, or multi-gear racing style bike for some get up and go.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 2:21 pm

          “False expectations is what [every automobile commercial] has led people to have.”

          Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Dan September 28, 2015 at 11:48 am

        Our CEO put it pretty much the same way, at our last annual meeting: “Our goal as a company is to make money for the shareholders.”

        Very inspirational.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:08 pm

          Yeah, whats so confusing about this message? These shareholders stakes money to your company to pay people like you on the expectation that the investment would return something to them.

          Also, as a person who is investing in my retirement, I’m also interested in the firms I buy stock in to make me as much money as possible. In fact, tens of millions of ordinary Americans are banking on this be they police officers, firefighters, soldiers, teachers, social workers, et al.

          So what are you saying? These greedy people dont deserve a return on thrir investments?

          I read a lot of troubling things here from posters outrightly demanding that the government take the property to others to characterizing people who attend city council meetings and voice opinions that the poster shares as ‘crybabies” to the above sentiment that decries shareholders (I bet the poster I have replied to here is a shareholder himself, lol). These are very worrying in the current political context where even our President decides to change laws after they’re passed to suit his desires (see Obamacare).

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • are September 28, 2015 at 1:49 pm

            hey, maybe we can maximize profits by externalizing costs.

            Recommended Thumb up 8

            • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:06 am

              And? Seriously. Apply some reasoning here.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • are September 29, 2015 at 4:56 pm

                you drive a hard bargain, BR. you throw some comment against the wall, various people identify the weaknesses in your argument, and you demand that they explain the entire chain of reasoning, while you just sit back and snark. but okay, here goes. just the high points, though, i have other work to do in the real world.

                9watts suggested for-profit corporations should not be permitted to set policy agendas unilaterally. some people seconded, noting the corporation in its present iteration exists only to turn a profit for shareholders. short term, one might have added.

                you said what’s wrong with that. i simply said, in effect, maximizing profits requires externalizing costs. let’s just say air and water pollution to keep it simple. but there is so much more.

                therefore — follow closely now, BR — if we allow for-profit corporations to set policy, we get a destroyed ecosystem.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Dan September 28, 2015 at 8:14 pm

            Hey, why should I worry that we are sending more jobs to India and Canada to maximize profits? We are always hearing about how the rent in the Lloyd area is too high, and how we might relocate towards the airport or Tualatin to save a few bucks. I’m sure that won’t be an inconvenience for our employees. We are hiring for entry level positions right now, and in doing so the first thing we look at is, “where can we hire with the lowest minimum wage.” There are lots of ways to ‘make money’, and not all of them are in the best long-term interests of the company or its employees.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 10:27 am

              Maybe, maybe not, but we’ll let that firm’s management team worry about the company’s interests since they, you know, run the company.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • 9watts September 29, 2015 at 10:30 am

                Yeah, just like the good folks at VW.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

                • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 2:58 pm

                  Yes, and they were caught. How about we let a firm’s mgmt team determine what is in it’s interests rather than you pretending to know what those interests are or, as you seem to want, have sime unelected bureaucrat tell them what their interests are.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Beth September 29, 2015 at 8:50 am

            Those of us who don’t earn enough to save for retirement DO NOT CARE about the shareholders, or the companies that exist to make them secure and comfortable.
            Between a lack of affordable housing, a shortage of living-wage jobs and runaway gentrification in every major metropolitan area in the country, I’ve got enough to worry about just trying to avoid homelessness.
            No one is going to tax me for living simply — including riding a bike as my primary transportation — when it’s all I can afford.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

          • soren September 29, 2015 at 9:42 am

            Anyone who believes that american corporations value shareholder value above executive compensation has not been paying attention. How many examples of corporate fraud-fueled bankruptcies and speculative bubbles are required before we collectively acknowledge that short-term looting is the goal of much of the executive class. And looting makes complete sense in a political system where the most egregious examples of corporate fraud lead to golden parachutes and zero risk of prosecution

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Dan September 29, 2015 at 10:08 am

              e.g. Carly Fiorina

              Recommended Thumb up 3

        • paikiala September 28, 2015 at 4:27 pm

          Anyone,
          It is the legal responsibility (fiduciary) of the board of directors to provide a maximum return on investment. It’s not the corps that are broken, it’s the system under which they are required to operate.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • are September 28, 2015 at 9:23 pm

            over which they have no influence

            Recommended Thumb up 3

      • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 11:48 am

        Hmmm, so it was VWs shareholders that drove VWs management team to run this risk? Please do explain that one…

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • oliver September 28, 2015 at 12:38 pm

        It is no wonder, and they are absolutely not to be trusted. Having said that, I do agree that a corporation’s only responsibility is to increase value to the shareholder, the foil to which is regulation. (Self regulation is a joke)

        It’s proof for our need for them (regulation) and why anyone who refuses to acknowledge that fact is either lying to your face or being intractably partisan.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:57 pm

          How are regulations the foil to increasing shareholder value? Why would we want that?

          Governmental regations, economically speaking, are used to correct defects in the market, i.e., disclosures for example to correct for the assymetry of information.

          But now we live in a nation where the federal government tells us what light bulbs we can buy, regulates the water flownin washers and toilets, and that is abused by some firms to punish others ehen they become uncompetitive (see UPS, burdened by unions trying to use to get the government to force FedEx into the unionization).

          So I would hope that you recognize that the government’s authority and ability to regulate our economic behavior ought to be constrained… I mean, it was founded on the principle of limited government, right?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • oliver September 28, 2015 at 1:24 pm

            The only way to stop any corporation from selling defective or dangerous products, dumping effluents from their factories down the drain, into the rivers, oceans or pumping it into air, killing people with poisons in our food supply is by regulating these products.

            There is no other way.

            Recommended Thumb up 10

          • Gary B September 28, 2015 at 4:47 pm

            “Governmental regations, economically speaking, are used to correct defects in the market, i.e., disclosures for example to correct for the assymetry of information.

            “But now we live in a nation where the federal government tells us what light bulbs we can buy, regulates the water flownin washers and toilets…”

            Defects in the market you say? Electricity is vastly underpriced due to externalization of environmental costs–the very definition of a market defect. Had we not a dysfunctional government, we might correct that defect at the source. Instead, we’re left to regulate indirectly–hence, requiring higher efficiency light bulbs. Exactly the same with water usage. So what exactly is your complaint?

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Chris I September 28, 2015 at 5:41 pm

              The Federal government is afraid to properly tax commodities with externalized costs (oil, electricity, water, etc). So instead we have silly fuel economy standards, light bulb rules, water fixture rules, etc. Price the commodity properly, and the market will correct itself.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

        • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 5:24 pm

          “…a corporation’s only responsibility is to increase value to the shareholder, …” oliver

          Yes…as long as the corporation in its efforts to increase value to the shareholders, observes and conforms its actions according to various ethics, moral standards and regulations of the government and society in which it’s allowed to enjoy the opportunity to do business.

          Some person or persons at Volkswagen made the decision to pass this deception on. Hopefully, they’ll not be able to get away with an excuse such as: ‘The corporation made me do it’. Conducted under the guise of corporate structure doesn’t make crime acceptable.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 11:43 am

      Is there any serious proposal or even consideration to “let corporations run the world”? Just curious…

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 11:44 am

        I thought we were already long past debating this. Ever heard of Too Big To Fail?

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:11 pm

          Ah, the very clever atempt to shout down others be asserting that we’re past debating this…

          I am not debating anything. I merely pointed out that there is no serious politcal or economic discussion going on today to “let corporations run the world”.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 12:13 pm

            “there is no serious politcal or economic discussion going on today to ‘let corporations run the world’.”

            My point is similar but different:

            “there is no serious politcal or economic discussion going on today ‘problematizing the fact that corporations [already] run the world’.”

            Recommended Thumb up 10

            • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:47 pm

              Perhaps that discussion ie not happening because, in fact, corporations dont run the world.

              KISS principle… Or Occam’s razor, maybe?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • are September 28, 2015 at 1:51 pm

                so using occam’s razor, would you say the destruction of ecosystems is caused by someone else?

                Recommended Thumb up 7

                • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 2:05 pm

                  Not clear what your point is or relevance. Maybe the 2 who like your comment might elaborate if you cannot?

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • are September 28, 2015 at 6:50 pm

                  let me break it down for you, then. your claim is william of ockham would say the reason no one talks about corporations ruling the world is it is not happening. i am asking your friend william what is the simplest explanation for the destruction of ecosystems. no doubt he has a theory that is somehow simpler than profit seeking.

