Advertise on BikePortland

City’s latest experiment to protect NE Couch bike lane has failed

Posted by on January 19th, 2016 at 12:02 pm

Bumps already ripped out on Couch-3.jpg
A few of the ripped out rumble bars.
(Photos © J. Maus/BikePortland)

Illegal driving and the force of car tires has made quick work of the new “rumble bars” installed on the Couch curve where it winds onto the Burnside Bridge.

On January 8th we reported that the Portland Bureau of Transportation added 70 of the round bumps in an effort to prevent people from driving in the bike lane. Keep in mind that it’s not only unsafe to encroach into a lane dedicated to cycling, it’s also against the law (ORS 811.435). But for some reason, many people driving into downtown Portland feel like that law doesn’t apply to them.

PBOT installed these bars to encourage safe and legal driving. Unfortunately, as of this morning, more than one-third of the 70 bumps have been ripped out and are currently strewn about the roadway. At this rate, by the end of the month there will be no bars left.

Bumps already ripped out on Couch-4.jpg

KGW-TV news reporter Chris Willis was the first to tell me the bars had been ripped out. He interviewed me about it for their story that aired last night:

PBOT says these rumble bars were installed as part of a test, “to give people who are driving an audible warning and vibration when they encroach into the bike lane.”

PBOT spokesman John Brady said they’re aware of the issue and the city plans to replace the bars once they find stronger epoxy. There’s no date for when that will happen.

Even with stronger glue, I’m concerned that these rumble bars aren’t doing enough to change people’s illegal and unsafe behaviors. As shared in the KGW report, maybe it’s time for PBOT to stop with these half-measures and just install some good old-fashioned physical protection. The City has determined that the need exists to protect this bike lane and the people who use it, so they need to make sure their method of providing that protection actually works.

— Jonathan Maus, (503) 706-8804 – jonathan@bikeportland.org

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

  • maks January 19, 2016 at 12:08 pm

    jersey barriers. nuf said.

    Recommended Thumb up 49

    • Tim January 19, 2016 at 2:49 pm

      They don’t use jersey barriers since the can’t fit proper end treatments and widths to protect motorists. So I say concrete filled bollards.

      That will leave a mark in you pretty new bumper.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

      • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:44 pm

        Any object placed in the right of way will be struck. Designing a barrier that balances the safety of all that might interact with it is essential to achieve a Safe System/Vision Zero goal.
        A jersey barrier with a tapered end in the straight area of the roadway would probably be safe for an automobile collision considering the ‘normal’ speeds of motorists on that section of roadway.
        A short barrier – high curb – is another option, but I would not want a cyclist to accidentally strike it and fall into the auto lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 4:58 pm

          A short barrier would be terrible. I think there’s really only three options, listed in order of my preference:

          1) Add a jersey barrier to provide maximum physical protection to cyclists
          2) Elevate the bike lane to sidewalk height
          3) Do nothing until a cyclist gets crushed, then do one of the above

          Recommended Thumb up 17

          • Eric Leifsdad January 20, 2016 at 10:51 am

            Even just one jersey barrier.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

    • was carless January 22, 2016 at 4:57 pm

      Even a curb would work! They bolted those to the Hawthorne Bridge, seem to still be there after a few years.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • alankessler January 19, 2016 at 12:13 pm

    “stronger epoxy”? Is the logic that people would stop driving in the bike lane if only those rumble bars wouldn’t become detached when people drive in the bike lane?

    This experiment wasn’t a failure. It confirmed that rumble bars do nothing and a physical barrier is necessary.

    Recommended Thumb up 65

  • Adam H. January 19, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    Of course it has.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • ethan January 19, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    I was on a bus last night going through this area and the bus driver veered well into the bike lane even though there was plenty of room on the left.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 19, 2016 at 12:21 pm

      Yes. I think part of the issue here is that the curve itself was incorrectly designed. The angle is bad and that’s one reason people drive like they do.

      Recommended Thumb up 36

      • Carrie January 19, 2016 at 12:31 pm

        I don’t know Jonathan. I drove there last week on purpose, in a car, to see how difficult it was to avoid the bike lane. It was easy to drive where I was supposed to be in a car at that intersection. However, I was a) not texting, b) doing the speed limit or a little less, and c) paying attention to the fact that I was driving a car. So it probably was not a realistic analysis.

        Recommended Thumb up 88

        • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 12:34 pm

          I don’t think difficulty of the turn is the reason car drivers cut the corner — I think it is more a question of comfort. Trucks and buses, on the other hand, may well have some difficulty staying totally in their lane.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 12:45 pm

            There is PLENTY room for a bus at speed as long as the bus stays to the outside of the lane.

            Here’s the great irony of everyone cutting the apex of the curve: You can drive a curve at a higher speed the greater your radius (that is, if you stay farther out, you’ve increased your radius). It’s basic physics. But in the “race like” culture that we have in America (see: any car ad), everyone wants to drive like Pitapaldi and flatten all curves by cutting across them.

            Recommended Thumb up 12

            • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 12:56 pm

              Case in point about not needing a smoother curve. Here’s a VERY shallow curve at the NE 21st overcrossing of i-5, but no matter how many times it get repainted, the paint is worn off within a couple of months. I’ve seen cars nearly hit the curb because they encroach into the bike lane by that much: https://goo.gl/maps/qW9fvGqCFRm

              Recommended Thumb up 7

            • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 1:38 pm

              The presence of a jersey barrier may help convince truck/bus drivers to correctly position themselves.

              Recommended Thumb up 10

              • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 1:53 pm

                I’m not arguing against a jersey barrier, but responding to people that say there’s not enough room for a bus or truck to not encroach on the bike lane. There’s plenty of room. Many drivers are just lazy. A jersey barrier or curb would be welcome!

                Recommended Thumb up 9

            • Mark S January 19, 2016 at 3:17 pm

              Pitapaldi = Fittipaldi. Brazilian Formula 1 & Indy Car champion driver Emerson Fittipaldi.

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm

                Thanks, my bad.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Doug Klotz January 19, 2016 at 10:36 pm

                A distant relative of Gerald Fittipaldi, cofounder of Bike PSU!

