The Monday Roundup: Hand signals, glowing bikeways, safety vigilantes, and more

Posted by on October 10th, 2016 at 9:34 am

Solar “Dutch style” bikeways at an intersection on Texas A & M campus.
(Photo: Texas A & M Transportation Institute)

This week’s Monday Roundup is brought to you by Bicycle Fitting Services, who reminds you that it’s the perfect time of year to dial-in your fit for maximum power and comfort.

_

Welcome to the week. Before we get started, here are the best stories we came across last week…

Onion on arm signals: If you need a quick laugh after last night’s depressing presidential debate, check out The Onion’s treatment of hand signals.

USDOT talks tough on Vision Zero: But it’s mostly just talk. Still. A big show was made of federal commitment to road safety, but we’re not holding our breath that they have the guts to do what it takes to really tackle the problem.

Begging for change: A man waited 26 minutes for a “walk” signal in Seattle. Thankfully he recorded it and shamed SDOT into examining the cause of the delay.

Water taxis gaining steam: NYC is planning one and now another one has been approved between San Francisco and Berkeley. Can you imagine a water taxi connecting St. Johns and north Portland to the South Waterfront and downtown?

Same roads, different rules: The headline to this piece in the LA Times says everything you need to know. And our response to it is a resounding, “Yes!”.

“Dutch Junction” in Texas: Texas A & M University just completed what they call the first “Dutch-style” non-signalized intersection in the U.S. Oh, and it has solar luminescent green coloring.

Poland’s glowing bike lane: Luminescent bike lanes are apparently a thing right now. Not to be outdone by Texas, Poland has a new bikeway that glows blue after sunset.

Dealing with Portland growth: Randy Gragg absolutely nails this piece about Portland’s astounding growth and how to deal with it.

Design cities for maximum access: Designing post-highway era cities requires more than simply replacing highways with light rail (which is what many cities are doing now). “Each community must define accessibility on its own terms,” says Next City.

Uber, don’t mess with public transit: Jarrett Walker of Human Transit is a man after our own hearts. His response to an Uber ad that insulted public transit was spot-on. You can replace public transit with bicycling in his explanation and it applies just the same.

Thanks for reading BikePortland.

Please consider a $10/month subscription or a one-time payment
to help maintain and expand this vital community resource.

Carnage ticker: It’s good to see the horrible trend for U.S. road safety make national headlines. It’d be even better if we took real steps to get control of it.

Bikeways don’t cause traffic: We heard it in the Better Naito debate and it’ll be brought up a lot as Portland deals with its congestion problem. Here’s a piece in The Guardian that dispels the myth.

White, black and biking all over: Portlander Elly Blue has come out with a second edition of her great Bikenomics book. She published an excerpt in YES! Magazine titled, “Why Bicycle Justice Isn’t a White Guy in Spandex.”

Carfree NYC?: New York City May Bill De Blasio is floating the idea of prohibiting driving on a major Manhattan thoroughfare to improve road access for other users during a shutdown of a major subway line.

Bike theft prevention success in BC: A focused effort to reduce bike theft on Granville Island, a popular destination in downtown Vancouver BC, is working.

Safety vigilantism: San Franscisco is the latest city where citizen activists have erected unsanctioned bike lane protection because they’re fed up with city government that isn’t doing enough to make streets safe…

… And oh look, it worked: The City of San Francisco will let the unsanctioned plastic posts stay, “until it follows with its own set of permanent change.”

Trek president gets political: John Burke, President of Trek Bicycles, seems to have a political career on his mind. He took to Huffington Post last week to share the 10 questions he’s like to ask our presidential candidates.

Bicycles as political tool: A group of “Kung-Fu trained feminist nuns” is on a ride through Nepal to bring an end to human trafficking.

Tweet of the Week: We’ve been hearing a lot about the vast increase in auto traffic on Portland roads. It’s a major issue with far-ranging impacts, one of which is described in the tweet below by Gwen Shaw:

Now, let’s get on with the week shall we?