                  Recommended Thumb up 7

            • joebobpdx September 28, 2015 at 2:10 pm

              yikes. I’d argue that anyone who actually writes “problematizing” needs to go to the time out corner,

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 2:13 pm

                O.K. , so are you going to share your argument with us?

                Recommended Thumb up 4

                • are September 28, 2015 at 6:51 pm

                  not if it requires proving a negative

                  Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Tom Hardy September 29, 2015 at 2:15 pm

            This is like saying Trump does not exist. Although he is proposing an actual income tax to include CEO’s and Corporations.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 11:46 am

        There’s David Korten’s take on this, of course:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Corporations_Rule_the_World

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:19 pm

          Again, your comment was not about what happens when firms are too big to fail. You were recommending that we shouldnt let corps run the world… But no one seriously argues that we should…

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 12:24 pm

            “But no one seriously argues that we should…”

            My half of our little exchange here has been about trying to suggest that we, tacitly, have already agreed to this: Citizens United, Too Big to Fail, Cash for Clunkers, Highway Trust Fund, WTO, Coal Trains, Keystone XL, you name it.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm

              Except that no such agreement has ever been reached and the items you list do nothing to confirm that such an agreement does exist.

              Really? That WTO exists confirms that corps run the world? Thats interesting.

              The Citizens United case confirms that corps run the world? I wonder where you think unions fit in here.

              The inability to get Keystone XL constructed confirms that corps run the world?

              You really cannot serious…

              Corporations dont run the world, thats plain to see.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 12:42 pm

                OK, you win.
                Your counterarguments are so airtight I concede defeat.

                Recommended Thumb up 9

              • are September 28, 2015 at 1:52 pm

                “that’s interesting” is not a counter-argument. whom does WTO serve if not corporations?

                Recommended Thumb up 6

                • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 2:08 pm

                  Please elaborate – how does the wto “serve” corporations? And, further, how does the existence of the wto serve to demonstrate that corps run the world?

                  I have no obligation to prove a negative. 9 has the obligation to provide an argument that persuasively suggests that the wto’s existence proves corps run the world.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 2:12 pm

                  OK Bvt Rider, I’ll ask you this: to whom is the WTO accountable?

                  We tried, in 1999, to shut the thing down (symbolically) and came very close to achieving that modest (symbolic) goal. But we knew then and have had ample opportunity to observe since that for all intents and purposes the whole thing is still as unaccountable to us citizens as it ever was, and perhaps less so now.

                  Recommended Thumb up 6

                • are September 28, 2015 at 3:29 pm

                  whether what i am asking someone to prove is a negative depends on how it is stated. i did not say show me the WTO does not benefit multinational corporations, i asked whom does it benefit.

                  you might ask people in some of the so-called “developing” countries [itself a loaded term] how they feel about the effects of the agricultural agreements on local and regional food security.

                  Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Pete September 28, 2015 at 3:20 pm

              …and my favorite:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_International_Group

              I certainly didn’t vote to loan $185B to an insurance company who couldn’t properly handle its business risk decisions. Imagine what that money could have done for, oh I don’t know, a budget deficit?

              Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 2:27 pm

            “But no one seriously argues that we should”

            Now you’re just arbitrarily hurting the feelings of republicans…

            Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 2:18 pm

      hopefully they’ll start requiring the tailpipe sniffer on all DEQ tests now instead of trusting that the corporation that built it played by the rules… they could have discovered this 6 years ago…

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • LloydCenterCommuter September 28, 2015 at 10:38 am

    Cars aren’t “great” because they’re climate-controlled and drivers can control the radio. What a silly, petulent characterization that was completely fabricated only to dig on drivers. Additionally, people aren’t upset because they have to spend a few extra minutes in the car.

    Drivers like me get upset because other drivers could exercise a little more thought and leave more space which makes merging on and off more efficient and then I get home sooner to see my wife and kids. Again, just another classless mischaracterization of drivers… and for what? A little dig that’s only read by other opinion-confirmation seekers? Really?

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Dan September 28, 2015 at 11:50 am

      That’s why drivers are upset? Hmm, I could think of so many more reasons.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Pete September 28, 2015 at 1:38 pm

        I think many drivers are upset that there are other drivers on the road. The ads didn’t show them that part of the product…

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Dan September 29, 2015 at 4:52 am

          There’s a commercial out now with a mom & dad in matching SUVs (different colors!) racing home through an empty city. Weird.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 2:58 pm

      “Additionally, people aren’t upset because they have to spend a few extra minutes in the car.”

      “Drivers like me get upset because other drivers could [do blah blah so that] I get home sooner to see my wife and kids.”

      so it’s not that you have to spend an extra few minutes in the car, it’s that you have to spend a few extra minutes in the car away from your wife and kids…

      I agree… I’m not quite as upset at the tens of thousands of people breaking the law around me if I’ve got nothing better to do while traveling around in my metal box protected from their idiocy…

      but I don’t think it’s fair to excuse people to be mad at traffic just because they think they have something better to do… they chose to drive in traffic…

      and 99% of those people choose to intentionally break the law in dangerous ways that directly effect my safety… that upsets me a lot…

      but what really upsets me is that if they were all obeying the law then they would soon discover that traveling via single-occupancy motor-vehicle would be so impossibly frustrating that few people would drive…

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • LloydCenterCommuter September 28, 2015 at 10:44 am

    Housing action: A San Francisco renters’ group is pioneering a new strategy to increase housing supply: suing suburbs for blocking density there.

    Wow… So, not only are many of us not paying our fair share of taxes (supposedly and whatever that means); but we’re also not building our fair share of housing in the ‘burbs? Really?

    And the answer is for residents in one town to sue residents of another town? That’s what’s being proposed here. What a silly concept.

    Notice, again, the illegitmate use of the courts to coerce others. We ought to be condemning this legalistic nonsense and the bar association ought to sanctioning lawyers who bring these frivolous lawsuits.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • are September 28, 2015 at 1:56 pm

      so your legal analysis is that this action by the city of lafayette obviously does not violate the federal housing accountability act?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Richard Masoner September 28, 2015 at 10:50 am

    Regarding the SF stop rule; Mayor Ed says he plans to veto it. :-/

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 11:24 am

      If what you say is true, I wonder why SF’s mayor may be thinking to propose vetoing the councilor’s ordinance proposal. Reportedly, a majority of SF councilors support the ordinance. That may suggest in turn that a majority of SF residents also support or favor the specification of the ordinance proposal, though not necessarily. Maybe it’s too early to tell. What’s the word on that?

      From the story, linked in this Roundup:

      “…In an interview with Streetsblog, Sanford seemed hesitant to support the bill, saying that police already use discretion in prioritizing limited enforcement resources.

      Support from the SFPD will be crucial for the non-binding ordinance to hold sway over police traffic enforcement priorities. …” streetsblog

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Pete September 28, 2015 at 1:45 pm

        This goes back to the beginning of the summer when the police chief announced a crackdown on bicyclists running stop signs, supposedly in response to a number of citizen complaints. Cyclists then organized a “stop-in” on the Wiggle:
        http://www.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2015/07/30/this-is-what-happened-when-bicyclists-obeyed-traffic-laws-along-the-wiggle-yesterday

        It’s hard to say whether citizens really support this or not, but Mayor Lee will have to continue to work directly with the police chief, and I suspect that not vetoing it would be seen as supporting it which would therefore be seen as not supporting the chief’s focus on the original prioritization (i.e. crackdown), which was done in the interest of “public safety.”

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 5:39 pm

          “…It’s hard to say whether citizens really support this or not, but Mayor Lee will …” Pete

          What I posted above of your comment and what follows in your comment, makes sense. If he hasn’t already found out somehow, the Mayor better get on the stick and find out what a majority of SF citizens think of this idea. Although if there’s widespread rejection of the idea among citizens, that would seem to mean the majority of councilors supporting the proposal may be kind of going out on a limb to do so.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • wsbob October 1, 2015 at 1:08 am

          Tonight, I read a couple stories about the supervisors proposal and the mayor’s take on it. Sounds as though he definitely intends to veto, though eight supervisor’s votes could over-ride. No mention in either story about what response from the general public is, outside of members of the bike club.

          From the SFGate story, something that should answer a relevant question:

          “…Practically speaking, police rarely cite bicyclists for traffic violations. Bicyclists account for just 1 percent of traffic tickets in San Francisco, Police Chief Greg Suhr said. About 96 percent of tickets go to drivers and 3 percent to pedestrians. …” http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Mayor-pledges-to-veto-law-allowing-cyclists-to-6533789.php

          As you said, Pete, the controversy apparently came to a head this summer at The Wiggle, which is said to be a one mile stretch of road with switchbacks, three to six percent grade, popular with people biking because it offers a relatively easier climb to SF’s hills. Not having ridden or driven it, I have no idea what the experience is, or even how many stop signs and lights are on the route.