                Recommended Thumb up 4

            • jered January 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm

              I always just move the race line a couple feet out – apex so that I don’t hit the line – not that hard if you’re focused on the task at hand. I operate all my wheeled transport with the same focus as if I’m on the track, just move your turn in, apex and track out points to be inside the lines!

              Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Tony T
              Tony T January 19, 2016 at 3:51 pm

              Cutting the apex of the turn makes the radius bigger. It’s why race car drivers do it.

              Recommended Thumb up 10

              • spencer January 20, 2016 at 8:20 am

                ‘outside to inside’ is the fastest line, and that wouldn’t hit the markers

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • El Biciclero January 20, 2016 at 9:27 am

                OK, so we know how to straighten the curves; I still would like to know when we are going to start flat’nin’ the hills…

                Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 19, 2016 at 4:37 pm

          good points Carrie. Thanks. I realize it’s easily possible to drive it the right way.. Guess I was just saying that if it were designed with a different angle we might see more people actually doing the right thing. design is key to so many of the problems we have… but I agree with you that we shouldn’t excuse poor driving.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Al Dimond January 19, 2016 at 10:19 pm

            No matter how you design a curve the smoothest way to take it is always to cut the apex — to be as far out as possible at the start and end, and as far in as possible in the middle. Ease the curve as much as you want, drivers will ease it further.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

      • MaxD January 19, 2016 at 12:43 pm

        I think the inside radius is more than adequate to accommodate buses and trucks with trailers. I say that as someone who has worked with turning templates AND as someone who bikes through here quite a bit and have observed trucks and buses saying within their lane as well as not. It is certainly possible, but the vehicles in the outer lane are also prone to cutting corners and may be pressuring the vehicles in inside lane to cut into the bike lane. My suggestion for the City: once you find the stronger epoxy, glue these bumps between the motor vehicle lanes, then use jersey barriers to separate teh bike lane from the motor vehicle lanes

        Recommended Thumb up 18

      • ethan January 19, 2016 at 1:18 pm

        The angle is perfectly fine. If people slowed down, there would be no issue. Even the bus has plenty of room.

        Recommended Thumb up 11

        • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 9:45 am

          The advisory speed is 15 mph.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Steve B January 19, 2016 at 4:26 pm

        Right. It’s not just the angle of the curve, but also the way the curves are banked along the S curve of the on ramp street. If you sit and watch Trimet buses navigate it, they swing left and right and you can see how larger vehicles are more inclined to cut into the bike lane twice — once on the first swing left, and then again on the swing right.

        That said, folks driving in their cars don’t have nearly the same turning/banking issue and seem to be cutting off the corner. Same thing happens on Water Avenue as it turns into SE Stark, and as Willamette Blvd curves about 90 degrees just south of the entrance to University of Portland.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Spiffy January 19, 2016 at 2:11 pm

      please call TriMet and report it…

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Eric January 19, 2016 at 12:18 pm

    Reminds me of the same problem on the Broadway -> Lovejoy turn, where the barriers were gone within a week.

    It’s frustrating that these obvious indicators that drivers are reckless and unconcerned with safety are so casually dismissed instead of making everyone see the actual conditions in which bike riders risk their lives daily.

    Recommended Thumb up 35

  • Hazel January 19, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    While some of these corners might not be designed well, it’s really not that hard to drive correctly and not into the bike lane. This is an issue in many more places and it’d be nice to see something done about these as well. The ones that come to mind for me are on NE 20th/21st at Tillamook and just north of Irving, on Sandy at the I-84 west on ramp and NE 57th/Cully north of Fremont.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Ann January 19, 2016 at 10:07 pm

      isn’t that 21st and Tillamook intersection the one where a woman (in a car) ran into a house last week?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Keviniano January 19, 2016 at 12:28 pm

    This bridge is effectively a half-mile stretch of undivided highway in the middle of the urban grid, yet it has no meaningful protections for bicyclists or pedestrians. It’s demonstrably deadly to vulnerable users and a perfect candidate for applying vision-zero thinking. It needs barriers along the entire length of it, starting with this horrific curve. It could probably benefit from a host of other treatments, like narrower lanes, to slow down the cars.

    Anyone know if something like this is in the hopper at the City?

    Recommended Thumb up 24

    • soren January 19, 2016 at 1:11 pm

      it annoy be greatly that bridge approaches/decks often have large speed limit increases. for example the hawthorne bridge has a speed limit 10 mph higher than hawthorne itself. i intentionally drive 20 mph on the hawthorne bridge and it’s amazing to see how angry other drivers get.

      20 is plenty!

      Recommended Thumb up 20

      • Dick Pilz January 19, 2016 at 1:30 pm

        Different jurisdictions. Multnomah County has the bridge and approaches. Portland has Hawthorne Blvd.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Captain Karma January 19, 2016 at 2:26 pm

        I drive 25 up and down Hawthorne, which is still too fast, and yes, drivers get crazy to pass and take big risks with peds, because they must, I guess. I usually catch up at the light anyway, as people on bikes are familiar with. So maybe I’ll go 20 from now on.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Steve B January 19, 2016 at 4:29 pm

      Is it in the hopper? Good question. I’m sure it is on the city’s radar and hopefully Multco who actually owns and controls the bridge.

      That said, it will require some political lifting to make a reality, of the two councilors who might push for it, one is gearing up for a re-election campaign and a gas tax campaign, the other is leaving office. It may be relegated to another year/term. I hope not.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    This is a classic case of where a Jersey barrier is needed in this location. I suspect PBOT will resist because trucks have a hard time navigating the turn without encroaching on the bike lane. I think truck encroachment is part of the design.

    Do we build our infrastructure to accommodate all vehicles, or do we limit our vehicles to fit our infrastructure?

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • Adam H. January 19, 2016 at 12:42 pm

      A truck that cannot be navigated along the Couch curve has no place on our crowded downtown streets.

      Recommended Thumb up 40

      • Steve B January 19, 2016 at 4:31 pm

        We have industrial traffic regularly moving through the city. There are industrial areas right near this on ramp. That is the economic reality and it’s an important part of the city. That industrial traffic is not going away soon. My belief is we can figure out how to properly accommodate both.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • kittens January 19, 2016 at 5:25 pm

        You mean I can’t drive my 65′ FREIGHT TRUCK around downtown?! That just aint ‘murican!