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

BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation today.

Please support BikePortland.

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. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

64 Comments
  • Avatar
    BikeSlobPDX October 10, 2016 at 10:02 am

    I read the Randy Gragg piece up to the point where he used the term “Grumpy Baby Boomer.” I’ve seen many discussions condemning racism and sexism on this site; I would hope that ageist comments would also be discouraged.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Ted Timmons (Contributor) October 10, 2016 at 10:41 am

      Agree. Which is why the plethora of content about terrible millennials ruining the world is so annoying.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        BikeSlobPDX October 10, 2016 at 10:49 am

        Well that escalated quickly.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      MaxD October 10, 2016 at 11:27 am

      Ageist comments notwithstanding, it is worth a read

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        John Lascurettes October 10, 2016 at 12:07 pm

        yes, do not let one misplaced and inaccurate label dissuade you from reading the rest of this excellent essay.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      wsbob October 10, 2016 at 11:39 am

      I don’t think references to ‘baby boomers’ have to do with the ideals and perspective on all sorts of things, of people from that generation, rather than simply the age of people from that generation. Haven’t yet read Gragg’s article. By the way…I think he is probably of the age of the baby boomer generation. None of that really matters though, relative to the common problem all citizens living in or close to big cities, have to deal with: finite miles of streets with seemingly, an infinitely growing number of people relying on them to meet their travel needs.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      CaptainKarma October 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm

      Absolutely. I have commented on the freestyle generationism on here before, yet it seems to get a free pass. We are not a race, gender, size, or generation.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Spiffy October 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm

      you waited a long time into that article to take offence when you could have easily been offended at the first paragraph…

      not sure why you being offended would make you stop reading it…

      “If you’re not outraged then you’re not paying attention.”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Eric Leifsdad October 10, 2016 at 2:22 pm

        Yeah, I threw the computer across the room at “Drive out Sandy or Foster.” — there should have been a warning before that paragraph.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      wsbob October 10, 2016 at 7:40 pm

      Just now read Gragg’s essay. Over the years, I’ve read a bunch of his writing, and consistently find he’s quite a good writer. This article has in it, some interesting ideas and perspectives on future growth. As for his ‘grumpy baby boomer’ wisecrack…it seemed to me to be of little significance.

      The bigger issue with his number two imperative, in which he introduces that phrase, seems to be his having the idea that only people of the baby boomer generation, have an interest in being able to park in front of their house, or I would say also…in having space at the curb in front of their house, or on the street where they live, for friends or relatives or guests to park when they occasionally come to visit.

      If what he says is proving true…that millennials don’t want to drive, and don’t want cars…that’s great news for everyone that still has a need to drive and own cars: more room on the street for driving and parking, for those that do have need of this mode of travel. Like people of some other generations inevitably tend to find, those of the millennia generation may eventually come to find that hopping on a pedal bike or e-bike…in the cold, dark, rain, often is not nearly so inviting or practical as is a warm, comfortable motor vehicle.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rick October 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

    26 minutes for a crosswalk signal?!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      B. Carfree October 10, 2016 at 11:48 am

      It could be worse. In Eugene, the primary bike connection to the University of Oregon from the main bike paths on the river crosses super-wide Franklin Blvd at the Onyx bridge (the “bridge” is a second-story building connector). Heading out of the university, one has a choice of a sensor that sometimes detects bikes, a beg button located at a storm sewer or a pedestrian beg button on the sidewalk.

      One fine morning my wife pushed both buttons while I waited on our tandem. Over a minute later, our traffic signal turned green, but the pedestrian signal did not. Fortunately, something struck us as odd, so we didn’t proceed. That hesitation saved our lives as two motorists and a bus rapid transit blasted through the intersection about five seconds later.

      What likely happened is that the system overrules both the sensor and the pedestrian beg button to give the bus a green light. However, it appears that no one hooked up the bicycle beg button to be overruled, so we had simultaneous greens all directions. Egads!