          SF’s supervisors (sorry, I believe I referred to them earlier as councilors.) could have proposed instead, some ideas for removing stop signs on The Wiggle route, uphill. Why they didn’t, instead choosing to try effectively to go for a city wide Idaho Stop, is a question that could be interesting to get an answer to.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Pete October 1, 2015 at 10:02 am

            If you haven’t seen it, here’s a video of the stop-in:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPTPKWu-psc

            As the person turns right, that’s Duboce Park on the left, and it’s a pretty straight shot from there to Haight (where they turn left, with the wiggle). It’s the intersections at Haight and Page that primarily need 4-way stops to allow traffic to cross paths (otherwise Haight in particular can get a pretty busy two-way flow that’s hard to cross).

            Definitely a good point that other options for traffic flow could come into play, though it would take funding and a study. Mayor Lee did reject the proposal, and I think it will die down now that we’re heading into fall and daylight goes away (plus it’s actually raining here for a change, albeit lightly). I also suspect the police chief has been told to quiet down on this and let it cool down a bit. These are just hunches, but I’m willing to bet we don’t see anyone fight particularly strongly for this ordinance.

            Politics as usual…

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • wsbob October 1, 2015 at 10:36 am

              Pete…I realize saying so goes counter to popular feeling among some bike enthusiasts, but arguments favoring the Idaho Stop in general, don’t seem strong. The quoted statistic about people biking getting only one percent of citations, would tend to suggest that citing people that bike for not stopping at stop signs, is already low priority in SF’s PD. With that in mind, it would seem SF’s supervisors in support of the proposal, over-reacted.

              On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier, from the descriptions, for good reason having to do with the relatively gentle grade climb, it seems The Wiggle is quite important to people biking in the city. If the four way stops on that route tend to be a greater than usual hassle for people biking, for the stop and start on the grade the stops oblige, it seems the city could possibly come up with a route specific remedy.

              I may be able to watch the video later today.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Pete October 1, 2015 at 2:01 pm

                “it seems the city could possibly come up with a route specific remedy.”

                We could take the Portland approach and make it a Greenway with divertors, but you guys are still having problems proving that model out… 😉

                Seriously, though, I get that the Idaho Stop arguments may be weak, but many of the arguments against them are based on incorrect assumptions. As already touched on, there’s no proof that they increase bicyclist safety, only marginal proof that they don’t decrease it.

                I personally don’t believe the statistics for tickets given to cyclists, because for one thing nobody has yet figured out an accurate measure for mode share, much less normalize to it. But these were the numbers used by a vocal few to make a convincing enough argument to persuade the police chief to declare cyclists running stop signs one of the highest enforcement priorities in a city with a death toll and crime rate approaching that of Oakland’s, so it was bound to ruffle some feathers and escalate to this level.

                Personally I stop for all stop signs, but that hasn’t stopped people from shouting at me for running stop signs.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

    • soren September 28, 2015 at 11:29 am

      Hopefully advocates and interested citizens are lobbying him to reconsider. Taking away the “they run stop signs” false concern would be a huge plus for cycling advocacy, IMO.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:45 pm

        False concern? I commute nearly every day by bike from Beaverton to Lloyd Center and back home and every single day I see multiple cyclists, including commuters, running stop signs. Not only that, I see multiple cyclists running red lights. At least they slow down.

        Just last Thursday in Beaverton, at a four-way residential intersection, I nearly hit a cyclist while driving after I fully stopped and then started to proceed through the intersection. The cyclist failed to stop.

        I ride as though I am a car and that’s how this should be.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Pete September 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm

          I was nearly hit by a driver just two days ago at a four-way stop. I had come to a complete stop when she pulled up on my left. As I started to get going again, she stepped on the gas, presumably because she thought I was letting her go by not getting out of her way quickly enough. I had the right of way for two reasons: 1) I had gotten there first and stopped, and 2) I was to her right.

          At least she was nice enough to wave and mouth “sorry!” to me, but there are no legal or logical reasons for her to have assumed she had ROW. This same thing happened to my wife when a driver followed another car through a stop sign after a “California stop.” My wife wasn’t hit directly but had to dive off of the road and sustained multiple injuries (ironically while riding to her job in the ER).

          Coincidentally I recently posted something on this very topic:
          http://bikeportland.org/2015/09/24/priceless-nine-questions-seleta-reynolds-163166#comment-6558201

          Recommended Thumb up 11

          • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 6:02 pm

            One shortcoming of four way stops is that for various reasons, not everyone arriving at the intersection, always notices for certain who arrived first. Someone arrives at the intersection second, and thinks they were there first. Got to be watching for that.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

        • are September 28, 2015 at 1:58 pm

          yes, but treating a stop sign as a yield sign does not in itself lead to these consequences. by definition a yield sign requires you to, um, yield to cross traffic.

          Recommended Thumb up 17

        • soren September 28, 2015 at 2:30 pm
        • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 3:13 pm

          “I ride as though I am a car and that’s how this should be.”

          I’m not a car and shouldn’t be treated as such. We have separate laws for separate modes for good reason, and this is just another one of those laws that should be separate.

          If you want to make cycling as lame as driving then keep it to yourself…

          Recommended Thumb up 13

        • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 3:21 pm

          “False concern? I commute nearly every day by bike from Beaverton to Lloyd Center and back home and every single day I see multiple cyclists, including commuters, running stop signs. Not only that, I see multiple cyclists running red lights. At least they slow down.

          Just last Thursday in Beaverton, at a four-way residential intersection, I nearly hit a cyclist while driving after I fully stopped and then started to proceed through the intersection. The cyclist failed to stop.”

          cool story, bro…

          yes, false concern… the false concern that cyclists are required to come to a full completely stop in the name of safety…

          if this law passed here I think the cyclist would still be required to yield to you since they had not yet stopped so you wouldn’t know they were about to proceed through the intersection… law or no law people are still going to try to take the right of way the same way they do now… this law just gives more rights to the more vulnerable user…

          Recommended Thumb up 11

          • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 3:49 pm

            Uh, tats not the concern i was addressing… But i think you knew that.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • are September 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm

              actually, on average throughout this thread i would say it is difficult to discern exactly what is your point

              Recommended Thumb up 10

              • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 3:01 pm

                Uh, it was quite clear what I was addressing. I used the same words, false concern, as a previous poster. Were you confused by this?

                I have made several points in this thread. Your disagreement with them or your inability to understand then hardly warrants your comment above.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

          • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 6:21 pm

            “…cool story, bro… …” Spiffy

            Spare us the smart mouth attitude, and try just stick to the facts. Which is, that yes, the so called ‘stop sign as yield’, Idaho version exclusive to people biking, does oblige people biking to yield to cross traffic before proceeding through stop signs without stopping.

            Application of the law to real life traffic situations, means that persons as road users in vehicles in a cross traffic position, may not be given be given indication by persons riding and approaching a stop sign, that they’re actually looking for cross traffic and are prepared to stop in the event they should be yielding and stopping.

            Some people biking that roll/blow stop signs and lights, do so without the slightest effort at communication of their intentions, indication of what they’re going to do, or even awareness of their surroundings. And relatively, they, the people on bikes, not the people driving are the vulnerable road user. Effectively, the Idaho Stop type bike exclusive law, places the burden of dealing with lackadaisical road use behavior of people biking poorly at stop sign intersections, onto other road users, the majority of which are people that drive.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Pete September 28, 2015 at 10:51 pm

              “Some people biking that roll/blow stop signs and lights, do so without the slightest effort at communication of their intentions, indication of what they’re going to do…”

              This is a good point. With last week’s discourse on how my style of cycling will likely get me run over from behind, what didn’t come out is that it’s not just roadway positioning but also use of signals that’s kept me riding in traffic sans collision for so long, and this includes waving politely or shaking my head at other vehicle operators at stops. Smiling, thanking, thumbs up… all makes for a more pleasant experience anyway. There is a difference, though, in that a cyclist can be more clearly seen than someone behind a windshield, especially on bright days or rainy days. (Once in a rare while a driver will flash lights at me, and I become thankful there’s a Euro population here in silly valley… ;).

              “…places the burden of dealing with lackadaisical road use behavior of people biking poorly at stop sign intersections, onto other road users, the majority of which are people that drive.”