        Recommended Thumb up 10

    • B. Carfree January 19, 2016 at 6:20 pm

      If I couldn’t get my big rig through those turns without driving in the bike lane, I’d hand in my class A CDL. It’s just not difficult to navigate that area in a truck, but of course it’s easier to ignore the law and just drive in the bike lane as long as the local cops are asleep at the wheel and the local traffic engineers are too chicken-hearted to put some jersey barriers in.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Tom Hardy January 19, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Both Lovejoy and the Couch curves need spike strips. After a few hundred ruined tire, some of the motorists might get the message.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 3:43 pm

      You, the taxpayer, cannot afford to replace that many tires from such a negligent act.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • EmilyG January 19, 2016 at 12:44 pm


    Recommended Thumb up 28

    • alankessler January 19, 2016 at 1:38 pm

      “…after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives”

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      86 feet of curb, at $20/foot = $1,800. Candle sticks on top, every 5 feet, another $420. Then there is the maintenance. So, about $2500 might do the job to add a curb where the buffer currently exists.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 3:57 pm

        And the cost of doing that when it was first built?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:47 pm

          about the same.
          I prefer a raised bike lane on the inside of curves.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

      • EmilyG January 19, 2016 at 4:26 pm

        Seems very reasonably priced when you consider how many people’s lives/limbs it could save. Plus they must have spent that already on trying the lights and now the rumble things. I’d be willing to pony up- do you think PBOT takes personal checks?

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:50 pm

          The lights only cost labor to install. The materials were provided free of charge as a demonstration project by the vendor – similar to the green bike lane on Madison approaching Grand.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Steve B January 19, 2016 at 4:33 pm

        Another thing that tends to complicate these things when you try to add curbs in various areas is stormwater infrastructure. Usually the changes or implementation of new stormwater facilities drives the cost up enormously.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:50 pm

          curb cut outs permit water to drain.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Steve B. January 20, 2016 at 3:22 pm

            Yes, though it all depends on what stormwater infra is there already and it can get complicated. These evaluations are triggered when you add civil infrastructure like a curb. Sometimes a curb cut works, other times stormwater alone can be a showstopper.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • El Biciclero January 19, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    I think we’re all overlooking the obvious solution here, which is to remove the bike lane.


    Recommended Thumb up 18

  • Al Dimond January 19, 2016 at 12:55 pm

    I recently visited friends and family in the Chicago area. Some combination of city and state government has started installing red-light cameras that send you robo-tickets if you go through on orange, or fail to stop before the stop line. I know this because people I know hate it, and complain about it all the time. Y’know what else they do? They obey they law. They don’t creep forward into the crosswalk at red lights anymore (I did a lot of running in the ‘burbs while I was there, and I’m not sure I’ve ever seen such a low rate of crosswalk encroachment anywhere — this in places where you hardly ever see anyone out walking, so it’s not out of widespread pedestrian sympathies). I’ve heard from people, inveterate speeders, that now slow down to the speed limit near stoplights to make sure they’ll be able to stop in time.

    A little enforcement goes a long way. It doesn’t have to be a big ticket, AFAICT research seems to indicate regular enforcement is a better deterrent than giant fines. Totally automated enforcement might be out, but half-automated enforcement, where a guy with a tripod takes photos and loads of tickets are mailed at the end of the day, could be done at trouble spots a few times per year. Maybe first-time offenders could even get warnings. People will hate it, they’ll complain about how the curve is designed wrong (which is silly — any time the lane lines are painted tighter than the pavement drivers will tend to cut inside), they might even get covered in the news. They’ll also slow down and take the curve properly, which is the only thing that matters.

    Recommended Thumb up 29

    • B. Carfree January 19, 2016 at 6:35 pm

      You had it right when you noted that consistent enforcement is the key to behavioral change. To do it as spot-checks or periodic enforcements is the exact opposite of consistent enforcement.

      I reiterate that when Davis, CA rose to be the Bicycle Capital of the World for a decade beginning in the mid-70s, it did so by doing zero-tolerance traffic law enforcement. If a patrol unit saw a violation and the cop wasn’t on an emergency call, s/he wrote the citation.

      We’re not going to jersey wall every road in the area. All of us will need to ride amongst motorists most of the time. If we want to create a safe, welcoming cycling environment, we’re going to need the enforcement portion. Show me the locale with reasonable cycling numbers that doesn’t have first-rate traffic law enforcement.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • yashardonnay January 19, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    By the time PBOT is done with iteration after iteration of failed half measures here, they probably could have put in jersey barriers within the same ballpark of cost.

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • El Biciclero January 19, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      “The stingy man pays the most”

      Recommended Thumb up 15

  • spencer January 19, 2016 at 1:12 pm

    every one commenting here should call 823 SAFE and report this.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 3:56 pm

      823-SAFE is for current, unaddressed, problems. The project manager for this ‘test’ would be the better person to contact.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • alankessler January 19, 2016 at 4:53 pm

        Do you happen to know who that person is/how to contact that person?

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 9:39 am

          I do not, but Jeff Smith manages the funding, 823-7083.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Champs January 19, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    As built, that curve simply isn’t sharp enough to consistently slow traffic and/or not wide enough to accommodate buses.

    Call it perverse, but I think that this traffic calming creates a safety hazard, and more pavement is the only way to fix it.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Spiffy January 19, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      that’s perverse…

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Champs January 19, 2016 at 4:25 pm

        Resolved that traffic must be calmed and the current solution is failing, the toolset is pretty limited.

        Buses are a wrinkle. They require wide lanes and pretty much assure that cars will be present and speed bumps won’t. The chicane can’t be narrowed, so it must be reshaped. If you don’t do that with new pavement, then it will have to be reallocated, and you get one guess at the only space available to reclaim.

        It’s perverse, all right.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:05 pm

      2nd that. There are two lanes in the S curve. In the straight section they are at least 10 feet wide, but in the curve just before joining Burnside the inside one is nearly 16 feet wide and the outside one is 11 feet. A bus drive that can’t stay inside a 16 foot lane should retire.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • maccoinnich January 19, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    Why wasn’t this built as a raised / protected bike lane in the first place? The standard reason given for the fact that we don’t have protected bike lanes is that it’s expensive to retrofit existing infrastructure. However this is a stretch of road that was built from scratch only 6 years ago. Raising the bike lane would have only had a marginal cost, if anything.