      After I made this public, someone told me they had seen the same thing one block east. The city maintains that it is not possible, and yet we all saw it happen.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. October 10, 2016 at 12:08 pm

      Wow, and I thought crossing Powell was bad!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris I October 11, 2016 at 7:46 am

        On the plus side, it looks like no one rolled through the red to make a right turn while you had a walk sign. I experienced that about a dozen times while walking around Seattle last weekend. Nothing like having to wait minutes for a light just to have someone try to mow you down when you finally get a walk signal.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      El Biciclero October 10, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      I’ve got videos of waiting for up to three minutes for “dead reds”, but then I (legally, now) run them, so we’ll never know how long it might have taken for the light to change…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Pete October 16, 2016 at 12:16 pm

      That’s faster than it takes for me to legally turn left at many intersections that simply aren’t designed to detect a person on a bicycle.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike Sanders October 10, 2016 at 10:14 am

    Water taxis would make sense. Sauvie Island / St. Johns / Saturday Market / Riverplace / Sellwood Waterfront Park (between Sellwood Br. & Oaks Park; great Springwater Trail access) / Milwaukie / Clackamette Park (Oregon City). Might be important if conservatives are able to stop further MAX / streetcar expansion. There used to be paddle wheelers running this route in Portland’s formative days. Water taxis would revive that history. Could also serve to fill trail gap for peds / bikes between Portland and Oregon City. There have been wafer taxi experiments during Rose Festival between downtown and OMSI in the past. Worth a look.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      dan October 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

      How long would it take to go from St. Johns to the Saturday Market or Riverplace by water taxi? I love the idea of getting all the way to Sauvie by water taxi, but I have the idea it would be impractical for time / cost reasons — am I wrong?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. October 10, 2016 at 11:46 am

        It takes about an hour to get to St. Johns from Downtown via bus. A water taxi would have to beat the bus there to be viable.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          brian October 10, 2016 at 12:51 pm

          Bus 16 from SW First and Oak to Charleston & Ivanhoe is about 30 mins

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. October 10, 2016 at 1:01 pm

            Line 16 never ends up being convenient for me. It is not frequent service, runs at the edge of downtown, rather than down the bus mall, and does not run on Sundays. Coming from SE, I either take line 4 or 75, both of which take an hour and a half. Lines 4 and 44 take about an hour from downtown. If the 16 was more convenient, I would take it, since it is quite a bit faster.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              lop October 10, 2016 at 3:11 pm

              >Line 16 never ends up being convenient for me. It is not frequent service, runs at the edge of downtown, rather than down the bus mall

              You know the ferry is going to run at the edge of downtown too, right? Downtown Portland isn’t centered around the river anymore. Neither is St Johns. Or Milwaukie. Or Sellwood etc…That’s going to hurt ridership. Which will mean low frequency. You’ll end up with a more expensive line 16 that serves fewer people, but gives them a better view.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Chris I October 11, 2016 at 7:50 am

                And is incredibly expensive to operate.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Ktaylor October 12, 2016 at 11:16 pm

                I predict it would immediately become a huge, crowded tourist attraction.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      John Lascurettes October 10, 2016 at 12:10 pm

      There’s a certain amount of fuel-inneficiency to water taxis and ferries, particularly for rivers where there’s always an “against the stream” direction to fight against. As romantic of a notion as it is, it doesn’t really fit Portland’s overall environmental-conservationist values.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. October 10, 2016 at 12:11 pm

        [Water taxi’s don’t] really fit Portland’s overall environmental-conservationist values

        But somehow highway widening does.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          John Lascurettes October 10, 2016 at 12:12 pm

          ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I never supported that either.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. October 10, 2016 at 12:14 pm

            Not saying you did. 😉

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jim Lee October 10, 2016 at 10:19 am

    Does Elly BLUE have something about WHITE guys?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Gordon October 10, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      Fascinating question, Jim. I noticed that aside from the title, Ms. Blue didn’t use the word white in her article at all. Seems to me she mainly talked about people who were not white guys. It almost seemed like she was interested in discussing a demographic that happened to be neither white nor male.