              OK, now you lost me. Not that I disagree with you, but how is this different than the burden that drivers place on cyclists when they don’t signal turns, or try to bully their way through intersections like the woman in my previous anecdote?
              (http://bikeportland.org/2015/09/28/monday-roundup-sfs-idaho-stop-rule-seattles-big-vote-163738#comment-6560773)

              More anecdote:

              On Friday I was riding back on the street I like to pick on most (Fremont in Sunnyvale) when I came upon an intersection that I often take the lane in. The light was stale green and I was doing ~28-30 and noticed a car coming up quickly in my drop-bar mirror. I had started over (without signaling as I had hands in drops time-trialing towards the green) when it turned yellow, so I stayed in the bike lane as the driver had not signaled a right turn. I came to a stop on the little bike-person marking before the crosswalk, only to hear the driver blast his horn at me. I turned and he was waving frantically to the right, but not blinking. He rolled down a window and yelled “I’m taking a right!”. I asked, “Then why tell me you’re going straight?”. He looked bewildered, so I pointed to his right blinker and said “When you don’t tell someone you’re turning, you’re telling them that you’re going straight – I would have gladly moved left like I was starting to do when you gunned it to race me to the intersection.”

              I think we’ve already established that there are people who drive poorly and people that ride poorly (and I know a few who do both… ;).

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • wsbob September 29, 2015 at 11:27 pm

                “…“…places the burden of dealing with lackadaisical road use behavior of people biking poorly at stop sign intersections, onto other road users, the majority of which are people that drive.”

                OK, now you lost me. Not that I disagree with you, but how is this different than the burden that drivers place on cyclists when they don’t signal turns, …” Pete

                One difference, as I noted in the comment to which you responded, is that relatively, people driving motor vehicles aren’t vulnerable road users. That is, when someone driving, potentially in the direction of travel of a person biking, doesn’t for example, signal for a turn or stop for a stop sign, light, etc, resulting collisions are less likely to hurt the person driving than they are the person biking.

                When a person riding, unsafely rolls or blows a stop sign, light, etc, legally or not as the case may be, whether through error of judgment, carelessness or recklessness, this creates additional road use hazards to avoid, the burden of which other road users are left to bear. Road users with the right of way at an intersection can’t just run over someone that fails to stop at a stop sign, (or yield at the stop sign as is the case in Idaho for people on bikes only.) on the cross street.

                The ‘stop sign law’ provides for a greater level of road use safety than does yield signs, or laws allowing stop signs to be regarded as yield signs. The idea I believe, behind obliging road users to come to a complete stop, or essentially so through the use of stop signs, is to give them a better circumstance by which to determine whether the way is clear for safe crossing; in theory, road user is fully stopped or close to it, looks carefully both ways before proceeding…a much better circumstance for checking that the way is clear, than a rolling stop at no particularly defined rate of speed or approach.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • Pete September 30, 2015 at 11:27 am

                  “this creates additional road use hazards to avoid”

                  The point that others and I are trying to make is that there’s no proof (from Idaho or Denver) that it creates additional hazards.

                  If there are other road users present, the law requires us to treat the stop sign as a stop sign, period. The hazards aren’t additional, they’re existing, and really only caused by people who are either riding or driving in the lackadaisical manner you refer to.

                  As my comment on the other thread details, the crux of the problem is that – even assuming law-abiding intentions – stops are different for cars and bikes. My anecdote here was an example of a woman who knew full well that I had the right of way and was starting to proceed, but was accustomed to stopping in her brief manner and didn’t perceive me as a threat. She glanced right at me while braking, and I was clearly at the line in full view at a full stop (track-standing shakily – I suck at it) because I had seen her coming and wanted to make sure she 1) intended to stop, and 2) actually saw me (I noticed she was only looking straight when she approached).

                  Reality is, if the ‘Idaho’ rule was in effect there, I’d have been able to remove all doubt because I wouldn’t have stopped completely. I’d have been in the intersection early enough to be in her direct line of sight on approach, as well as avoid any potential collision. IMHO I’d have been safer treating that stop as a yield, knowing her speed and distance from the intersection as I watched her approach. These are the situations that established the foundation of the rule to begin with, and they seem to be completely overlooked from the perspective of people who haven’t been in them and somehow believe they’re being cheated.

                  Recommended Thumb up 3

                • soren October 1, 2015 at 9:22 am

                  “The ‘stop sign law’ provides for a greater level of road use safety than does yield signs, or laws allowing stop signs to be regarded as yield signs.”

                  Nonsense.

                  There is a natural test case in a neighboring state…and both the Idaho DOT and an independent researcher find that the Idaho stop law had no impact on safety.

                  http://bikeleague.org/content/bike-law-university-idaho-stop

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • wsbob October 1, 2015 at 6:06 pm

                  ” “The ‘stop sign law’ provides for a greater level of road use safety than does yield signs, or laws allowing stop signs to be regarded as yield signs.”

                  Nonsense.

                  There is a natural test case in a neighboring state…and both the Idaho DOT and an independent researcher find that the Idaho stop law had no impact on safety.

                  http://bikeleague.org/content/bike-law-university-idaho-stop ” soren

                  The ‘stop sign law’ does in fact, provide for a greater level of road use safety than does yield signs, or laws allowing stop signs to be regarded as yield signs.

                  Road users approaching intersections, passage through which is regulated by stop signs, legally must stop, whether or not cross traffic is observed in approaching this type intersection. A full stop affords a better opportunity to road users, than does rolling through intersections without stopping, to determine whether there is cross traffic approaching.

                  At intersections regulated by yield signs, road users aren’t required to stop, unless in approaching this type intersections, they observe approaching cross traffic, and estimate in their judgment that they have sufficient safe distance from approaching traffic, to pass through the intersection without danger of causing a collision.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • 9watts October 2, 2015 at 9:47 am

                  “The ‘stop sign law’ does in fact, provide for a greater level of road use safety than does yield signs, or laws allowing stop signs to be regarded as yield signs.”

                  I think you’re going to have to explain this, defend your assertion, wsbob.
                  Perhaps you mean ‘by referencing a binary: stop/go the STOP sign would seem to correspond to a clearer message than the YIELD sign which introduces the element of judgment, but in my experience this simple-appearing difference breaks down when we look at how actual people the world over interact with these two signs.’

                  I think you are misusing the word safety here. I think the word you’re looking for may be simplicity, but this word may or may not describe what actually occurs, rather than what would seem likely, given the differences in the meanings of the two signs.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

            • are September 29, 2015 at 9:04 am

              wsbob
              the Idaho Stop type bike exclusive law, places the burden of dealing with lackadaisical road use behavior of people biking poorly at stop sign intersections, onto other road users, the majority of which are people that drive.

              i don’t see how, and this i think is the objection to BR’s argument. the idaho stop law would permit a cyclist to treat a stop sign as a yield. it would not sanction careless behavior, and specifically it would not sanction failure to yield. the fact some people behave stupidly in the existing environment is not in itself an argument against a reasonable accommodation to the realities of cycling in this particular situation. now if you want to talk about right turn on red . . .

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • 9watts September 29, 2015 at 11:56 am

                Thanks, are.
                I’ve long wondered why people misunderstand what the Idaho Stop is about, seem unclear about the meaning of the word *yield*.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

                • Pete September 29, 2015 at 12:09 pm

                  I see drivers run “Yield” signs every day! 😉

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • KristenT September 29, 2015 at 2:18 pm

                  People driving already do what people riding bikes would like the opportunity to legally do– only when people are driving, we call it a “California Stop” and everyone sort of allows it to happen without even thinking about it.

                  I think people are thinking that the Idaho Stop law allows people riding the freedom to not stop at all, or yield, and that everyone else has to yield the right of way to the person riding the bike, which isn’t what it says. Stops become yields, and red lights become Stops– in which you actually STOP and YIELD and look before proceeding.

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • wsbob September 29, 2015 at 10:47 pm

                  “…I think people are thinking that the Idaho Stop law allows people riding the freedom to not stop at all, or yield, and that everyone else has to yield the right of way to the person riding the bike, which isn’t what it says. …” Kristen T

                  The freedom, or rather, the legal right for people biking to not stop at all at stop signs, given that their is no traffic to yield to, is what the Idaho Stop provides. The Idaho Stop cancels a level of road user safety that the stop sign law provides.

                  The ‘California stop isn’t a legal traffic procedure; it isn’t codified into law; the phrase is just a euphemism for rolling stop signs.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

              • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 3:10 pm

                Sure it doesnt “sanction” such behavior, but it surely encourages it by removing the objective action of a stop and replacing it with a subjective “yield”. Look what we have now… Stopping is the rule, but what we get are a combination of full stops, slowing down, to just riding through the stop. The safest approach here, even if it, god forbid, slows a cyclust down is to require a stop, period. It removes all uncertainty and ensures predictability.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • 9watts September 29, 2015 at 3:14 pm

                  Hilarious.