    Recommended Thumb up 19

    • ethan January 19, 2016 at 1:19 pm

      I have the same questions about the infrastructure near the new Orange line. Plenty of forethought went into providing places for people to park, yet the newly rebuilt roads (like SE 17th) have narrow bike lanes with gutters.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Nick Falbo January 19, 2016 at 2:07 pm

        Capital construction takes a long time, and plans are prepared using the latest accepted guidance available at the time. If I remember correctly, the construction plans were drafted and came through the bike advisory committee in 2010/2011.

        The NACTO bike guide wasn’t released until March 2011, and even then, protected bike lanes were still considered experimental. The only example portland had was SW Broadway near PSU (although Cully was getting ready for construction).

        Support for protected bike lane facilities among bicyclists and advocates was relatively low, and many people were skeptical of their utility.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • maccoinnich January 19, 2016 at 3:27 pm

          SW Moody was under construction by March 2011, and includes protected bike infrastructure. I’m sure if it was a different lead agency that built Moody, but it’s striking how much better it is than SE Gideon or 17th.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 3:56 pm

          I’ve heard this explanation before, and I don’t fully buy it. I don’t think that in 2011 the idea of putting a bike lane at sidewalk level would be considered experimental — the Hawthorne Bridge has had this design for decades and decades. And it’s not as if the idea of vehicles cutting the corner was an unknown phenomenon.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

    • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 1:42 pm

      Also, why is that short bit of street built parallel to MLK? Why wasn’t it more of a lazy angle rather than all right angles? That land between that side street and MLK does not seem like a development candidate for — anything. Not that a shallower curve would have helped lazy drivers from encroaching on a non-separated bike lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • ethan January 19, 2016 at 2:02 pm

        That space is going to be developed relatively soon. I bet that’s why it was designed that way.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 2:03 pm

        Why is the alignment not like this: http://cl.ly/2a3D3W2I0i32 ?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Nick Falbo January 19, 2016 at 2:45 pm

          Shallow angles encourage speeding, especially in multilane situations. People already race over the Burnside bridge, we shouldn’t go out of the way to give them a head start.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

          • Steve B January 19, 2016 at 4:49 pm

            Agreed. I believe they were also trying to keep that inner land parcel as large as possible in order to make the land develop-able in the future.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Steve B January 19, 2016 at 4:36 pm

      The answer to this I believe is the plan for the Couch/Burnside couplet was finished about a decade before the actual buildout. At the time, separated roadway facilities were barely a glimmer in PBOT’s eyes. We certainly missed a great opportunity to add a cycletrack to Burnside. At the time of planning it was more like “oooh we can add a bike lane on Burnside?? Radical!”

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 19, 2016 at 4:43 pm

      “Why wasn’t this built as a raised / protected bike lane in the first place?”

      it’s largely about money. This fix was done with a tiny little pot of funding known as “Missing Link.” It’s been set-aside for little bikeway improvements/additions for many years now… And while it’s nice that the fund exists… the fact that it’s so small and is only able to fund such quaint little projects like this is one indicator of how little institutional respect cycling-specific projects have at PBOT.

      Another issue is that little projects like this are so inexpensive that they often don’t get the engineering/planning scrutiny of other projects. Again, a lack of respect IMO.

      Have to say I am shocked. It’s bad enough PBOT is still using silly little plastic things to create “safe” bike lanes… But the fact that even after years of trying they still can’t make them stick to the ground… it’s maddening and embarrassing.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • maccoinnich January 19, 2016 at 4:49 pm

        To be clear, by “in the first place” I was talking about when this section of road was under construction in 2010.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Jacob January 19, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    How they do it in NYC:

    Voila, a crazy scary turn becomes one of the most popular bike routes in the city.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Adam H. January 19, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      Also, how we do it in Portland. No need to copy another city and open up to the oft-repeated “we’re not NYC!” argument when we have a perfect example less than a mile away.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Pete January 19, 2016 at 2:46 pm

        I think the difference is the NYC treatment is a bike lane with jersey barriers dumped next to it, whereas the Portland treatment is a really wide sidewalk with bicycles painted on it. The NYC treatment seems more ‘European’, except for the part where it dumps you out with a choice of taking the traffic lane or dodging pedestrians on the sidewalk. 😉

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Spiffy January 19, 2016 at 3:57 pm

        if you pan to the left there’s an angel on the median…

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Alan 1.0 January 19, 2016 at 6:45 pm


          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rick January 19, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    just wow

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Joe January 19, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    Didn’t the city go through the EXACT same process with the bollards on Lovejoy coming of the Broadway bridge?

    First they installed bollards and they were hit and removed quickly. Then the said they needed stronger epoxy. Once again, they got hit and removed. Then they “solved” the problem by doing nothing… (http://bikeportland.org/2012/01/25/once-again-bike-lane-bollards-torn-out-by-auto-traffic-on-nw-lovejoy-65907)

    These half measures are a waste of money and a bullshit way to say the city is trying to improve the situation. These measures don’t work, you’ve previously proved they don’t work, yet they try the same thing again.

    Recommended Thumb up 23

    • Spiffy January 19, 2016 at 3:59 pm

      “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing year after year and expecting different results”

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Todd Boulanger January 19, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    Jonathan – I tried going back to the earlier article to refresh my memory…it was a 8 January not 8 December posting it seems…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Kreps January 19, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    I’d like to see Gladstone used as a secondary test. I dodge a lot of sides of cars riding that in the morning.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Todd Boulanger January 19, 2016 at 2:20 pm

    Perhaps the engineers or striping crew members that read this blog can chime in on this issue: these raised pavement markers most likely failed due to their application during the winter (cold temp and perhaps partially wet pavement crevices) AND this is a very challenging location due to the vehicle wheel movement striking and pulling each RPM at an angle through the curve.

    [I am assuming that the contractor followed all the manufacturer’s instructions per surface preparation, material handling (kept warm and dry before installing?) and installation. Or else this might be addressed as a warranty issue…unless PBoT waived it due to the other issues mentioned above.]