      Makes me wonder: Does Jim Lee have something about WHITE guys?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      B. Carfree October 10, 2016 at 6:05 pm

      Perhaps, but she definitely thinks history begins with her and is thus pretty casual with historical facts. For instance, she picks 1905 as the year in which cars became king, likely because that’s exactly one century before she began riding. However, just Schwinn was selling over a million bikes per year in 1900. It took until 1913 before TOTAL national registrations of cars would pass the million mark. Does that sound like a car-dominated landscape?

      She also references 1973 as a downer time for bikes. That just happens to be one year removed from the still record holding year for most retail bikes sold in America. (Back then, my riding was in the mixed-race city of Oakland where there was no noticeable color barrier to cycling. I don’t know if that’s changed, but I hesitate to take Elly’s word for it.)

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        dan October 10, 2016 at 8:59 pm

        LOL, that means I have road rash older than her cycling career. Come to think of it, my bike rack is older than her cycling career too.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Ted Timmons (Contributor) October 11, 2016 at 9:01 am

          get off my lawn?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          EmilyG October 11, 2016 at 11:06 am

          Wasn’t there some talk of ageist comments being unwelcome upthread?

          I’ve read Elly’s book that the article is excerpted from and it’s excellently written and well-researched. I’m grateful that a thoughtful author like her is putting these important ideas out there.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. October 11, 2016 at 11:08 am

            I also found her book to be enjoyable and informative. Everyone working for the city and lobbying for the Portland Business Alliance needs to read it.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Alexis Peterka October 10, 2016 at 10:58 am

    In case you missed it, Slate Money did a segment on congestion pricing that hits on induced demand and how NYC should mimic London in some ways, despite the abysmal traffic: http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/slate_money/2016/10/shadow_courts_the_plight_of_active_managers_and_congestion_pricing_on_this.html

    Content warning: occasional salty language 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Alexis Peterka October 10, 2016 at 11:06 am

    Oh, and thanks for the link to the Randy Gragg piece. I appreciate how he specifically calls out Irvington’s NIMBYism. As a recent-ish homeowner within the Irvington Historic District, I’m frustrated by the “I got mine, screw the rest of y’all” attitudes and activism espoused by the ICA in their newsletter.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      wsbob October 10, 2016 at 8:11 pm

      Gragg doesn’t say much about Irvington, such as for example, why it is that people of that neighborhood are so opposed to development. except to voice his opinion that residents there are using historic designation to resist development. I’ve read some about the situation. Seems to be about a lot more than the residents already having their own housing, not caring about people not having housing.

      I was interested in Gragg’s reference to multi-story housing of Portland’s past, present, and future, citing specifically, King’s Hill, and Northwest. Also, in the essay’s opening paragraph reference to towers in Downtown, present and in the works. Because it can be one of the most efficient uses of land space, this is what Portland is likely to get a lot more of. A result is lots more people, everywhere. Will it be the kind of place people really want to live?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        John Lascurettes October 11, 2016 at 9:15 am

        There is something to be said for some very old families still in the neighborhood, particularly families of color. Neighbors to the north of me have lived in that house since 1963 and the two houses south of me are two sisters that grew up in one of those two houses. There are several other black families that have been in their homes 40 years or so on my block. So, yes, even though there’s quite a bit of NIMBYism, there’s still some displacement that can happen too when we talk of the blanket D word (development).