                  Why do stop signs barely exist in the rest of the world? How do they cope?!

                  Recommended Thumb up 4

                • Pete September 29, 2015 at 3:34 pm

                  “…what we get are a combination of full stops, slowing down, to just riding through the stop.”

                  Are you talking about biking, or driving? The point that everyone else (most of whom do both) seems to get is that a stop isn’t necessarily as objective as you claim it to be (see my previously-referenced comment for details). There’s no proof that adding an “Idaho Stop” ordinance for bicyclists encourages law-abiding bicyclists to start breaking that law and taking right-of-way from other road users. The behavior you describe is what we already get out of the mix of both drivers and bicyclists that use our roads, so I don’t understand why you’re singling it out as some kind of one-sided justification.

                  Recommended Thumb up 5

                • are September 29, 2015 at 4:43 pm

                  i continue to fail to see how making something legal encourages some unrelated illegal behavior.

                  if your complaint is someone on a bike is already rolling the stop in a situation in which it is perfectly reasonable to do so, then okay, yes, making it legal encourages people who are buffaloed by the stop sign. which would be a good thing, in my view. the safest place for a cyclist is not sitting in an intersection with a foot down.

                  but your complaint initially was making the idaho stop legal would somehow encourage idiots who are already blowing through in unsafe situations to i guess do it more than they already do. and i am not understanding how.

                  Recommended Thumb up 5

                • John Lascurettes September 30, 2015 at 12:41 pm

                  There is nothing subjective about a yield. If there is cross traffic or other traffic with right of way, you are to yield right of way to it – including coming to a full stop if it is necessary to to carry out the yielding of right of way (but most of the time it is not necessary). Failure to do so it ticket able, and creates basis liability/blame in crashes. So what’s your problem again?

                  Recommended Thumb up 3

                • 9watts September 30, 2015 at 12:50 pm

                  These conversations make me think we should put together a little primer on common misperceptions (a.k.a., nonsense) about how transportation works. We could even name it after the infamous Bob Huckaby.
                  (Chapter 1) Idaho Stop and what yield means
                  (Chapter 2) Cyclists Must Pay Their Way and what gas taxes (don’t) pay for
                  (Chapter 3) Was She Wearing A Helmet and asymmetric focus on risk
                  (Chapter 4) Hi-Viz Garb and how responsibility is distributed in Vision Zero

                  Recommended Thumb up 5

                • El Biciclero October 3, 2015 at 11:52 am

                  “It removes all uncertainty and ensures predictability.”

                  Well, then it’s not working very well, because the STOP signs and accompanying road user behavior I encounter daily don’t demonstrate this. Also, yielding is not subjective—it’s what people are supposed to do now under the current law: stop, then yield to whoever has the ROW. Determining whether you need to yield only requires time to assess the situation, which cyclists tend to have much more of given their already (generally) lower speed and greater visibility when approaching intersections—it doesn’t require stopping.

                  Plus, if you like to stop, you would still be free to under any potential change to the law.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • soren October 3, 2015 at 3:15 pm

                  (Chapter 1) Idaho Stop and what yield means
                  (Chapter 2) Cyclists Must Pay Their Way and what gas taxes (don’t) pay for
                  (Chapter 3) Was She Wearing A Helmet and asymmetric focus on risk
                  (Chapter 4) Hi-Viz Garb and how responsibility is distributed in Vision Zero

                  And links to these chapters should be stickied at the start of every comment thread!

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • lop October 3, 2015 at 5:31 pm

                  re are:

                  >i continue to fail to see how making something legal encourages some unrelated illegal behavior.

                  At most intersections drivers are allowed to make a right on red. They are required to stop before entering the crosswalk, and are required to yield to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists with the right of way. It seems to me that failure to yield in that case is no more unrelated to making a right on red than failure to yield is to an idaho stop law. A driver this morning pulled into half the crosswalk then took up the whole legal walk phase looking left waiting for a gap in traffic. Once he saw one he gunned it without ever looking for crossing pedestrians with the right of way. Fortunately I and two others expected this and waited on the curb for him to go first. It’s a far more common occurrence where turn on red is permitted than where it is not. I’d give good odds that if turn on red was the exception rather than the rule that that driver this morning would not have blocked crossing pedestrians. Even when no collision occurs it creates a much more stressful environment for everyone else on the road.

                  At many intersections it would be fine for cyclists to make a rolling stop. At others it could be fine but only if cyclists stayed far enough off the curb while riding (all too many do not) and some parking near intersections was eliminated/unoccupied to maximize visibility. And at some cyclists really do need to put a foot down, at least some of the time – at sw 9th and yamhill I’ve seen cyclists try to roll through at 2-4 mph and then be startled and swerve/panic stop when they see someone in the crosswalk who was hidden behind the train. Happens to motorists there too. Why the train doesn’t just scream out to them to be cautious and expect pedestrians is a mystery to me. An Idaho stop law asks cyclists to use their judgement about which type of intersection they are approaching. Cyclists are human and will make mistakes. Expecting an Idaho stop law to not lead to an increase in failure to yield would seem to posit that cyclists have the inhuman trait of perfection.

                  Whether the costs to other road users of those mistakes outweighs the benefits to cyclists would still be debatable. In some parts of the city it likely would be a fair trade off. But the denser parts in and around downtown that might not be true, at least as a general rule though individual intersections with good sight lines would be fine. (definitely doesn’t make sense to permit turn on red by default in and around downtown)

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Tom Hardy September 29, 2015 at 2:42 pm

            Right Spiffy! Today when I was riding down Thurmond in NW in a 20 zone at the limit. An SUV started to go around me. He was next to me when he had to stop because of oncoming traffic. I continued while ge moved behind me. A half block later I caught the tail end of a yellow and continued. I looked up 50 foot later and here he was coning through the red light chasing me. He turned on 22 to get around me and I turned on 21. I passed him at Raleigh while he awas at the stop sign and he went straight. I turned on Pettigrove and here he was again on 19th. I turned next to him and was next to a car going straight at Northrop stop sign. I went across the same time and the SUV didn’t slow down for the stop. He was “T” boned at Montgomery.
            Served him right!

            Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Clark in Vancouver September 28, 2015 at 11:33 pm

      I got a better solution and something the city of SF might be able to do without changing state laws are to just replace many of the stop signs with yield signs. This would have to be done after some research on which intersections would be good to do this to. People tend to ignore stop signs when they know an intersection very well and when they have good sight lines which means they can see that there is no cross traffic. This would make the practise of yielding at those intersections. Also it would include all modes. On the intersections that are busy, the stop signs there would have more meaning as they would then not have been overused elsewhere.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Pete September 29, 2015 at 4:27 pm

        It’s a city ordinance, not state law (unfortunately ;). Seems like a good suggestion at first, but I suspect you might see more car crashes as a result. Drivers in SF already treat many of these stops as yields – not necessarily intentionally, but on the steep downhill sections you do see drivers do more of a ‘California stop’ just due to momentum. (I recognize it’s somewhat hypocritical to write this, as it’s kind of a corollary to BR’s argument that this ordinance would encourage the same behavior of bicyclists under the same circumstances, but I’m purely speculating based on my experiences driving and biking in SF… ;).

        I’ve seen some experiments in Europe (UK? Germany?) where they just get rid of the signage altogether and then people in all modes became much more careful and figured things out for themselves anyway.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Lester Burnham September 28, 2015 at 11:00 am

    The Coronado video was hilarious.

    Will the Apple car be hideously overpriced and assembled by slave labor in China as well?

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Pete September 28, 2015 at 1:59 pm

      I thought it humorously ironic that the link uses Google to search for it…

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 11:04 am

    Bike fee: L.A. Times columnist George Skelton has a plan to fix California’s roads: charge kids and poor people for riding bikes.

    Interesting characterization of the linked article. Of course, the proposal isnt aimed at the poor or kids, but at everyone.

    Reminds me of the old NYTimes joke:
    Hurrican slams NYC, women and minorities hit hardest.

    Look, the proposal as presented is simply another money grab – just more taxes on top of taxes in the already-taxed-the-most state in the country. Republicans in California are correct – rather than simply piling on more taxes, why not re-prioritize current spending? Why is the answer for Democrats always to raise ever-increasing amoints of revenue? I’d be more sympathetic if Democrats seriously pursued eliminating waste, avoiding massively outsized labor contracts, etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • John Lascurettes September 28, 2015 at 12:11 pm

      Because in California, like Oregon and most states, revenue for roads has not kept pace with inflation for 30 years or more.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 2:04 pm

        While otuer government spending has exceeded inflation. So whats the point, again?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Pete September 28, 2015 at 2:06 pm

      If you think government overspending is a partisan thing I suggest you spend more time watching CSPAN. The latest DRIVE budget allocates billions for railroad and automotive wireless communications technologies as well as autonomous vehicles, though it eliminates spending on the order of millions to improve walking and biking safety for children.

