Is it legal to ride a bike on the freeways in Oregon?

[djasonpenney]

There are occasional situations, especially in rural Oregon, where ya just cain't git thar from here unless you use the freeway, particularly in order to avail oneself of a bridge.

Even here in the Portland area, I would consider using the Boone Bridge instead of detouring over to Newberg if I was trying to get from Tualatin to Canby, for instance. (Remember the Canby ferry is not year round.) Note, however, that I would end up riding only one segment, hence avoiding crossing the freeway ramps.

I personally dispute K'Tesh's belief that SR-217 is safer than Hall Boulevard. Yes, Hall has some challenges, but it's quite manageable. Drivers on SR-217, especially, at rush hour, are in a hurry, tired, and not looking for anything much smaller than their own vehicle.

Originally Posted by boneshaker

I think it's worth calling out that newbie's (or any cyclist for that matter) should not be riding bicycles on freeways.

[K'Tesh]

Originally Posted by djasonpenney

I personally dispute K'Tesh's belief that SR-217 is safer than Hall Boulevard. Yes, Hall has some challenges, but it's quite manageable. Drivers on SR-217, especially, at rush hour, are in a hurry, tired, and not looking for anything much smaller than their own vehicle.

I cannot count the number of times while I used to commute on SW Hall where I was nearly right hooked at Greenway, or at SW Allen, or Nimbus, or...
I cannot count the number of times I've been Buzzed while commuting on SW Hall. It is not the safest route to my workplace.

And despite the name "Rush Hour" cars are often not able to travel at freeway speeds. I'm often playing a mental game of tag as I pass, or get passed by the same vehicle repeatedly. Most of the motorists are playing follow the leader, and are not likely to suddenly swerve into the shoulder where I am riding. Mind you, I do not ride that route when it is dark and wet, I've moved to the Fanno Creek trail for much of that kind of commute.

Hwy 217 is a Hell of a lot better than others around her that I see people on (such as the B-H Hwy). On 217, at least the shoulder is painted, and there's no driveways or intersections. You only have to cross a few on/off ramps, and with patience they can be managed.

[LESTER]

Originally Posted by boneshaker

I think it's worth calling out that newbie's (or any cyclist for that matter) should not be riding bicycles on freeways. You enter the food-chain at the very bottom and automobiles simply are not looking for bikes. Your chances of surviving an accident here are not good because if you get hit chances are it's by someone driving 55+ mph.

There are a lot of great resources available for folks looking to get from here to there without using freeways. mapmyride.com and bycycle.com are 2 good examples.

Be safe and smart out there. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's smart.

I find that my chances of being involved in a collision with 70 mph traffic passing me at 8-10 feet away with few exit/entry options are MUCH lower than 50 mph traffic passing by at 2-4 feet away with a myriad of driveways and sidestreets to "all the sudden" enter from or exit to. If I felt those chances were similar, then and only then would I consider the differences between the effects of getting hit by a 50 mph vehicle or a 70 mph vehicle.

Just be extremely careful when crossing exits and even MORE careful crossing two-lane exits.

Weekend before last I wound up on 179th street north of Vancouver. It was a hairy couple miles rolling down that stretch of road with rolling hills with short sightlines and 18" or less shoulder wondering when the next hay truck was gonna whiz by... I couldn't WAIT to get on the freeway!

All depends on the situation. Alternatives are sometimes better, sometimes worse. I wouldn't go looking for freeways to ride, but no reason to be afraid of most legal sections. Put some Mr. Tuffy's in!

[Psyfalcon]

Most of us don't use the highways (26 and 217 at least) when traffic is moving. Between the Zoo and Jefferson, the road is downhill but rather twisty. Its signed at 50, and most people seem to only do 50- 55 due to the curves. On my bike, I'm doing 35. Thats a 20mph difference.

Compare that to say, Cedar Hills where cars are doing 35 and I am doing 15. Thats a 20mph difference. Physics says that being rear ended by either transmitts the same force. I guess the roadrash or how far you get dragged will be somewhat worse at 35 instead of 15 though.

[djasonpenney]

Mathematically I think that your injuries from such a (vanishingly unlikely) rear-end collision can be characterized as the sum of the impact itself and the secondary impact as you kiss pavement.

Second, the kinetic energy involved in each of those impacts is proportional to the square of your velocity (one half m vee squared).

Without trying to write the algebra, it's clear that both the force of initial impact (55 squared - 35 squared) and the road rash as you slam into the pavement (somewhat greater than 35 squared) is going to be somewhat more painful at the higher speed.

All this notwithstanding, there's actually a shoulder on the legal stretches of freeway, so I think the risk of being rear ended by a cell-phone yakking latte-sipping slap-the-kid-in-the-back-seat soccer mom on Cedar Hills Boulevard is probably a lot greater than riding US-26 from the zoo to Jefferson.

Originally Posted by Psyfalcon

Most of us don't use the highways (26 and 217 at least) when traffic is moving. Between the Zoo and Jefferson, the road is downhill but rather twisty. Its signed at 50, and most people seem to only do 50- 55 due to the curves. On my bike, I'm doing 35. Thats a 20mph difference.

Compare that to say, Cedar Hills where cars are doing 35 and I am doing 15. Thats a 20mph difference. Physics says that being rear ended by either transmitts the same force. I guess the roadrash or how far you get dragged will be somewhat worse at 35 instead of 15 though.

[tvhwy]

All this notwithstanding, there's actually a shoulder on the legal stretches of freeway

Rumble strips, too!

[LESTER]

Rumble strips are great! They help keep cars where they oughtta be, and on a couple of occasions have even helped me "wake up" on REALLY long rides.

[lynnef]

Originally Posted by LESTER

Rumble strips are great! They help keep cars where they oughtta be, and on a couple of occasions have even helped me "wake up" on REALLY long rides.

They also shake one's fenders loose, and cause rear blinkies to leap out of their supposedly secure mounting to the pavement. The placement is often suboptimal, as well. As a cyclist, I hate them.

[K'Tesh]

Originally Posted by lynnef

They (edit... rumble strips ) also shake one's fenders loose, and cause rear blinkies to leap out of their supposedly secure mounting to the pavement. The placement is often suboptimal, as well. As a cyclist, I hate them.

Rumble strips are also completely missing from Hwy 217, and I haven't had any encounters with them on I5 or Hwy 26. They do have raised pavement markers, but they are small and not any big deal when encountered.

Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh

[jr98664]

I was on a bus yesterday on I-5 NB through downtown Vancouver, and I noticed a sign that made my face light up. You can kind of make out a blur in this image from Google Maps Street View.

Underneath the "Right Lane Must Exit" sign, there is a sign that says that bikes must also exit. Having that sign there pretty much confirms that it is legal to ride on the shoulder of I-5 for those short couple of blocks. The caveat being that you can only legally get onto I-5 NB on a bike from WA 14 WB, meaning that the shortest route would be from Columbia House Blvd, about 1.5 miles away. At least that means you can take the exit all of the way up to Fourth Plain Boulevard, meaning you can essentially be on I-5 for over a mile, including exits, or a full three blocks without.

Of course, it's still of very little practical value to most, unless you really want to avoid a small hill, as the surface route between the exits is actually shorter.