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:58 pm

      Epoxy adhesives are very sensitive to moisture and cure times are influenced by temperature. The Madison green lane had to be redone for similar reasons.
      Any object placed in the right of way will be impacted by auto traffic. The police coined the nickname DUII-catchers for traffic circles. You build it in the road and someone will hit it.
      Not sure angle has as much to do with it as the frequency and repetition of impacts.
      The rubber curbing on Burnside at 9th and at SW Skyline were bolted down. Bolted down only lasts marginally longer when it is repeatedly struck by traffic. Bolted down also puts a hole in your street.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Alan 1.0 January 19, 2016 at 6:37 pm

        Last summer ODOT glued some rumble bumps in the merge area of Airport Way onto I-205 southbound. They get a pretty hard beating and were still in place last I looked, but I haven’t looked closely for a couple months.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Andrew Kreps January 19, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    John Lascurettes
    Why is the alignment not like this: http://cl.ly/2a3D3W2I0i32 ?Recommended 0

    Because then the Fair-haired Dumbbell wouldn’t have room for a skybridge.


    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Todd Boulanger January 19, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    I would request that the Portland PBAC to investigate this issue: is it appropriate for bike project striping and stencilling to be done in the winter/ wet months given that these locations are typically located in adverse sites (intersections or corners) with a lot of vehicle wear and wheel strikes? [Installing signage is the only appropriate winter task in my mind other than making emergency spot repairs.]

    I ask the question above as:
    1) I have been seeing a lot of other bikeway striping work done this winter as it was making me think that these locations would likely prematurely fail due to the challenges of surface prep, installation and protection before the materials can set up (as discussed before); and
    2) if there is any institutional bias in how project resources are programmed and thus pushing bike work into less than ideal weather or time periods (this has come up in internal discussions at another local jurisdiction that striping crews have in the past predominately scheduled bike striping projects to be done at night or summer weekends so that they get higher overtime payment…the end result programmatically is that the small pot of bike money is spread to fewer projects.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Todd Boulanger January 19, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    My memory of other mountable delineators (hedgehogs etc.) used in the UK, NL, DE are often screwed AND glued down to avoid this problem that seems to besetting PBoT’s bike projects.

    But since our mountable delination tools are here are more limited (adoption and supply)…should we fall back on a older more effective lane delineator: the 6 inch or 8 inch raised ceramic marker?

    [These would be placed on the left side of the striped buffer lane so should not trigger a conflict with bikes. And a more modern version has an inset reflector.]


    Of the top of my head..the closest local use of this type of delineator are the concrete blocks with domes along the older MAX tracks in the City Center. It would be performing the same task.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Tony T
    Tony T January 19, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    The bike lane should be raised to the level of the sidewalk with a healthy buffer area by the curb.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 5:02 pm

      I’d rather have it at a separate grade from both the roadway and the sidewalk. No reason to encourage pedestrians to also wander into the bike lane at a high-speed, high-conflict area.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Train Engineer January 19, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Driving a motor vehicle is allowed if you are getting ready to make a right turn, or if you are driving into a driveway, etc.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Train Engineer January 19, 2016 at 4:02 pm

      OOPS, I meant “Driving a motor vehicle IN A BIKE LANE is allowed…….”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:20 pm

        Not in Oregon. You can drive across a bike lane to enter or exit a driveway, but this is not California, and Oregon is about the only state that prohibits the behavior you describe.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Train Engineer January 19, 2016 at 5:11 pm


          Yes, it is legal in Oregon to drive in a bike lane:


          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 5:15 pm

            I hate legalese. That law refers to “an implement of husbandry”. Does that mean a married man?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

          • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 10:50 pm

            No, it is not legal to “drive” in the bike lane in Oregon. http://www.stc-law.com/bike_right_turn.html

            ORS 801.155 defines a “Bicycle Lane” as “part of the highway adjacent to the roadway.” Therefore, Oregon law tells the motorist to move as close to the right-hand curb OR edge of the roadway as possible. My earlier view of this statute failed to recognize that the bike lane is separate from the roadway and several of my conclusions in my previous article on this topic were also incorrect. Thanks to PDOT’s Greg Raisman for pointing this mistake out to me. Oregon law requires the motorist to move over next to but not on top of the bicycle lane. Thus it appears that when “making the approach for a right turn” motorists are not supposed to move over and top of the bike lane while waiting to make a right turn. Certainly, one of the laudable goals of bicycle lanes was to allow bicyclists to pass stopped cars and not wait in the exhaust fumes of idling cars blocking the bike lane. However, the problem for riders is that motorists may not see the rider when they make the actual turn to the right over the bike lane.

            Proponents of the “California Rule” suggest changing Oregon law to require motorists to move onto the bike lane 100 feet before the turn. Bicyclists who expect to be able to proceed straight on a bicycle lane next to a line of right turning motorists will be deprived of that opportunity if the law is changed to require rightward movement of vehicles before the right turn. Is this too much of a price to pay?

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Hello, Kitty January 19, 2016 at 11:20 pm

              So how does that square with 811.440, which states:

              A person may operate a motor vehicle upon a bicycle lane when:
              (a) Making a turn;
              (b) Entering or leaving an alley, private road or driveway

              That suggests more than merely crossing the lane.

              Furthermore, bicyclists who proceed straight in a bicycle lane next to a line of right turning motorists are at extremely high risk of being right hooked and seriously injured. We all do it at times, and it usually works out fine, but it is a very dangerous maneuver.

              Roads should be designed to minimize this type of conflict.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Train Engineer January 20, 2016 at 12:10 am

              The clause is intended to allow cars to get IN the bike lane while waiting for a right turn; thus preventing a right-hook to cyclists who might be in the bike lane. It’s a safety measure.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Dan A January 20, 2016 at 10:28 am

                No, sorry. It is only during the turn across a bike lane, not for preparing to turn right.

                A person may operate a motor vehicle upon a bicycle lane when:
                (a) Making a turn;
                (b) Entering or leaving an alley, private road or driveway; or
                (c) Required in the course of official duty.