      It’s not always about spending amounts, but rather priorities.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 3:48 pm

        Oh, government overspending is hardly the province of Democrats. My point is that it is very rare to see a Democrat run the argument that perhaps the government should reprogram it’s current spending to take care what are now really pressing needs like transportation infrastructure. Instead, we see the typical increase the gas tax, increase user fees, ie, raise more revenue.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Pete September 28, 2015 at 4:58 pm

          The gas tax is an easy one since it’s proven over time to inadequately address the true costs of driving cars and trucks over concrete bridges and asphalt freeways. It was never indexed to inflation, nobody has had the political spine to propose raising it in the past, and now it’s gotten so outmoded that both Republicans and Democrats agree it should be raised, but the increasing MPG of gas cars and the growing encouragement of electric cars means that raising it now is like sandbagging a flooding levee. Additionally, it was based on an idea that linearly correlated wear and tear with use, but infrastructure doesn’t age linearly, and demographic shifts weren’t factored in either.

          As far as the asses and elephants go, I’m agnostic. Someone who knows a little more about finance than I do, a guy named Larry Somers, made the point that we’ve reached both a critical need for infrastructure repair, combined with an inflection point in technologies that can improve both efficiency and safety, at the same time that the government has never been able to borrow money at a rate so incredibly low. He argued that politics should be set aside and spending actually increased at this point in time, because it will save money over the long term. Basically, if the necessary repairs aren’t funded under this opportunity, they’ll need to be funded in the future under a lesser-yielding bond rate.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_Trust_Fund

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:10 am

            Well, ignoring the illogical appeal to authority in your comment – I agrre with Sommers. In fact, I cant think of any reasonable persin who doesn’t. The real issue is the source of that increased spending, ie., new revenues and existing revenues.

            At the federal level, there are billions in waste and fraud that could be leveraged here, but the Harry Reid’s need their cowboy poetry festivals paod for by the US taxpayer.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Pete September 28, 2015 at 5:56 pm

          Think of it also in this manner: highway surfaces are repaved primarily with oil-based substances, and in addition to the lowest interest rates ever for government borrowing (~1%), oil prices are low and likely going lower in the current economic war that we’re waging with other oil-producing countries. Would I be willing to pay more at the pump to have newly refreshed surfaces across this country? Absolutely, and I think it’s ridiculous that people would oppose this under the guise of saving mere pennies on the dollar, pound for pound. Do we not think we’ll end up paying for it one way or another?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 3:25 pm

      “why not re-prioritize current spending? Why is the answer for Democrats always to raise ever-increasing amoints of revenue?”

      because republicans won’t allow democrats to reprioritize the spending towards anything other than better driving…

      so they have to raise new money so the old GOP can continue their business as usual while the rest of us modernize…

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 3:58 pm

        Huh? Youll have to actually prove this is the case…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • are September 28, 2015 at 6:43 pm

          have you watched the debates on the highway funding bill, or not really?

          Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) September 28, 2015 at 4:36 pm

      Skelton’s proposal is to find a way to capture money from people who bike but do not drive. If he wanted to capture money from people who both drive and bike, he could simply raise auto-related fees or taxes.

      Interestingly, he says as much himself in the third paragraph. He also notes that most of the people who bike but never drive are kids. I went ahead and added that the vast majority of the rest are poor, which is true.

      In terms of who pays, the main difference between a bike registration fee and the gas tax is that the bike registration fee captures kids and poor people.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:12 am

        Poor people buy gas, too.

        Your characterization of his proposal was unfair and uncharitable.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Dan September 29, 2015 at 9:15 am

          We could raise the gas tax and provide credits for the poor. Instead, we subsidize gas for everybody, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 3:02 pm

            What? Why provide the credits?

            Also, how does whatever subsidy gas and oil receive disproportionately benefit the rich? Not seeing the connection as a subsidy received by a firm is not a subsidy received by an individual.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Dan October 1, 2015 at 8:28 am

              Failing to charge an appropriate gas tax and to charge for our nation’s cost of securing and defending our oil interests provides a disproportionate benefit to those who drive more, and to those who drive less fuel efficient vehicles, like Land Rovers and sports cars.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • BeavertonRider October 1, 2015 at 10:38 am

                Whoa, that’s weak.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • 9watts October 1, 2015 at 10:42 am

                  That is quite the rebuttal, Mr. BR.

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • Dan October 1, 2015 at 12:02 pm

                  This is weak: “Poor people buy gas, too.”

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes September 28, 2015 at 11:11 am

    Wow, the histrionics of the people at that Coronado city meeting. Bike lane stripes make you dizzy if you look at them too long? It’s like taking your underage daughter to a tattoo parlor and covering her in tattoos? It is damaging to our property values? So happy I don’t live there.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Paul September 28, 2015 at 11:27 am

      “It takes away from your home, your outlook on life…”

      This. Just unbelievable. I’m sure the vast majority of people in Coronado aren’t nearly out of their mind like the people in this video. I’m sure there are people just like this in Portland that show up to city council. *cough* Terry Parker *cough*

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • davemess September 28, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      Was it just a coincidence that the people testifying seemed to all be of a single demographic?

      So they want NO lines on the road?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • B. Carfree September 28, 2015 at 4:55 pm

      My sister lived there when they put in the Coronado bridge, connecting it to San Diego. This was in the 1970s, a time when there were a great many bikes on the road in California. They built the bridge for only cars. Bikes and pedestrians are not allowed and must ride many miles down to where the peninsula attaches to the mainland or take the (intermittent) ferry.

      It’s a horrid community with nice weather, kind of like the rest of SoCal.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Scott L September 28, 2015 at 11:17 am

    As to the Idaho Stop, you could argue that Portland, for several years has had a policy like the one being considered in SF. In 2009, the BTA’s Michelle Poyourow and Robert Pickett, a former Portland police officer introduced a video for the Portland Police Bureau urging officers to use their discretion if cyclists were being careful when treating stop signs as yield signs. https://btaoregon.org/2009/10/portland-police-bureau-releases-officer-bike-training-video/ The video is 10 minutes long and the part about running stop signs is at about the 9 minute mark.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) September 28, 2015 at 11:38 am

      Scott L,

      A 6 yr old video by two people who are no longer with those organizations is hardly a “policy.” I highly doubt anyone in the bureau recalls that video much less the policy suggestion it advocates. I agree with you though, that there is a strong legacy at PPB for using common sense on that issue… But we really need to make it a law and not hope and pray officers “get it”.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 12:08 pm

        I remember that video distinctly. I took it as policy as much as I take anything as policy. It seemed at the time like a really important gesture from the PPD. Of course an Idaho Stop Law would be a much clearer signal, but in the absence of that the video seemed like the best we could hope for.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • B. Carfree September 28, 2015 at 4:59 pm

        I’d rather not trust in the common sense of police. It’s a small step from “We let the bikes roll the stop signs” to “Of course we don’t force motorists to come to a complete stop behind the limit line (or any stop at all for right turn on red). Of course we don’t enforce the speed limits until people are more than 10 mph over the posted limit.”

        I want my police to enforce the law, period. I don’t want them playing judge, prosecutor or legislator. In my experience, this works much better and makes for much more cycling friendly roads.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • wsbob September 28, 2015 at 6:36 pm

        Maus…I think the police in Portland generally get the stop sign law with regards to knowing when to use discretion in enforcing it for various situations.

        Most likely, citing people for rolling stop signs already is a low priority item. Unless other people on the road and in neighborhoods that have to deal with road users violating the stop sign law, have become weary and disgusted from having to deal with that behavior…and tell the city and police to do something about it. Then stop sign violations can become a higher priority.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Lascurettes September 28, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      Tell that to the officers at the twice-a-year Ladd’s Addition sting. Or to the ones at N Flynt and Broadway.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • wsbob September 29, 2015 at 9:37 am

        Right…the Ladd’s Addition neighborhood where the police are called in for enforcement details because residents reportedly are sick and tired of road users, most notably, people biking that illegally and insensitively to neighborhood livability, roll through stop signs within this neighborhood.

        And bikes rolling through the stop sign at N Flynt and Broadway, a traffic situation with some notoriety for being a potentially dangerous situation particularly for people riding bikes and trying to enter onto very heavily traveled Broadway from N Flynt.

