Geller, Dill talk bikes on ‘Green Science Oregon’

I think the basic assumption that creating facilities which separate cars from bikes on the road in order to increase bike mode split is flawed. Even if we work from the point that Dill and Geller’s research show people feel most uncomfortable around cars on the road, it ignores other factors about the world that greatly effect how and why we can achieve that split. For example, though the BMP has been passed and approved, there is no funding available to actually implement it – making it meaningless. Also, there is a large social stigma against bicycling (yes still, and yes, even here in Portland) which views bikes as toys or maybe for fitness, but not as serious everyday transportation. There are even people who go out of their way to spoon hate and contempt at the cycling community. I didn’t hear Dill or Geller address that issue at all.

Back in the day, when most of us reading were either young or not yet born, a bunch of African Americans got fed up with the state of things which told them they were equal under the law, but were given facilities that were sub-par and they were discriminated against and marginalized. It took a social movement to change some of these things, if only slightly (depending on your interpretation of history), towards real equality. Separate but equal is never either, and it boggles my mind why this community is striving for that.

We will never have the funding, the political power or the social stamina to create a great bike-only network. If we want facilities for the small amount of dollars allotted to be spent, they will have to be on the streets that exist, with cars that still exist. We’ll have to lead by example by following traffic laws, being courteous on the road and keeping our tempers in check. We need to convince other people about the benefits of cycling like saving money, improving fitness, or taking a small step for the environment. This isn’t a process we can engineer our way out of, and by preaching that cycling should be separated from driving only leads more people to believe we shouldn’t be on the roads at all.

It’s great Dill and Geller had this chance to pat themselves on the back and spew a few meaningless numbers and soundbites at us. I’m curious, though, do they ride their bikes to work everyday, or do they just talk to people who do?

IMO, they are cherry picking the data to support their agenda, surrounding themselves with people who all agree with them, and ignoring a lot of valid criticism of their plans and designs from large numbers of experienced cyclists.

Elliot, I spend a lot of time on my bike in Portland and walking downtown, I’m speaking from personal experience and observation.

interesting you mention the civil rights movement, but then say “we” need to be “courteous,” etc. a lot of what made a black middle class (such as it is) possible in this country was the very real sense, in the sixties, delivered by people who were not too worried about being “courteous,” that the alternative was hell. for every MLK we also need a few Xs.

I find the demographic a little questionable myself. Either way, their ideas sound great, but I am always troubled by the desire to improve our ‘exceptional bike network’ when few seem to want to accept that it gets less and less ‘exceptional’ and ‘connected’ the farther one goes into the outer areas of Portland. How about focusing a little on bringing the rest of PDX outside the central area up to the level of the areas that have a good network. It’s also important to remember that Portland isn’t an isolated island. The city should work with its neighbors like Lake Oswego, Tigard, Beavertaon, Gresham, etc. to insure that the networks hook up, because not everyone who lives here has to commute to downtown Portland. Million dollar cycletracks are great, but I can’t help but feel a bit negative towards those things when my commute from the Tigard area to the NE has substandard bike lanes and no safety innovations to speak of prior to getting close to downtown PDX.

Jonathan – the ad hom was out of place, agreed, but given the arguments they made in the video, it seemed to me like they weren’t drawing much from personal experience. What I see as a basic lack of respect for cyclists by motorists comes from my day to day interactions with them. It’s my perception that this has worsened over the past few years which to me, means we are losing the “battle for the hearts and minds.” Do people not feel safe on the roads because there are motor vehicles, or are people scared of the manner in which those vehicles are operated? If it is indeed the latter (similar to the argument guns don’t kill people, people kill people), then we should _concentrate_ on changing behavior, not insulating ourselves from it by building separate infrastructure which only serves to deepen the divide.

David: I think one use of the word “never” does not constitute “a lot of absolutes.” Dill and Geller are de facto leaders of a sort, yes, but that doesn’t mean their leadership goes in the right direction. History is rife with bad leaders, should we commend them all for attaining that position?

are: yes I agree that in some cases militancy is needed, but I don’t think we’re there quite yet. If you want to strap a shotgun to your back or keep handlebar mounted holster, all the power to you. Just try to be responsible about it and not PO people for your own kicks.

re #12. In the past few years we have seen plenty of enforcement and engineering, but precious little education.

neat little video but it wasn’t meant for us bike riders… we’ve already heard everything they’re saying…

but if this is getting into the mainstream media that’s great… hopefully it airs on the few channels they list on the website…

“…we should _concentrate_ on changing behavior, not insulating ourselves from it by building separate infrastructure which only serves to deepen the divide.” –resopmok

Yes. What happened to kicking the bull out of the china shop (or at least castrating him)? Why are we expending such an effort to hide the china? The assumption is that teaching folks–through proactive education or through enforcing laws–to drive responsibly is a lost cause. “Drivers will be Drivers; not much we can do!” Yes there is: revoke privileges just like my parents did when I acted irresponsibly as a youth.

I’m not blaming Dill and Geller for the attitudes of motorists and society. Their research seems concentrated on what might make more people feel comfortable enough to ride more. That is valid research, but unless the measures that need to be taken to make people feel safer are accompanied by measures that increase real safety, we do cyclists a disservice. Furthermore, if the measures that increase cyclist safety are aimed at making life even more inconvenient for cyclists while maintaining or increasing convenience for motorists, we do cyclists another disservice. This latter point does NOT seem to be the desire of Dill and Geller, but if we’re not careful, their conclusions/recommendations could be implemented in a way that forces cyclists (through law or public misconception) onto limited sections of roadway such that travel times are increased and convenience is sacrificed. Making cycling less convenient and more of a novelty will not entice new riders to give up car trips in favor of using the bike.