                Recommended Thumb up 5

              • John Lascurettes January 20, 2016 at 10:45 am

                The clause is intended to allow cars to get IN the bike lane while waiting for a right turn;

                No. Never. You are to always YIELD to the traffic in that lane. So that means, also not blocking that traffic. If you cannot complete your turn (across the bike lane) without impeding traffic, you must yield to it. You are never to stand (your vehicle) or drive in the lane. Read lawyer Ray Thomason’s essay that I linked to in its entirety. You MAY use the lane only long enough to complete your maneuver (entering/exiting a driveway, parking, turning) but that does not include queuing to make a right turn. Not in Oregon.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

                • John Lascurettes January 20, 2016 at 10:46 am

                  And you know what prevents a right hook on bicyclists? Yielding to them and looking for them.

                  Recommended Thumb up 3

                • Hello, Kitty January 20, 2016 at 11:46 am

                  It is totally the driver’s responsibility to “clear the lane” before making their turn, but it is also true that most drivers are generally focused on what they can see ahead of them, not what may be approaching from behind.

                  As we’ve discussed elsewhere, design can help or hinder safety. The only context I know of where a driver needs to think about someone approaching from behind, in their blind spot, while they are preparing to execute a right turn, is when there is a bike lane to their right.

                  Just as ODOT’s design on Lombard is dangerous, lane configurations that put right-turning vehicles to the left of a lane moving straight create inherent conflicts in unexpected locations, and are therefore dangerous.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • John Lascurettes January 20, 2016 at 12:55 pm

                  Do you not check you shoulder, mirror or whatever before a lane change? Same thing. You’re looking for what may be behind you in that situation too.

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

                • Hello, Kitty January 20, 2016 at 1:04 pm

                  The question is not what I do, but what drivers do. Once you’re in the “right” lane, and activated your signal, most people don’t expect someone to approach even more to their right. Maybe they should, but they don’t, because aside from this one situation, it never happens. The issue is compounded because a cyclist’s line of approach is in the driver’s blind spot.

                  Hence the danger.

                  Recommended Thumb up 2

          • mh January 19, 2016 at 11:25 pm

            I think we’re splitting hairs. Crossing an area means that you are on that segment, but for the shortest possible time (if you cross at 90 degrees). You’re still driving on it, but not along it.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Spiffy January 19, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    with regards to enforcing ORS 811.435 is the buffered section actually considered a bike lane?

    in other words, can I ride my bike while staying entirely in the buffer?

    what about streets like Multnomah where the buffer is a wide painted area with planters? can I bike entirely inside this buffer and it still be considered part of the bike lane?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala January 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm

      I don’t believe the law has caught up with the current practice yet. I’ve seen a draft document that defines a buffer as a space between two uses that is not intended to be used by either.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • John Lascurettes January 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm

        Regarding cars in a buffer zone: I’m not sure about Oregon, but I know that in CA and depending on how it’s marked, it would be considered the same as mounting an island with your car. In other words, illegal.

        Regarding bikes: Since bikes can and are allowed on sidewalks (except the area immediately west of the river and until 14th ave) I don’t know if it would be specifically illegal. But in the spirit of why the buffer is there in the first place: to keep motor vehicles from encroaching on the bike lane, it would take a particularly grumpy officer to ticket a bicycle rider for doing so. Also in the case of Multnomah Street, I have to cross the planter-zone to merge into the auto lane and prepare to make a left turn on certain streets.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • lop January 19, 2016 at 9:27 pm

          > But in the spirit of why the buffer is there in the first place: to keep motor vehicles from encroaching on the bike lane, it would take a particularly grumpy officer to ticket a bicycle rider for doing so.

          It could also come up in a lawsuit after a collision – if the cyclist isn’t allowed to bike in the buffer and he gets hit by a driver, does that reduce the driver’s share of the liability? Resolving the issue before it comes up might save someone a bit of a headache down the line.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Suburban January 19, 2016 at 5:15 pm

    I laughed so hard to read about this. It really is as if the engineering for these experiments is done by distracted middle school students, not dedicated, paid and trained professionals.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • kittens January 19, 2016 at 6:04 pm

      You know, I almost feel bad for scolding them. It’s great they are thinking out of the box. But then I always come back to the feeling they just have some junior-level employee or intern doing this bike stuff. Imagine them applying the same un-seriousness to car infrastructure.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 9:30 am

        Do you presume a different level of effort for auto infrastructure, or just expenditure of funds?
        Seen any multi-million dollar expenditure of funds to ease the crossing of a local river lately?

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Racer X January 20, 2016 at 7:43 pm

        It might be as simple as a “good idea” cut and pasted from another city or conference report but the implimentation is lacking…winter or wet or otherwise.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 9:31 am


      you fix the problem for $1,000. give us some ideas, from your vast depth of experience.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Dan A January 20, 2016 at 10:32 am

        How much for jersey barriers vs paying $1000 over & over again?

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 12:58 pm

          As in every time a motorist runs into it?
          $150 each, 5 minimum on this web site:

          The end treatment is the tricky part. A tapered piece might work well.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 1:18 pm

          Looking at end treatments, it seems the tapered approach needs to be 20 feet up to the standard 42 inch height of a jersey barrier. I’m not sure these come as pre-made sections, or have to be constructed in the field.
          Considering the 15 mph advisory speed, it may be possible to just put a black and yellow object marker on the end most likely to be impacted, putting the barrier in advance of the crosswalk, and putting those bendy candle sticks (vertical delineators) in the buffer in advance of the barrier section to act as the warning segment.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Dan A January 20, 2016 at 2:17 pm

            We have to put yellow markings on the fronts of 3′ tall cement barriers in order to keep people from driving into them? I think I know the problem.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Hello, Kitty January 20, 2016 at 2:23 pm

              The problem is we have humans driving these things. Bring on the robots!

              Recommended Thumb up 1

            • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 4:30 pm

              It’s hard to see grey concrete on a grey street at night?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Dan A January 20, 2016 at 5:15 pm

                Don’t we expect cyclists to spot all sorts of dangerous obstacles on the sides of their routes? Like curbs, for instance? Or grates, pine cones, sticks, rocks, manhole covers, streetcar tracks, etc? And somehow we manage….

                Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Eric Leifsdad January 20, 2016 at 2:28 pm

            Water-filled barrier is its own end treatment. If we’re really so worried about liability that we can’t have barriers between auto traffic and humans because it might hurt criminally reckless drivers, then we’re being completely negligent to allow speeds above 20mph anywhere in a dense urban environment.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Hello, Kitty January 20, 2016 at 2:32 pm

              Am I the only one who finds it ironic that on Clinton, PBOT is willing to put large concrete barriers directly in the path of vehicles, but on Couch, with the same posted speed, it’s too dangerous to place them outside the travel lane?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 4:23 pm

                consider the different vehicles and numbers on the two streets. Also, the objects on Clinton have, or will have, yellow warning signs.

                Westbound Burnside Bridge had 13,000 trips per day in 2009. The worst section of Clinton has about 3,000.
                Trucks of all sizes, buses, etc.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

                • Hello, Kitty January 20, 2016 at 4:36 pm

                  I would not object to yellow signs on Couch — I would want the barriers to be made as visible to all users as possible.

                  As for volumes, we’re talking ~4x the volume on Couch. I would estimate that placing obstacles outside the travel lane would be at least 4x less dangerous than placing them in the travel lane, so total (vehicles) * (hazardlevel) would be lower on Couch, at least by my reckoning.

                  Recommended Thumb up 3

            • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 4:15 pm

              “criminally reckless”?
              Never made a mistake? Your definition of criminal would need to be explained for me to agree you put much thought into such a statement.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Eric Leifsdad January 20, 2016 at 11:15 pm

                Someone crashing into a bike lane barrier hard enough to seriously injure themselves in a car couldn’t possibly be legal. I’ve given it quite a bit of thought and cannot come up with a reason why living people meat obstacles would ever be better for traffic control than inanimate objects.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Suburban January 21, 2016 at 7:00 pm

        Just call
        Nick Storey

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kittens January 19, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    These kinds of episodes do little to encourage confidence in the Portland Bureau of Transportation. Is this what competence looks like? This constant “experimentation” is both damaging to esteem and completely unnecessary.

    You have got to start with a solid design and work from there. All this crap about plastic stickers and signs and flashing lights is a joke and completely unacceptable on brand-new infrastructure.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 9:27 am

      You prefer ‘do nothing’?
      Most people, when demanded to do ‘all or nothing’ choose nothing. This is natural – as in a model followed by nature – minimal expenditure of energy helps insure future survival. It’s hardwired into us.
      Trying something is to be celebrated. If it had worked, would as many bloggers have piled on to congratulate PBOT?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • J_R January 19, 2016 at 5:39 pm

    How about the PPB conducts an “enforcement action” complete with advance warning signs?

    A couple cops on the corner spotting people driving in the bike lane and a fleet of cops writing tickets at mid-span. We can certainly afford to lose one lane for a few hours.

    Maybe the enforcement action would “educate” motorists to obey the law. Has any motorist ever been cited for driving in the bike lane in Portland?

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Dwaine Dibbly January 19, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    Spikes strips in the buffer, with “severe tire damage if you drive in the buffer” signs?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 9:24 am

      And when a cyclist falls on them, or a car driver crashes who might not have otherwise?
      Punishment of mistakes with the threatening of life and limb?
      What next, a police state?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Eric Leifsdad January 20, 2016 at 11:17 am

        Punishment of mistakes with the threatening of life and limb? What next, a police state?

        These glib responses are a product of the complete lack of action on the part of the police and half-measures from PBOT. Drivers need large solid objects to keep them in their lanes or they will naturally drive like they’re on a freeway. How hard would it be to place a green barrel or water-filled jersey barrier there and fill it with water? More work than removing the December 2014 Clinton diverters?

        Road sheep. $128 each. Pick them up at metro paint and place them wherever you feel unsafe in the bike lane. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/63619551/Fake-flock-the-new-must-have-item

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • paikiala January 20, 2016 at 1:21 pm

          Superficial or thoughtless? glossing over of true liability seems a bit glib as well.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Dwaine Dibbly January 20, 2016 at 5:28 pm

            I’m being absolutely glib. The absurdity of the situation calls for nothing less.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Racer X January 20, 2016 at 7:39 pm

          …I would love to get me some road sheep. (At METRO Paint you dare say?) But I worry after reading the article wondering how the Kiwi folk vandalized them…they used to be sailers and pirates, ya know …

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • El Biciclero January 20, 2016 at 3:38 pm

        “Punishment of mistakes with the threatening of life and limb?
        What next, a police state?”

        Well, when my life is threatened due to my own mistakes—or worse, the mistakes of drivers—it seems we believe that’s fitting; after all, it’s my own fault for daring to venture out without my car…

        See disappearing bike lanes and streetcar tracks for other examples of how “life and limb” are threatened by small mistakes.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Racer X January 20, 2016 at 7:40 pm

      or spike sheep!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Keith January 19, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    I wish all major bike routes into downtown would receive the same amount of attention as this one. The effectiveness of the actions is open to debate, but at least the city has tried something. That can’t be said for many other routes in/out of downtown.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Jim Lee January 19, 2016 at 9:17 pm

    Does anyone continue to believe that PBOT any design ability whatever?

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • J_R January 20, 2016 at 7:04 am

      Absolutely. It’s hard to balance accommodating motor vehicles at all times under all circumstances while pretending to encourage active transportation.

      It takes lots of personnel, meetings to coordinate inaction, reports to write, and pat each other on the back.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • John Liu
    John Liu January 19, 2016 at 11:27 pm

    I like being able to ride in the traffic lane for the first curve, then slide over into the bike lane during or after the second curve. This is the fastest way through the S curve for a cyclist. Since Couch is downhill, and the lights are well timed, you can enter the S going as fast as cars, and also go through the S as fast as cars. The momentum then helps with the slight grade on the bridge.

    Thus, I don’t want the bike lane elevated, or rumble strips in the buffer. A short section of barrier, right at the apex of the second curve, would be better, if we have to have anything.

    I do see trucks and buses cutting that corner quite often. But I’ve not heard of any car/bike accidents as a result, and I’m not convinced a jersey barrier wouldn’t cause more bike accidents than no jersey barrier.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • David Lewis January 20, 2016 at 2:10 am

    This is why I laugh a little (and cry inside) when I hear all the hoopla about Portland being such a bike town. Whatever.