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          wsbob October 11, 2016 at 11:30 pm

          “There is something to be said for some very old families still in the neighborhood, particularly families of color. …” lascurettes

          I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying, but if it’s that development in older neighborhoods, in favor of housing that’s of higher density than that of classic single family dwellings, has the potential of displacing long term residents of such neighborhoods, even some that are people of color…I’d have to say this definitely seems to be true. New housing comes in, property values then go up, and some long term residents find they no longer can afford to live in their neighborhood…at all, in other words…definitely not in their long time single family dwelling, and maybe not even somewhere in the new housing provided.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      John Lascurettes October 10, 2016 at 9:57 pm

      Ditto.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Dan A October 10, 2016 at 11:52 am

    “Cities around the world are demonstrating that simply changing the rules in favor of cyclists can make roads more welcoming.”

    Sounds cheap & effective.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob October 10, 2016 at 12:12 pm

    From the LA Times story:

    “…A personal-injury lawyer specializing in traffic cases, Holzer recently blogged about the law, writing that in his 20 years on the job he has “never seen a car versus bike collision or a bike versus pedestrian collision that was attributable to road users following the stop-as-yield statute. …” http://www.latimes.com/opinion/livable-city/la-oe-babin-bicycle-laws-20161003-snap-story.html

    That’s not a clear statement on Holzer’s part, on what he’s seen or hasn’t seen, or what he’s heard of, or that has occurred in Idaho, the nation, or any where else in the world, related to collisions involving people driving motor vehicles, and people riding bikes.

    Around the word, there apparently are numbers of people that do rolling stops at intersections…despite instructions otherwise conveyed by stop signs…and in a majority of those incidents, most likely the people having done so, believed they had good reason for having done it, and felt they did yield to whatever traffic they had need of yielding to. Maybe not sufficiently so though, it would seem, because collisions involving road users failing to meet their obligation as a road user to yield to oncoming traffic, still have occurred and continue to occur.

    People get tired whether they’re riding a bike or driving a car, and sometimes as a result, some of them would rather not stop at the stop signs…or stop lights, and so they don’t stop. Fine…they can decide not to stop…and take the consequences. Just don’t expect responsible, rule observant road users to assume responsibility for damages, injury or death sustained by road users too tired to safely and competently use the road, or that attempt to change the law to justify their unwillingness to be responsible, safe road users.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      El Biciclero October 10, 2016 at 9:30 pm

      “…injury or death sustained by road users too tired to safely and competently use the road, or that attempt to change the law to justify their unwillingness to be responsible, safe road users.”

      You are equating “following the letter of the law” with “being responsible and safe”. Those two things are not equal. I have seen drivers stop at a stop sign, then start right back up—and just about right into me—before they realize I am there and I didn’t have a stop sign. As noted in the article, there are already different rules for different vehicles, why not have rules that make sense? Again, one can follow the letter of the law and still be irresponsible and unsafe, while someone else can follow the spirit of the law and be perfectly safe and responsible. All an Idaho-style stop law does is make it legal to be responsible and safe in more ways.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        wsbob October 11, 2016 at 12:23 am

        “You are equating “following the letter of the law” with “being responsible and safe”. Those two things are not equal. …” bic

        Fundamentally, with regards to use of the road, following the letter of the law, is being safe and responsible.

        While following the letter of the law with regards to use of the road isn’t an absolute guarantee that road user’s use of the road will be safe and responsible, as it relates to intersections regulated by stop signs, ‘stop as stop’, because the road user is stationary rather than moving forward, provides a higher degree of safety than does ‘stop as yield’.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Chris I October 11, 2016 at 7:54 am

          In your opinion.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dan A October 11, 2016 at 8:00 am

          ‘Stop as yield’ is safer for cyclists in many situations. I’ll list some out if you need me to, but you’re a cyclist and should know many of these situations already.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            wsbob October 11, 2016 at 11:02 am

            “‘Stop as yield’ is safer for cyclists in many situations. …” dan a

            Over the years, I’ve read a number of rationales arguing that stop as yield is safer for people riding bikes, than is ‘stop as stop’, but generally, I don’t believe the rationales are strong enough to have ‘stop as yield’ be a safer use of the road for biking, than is ‘stop as stop’, especially as a rule of the road law.