        Neither situation are examples of where people riding bikes and being relieved of legal obligtion to stop at stop signs is a good idea, and yet, it’s situations of that type that the Idaho Stop opens road users up to. Let’s hear more of what SF residents feel about what their councilors in favor of this law for their city, are considering doing.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lenny Anderson
    Lenny Anderson September 28, 2015 at 11:24 am

    From the September 20, Sunday New York Times, Real Estate page: “The South Bronx Beckons: New York’s South Bronx is attracting renters, buyers and developers. But while new residents congratulate themselves on a clever discovery, others fear gentrification” Sounds familiar; we have company!

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Mark September 28, 2015 at 11:28 am

    The dirty secret is that most riders and drivers Idaho stop every thing. The cops pick and choose depending on their mood and quota filling requirement. Or…in most cities, the color of the driver. Cops don’t want to give up that dragnet as it always works without fail.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Andy September 28, 2015 at 11:30 am

    I own a TDI Wagon. The news is troubling as I never would have purchased the wagon 3 months ago had I known what I know today. As much press as this story is getting (well deserved mind you) I know VW will come up with a solution fast. Germany gave VW 10 days to come up with a solution or they will ban on all affected cars.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 11:33 am

      I very much doubt there is any fast solution that VW has up its sleeve. The risk they took cheating on this large scale suggests at least to me that they’d tried and failed to actually comply with the NOx cutoff levels.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Psyfalcon September 28, 2015 at 11:40 am

        Its widely known that these cars get much higher mpg on the highway than their official MPG numbers. That testing is also done on a dyno.

        It seems that deleting the cheat would just leave the car less powerful and with worse mpg. They can do it, they had to for the tests, but at what cost to sales.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Andy September 28, 2015 at 11:47 am

          I agree. I am expecting a hit to MPG. Currently a trip up to Bellingham, WA nets around 52 MPG with 3 people and gear inside.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 12:27 pm

          I suppose you are right.
          Which reminds me of a discussion with an engineering professor who had bought and absolutely loved his Honda Insight (the first generation, two-door hybrid from the late nineties). I asked him what technical changes would improve its mileage, and without missing a beat he said, ripping out the electric motor, batteries, and controls. 🙂

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Pete September 28, 2015 at 2:21 pm

          “It seems that deleting the cheat would just leave the car less powerful and with worse mpg.”

          …but with significantly higher NOx output than the EPA allows, so all of the cars would fail smog tests at least in California.

          There may not be an easy software solution. NOx sensor hardware is new, expensive, and tricky to program software for, and may not be easily retrofit, depending on how much they banked on this ‘bypass’ software to effectively pass smog tests and never be discovered. I suspect someone made a business risk decision (possibly under duress) and paid the price. One or more engineers did have to create (and test) this logic, though, and did so without blowing any whistles… (I suspect they may have been handsomely rewarded).

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 3:38 pm

      they already get such high fuel efficiency that it would have to be a LOT worse for it to not be worth it for most people…

      but yeah, my best friend bought one only because of the great mileage…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Pete September 28, 2015 at 5:00 pm

        Yes, and the auto sales numbers show that people are again favoring pickup trucks and SUVs, probably due to the lower prices at the pump.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Mark September 28, 2015 at 11:30 am

    Coronada is an example of what happens when the populace can end good planning by simply crying at a single meeting and sending a few emails.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 11:46 am

      You mean exercising their freedm to petition they’re government and participate in a democratic political process, right? Do you not like participatory democracy?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Adam Herstein September 28, 2015 at 11:51 am

        Participatory democracy only works if everyone shows up and participates. When your town-hall meetings are 90% NIMBY homeowners, it’s hardly representative of the general populace.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 12:17 pm

          So compulsory attendance? Lol, of course not.

          Those who ‘choose’ to show up will have a voice. I guess that those who are not NIMBY folks ought to participate, yes? I mean, participate is the central theme of participatory democracy… Agree?

          Representative and participatory democracy works very well…even when I personally may not agree with the outcome. Hence, unlike a previous poster, I wont call those who choose to participate “crybabies” when they voice an opinion I might disagree with.

          Surely, you see the at least the good manners in that, yeah?

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Adam Herstein September 28, 2015 at 1:28 pm

            Problem is that we don’t and have never had participatory democracies in the US, other than ballot measures. We are a representative democracy that relies on informed elected officials making decisions for us. But when cities like LA have a 20% voter turnout, there is no way that the elected officials are representative of their constituents.

            This is why our Neighborhood Associations should hold their board elections vote-by-mail.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

            • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 2:15 pm

              Huh? We certainly do have a participatory democracy. People vote, they attend open meetings, they could ntact and visit their elected and appointed officials. Sure, it ain’t even close to 100%, but so what? Thst doesn’tmean we don’t have such a democracy.

              What’s appalling in this thread is the poster and the multiplr people who agreed with him that those who chose to participate and express their opinions are crybabies. Really appalling. And probably provides some insight into why more people don’t participate.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 2:20 pm

                “People vote, they attend open meetings, they could ntact and visit their elected and appointed officials. Sure, it ain’t even close to 100%, but so what? Thst doesn’tmean we don’t have such a democracy.”
                $$$$$$$$$
                Do you remember how in version 6.4.3 of the Street Fee Hales & Novick exempted surface parking lots from paying anything? Do you really think, just to take this one example, that this is the logical outcome of one (wo)man, one vote?

                Recommended Thumb up 8

                • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 3:53 pm

                  No, I did nt remember and dont care much for your conspiracy theories.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

              • gutterbunnybikes September 28, 2015 at 4:38 pm

                We don’t have a democracy, our government is a Republic. Civics 101…(oh yeah – I forgot that class isn’t in schools anymore).

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:20 am

                  Well, what is a democracy? A form of govt where the people directly decide policy matters. We have that throughout the 50 states, no, bith at the state and local levels.

                  What is a republic, it is a givt where the people choose representatives who decide pokicy matters. That is our national govt.

                  So, you thought it important to take a silly shot at us and you failed.

                  We live in a participatory democracy where were directly decide policy matters, elect representatives, and have the ability to participate in public policy debates and actions.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

                • gutterbunnybikes October 1, 2015 at 4:37 pm

                  Democracy is majority (mob) rule – plain and simple. Doesn’t exist even in theory in the US. Democracy by definition can not have representatives or a Constitution.

                  Republic is a government ruled by law – not votes, where the rights of the minority are protected even in cases where it is not in the interest of the majority.

                  We have “democraticish” (which of course is also silly since the by and large big business controls both parties – which themselves are also big businesses) voting for representatives who then set the law, but even then those new laws are subject to the old laws (you know the Constitution, Bill of Rights), unless the old laws are addressed first.

                  The House of Representatives is as close as we get to any kind of democracy. The Senate rules prohibit and even run counter to the idea of democracy since each state only gets two regardless of how many people live in those states. The Electoral College elects Presidents, not the popular vote, it’s entirely possible for a member of the EC to vote counter to what the popular vote is.

                  The term democracy has purposely overtaken the term Republic so that people feel like they actually have some voice in government, which by and large they don’t and wouldn’t even with 100% voter participation, since the most powerful and influential jobs in government (the Fed, Pentagon, Supreme Court, various department heads) aren’t elected positions and there tends to be little if any roll over with administration changes.

                  Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Pete September 28, 2015 at 2:57 pm

            Sorry, I call those people “crybabies” because I actually watched them speak on the video. Bike lanes reduce your property values and make you lose your outlook on life?? Funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time!

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 3:54 pm

              Wow, you could choose to exercise your manners and recognize that those you disagree with are not crybabies, crazy, or otherwise acting in bad faith.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Pete September 28, 2015 at 5:02 pm

                I would suggest that someone who claims that painted roadways diminish your “outlook on life” should seek counseling, and it’s not just because I disagree with her.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

              • Chris I September 28, 2015 at 5:43 pm

                No, those women were bat-guano crazy. Did you even watch the video?

                Recommended Thumb up 7

              • Clark in Vancouver September 28, 2015 at 11:49 pm

                I think they have every right to speak up and say whatever they want on the topic at a public meeting. In fact, give them enough rope…
                And of course it’s fun to laugh at them but really I don’t blame them. They’re just scared at something new, maybe watched a biased news story or something like that, and are overreacting. Probably gullible types. They’re not the problem. The problem that I see here is that the mayor just shrugs and says “Well, that’s what they say they want so we’ll give them that”. Good leaders should be able to see beyond hysteria and know that these people will change their minds once something is on the ground. They also need to not give in to crazy cranks but instead to listen to their fears and find out their needs and make sure their fears are lessened with evidence and respect.
                Another thing I wonder is what the advocates in favour did. Did they have a presentation there as well? If they didn’t well then…

                Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Mark September 28, 2015 at 3:13 pm

        Whining at a meeting and sending a few emails is not participating… The city council should have setup a committee to address REAL concerns. Sounds like the Bill O’reilly crowd got a soundbite and repeated it..nothing more. And thus…a plan was killed.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 3:51 pm

          Oh, so we’ll rely on you to trll the rest of us how to properly participate in our democracy, pffft…

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 3:39 pm

        “Do you not like participatory democracy?”