    It’s not about certain intersections, or this mistake, or that failed effort or any one particular flop. It’s about the people who design(ed) the streets, who pour the concrete and who, deep in their hearts, have no interest whatsoever in any topic other than the promotion of private automobile use over all other modes of transportation. It’s deeply entrenched in even the local folksy liberal politicians and the agencies they run, and right on up to the state highway deathtraps… to say nothing of the interstate highways that lay claim to what amounts to hundreds of millions or more of dollars’ worth of land in the central city, that I don’t see any public face to evicting from the riverbank.

    I applaud Bike Portland and all the other local advocacy organizations for raising [word that would probably get this post flagged], but the problem with issue advocacy is how easy it is to throw a bone. Until we have a bicycle superhighway connecting Tigard to Gresham, every single politician that parades around and feigns interest in your cause is part of the problem.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Buzz January 20, 2016 at 9:56 am


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam January 20, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Why they didn’t put an elevated cycle track on this one block severely curved, high-speed stretch of road is beyond me. It would have hardly broken the bank.

    I suppose they’ll do what they always do, and wait til someone is killed on it before deciding to raise the design bar above mediocre.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • JJJJ January 20, 2016 at 3:57 pm

    The fact that these were ripped out so quickly – when rumble strips exist on highways – and the flex posts were ripped out too means the city is being ripped off on their epoxy supplier.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Josh Chernoff January 20, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    nothing a little concrete barrier wont fix. Let them try and drive into that 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Racer X January 20, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    If these “RPM” bars are still out laying on the street…perhaps it would be opportune for bike commuters to collectively pick them up and mail them as postcards to Portland City Councillors, PBoT Director, Project Manager and City Engineer?

    BikeLOUD are you out there? – help us! [The USPS will mail almost anything stamped: coconuts, etc.]

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Brad January 20, 2016 at 8:18 pm

    Not surprised. I stood on this corner waiting for a minute waiting for a light. Every single vehicle that went by ran over those rumble strips, without exception.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Train Engineer January 20, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    The law as written is unclear and it should be reworded – if a lawyer is required to decipher the meaning then it is of little value to most drivers – and may even be a hazard. Nowhere does Oregon law require the motorist to “move over next to but not on top of the bicycle lane”. That may be the intent, but that is not the text of the law, thus it is NOT the law. In court, you do not get “justice” you get “the law” as written to the letter and the law states:

    A person may operate a motor vehicle upon a bicycle lane when:

    Making a turn;

    CASE DISMISSED! Gavel slams on the bench!

    Clarifying this poorly written statute should be given a high priority and it should appear in all new driver handbooks. The California Rule would make right hooks less likely for cyclists, but might expose them to the dangers of other traffic if they passed a car in the bike lane on the left.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • David Lewis January 21, 2016 at 12:21 am

      The California Rule would do no such thing!

      But you’re right about everything else you wrote!

      Be careful who you vote for, because their legacies last much longer than your patience for them.

      Our system rewards short term exuberance and limited memory, and punishes long term planning and community investment. The natural outcome is shopping malls and ultrahd porn, and hundreds of thousands of traffic casualties every year. The only way to influence law is to replace your forebears and make new law, like mint shakes every March.

      In my opinion, the best part of 2016 is to use the term trump casually playing pinochle, knowing that it will be a curse word soon enough!

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • El Biciclero January 22, 2016 at 12:34 pm

      Here’s the crux:

      ” 801.155 Bicycle lane

      Bicycle lane means that part of the highway, adjacent to the roadway, designated by official signs or markings for use by persons riding bicycles except as otherwise specifically provided by law.”

      “811.355 Improperly executed right turn

      (1) A person commits the offense of making an improperly executed right turn if the person is operating a vehicle, is intending to turn the vehicle to the right and does not proceed as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway:

      (a) In making the approach for a right turn; and

      (b) In making the right turn.”

      — emphases mine

      Given the first statutory definition of “bicycle lane”, it is “adjacent to” the roadway, i.e., part of the highway, but not part of the roadway. That means that one would have to cross over the “right hand edge of the roadway” to enter the bike lane.

      The wording could be made clearer, but given the definitions of the terms involved, the law—as a whole—is clear on this point: no driving in the bike lane, ever, unless you have “official duties” that require it.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Hello, Kitty January 22, 2016 at 12:48 pm

        I follow the logic, but have to ask if this has this actually been tested in court.

        The statue you cited appears to be in direct conflict with the law allowing driving in the bike lane while making a turn. And furthermore, it appears to give drivers a choice about whether to be adjacent to the edge of the roadway or the curb.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • A. J. Zelada
    A. J. Zelada January 21, 2016 at 5:24 am

    http://www.72km.org/bcn-may-22.html…if you look half way down my web page, this shows a simple but direct separated lane in Barcelona. It consists of tire like but very heavy rubber tires which are a chord like section of the tire’s curve. It is a Simple Separator when you want the traffic to simply respect vulnerabilities and tendencies of motorized traffic to take the shortest distance like of trajectories.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dan A January 21, 2016 at 6:49 am

      NSFW 🙂

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Randall S. January 21, 2016 at 9:21 am

    Wait, am I correctly understanding that little plastic bumps did NOT stop motorists from just driving right over the top of them? I’m so confused. How did this happen? I really thought little plastic bumps were sufficient to stop 2000lb motor vehicles.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • El Biciclero January 21, 2016 at 12:02 pm

      “I really thought little plastic bumps were sufficient to stop 2000lb motor vehicles.”

      The problem is that most people are driving 4,000 – 5,000 lb. motor vehicles these days.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Russ R January 21, 2016 at 12:15 pm

      “2000 lbs”?? Only a Smart Car is that light.
      Try 3500-5500 pounds.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Thomas January 21, 2016 at 10:16 am

    I’m thinkin’ tire spikes would be a good deterrent… a little negative reinforcement usually works to change behavior…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • El Biciclero January 22, 2016 at 12:39 pm

      That’s punishment. “Negative reinforcement” means that some bit of unpleasantness goes away as a result of desired behavior. E.g., hate congestion? Ride your bike!

      Recommended Thumb up 0