            For example, no road user, traveling by bike or motor vehicle, can reasonably be expected to stay immobile at a stop sign in a situation where they’ve checked, and there is no cross traffic, but having checked behind them, believe they’re imminently in danger of being rear ended by someone that’s apparently not going to stop at the stop sign.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Dan A October 11, 2016 at 12:34 pm

              Can you restate that more clearly? It sounds like you’re providing a reason why it can be safer for someone on a bike to yield and continue at a 4-way stop (to avoid being hit from behind by a car). But in the prior paragraph you disagreed with that.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A October 11, 2016 at 2:24 pm

                Of course, if you’re looking for more reasons to support the Idaho Stop law, I strongly recommend reading pages 6 through 10 here:

                http://docplayer.net/1126976-Meggs-jason-n-stops-harm-bikes-page-1-of-15-title-page.html

                The paper argues (with much greater detail) how unwarranted stops

                1) impair the effectiveness of bicycle boulevards
                2) reduce efficiency and increase travel time
                3) encourage cyclists to ride on dangerous arterials rather than quiet streets
                4) discourage cycling and reduce safety in numbers
                5) increase harmful exposure to car emissions near intersections
                6) force cyclists to rely on erratic driver behavior for their own safety
                7) expose cyclists to additional driver frustration or road rage
                8) expose cyclists to greater chance of being hit from behind
                9) reduces predictability of cyclists
                10) adds additional risk of falling while stopped
                11) adds additional risk of overuse injuries
                12) increases socially hostile attitude towards cyclists

                among other things.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Ted Timmons (Contributor) October 11, 2016 at 4:35 pm

                Sure, but besides that, are there any reasons? I mean, I saw a cyclist blow a red light once so your argument is invalid.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. October 11, 2016 at 4:38 pm

                The one time I was rear-ended on a bike in Portland was when I came to a full and complete stop at a stop sign.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                wsbob October 11, 2016 at 10:46 pm

                The example I cited, was my example of an exception to the letter of the law relative to stop sign ‘stop as stop’, I think would generally be accepted by most road users.

                For certain specific types of road situations, I believe cities can and do make exceptions to the ‘stop as stop’ rule associated with stop signs. This, I think, most people can regard as a reasonable variance of the stop sign law; example: certain intersections with stop signs and also, the additional, official MUTCD ‘may turn without stopping’ sign. Proposals for an overall change to the stop sign law, exclusively relieving people that ride bikes…vulnerable road users…from having to stop at stop signs, is what I think the majority of road users would object to.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Dan A October 12, 2016 at 9:46 am

                Traffic law isn’t voted on by ‘the majority’. It’s written for cars, with bikes sort of added in there as an afterthought. If legislators got together and wrote a comprehensive set of laws for bikes, I think they’d be quite different than what they are.

                Here’s an interesting bit of trivia: bicycles were invented 100 years before the stop sign. How did we get by for so long without having to come to a stop at every empty road crossing? Must have been total carnage (or bikeage).

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                wsbob October 13, 2016 at 12:21 am

                “Traffic law isn’t voted on by ‘the majority’. It’s written for cars, with bikes sort of added in there as an afterthought. …” dan a

                I don’t think so. Traffic law is written for all road users of numerous modes of travel. That the majority of road users travel by motor vehicle, and that liability and vulnerability of modes of travel relative to each other, has something to do with member’s of the public as road users, willingness to shoulder responsibility for each other’s road use.

                If the road use mode share balance of say 85 percent motor vehicle, 15 percent bikes were flipped, or even 50-50, the public might have a completely different outlook than it apparently does, on granting people that bike, the right to treat stop signs as yield signs.