BURR,

The City runs one of the most comprehensive and large-scale Safe Routes to Schools programs in the country. They teach thousands of kids and introducing bicycling into hundreds of schools each year.

The City also runs the SmartTrips program which helps educate people about the transportation options in their n’hood. that program also holds lots of bike rides and offers bike maps, encouragement, etc…

To say the city has dropped education from its plans is just not true.

That being said, my point is that the City is not the right place where movement-building that will lead to significant cultural change will occur.

I also have also been told by a trusted source that the Encouragement folks in Transportation Options rarely interact with the Engineering folks in PBOT that build and design bike infrastructure.

BURR (#23) – How can you say with a straight face that “Safe Routes” isn’t educational?

Educating adults will have lesser returns: once a person develops certain attitudes and opinions, they are much more resistant to change. I’m not saying adult education is useless, but it is less effective and more costly.

The real issue re: education is putting some teeth into the driving test and instituting continuing driver education as a condition of license retention.

Responding to two points:

I conducted a random phone survey of adults in the Portland region and classified people based upon their current cycling behavior. Males age 18-34 were the most likely to bicyle for transportation at least once a week, year round (23%). Only 7% of women age 18-34 did so and 5% of women age 35-54. I think the City of Portland’s counts confirm that men cycle more than women, though the balance is shifting.

Second, I find it interesting that people would question whether or not I bicycle and judge my research based upon that behavior. If I was studying criminology, as my colleagues two floors above me do, would you judge my research on whether or not I commit crimes? Moreover, there does not appear to be consensus on the topic. On the one hand some people feel that I need to be a regular cyclist to make my work valid, e.g. if I don’t do it, I can’t understand/research it. On the other hand, some people feel that being a cyclist would bias my work, e.g. I have an agenda. My agenda is to do good, solid research that will help practitioners and policy makers make better decisions. As an academic scholar, my work is subjected to blind peer review by other researchers. I conduct my research knowing that it will be subject to such review.

Ms Dill, is your job research or design? If it is only research, the bias factor we need to worry about is who is paying for the research and what are the answers they are looking for. In this case I have my doubts that politicians want to hear we need to make some social changes if we will ever see a real significant increase in bike usage. Something like the BMP is good for them, because it offers a “solution” without any real commitment or effort on their part. Try telling them that one real big difference between cycling here and in Holland is that in Holland, riding a bike is a perfectly normal, everyday, unstigmatized thing to do. If your job is design, then yes, I expect people to have experience with the purpose of their design output in order to be competent. Would you ask someone without experience in a kitchen to write the menu for your wedding?

My issue with the basic premise of your research and what was stated in the video – that people won’t ride bikes because they worry about the cars in the road and therefore we need separate facilities – is that it doesn’t address the question of _why_. What is it about the cars that makes them feel unsafe? Do they feel just as unsafe around vehicles which are not in operation? Is this fear even founded in reality, or do in fact more people die per vehicle mile traveled on bicycles than in cars? Why must we draw the conclusion that expensive, separate infrastructure for bicycles is necessary when there is plenty of room on existing roads for them now? Why do we spend so much time bending people’s minds to believe that bikes don’t belong on the road, when laws on the books explicitly give cyclists all the same rights (and responsibilities) as the operators of motor vehicles? This is the sort of research I am interested in. Design begins at compromise and ends in failure, at least in my observation of some of the recent “solutions” engineers in this city have come up with recently.

Maybe it’s not the city’s job to change people’s minds about cycling and it’s not really fair to ask that of them. The message I keep getting from the city though, is that it isn’t there to support us in the places where basic laws have already made plenty of usable concrete available. Here’s a simple step toward safety: make a road sign which warns auto drivers in common right hook areas e.g., bike lanes along entrances to strip mall parking lots, right turns at problematic intersections, etc. Then, add this sign to the DMV’s manual and standard roadtest, and maybe even get some cheap advertising with a catchy slogan like “Look before you right hook!” This would probably cost less than $650M, take less than twenty years, and help put a dent in one of the most common causes of accidents between cars and bikes on the road. Might people feel a little more safe on the roads with cars, then?

And John, go build your strawman in the cornfield where the crows can pick at it. My point was to take lessons from the civil rights movement and use them for advancing our own cause, not to compare the way that cyclists are discriminated against in the streets to the way blacks were (and still are) discriminated against. I know learning from history is not something mankind is good at, but I thought, hey let’s give it a shot.

re #30 – ‘something that would cost less than $650 million and take less than 20 years’

I’m still waiting for sharrows on a host of inner city arterial streets that are too narrow for bike lanes.

This could be done almost overnight, look how quickly the city installed sharrows on the bike boulevards.

In fact, it could and should have been done ten years ago, what is PBOT waiting for?????

John–

Ok, would it be better to compare transportation policy to Homeland Security policy as it impacts the struggle of Muslims against the prejudice of the Western world? Muslims are subject to higher levels of scrutiny (must be “on their best behavior”) and are also subject to backlash over the siting of worship facilities (you can’t build a mosque there, for crying out loud!) all based on religious beliefs that, no matter how good or compelling, they CHOOSE to hold.

The same principles are at work, regardless of the level of choice the minority in question might have in their minority status (I know–I shouldn’t have used the word minority, because that has racial connotations). As I see it, the discussion of separated bike facilities does evoke “separate but equal” (I think you meant to accuse are of invoking that idea)–not because cyclists are “born that way”, but because the facilities that are usually brought up are separate from the “normal” roadway, and usually far less convenient or safe for cyclists to use, i.e., NOT equal. It is the principle that is a valid comparison, not the identities of the groups involved.

I can compare a hydrogen bomb to the sun because they work in roughly the same way, even though the sun is in no way comparable by size or impact.