        I hate democracy and I’m glad I don’t live in one…

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • BeavertonRider September 28, 2015 at 11:49 am

    Bike fee: L.A. Times columnist George Skelton has a plan to fix California’s roads: charge kids and poor people for riding bikes.

    Interesting characterization of the linked article. Of course, the proposal isnt aimed at the poor or kids, but at everyone.

    Reminds me of the old NYTimes joke:
    Hurrican slams NYC, women and minorities hit hardest.

    Look, the proposal as presented is simply another money grab – just more taxes on top of taxes in the already-taxed-the-most state in the country. Republicans in California are correct – rather than simply piling on more taxes, why not re-prioritize current spending? Why is the answer for Democrats always to raise ever-increasing amoints of revenue? I’d be more sympathetic if Democrats seriously pursued eliminating waste, avoiding massively outsized labor contracts, etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • soren September 28, 2015 at 12:26 pm

      A state with a highly regressive proposition that prevents inflation-adjusted tax increases and has gutted public coffers is highly taxed? Really???

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Spiffy September 28, 2015 at 3:43 pm

      you must really believe in this one if you reposted it 45 minutes after your original…

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • RushHourAlleycat September 28, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Yield signs are what red lights look like to my people already. I would love Cops to see things the same way.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Mark September 28, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    LloydCenterCommuter
    Cars aren’t “great” because they’re climate-controlled and drivers can control the radio. What a silly, petulent characterization that was completely fabricated only to dig on drivers. Additionally, people aren’t upset because they have to spend a few extra minutes in the car.Drivers like me get upset because other drivers could exercise a little more thought and leave more space which makes merging on and off more efficient and then I get home sooner to see my wife and kids. Again, just another classless mischaracterization of drivers… and for what? A little dig that’s only read by other opinion-confirmation seekers? Really?Recommended 3

    There is more thane enough room to get around any lane over 7 feet wide. The average car is barely 6 feet wide. The penalty for a fender rub with a car is all of a day at Leifs. The penalty on a bike is death.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • El Biciclero September 28, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    Regarding the George Skelton article, when we use gas tax money to pay for things that make bicycling easier, aren’t we using tax revenue to create a way to avoid paying that tax? I.e., if biking is easier, won’t it then be “encouraged”, and won’t those who decide to do it avoid paying gas taxes?

    I think there is a false assumption made by those who are in the “no way, no how” category of potential (non-)cyclists. That assumption is that if gas tax money is used for road improvements that make bicycling easier, that all motorists are paying for something they will never use—like childless people paying taxes for schools. What they don’t realize is that bicycle improvements benefit motorists (perhaps more than they benefit cyclists), and that there is absolutely nothing preventing motorists from using roads that are bicycle-friendly—as motorists OR bicyclists. If you think I’ve got it so good riding my bike in a bike lane, then why don’t you join me? Or does Mr. Motorist still think driving his car is “better”, even while he complains about how good I’ve got it, “freeloading” and all?

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Gary B September 28, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    BeavertonRider. LloydCenterCommuter. Excuse me for thinking paid commenters sitting in a Utah suburban office park have a “Bike Portland name generator.”

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Dan September 28, 2015 at 5:31 pm

      Nom nom nom. Throw food under the bridge.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

    • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:24 am

      Nah, just someone whose initial two posts as LloydCenterCommuter were not posted…until quite a while later. Hence, a new handle to actually post and my comments actually posted immediately.

      Your conspiracy theory, though, wow… The narcissism that is required to believe that folks in Utah actually care about what they think of bukes and stop signs. Lol

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Chris I September 28, 2015 at 6:11 pm

    If the cost to repair and build roads increases, the tax designed to pay for those roads should increase. It’s a very basic concept that is, apparently, completely lost on you.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • 9watts September 28, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      There’s a far more directive and interesting way to look at this: Germany, to take just one example, has ratcheted up its various car-related taxes over time to the point where they now yield three times (3X) the revenue needed to maintain their world class, to-die-for, transportation infrastructure. It costs them about $17B Euro/year to keep it up, but they take in something like $55B Euro/year in fees and taxes.

      By having all the money left over they can do exciting and useful things that benefit everyone, both in the transportation sector and beyond.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Pete September 28, 2015 at 6:33 pm

        I get it… it’s kinda like making driving a privilege rather than a ‘right’. 😉

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:28 am

        They can do exciting and useful things for everyone. Wow, the blind faith in government is dizzying.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren September 29, 2015 at 9:48 am

          I’m a CEO and I’m here to help.
          I’m a billionaire and I’m her to help.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 10:28 am

            A lot more confidence in that than, “Hi, Im the govt and Im here to help”, lol

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BeavertonRider September 29, 2015 at 9:26 am

      Perhaps the tax is not the optimal way to pay for it? Olrnty of successful public private partnerships that bond and operate very nice toll roads.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Tom Hardy September 29, 2015 at 2:48 pm

      The U.S. Interstate highway system was built on a 10 cent per gallon tax that was about 2/3rd the total price of a gallon of gas in the 50’s.
      Now the tax is still at 10 cents and the price is back down to $3.00 per gallon. The tax needs to be $1.00 per gallon or better at least to pay the graft and cover the repaving roads and make proper bike lanes to increase ridership. Makes too much logic to me

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Jeff September 28, 2015 at 8:51 pm

    Funny I was just watching this London Underground Modernisation (British spelling) Youtube video yesterday about the investments being made so the trains can run “quicker and closer together”.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Dave September 29, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    I worked at a shop that sold Cannondales the year that they tried to manufacture and sell offroad motorcycles–Apple won’t have any better luck trying to compete with Honda than they did, that’s my prediction.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Pete September 29, 2015 at 4:42 pm

      I’ve got Apple friends who had an early line on some BMW electric cars several years ago, so my suspicion is they may be secretly partnered with BMW, but that’d be hard to keep secret. I live in the neighborhood and have seen minivans with weird roof gear (you see lots of weird stuff on car roofs here in silly valley) that looks similar to a canoe holder, and I’ve been told they’re coming from Apple – they don’t spin like Google’s LIDAR apparatus.

      Anyway, I’m more interested in the Hyperloop… 😉

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mark September 29, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    I would be fine with banning all stop signs and replace them with yields. That’s all folks do with them anyhow. Stop signs only serve a purpose for do-gooders anyhow.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are September 30, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    wsbob
    The freedom, or rather, the legal right for people biking to not stop at all at stop signs, given that their is no traffic to yield to, is what the Idaho Stop provides. The Idaho Stop cancels a level of road user safety that the stop sign law provides.

    if as you appear to acknowledge the idaho stop applies only when there is no traffic to yield to, how does it cancel a level of safety? if anything it improves safety by getting the cyclist out of the intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • WAR September 30, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    Just stop at the stop signs so I don’t have to pass you twice.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • BeavertonRider September 30, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    9watts
    OK Bvt Rider, I’ll ask you this: to whom is the WTO accountable?We tried, in 1999, to shut the thing down (symbolically) and came very close to achieving that modest (symbolic) goal. But we knew then and have had ample opportunity to observe since that for all intents and purposes the whole thing is still as unaccountable to us citizens as it ever was, and perhaps less so now.Recommended 6

    are
    whether what i am asking someone to prove is a negative depends on how it is stated. i did not say show me the WTO does not benefit multinational corporations, i asked whom does it benefit.you might ask people in some of the so-called “developing” countries [itself a loaded term] how they feel about the effects of the agricultural agreements on local and regional food security.Recommended 4

    I am not arguing about who it benefits. I am arguing with the assertion, made by another poster, that the existence of the wto reveals that “corporations run the world”.

    Now, again, it’s completely silly to argue that corporations run the world, but I’m being nice and playing along.

    Again, why does the existence of wto prove that corps run the world? That is the assertion that I am awaiting some rationale for.

    But all I get back are evasive questions like, “well, who does wto benefit?” That’s quite irrelevant and is neither relevant or insightful to the question at hand.

    Why does the existence of the wto prove that corps run the world?

    Anyone? Bueller?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q`Tzal October 3, 2015 at 8:00 pm

      It seems you got the last word, ergo, you must be right.

      Recommended Thumb up 0