                Portland may eventually get a ‘real critical mass’ number of people regularly biking, that could help sway the public’s feeling about the ‘stop as yield’ concept, exclusively for travel by bike. Good numbers of people biking on Williams. Quite a number am/pm re; south waterfront. Nothing like those numbers happening out in Beav, yet, that I know of.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          El Biciclero October 11, 2016 at 6:53 pm

          “…following the letter of the law, is being safe and responsible.”

          Is following the letter of the law in Idaho being “safe and responsible?”

          If so, then why does the law need to be different in other places? If not, then you have contradicted your statement that “following the letter of the law is being safe and responsible”. Which is it? I assume that you will think to yourself, “but I meant ‘following the letter of Oregon law’…”. If so, then you are still saying that some laws are “better” than others. How do we know which laws are “better”? Your opinion? If so, then why would your opinion be more correct than my opinion? Statistics? Well, statistics have shown that Oregon’s laws are no “better” than Idaho’s.

          Is following the letter of the law “better” because, well, it’s the law? Or is it “better” because the law truly makes us safer? What about cases where the law—or confusion about the law—actually makes me less safe? Is the law still right?

          Remember, the law is always one vote away from changing—then will the new law be “better” than the old law? Who is to say?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Pete October 16, 2016 at 12:30 pm

          “Fundamentally, with regards to use of the road, following the letter of the law, is being safe and responsible.”

          Except that when I cycle in California, there are things that I do to keep myself safe which are legal there (and many states) but illegal in Oregon. I can also legally cross a street mid-block in Oregon but receive a jaywalking ticket for doing the same in California.

          I can stop before a stop line and keep momentum as I roll through the stop bar on my bicycle – legally – and I can stop my car on a stop line with my bumper hanging way over it and nobody will complain that I haven’t followed the “letter of the law.”

          Plus, following the letter of law isn’t the only way to be safe and responsible.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jeff October 10, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Glad to see the expanded use of luminescent colors for bikeways. When I first saw the words “solar bikeway” it caused some minor panic because the terminology is so closely related with the abortive and fraudulent “solar roadways” concept… Whew!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      B. Carfree October 10, 2016 at 6:10 pm

      I really would prefer we not put in luminescent bike paths. Light coming up from below really interferes with being able to see obstacles and creates a glare problem that is disproportionate to the total amount of light. This would be a particular problem on narrow bikeways near water with nearby trees and such, since many of the hazards are at face-height.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike Sanders October 10, 2016 at 4:40 pm

    Could be helpful on rural sections of the Springwater and I-205 trails which don’t have lighting but should. The SWT section thru the wildlife preserve being a good example, as well as the section between Gresham and Boring.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    B. Carfree October 10, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    I’m not sure the piece by John Burke belongs on a bike blog. None of his questions directly relate to cycling. Admittedly, his question about raising the gas tax is tangential to cycling, but he implies that motorists are footing the entire bill for road infrastructure, which is not just false, but dangerously false as it increases the sense of entitlement by some motorists.

    Really, the only aspect of that article that’s bike related is the fact that he is employed by a bicycle manufacturer. I wish he would have brought some of the specific and unique knowledge of cycling he must have earned in that position to those questions.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Douglas K. October 10, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    I can’t see any value to a water taxi in Portland. Passengers need to get to the river to catch it, and from the river to reach their ultimate destination. That means transfer penalties at each end.

    Water taxis are useful where there’s a large body of water (like a bay or a sound) to cross and the boat can cut significant time off the trip, or where there’s a huge and dense population to serve. But they won’t work in a city with low population density and a relatively narrow river crossed by a dozen bridges.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chris I October 11, 2016 at 7:56 am

      Bingo. The argument can be made for high capacity transit with dedicated right-of-way, or even new bridges over the river. A water taxi makes no sense in Portland, outside of tourist season, at least.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Chris I October 11, 2016 at 7:57 am

    Unfortunately, those guerilla plastic bollards in SF will be knocked down by a careless/reckless motorist long before the city replaces them with an actual barrier. Remember when we had those on the Lovejoy ramp?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar